SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2013 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1

Ekonomik Faktörlerin 2011 Türkiye Genel Seçimlerine Etkisi

The Impact of Economic Factors on the 2011 Turkish General Election*

HARUN YÜKSEL
Abdülkadir CİVAN
Pages
53–67
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)

In terms of regions, our results indicate that the ruling party increased its vote share more in the provinces where the voters are of average or higher level of income and education.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the outcomes of the general election which took place on 12 June 2011.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Provinces suffering from higher unemployment rates do not vote for the AKP while opposition parties are not affected by unemployment rates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In terms of regions, our results indicate that the ruling party increased its vote share more in the provinces where the voters are of average or higher level of income and education.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study examines the outcomes of the general election which took place on 12 June 2011. We analyze the effects of economic indicators on the results of June general election by using the provincial data. The Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) technique is used in the estimations. We find that the political parties preserved their core voters or sympathizers. Provincial economic growth positively affects the AKP (Justice and Development Party) but the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) negatively as expected. However, it does not have any influence on the CHP (Republican People’s Party). Provinces suffering from higher unemployment rates do not vote for the AKP while opposition parties are not affected by unemployment rates. It is also found that vote share of the incumbent party does not increase in the provinces in which higher public spending has been made by the AKP. In terms of regions, our results indicate that the ruling party increased its vote share more in the provinces where the voters are of average or higher level of income and education.

Özet

Bu çalışma 12 Haziran 2011 genel seçim sonuçlarını değerlendirmektedir. Ekonomik eğilimlerin Haziran genel seçim sonuçları üzerine etkisini il düzeyinde veri kullanarak analiz edilmektedir. Ekonometrik model tahmininde Görünürde Bağlantısız Regresyonlar kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre siyasi partiler kendi tabanlarını korumuşlardır. İl düzey- inde ekonomik büyüme beklendiği gibi AKP’ni (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) pozitif yönde etkilerken MHP’ni (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi) olumsuz yönde etkilemiştir. Fakat CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) üzerinde herhangi bir etkisi bulunmamıştır. Muhalefet partileri işsizlik oranından etkilenmezken, işsizlik oranının yüksek olduğu illerde AKP oy alamamıştır. Çalışmada ayrıca AKP’nin daha yüksek kamu harcamaları yaptığı

🔖

Cite This Article

YÜKSEL, H., CİVAN, A. (2013). Ekonomik Faktörlerin 2011 Türkiye Genel Seçimlerine Etkisi. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1, 53–67. https://ajindex.com/articles/143782

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akarca, A.T. (2011). "A Prediction for AKP's Nationwide Vote Share in the 12 June 2011
  2. Turkish Parliamentary Election." Iktisat Işletme ve Finans, 26(302): 53-74. ------, (2009a). "A Prediction for AKP's Nationwide Vote Share in the 29 March 2009
  3. Turkish Local Elections." İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 24(276): 7-22. ------, (2009b) "Putting the Outcome of the 29 March 2009 Turkish Local Administrations Election in Perspective." Paper presented at EconAnadolu 2009: Anadolu International Conference in Economics. June 17-19, 2009,
  4. Eskişehir, Turkey. Akarca, A.T. and Baslevent, C. (2009) "A Cluster Analysis of Regional Voting Patterns in Turkey from 1999 to 2009."
  5. Unpublished manuscript. Akarca, A.T. and Tansel, A. (2007). "Social and Economic Determinants of Turkish Voter Choice in the 1995
  6. Parliamentary Election." Electoral Studies, 26: 633-647. ------, (2006). "Economic Performance and Political Outcomes: An Analysis of the Turkish Parliamentary and Local Election Results between 1950 and 2004." Public Choice, 129(1-2): 77-105. ------, (2002). "Economic Performance and Political Outcomes: An Analysis of the 1995 Turkish Parliamentary Election Results." Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Conference of the Economic Research Forum held in Sharjah, UAE, October. Başlevent, C., Kirmanoğlu, H., and Şenatalar, B. (2005). "Empirical Investigation of Party Preferences and Economic Voting in Turkey." European Journal of Political Research, 44: 547-562.
  7. Çarkoğlu, A. (1997)."Macro-economic Determinants of Electoral Support for Incumbents in Turkey, 1950-1995." New Perspectives on Turkey, 17: 75-96.
  8. Ercins, G. (2007). "Türkiye'de Sosyo-Ekonomik Faktörlere Bağlı Olarak Değişen Seçmen Davranışı (The Voter Behevior in Turkey Changing According to the Socio-Economic Variables)" C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2): 25-40.
  9. Evans, T.A. (2006). "The Different Effects of Discretionary Federal Spending on Parliamentary Elections." Economic Inquiry, 42: 234-48.
  10. Evans, G., Robert A. (2006). "The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions". Journal of Politics, 68:194-207.
  11. Fraile, M. and. Lewis-Beck, M.S. (2010). "Economic Voting in Spain: A 2000
  12. Panel Test." Electoral Studies 29 (2): 210-220.
  13. Gerber, A.S. and Gregory A.H. (2009). "Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior?" American Political Science Review, 103(3): 407-426.
  14. Göksel, T. and Çınar, Y. (2011). Mevcut Seçim Sisteminin İyileştirilmesine Y