Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2018 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 38

Can Turkey Escape the Middle-Income Trap? An Institutional Approach to Economic Development

Türkiye Orta Gelir Tuzağından Kaçabilir mi? İktisadi Gelişmeye Kurumsalcı Bir Yaklaşım

Pages
151–170
Publication Date
2018-10-31
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)

Nature of this research enables replicability not only for the case study under analysis, but also for many comparable cases throughout the world.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Since the early 2010’s, Turkey is said to be caught in “middle-income trap” characterized by economic stagnation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this article, we offer an institutional analysis for Turkey, and many other developing nations alike, which aspire to attain higher levels of economic affluence.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Nature of this research enables replicability not only for the case study under analysis, but also for many comparable cases throughout the world.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkiye · Siyasi Kurumlar · İktisadi Kurumlar

Abstract

Since the early 2010’s, Turkey is said to be caught in “middle-income trap” characterized by economic stagnation. In this article, we offer an institutional analysis for Turkey, and many other developing nations alike, which aspire to attain higher levels of economic affluence. Using a multi-method approach which combines econometric and historical analyses, we conclude that it would be very hard to progress economically for middle-income countries such as Turkey without addressing their deficiencies in political and economic institutions. Nature of this research enables replicability not only for the case study under analysis, but also for many comparable cases throughout the world.

Özet

Türkiye’nin, 2010 yılların başından itibaren iktisadi gelişmenin duraksadığı bir orta gelir tuzağına yakalandığı tartışılmaktadır. Bu makale, bu soruna eğilerek Türkiye bağlamında ve Türkiye’nin iktisadi gelişme seviyesinde olan diğer ülkeler için de uygulanabilecek kurumsalcı bir analiz sunmaktadır. Makale, tarihsel ve ekonometrik yöntemleri birleştiren çok metodlu bir yöntemle, Türkiye örneğindeki gibi yüksek orta gelirli ülkelerde daha fazla iktisadi gelişmeye ulaşılması için siyasi ve iktisadi kurumlardaki sorunların çözülmesi gerektiğinin altını çizmektedir. Çalışmanın tekrar edilebilirliği hem Türkiye örneğinde, hem de karşılaştırmalı olarak diğer ülkelerde çalışmanın güvenilirliğinin test edilmesine olanak sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÖSE, T., ÇINAR, K. (2018). Can Turkey Escape the Middle-Income Trap? An Institutional Approach to Economic Development. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 38, 151–170. https://ajindex.com/articles/139369

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Acemoğlu, Daron, Simon Johnson, ve James A. Robinson. 2005. “Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Economic Growth.” In Handbook of Economic Growth, edited by Philippe Aghion ve Stephen Durlauf, Volume 1, Part 1, pp. 385–472. North Holland: Amsterdam, Holland. Aghion, P., A. Alesina, ve F. Trebbi. 2008. “Democracy, technology, and growth”. In E. Helpman (Ed.), Institutions and Economic Performance. Harvard University Press.
  2. Ahituv, Avner. 2001. “Be Fruitful or Multiply: On the Interplay between Fertility and Economic Development” Journal of Population Economics 14 (1): 51-71.
  3. Altuğ, Sumru, Alpay Filiztekin, ve Şevket Pamuk. 2008. “Sources of long-term economic growth for Turkey, 1880–2005” European Review of Economic History 12: 393-430.
  4. Bakır, Caner ve Ziya Öniș. 2010. “The Regulatory State and Turkish Banking Reforms in the Age of Post-Washington Consensus”. Development and Change 41(1): 77–106.
  5. Baldwin, Norman ve Stephen A. Borrelli. 2008. “Education and Economic Growth in the United States: Cross-National Applications for an Intra-National Path Analysis,” Policy Sciences 41 (3): 183-204.
  6. Barro, Robert J. 1996. “Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study” NBER Working Paper Series 5698. Barro, Robert J. 1999. “Determinants of Democracy.” The Journal of Political Economy 107 (6): 158-183.
  7. Barro, Robert J. ve Gary S. Becker. 1989. “Fertility Choice in a Model of Economic Growth” Econometrica 57 (2): 481-501.
  8. Barro, Robert ve Jong-Wha Lee. 2010. “A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010” Journal of Development Economics 104: 184-198.
  9. Bloom, David E., David Canning ve Günther Fink. 2008. “Urbanization and the Wealth of Nations,” Science 319 (5864): 772-775.
  10. Boening, Astrid B., L. Díaz Romero, J.R.García Hernández, P. González del Miño, Niklas Helwig, Karel Lannoo, Simon Stroß, Csaba Töro, J. Antonio Yañez-Barnuevo ve Bahri Yılmaz. 2012. The EU as a Global Player. Fundación University-San Pablo. Boix, Carles. 2011. “Democracy, Development, and the International System.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 809-828.
  11. Boix, Carles ve Susan C. Stokes. 2003. “Endogenous Democratization.” World Politics 55 (4): 517-549.
  12. Bolt, J. ve J. L. van Zanden. 2013. “The First Update of the Maddison Project; ReEstimating Growth Before 1820.” Maddison Project Working Paper 4. Booth, Alan, Joseph Melling ve Christoph Dartmann. 1997. “Institutions and Economic Growth: The Politics of Productivity in West Germany, S