Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2020 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 44

Political Polarization and Size of Government

Politik Kutuplaşma ve Devletin Ekonomik Boyutu

Pages
319–335
Publication Date
2020-04-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study describes the links to these findings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, it empirically examines the impact of economic and political determinants on the economic size of the government.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The scope of the paper includes 61 countries, and the time interval between 1990 and 2015 was used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study describes the links to these findings.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Devletin Ekonomik Boyutu · Politik Kutuplaşma · Etnik Çeşitlilik

Abstract

In this study, it empirically examines the impact of economic and political determinants on the economic size of the government. Political polarization from political determinants is the main independent variable, along with other control variables. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Ordinary Least Squares and Second Stage Least Squares methods. The scope of the paper includes 61 countries, and the time interval between 1990 and 2015 was used. The results of the regression analysis show that the share of public consumption spending in national income in countries where political polarization is high is declining. In addition, the increase in levels of ethnic fracturalization, democracy and government fractionalization has an increasing effect on share of public consumption spending in national income. The study describes the links to these findings.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, ekonomik ve politik faktörlerin devletin ekonomik boyutu üzerindeki etkisi ampirik olarak incelenmektedir. Politik faktörlerden politik kutuplaşma diğer kontrol değişkenlerle birlikte ana bağımsız değişkendir. İstatistiksel analiz olarak En Küçük Kareler ve İki Aşamalı En Küçük Kareler yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamına 61 ülke dâhildir ve 1990 ile 2015 yılları arasındaki zaman aralığı kullanılmıştır. Regresyon analizi sonuçları, politik kutuplaşmanın fazla olduğu ülkelerde kamu tüketim harcamalarının milli gelir içindeki payının azaldığını göstermektedir. Ek olarak, etnik çeşitlilik, demokrasi ve siyasi ayrışma düzeylerinin artması kamu tüketim harcamalarının milli gelir içindeki payının artması şeklinde bir etki ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Çalışma bu bulguların bağlantılarını açıklamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KEYİFLİ, N., AKDEDE, S. H. (2020). Political Polarization and Size of Government. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 44, 319–335. https://ajindex.com/articles/139275

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Adam, A. & P. Kammas & A. Lapatinas (2015), “Income Inequality and the Tax Structure: Evidence from Developed and Developing Countries”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(1), 138-154.
  2. Afonso, A. & J.T. Jalles (2016), “Economic Performance, Government size and Institutional Quality”, Empirica, 43(1), 83-109.
  3. Aidt, T.S. & J. Dutta & E. Loukoianovai (2006), “Democracy Comes to Europe: Franchise Extension and Fiscal Outcomes 1830-1938”, European Economic Review, 50(2), 249-283.
  4. Akbulut, H. (2015), “Kamu Sektörünün Hacmi: Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği Karşılaştırması”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 48(3), 41-59.
  5. Akdede, S.H. (2012), “Income Inequality and Political Polarization and Fracturalization: An Empirical Investigation of Some European Countries”, Bulletin of Economic Research, 64(1), 20-30.
  6. Alesina, A. & R. Wacziarg (1998), “Openness, Country Size and Government”, Journal of Public Economics, 69(3), 305-321.
  7. Alesina, A. & R. Baqir & W. Easterly (1999), “Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1243-1284.
  8. Annet, A. (2000),
  9. Social Fractionalization, Political Instability, and the Size of Government, Washington: IMF. Arı, A. & B. Özcan (2012), “Hollanda Hastalığı: Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, Sosyoekonomi, 18(18), 153-172.
  10. Au, K. & M. Cheung (2004), “Intra-cultural Variation and Job Au- tonomy in 42 Countries”, Organization Studies, 25(8), 1339-62.
  11. Au, K. (1999), “Intra-Cultural Variation: Evidence and Implications for International Business”, Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4), 799-812.
  12. Bawn, K. & F. Rosenbluth (2006), “Short Versus Long Coalitions: Electoral Accountability and the Size of the Public Sector”, American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 251-265.
  13. Blais, A.B. & S. Dion (1993), “Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies”, American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 40-62.
  14. Bölükbaş, M. (2018), “Kamu Büyüklüğü İşsizliğin ve Genç İşsizliğin Nedeni Midir? Türkiye Örneği”, Aydın İktisat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 1-17.
  15. Chobanov, D. & A. Mladenova (2009), What is the Optimum Size of Government?, Institute for Market Economics, Bulgaria. Commander, S. & H.R. Davoodi & U.J. Lee (1997), “The Causes and Consequences of Government for Growth and Well-being”, World Development Report, 1785. Cusack, T.R. & S. Fuchs (2002), “Ideology, Institutions, and Public Spending”, Working Group on Institutions, States, and Markets, Discussion Paper, P 02-903. Dash,