İNSAN SERMAYESI ILE KAYIT DIŞI EKONOMISI ARASINDAKI İLİŞKİ, EKONOMİK ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜN MODERATİF ETKİSİ

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1, 295 - 306, 30.06.2019

Elma Satrovic

https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.491233

Cited By: 6

Öz

Bu yazıda ekonomik özgürlük
varlığında insan sermayesi ile kayıt dışı ekonomisi arasındaki ilişkinin
ampirik analizi yapılmaktadır. 34 ülke örneklemi için 1999-2013 dönemi yıllık
panel verileri toplanmıştır. Doğrusal statik ve dinamik panel veri tahmin edicilerinin
sonuçları, ekonomik özgürlüğün anlamlı olmayan etkisine işaret etmektedir. ARDL
çerçevesi, eğitimin sadece uzun vadede kayıt dışı ekonomisi üzerindeki olumsuz
etkisinin, daha eğitimli işgücünün kayıt dışı ekonomik faaliyetlerden kaçınma
eğilimine işaret ettiğini göstermektedir. Kısa süreli etki anlamlı
bulunmamıştır. İnsan sermayesinin klasik zaman varyantı değişkenleri olduğu
için bu sonuç beklendiktir, yani herhangi bir değişiklik daha uzun bir zaman
süresi gerektirir. Genişletilmiş model, eğitimin uzun vadede önemli bir negatif
etkisine işaret etmektedir. Ekonomik özgürlük hem kısa hem de uzun vadede
anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Ancak, moderatör katsayısının, kısa vadede, ekonomik
özgürlüğün kayıt dışı ekonomik aktiviteyi azaltma niyetinde daha eğitimli
işgücünü desteklediğini gösterecek şekilde anlamlı ve pozitif olduğunu
vurgulamak önemlidir. Dolayısıyla, bir politika uygulaması olarak, kayıt dışı
ekonomisini azaltma eğiliminde olacak insan sermayesi işgücünü arttırmak için
ekonomik özgürlüğe katkıda bulunmak gereklidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsan Sermayesi, Ekonomik özgürlük, Moderatör etkisi, Kayıt dışı ekonomisi

MODERATING EFFECT OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN CAPITAL AND SHADOW ECONOMY

Öz

The empirical analysis of the relationship between human capital and
shadow economy in the presence of economic freedom is conducted in this paper.
Annual panel data are collected in the period 1999-2013 for the sample of 34
countries. The results of linear static and dynamic panel data estimators
suggest an impact of economic freedom that is not significant. ARDL framework
suggests a significant negative impact of human capital on shadow economy only
in the long-run indicating that more educated workforce tends to avoid informal
economic activities. Short-run
impact is not found to be significant. This result is expected since human
capital is considered to be a classic time-variant covariate, i.e. any change
requires longer time period. The extended model suggests a significant negative
impact of human capital only in the long-run. Economic freedom is not found to
be significant in both, short- and the long-run. However, it is important to
emphasize that the coefficient with moderator is significant and positive in
the short-run indicating that economic freedom supports more educated workforce
in their intention to decrease informal economic activity. Hence, as a policy implication there is a necessity to contribute to
economic freedom in order to increase the human capital of workforce who will
tend to decrease shadow economy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Human capital, Economic freedom, Moderating effect, Shadow economy

Kaynakça

• Abul, S. J. (2019). The dynamic relationship between stock and real estate prices in Kuwait. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 11(5), 30-42.
• Alm, J. & Torgler, B. (2006). Culture differences and tax morale in the United States and in Europe. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(2), 224-246.
• Attaoui, I., Ammpurim B. & Gargouri, I. (2017). Causality Links among renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in Africa: evidence from a panel ARDL-PMG approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(14), 13036-13048.
• Boeke, J. H. (1953). Economics and economic policy of dual societies. New York: Institute of Pacific Relations.
• Buehn, A. &Farzanegan, M.R. (2013). Impact of education on the shadow economy: institutions matter, Economics Bulletin, 33(3), 2052-2063.
• Čiutienė, R., Meilienė, E., Savanevičienė, A. &Vaitkevičius, S. (2015). Interdependence between human capital and the power of a shadow economy: Lithuanian case study. Technological and economic development of economy, 21(3), 460-482.
• Dag, M., Kizilkaya, O. & Demez, S. (2018). Samaritan çıkmazı bağlamında dış yardımların ekonomik büyümeye etkisinin incelenmesi: ampirik bir analiz. Research journal of public fınance,4(1), 17-25.
• Dreher, A., Meon, P.G. &Schneider, F. (2007). The devil is in the shadow do institutions affect income and productivity or only official income and official productivity? CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 2150.
• Elgin, C. &Oztunali, O. (2012). Shadow economies all around the world: model based estimates, Bogazici University Economics Department Working Paper, 2012-05.
• Gerxhani, K. &Werfhorst, H.G. (2011). The effect of education on informal sector participation in a post-communist country. European Sociological Review, 29(3), 464-476.
• Gomis-Porqueras, P., Peralta-Alva, A. &Waller, Ch. (2014). The shadow economy as an equilibrium outcome. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 41, 1-19.
• Hanushek, E. A. &Woessmann, L. (2011). Sample Selectivity and the Validity of International Student Achievement Tests in Economic Research. Economic Letters, 110(2), 79-82.
• Hindriks, J., Muthoo, A. &Keen, M. (1999). Corruption, extortion and evasion. Journal of Public Economics, 74(3), 395-430.
• Ihrig, J. &Moe, K.S. (2004). Lurking in the shadows: the informal sector and government policy. Journal of Development Economics, 73(2), 541-557.
• Johnson, S., Kaufmann, D. &Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1998). Regulatory discretion and the unofficial economy, American Economic Review, 88(2), 387-392.
• Leonard, M. (2002). The long-term unemployed, informal economic activity and the ‘underclass’ in Belfast: rejecting or reinstating the work ethic. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, 42-59.
• Mangir, F., Kabaklarlı, E. & Ayhan, F. (2017). An analysis for the relationship between trade openness and economic growth: evidence for ten African countries. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 15(1), 58-71.
• Muslija, A. (2018). Foreign direct investments and economic freedom in OECD countries. International Journal of Economic Studies, 4(4), 51-59.
• Neef, R. (2002). Aspects of the informal economy in a transforming country: the case of Romania. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26, 299-322.
• Ozcan, C.C., Aslan, M. &Nazlioglu, S. (2017). Economic freedom, economic growth and international tourism for post-communist (transition) countries: a panel causality analysis. Theoretical and Applied Economics, XXIV, 75-98.
• Pesaran M.H., Shin Y. & Smith, R.P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels .J Am Stat Assoc, 94, 621-634.
• Satrovic, E. (2017). Financial development and human capital in Turkey: ARDL approach, Cappadocia Academic Review, 1(2), 1-15.
• Satrovic, E. (2018a). Merits of Life Insurance. Munich: GRIN Verlag.
• Satrovic, E. (2018b). The human development relies on renewable energy: evidence from Turkey, 3rd International Energy & Engineering, Book of Proceedings, Gaziantep, Turkey; 19-27. Retrieved from: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/315b3d_a4d7493ae65e4815be5ae3ab05f83d3f.pdf. (29.11.2018)
• Satrovic, E. & Muslija, A, (2018).Causality relationship between foreign direct investment and tourism. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 22, 65-76.
• Schneider, F. (2013). Size and development of the shadow economy of 31 European and 5 other OECD countries from 2003 to 2013: a further decline, Johannes Kepler Universität, Linz, 5-7.
• Schneider, F. (2015).Size and development of the shadow economy of 31 European and 5 other OECD countries from 2003 to 2015: Different Developments. Retrieved from: http://www.econ.jku.at/members/Schneider/files/publications/2015/ShadEcEurope31.pdf. (14.10.2018)
• Schneider, F., Buehn, A. & Montenegro, C.E. (2010). New estimates for the shadow economies all over the world. International Economic Journal, 24(4), 443-461.
• Torgler, B. (2003). To evade taxes or not to evade: that is the question. The Journal of Socio Economics, 32(3), 283-30.