SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2017 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 31

Institutional Quality and Income Inequality Relationship for OECD Countries

OECD Ülkelerinde Kurumsal Kalite ve Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi

Mehmet AVCI
Gizem MUKİYEN AVCI
Pages
75–90
Publication Date
2017-01-27
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)

According to this result, institutional quality is an essential tool for reducing income inequality.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Income inequality has shown as one of the most important economic problem now.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study investigates the relationship between institutional quality and income inequality in 23 OECD countries, using fixed and random panel estimation approach and annual data over the period of 1984-2011.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to this result, institutional quality is an essential tool for reducing income inequality.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kurumlar · Gelir Eşitsizliği · Gini

Abstract

Income inequality has shown as one of the most important economic problem now. Behind individual specific, economic, social, political factors, also institutional factors effect income inequality. Lower income inequality has expected with higher institutional quality. This study investigates the relationship between institutional quality and income inequality in 23 OECD countries, using fixed and random panel estimation approach and annual data over the period of 1984-2011. Evidence from a panel data estimation shows that a negative relationship between institutional quality and income inequality exist. According to this result, institutional quality is an essential tool for reducing income inequality.

Özet

Gelir eşitsizliği günümüzün en önemli iktisadi konularından birisi olarak gösterilmektedir. Bireye özgü, iktisadi, sosyal ve siyasi faktörlerin yanı sıra kurumsal faktörler de gelir eşitsizliği üzerinde etkilidir. Daha iyi kurumsal kaliteye sahip olan ülkelerde daha düşük gelir eşitsizliği beklenmektedir. Bu çalışmada kurumsal kalite ve gelir eşitsizliği ilişkisi 23 OECD ülkesinde 1984- 2011 periyodu için sabit ve rassal etkiler modeli ile araştırılmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre kurumsal kalite ile gelir eşitsizliği arasında negatif bir ilişki söz konusudur. Buna göre kurumsal kalite gelir eşitsizliğinin azaltılmasında önemli bir araçtır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AVCI, M., AVCI, G. M. (2017). Institutional Quality and Income Inequality Relationship for OECD Countries. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 31, 75–90. https://ajindex.com/articles/139769

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Abdullah, A. & H. Doucouliagos & E. Manning (2015), “Does Education Reduce IncomeInequality? A Meta-Regression Analysis”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(2), 301-316.
  2. Acemoglu, D. & S. Johnson & J.A. Robinson (2005), “Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of LongRun Growth”, Handbook of Economic Growth, in P. Aghion & S.N. Durlauf (ed.) Volume IA, Elsevier, 385-472.
  3. Acemoglu, D. (2009), Introduction to Modern Economic Growth, Princeton University Press:
  4. New Jersey. Acemoğlu, D. (2003), “Cross-Country Inequality Trends”, The Economic Journal, 113(February), F121-F149. Alderson, A.S. & N. François (2002), “Globalization and the Great U-Turn: Income Inequality Trends in 16 OECD Countries”, American Journal of Sociology, 107(5), 1244-1299.
  5. Baltagi, B.H. (2005),
  6. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd: England. Barro, R.J. (2000), “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, 5(March), 5-32.
  7. Breusch, T.S. & A.R. Pagan (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Modelspecification Tests in Econometrics”, Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  8. Carter, J.R. (2006), “An Empirical Note on Economic Freedom and Income Inequality”, Public Choice, 130, 163-177.
  9. Chong, A. & C. Calderon (2000), “Institutional Quality and Income Distribution”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4), 761-786.
  10. Chong, A. & M. Gradstein (2004), “Inequality and Institutions”, Inter-American Development Bank, Working Paper, No: 506,, 25.02.2016.
  11. Cingano, F. (2014), “Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 163, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrjncwxv6j-en.
  12. Dincer, O.C. & B. Gunalp (2008), “Corruption, income inequality and poverty in the United States”, Nota di lavoro // Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Global Challlenges, No. 54.2008,, 25.02.2016.
  13. Dökmen, G. (2012), “Yolsuzlukların Vergi Gelirleri Üzerindeki Etkisi: Dinamik Panel Veri Analizi”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 13(1), 41-51.
  14. Gregorio, J.D. & L. Jong-Wha (2002), “Education and Income Inequality: New Evidence From Cross-Country Data”, Review of Income and Wealth, 48(3), 395-416.
  15. Gupta, S. & D. Hamid & T. Rosa-Alonso (2002), “Does Corruption Affect Icome Inequality and Poverty”, Economics of Governance, 3, 23-45.
  16. Gyimah-Brempong, K. & S.M. Camacho (2008), “Corruption, Growth, and Income Distribution: Are there Regional Differences?”, Economics of Gover