Gelir Dağılımı, Demokrasi ve Dışa Açıklık: Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Ampirik Bir Analiz

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 4, 167 - 192, 15.12.2020

Taha Eğri

Öz

Gelir dağılımının giderek bozulduğu günümüz ekonomilerinde, adil bir refah paylaşımının nasıl sağlanacağı sorusu önem kazanmaktadır. Özellikle makro değişkenler yanında demokratikleşme ve küreselleşme gibi ekonomik gelişmelerden öte kurumsal dönüşümlerin etkileri öne çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, 1987-2017 dönemi için Türkiye ekonomisine ait verilerle demokrasi, dışa açıklık ve gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişkinin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Son otuz yılda hızlı bir şekilde küresel ekonomiyle uyum sağlamasına rağmen gelir dağılımında bozulma yaşanan Türkiye ekonomisinde dışa açıklık ve demokrasinin gelir dağılımı üzerinde ne kadar etkili olduğunun tespit edilmesi, çalışmanın temel hedefidir. Çalışmada, gelir dağılımı göstergesi olarak literatürde yaygın olarak kullanılan Gini katsayısı, bağımsız değişkenler olarak da demokrasi indeksi, ticari açıklık, küreselleşme indeksi, eğitim ve kişi başı gelir göstergesi kullanılmıştır. Ele alınan model, ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımıyla tahmin edilmiş ve demokrasi ve küreselleşme değişkeniyle anlamlı, ticari açıklıkla ise anlamsız bir ilişki bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre demokrasi ve küreselleşmenin uzun dönemde gelir dağılımı üzerinde olumlu etkileri bulunurken kısa dönemde ise olumsuz etkilemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkiye ekonomisi, Gini, ticari açıklık, küreselleşme, ARDL sınır testi, demokrasi

Income Distribution, Democracy and Globalization: An Empirical Analysis for Turkish Economy

Öz

The question of how to ensure a fair welfare distribution gains importance in today's economies where income distribution is gradually deteriorating. In this manner, besides macro variables, the effects of institutional transformations such as democratization and globalization come into question. In this study, it is intended to determine the relationship between income inequality and openness and democracy for the 1987-2017 period in Turkish economy. Although it has rapidly integrated to the global economy over the last three decades, Turkish economy has experienced deterioration in income distribution. The main objective of the study is to determine how openness and democracy effect on income distribution. Gini coefficient was used as income distribution indicator, democracy index, trade openness, globalization index, education and per capita income indicator were used as independent variables. The model was estimated with the ARDL bounds test approach, and it was found that there was a significant relationship with the variable of democracy and globalization, and there is no relationship with the trade openness. According to the results of the study, while democracy and globalization have positive effects on income distribution in the long run, they have a negative effect in the short run.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkish economy, Gini, trade openness, globalization, ARDL bounds test, democracy.

Kaynakça

• Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (2009). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ahlquist, J. S., & Wibbels, E. (2012). Riding the Wave: World Trade and Factor‐Based Models of Democratization. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 447-464.
• Ali, A., Iftikhar, S. F., Fatima, A. ve Naz, L. (2015). Income inequality, redistribution of income and trade openness. The Pakistan Development Review, 54(4), 865-873.
• Almeida, R. ve Fernandes, A. M. (2008). Openness and technological innovations in developing countries: Evidence from firm-level surveys. The Journal of Development Studies, 44(5), 701-727.
• Ansell, B. ve Samuels, D. (2010). Inequality and democratization: A contractarian Approach. Comparative Political Studies, 43(12), 1543-1574.
• Aysan, Ü. (2019). Avrupa refah rejimleri ve Türkiye’de öznel iyi oluş. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 39, 191-214. http://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022
• Balassa, B. (1978). Exports and economic growth: Further evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 5(2), 181-189.
• Barro, R. J. ve Sala-i-Martin, X. (1997). Technological diffusion, convergence, and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 2(1), 1-26.
• Boix, C. (2003). Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
• Bolat, S., Belke, M. ve Aras, O. (2011). Türkiye’de ikiz açık hipotezinin geçerliliği: Sınır testi yaklaşımı. Maliye Dergisi, 161, 347-364.
• Brune, N. ve Garrett, G. (2005). The globalization Rorschach test: International economic integration, inequality, and the role of government. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 8, 399-423.
• Chang, E. C. C. ve Wu, W. C. (2016). Preferential trade agreements, income ınequality, and authoritarian survival. Political Research Quarterly, 69(2), 281-294.
• Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, M. Steven Fish, Adam Glynn, Allen Hicken, Anna Lührmann, Kyle L. Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Brigitte Seim,Steven Wilson, Agnes Cornell, Lisa Gastaldi, Haakon Gjerløw, Nina Ilchenko, Joshua Krusell, Laura Maxwell, Valeriya Mechkova, Juraj Medzihorsky, Josefine Pernes, Johannes von Römer, Natalia Stepanova, Aksel Sundström, Eitan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, and Daniel Ziblatt. (2019).
• Dickey, D. A. ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(4), 1057-1072.
• Dollar, D. (1992). Outward-oriented developing economies really do grow more rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-1985. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 40(3), 523-544.
• Engle, R. F. ve Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(2), 251-276.
• Erkuş, S., Akın, C. ve Akar, B. (2016, Ekim 22). Demokrasi ve Ekonomik özgürlüğün gelir dağılımı üzerine olan etkisi [The effect of democracy and economic freedom upon ıncome distribution]. 5. International Conference on Economics’te sunulan bildiri. 20-22 Ekim 2016. Muğla.
• Esfahani, H. (1991). Exports, imports, and economic growth in semi-industrialized countries. Journal of Development Economics, 35(1), 93-116.
• Feder, G. (1983). On exports and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, 12(1), 59-73.
• Freeman, J. R. ve Quinn, D. P. (2012). The economic origins of democracy reconsidered. The American Political Science Review, 106(1), 58-80.
• Gülmez, A., & Altintas, N. (2015). Türkiye’de Ticari Açıklık Ve Enflasyonun Gelir Dağılımına Etkisi: Ekonometrik Bir Analiz. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(9), 31. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. ve Sturm, J. E. (2019). The KOF globalisation index–revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 14, 543-574.
• Haggard, S. ve Kaufman, R. R. (2012). Inequality and regime change: Democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 495-516.
• Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. ve Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations,. Stanford: Stanford Uni-n versity Press
• Huber, E., Nielsen, F., Pribble, J. ve Stephens, J. D. (2006). Politics and inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean. American Sociological Review, 71(6), 943-963.
• Imai, K. (2010). Internal versus external requısıtes of democracy. International Journal on World Peace, 27(3), 49-87.
• Iversen, T. ve Soskice, D. (2015). Information, inequality, and mass polarization: Ideology in advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 48(13), 1781-1813.
• Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 231-254.
• Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 59(6), 1551-1580.
• Johansen, S. ve Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration-with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 52(2), 169-210.
• Koçak, E. ve Uzay, N. (2018). Demokrasi, ekonomik özgürlükler ve ekonomik büyüme: Kurumların rolü üzerine bir araştırma. Sosyoekonomi, 26(36), 81-102.
• Lee, C. S. (2005). Income inequality, democracy, and public sector size. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 158-181.
• Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
• Lucas Jr, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42.
• Meltzer, A. H. ve Richard, S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914-927.
• Michaely, M. (1977). Exports and growth: An empirical investigation. Journal of Development Economics, 4(1), 49-53.
• Muller, E. N. (1988). Democracy, economic development, and income inequality. American Sociological Review, 53(1), 50-68.
• Narayan, P. ve Smyth, R. (2005) Trade liberalization and economic growth in Fiji. An empirical assessment using the ARDL approach, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 10(1), 96-115.
• OXFAM. (2019). 5 shocking facts about extreme global inequality and how to even it up. https://www.oxfam.org/ en/5-shocking-facts-about-extreme-global-inequality-and-how-even-it adresinden 11.12.2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Özcan, G. ve Özmen, İ. (2018). Küreselleşme yükselen ekonomilerde gelir dağılımını etkiler mi? Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 35-52.
• Pemstein, D., Marquardt, K. L., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y., Medzihorsky, J., Krusell, J. Miri, F. ve von Römer, J. (2019).The V-Dem measurement model: latent variable analysis for cross-national and cross-temporal expert-coded data. V-Dem Working Paper No. 21. University of Gothenburg: Varieties of Democracy Institute.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (1996). Testing for the ‘existence of a long-run relationship’. Cambridge: Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634.
• Phillips, P.C. ve Perron, P. (1988). Testing for A unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
• Piketty, T. ve Koçak, H. (2014). Yirmi birinci yüzyılda kapital. İstanbul.
• Redding, S. (1999). Dynamic comparative advantage and the welfare effects of trade. Oxford Economic Papers, 51(1), 15-39.
• Reuveny, R. ve Li, Q. (2003). Economic openness, democracy, and income inequality: An empirical analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 36(5), 575-601.
• Rivera-Batiz, L. ve Romer, P. (1991). Economic integration and endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 531-555.
• Rodrik, D. (1997). Globalization, social conflict and economic growth. United Nation Conference on Trade and Development.
• Rodrik, D. (2008). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton University Press.
• Sachs, J. D. ve Warner, A. M. (1995). Natural resource abundance and economic growth. National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Scheve, K. ve Stasavage, D. (2012). Democracy, war, and wealth: Lessons from two centuries of inheritance taxation. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 81-102.
• Solt, F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 48-60.
• Solt, F. (2019). Measuring income ınequality across countries and over time: The standardized world income ınequality database. Social Science, 101(3), 1183-1199.
• Timmons, J. F. (2010). Does democracy reduce economic inequality? British Journal of Political Science, 40(4),741-757.
• Tyler, W. G. (1981). Growth and export expansion in developing countries: Some empirical evidence. Journalof Development Economics, 9(1), 121-130.
• Wagle, U. R. (2009). Inclusive democracy and economic inequality in South Asia: Any discernible link? Review of Social Economy, 67(3), 329-357.
• Wu, W. C. (2015). When do dictators decide to liberalize trade regimes? Inequality and trade openness in authoritarian countries. International Studies Quarterly, 59(4), 790-801.
• Yi, D. J. ve Woo, J. H. (2015). Democracy, policy, and inequality: Efforts and consequences in the developing world. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 36(5), 475 492.
• Young, A. (1991). Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 369-405.