Journals / Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 16

ANALYSIS OF INCOME INEQUALITY IN TERMS OF FISCAL POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY FACTORS IN TURKEY AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

TÜRKİYE’DE GELİR EŞİTSİZLİĞİNİN MALİYE POLİTİKASI ARAÇLARI VE KURUMSAL FAKTÖRLER AÇISINDAN ANALİZİ VE ÇÖZÜM ÖNERİLERİ

Pages
309–334
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)

As a result, increases in public expenditures, tax and institutional quality levels have reduced income disparity, while an increase in public borrowing has resulted in an increase in income distribution inequality.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The income inequality that occurs when the economic units take their margins different from each other is an important component, which constitutes the basic economic aim and policies of all countries regardless of their level of development.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, in Turkey between the years of 1990- 2016, the effects of taxation, public expenditure and public debt as the instruments of fiscal policy and institutional quality factor have been analysed by Least Squares Method (OLS).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, increases in public expenditures, tax and institutional quality levels have reduced income disparity, while an increase in public borrowing has resulted in an increase in income distribution inequality.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The income inequality that occurs when the economic units take their margins different from each other is an important component, which constitutes the basic economic aim and policies of all countries regardless of their level of development. Income inequality is an important issue that needs to be addressed as it brings along social and economic problems. States develop various policies to solve this problem, and at the top of them are fiscal policy implementations. The public sector is trying to provide justice in the distribution of income by ensuring redistribution of income with taxes, which is one of the fiscal policy instruments and public expenditures. In addition to being influenced by various factors in the emergence of income inequality in a country, the institutional structure of the country also has great precaution. In the light of this view, it is expected that income inequality shall be lower in countries whose institutional structure is strong; in other words, institutional quality level is high. In this study, in Turkey between the years of 1990- 2016, the effects of taxation, public expenditure and public debt as the instruments of fiscal policy and institutional quality factor have been analysed by Least Squares Method (OLS). As a result, increases in public expenditures, tax and institutional quality levels have reduced income disparity, while an increase in public borrowing has resulted in an increase in income distribution inequality.

Özet

Ekonomik birimlerin milli gelirden aldıkları payların, birbirinden farklı olması sonucu ortaya çıkan gelir eşitsizliği, gelişmişlik düzeylerine bakılmaksızın tüm ülkelerin temel ekonomik amaç ve politikalarını oluşturan önemli bir unsurdur. Gelir eşitsizliği, sosyal ve ekonomik sorunları da beraberinde getirdiği için üzerinde durulması gereken önemli bir konu haline gelmektedir. Devletler bu sorunu çözmek için çeşitli politikalar geliştirmekte, bunların en başında da maliye politikası uygulamaları gelmektedir. Kamu kesimi özellikle maliye politikası araçlarından vergiler ve kamu harcamaları ile gelirin yeniden dağıtılmasını sağlayarak, gelir dağılımında adaleti sağlamaya çalışmaktadır. Bir ülkede gelir eşitsizliğinin ortaya çıkmasında çeşitli faktörlerin etkisi olmasının yanı sıra, ülkenin kurumsal yapısı da büyük öneme sahiptir. Buna göre, güçlü kurumsal yapısı olan, diğer bir ifade ile kurumsal kalite düzeyi yüksek olan ülkelerde gelir eşitsizliğinin daha düşük olması beklenmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de 1990-2016 yılları arasındaki maliye politikası araçlarından vergiler, kamu harcamaları ve kamu borçlanması ile kurumsal kalite faktörünün gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkisi En Küçük Kareler Yöntemi (EKK) ile analiz edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak kamu harcamaları, vergiler ve kurumsal kalite düzeyinde meydana gelen artışların, gelir dağılımındaki eşitsizliği azalttığı, kamu borçlanma düzeyinde meydana gelen bir artışın ise gelir dağılımında eşitsizliği artırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEYYARE, E., SAYANER, K. (2018). ANALYSIS OF INCOME INEQUALITY IN TERMS OF FISCAL POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY FACTORS IN TURKEY AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 16, 309–334. https://ajindex.com/articles/151624

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. ACEMOGLU, D. (2003), “Cross-Country Inequality Trends”. The Economic Journal NBER Working Papers No: 113. ACEMOGLU, D. & ROBINSON, J.A. (2000), “Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality and Growth in Historical Perspective”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 115, no.2, pp.1167-1199.
  2. ACEMOGLU, D., JOHNSON, S. & ROBINSON, J. A. (2005), Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. IA, (Drl.: Philippe Aghion ve Steven N. Durlauf), Elsevier, Amsterdam. AKSOY, Ş. (1991), Kamu Maliyesi (Kamu Harcamaları- Kamu Gelirleri- Bütçe- Maliye Poli-tikası), İstanbul,
  3. Filiz Kitabevi.
  4. AKSU, Ö. A. (1993),
  5. Gelir ve Servet Dağılımı, İstanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi Basımevi. ALESINA, A. & WEDER, B. (1999), “Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign Aid?”, NBER Working Paper No: 7108. APERGIS, N., DİNÇER, O. & Payne, J. E. (2014), “Economic Freedom and Income Inequality Revisited: Evidence from a Panel Error Correction Model”, Contemporary Economic Policy, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 67-75.
  6. ATIF, S. M., SRIVASTAV, M., SAUYTBEKOVA, M. & ARACHCHIGE, U.K. (2012), “Glo-balization and Income Inequality: A Panel Data Analysis of 68 Countries”, MPRA Working Paper No: 42385. AVCI, M. & AVCI, G.M. (2017), “OECD Ülkelerinde Kurumsal Kalite ve Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi”, Sosyoekonomi Dergisi, C.25, Sy.31, ss.75-90.
  7. BALTA, T.B. (1972),
  8. İdare Hukuku I, Genel Konular, Ankara,
  9. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi. BARRO, R. J. (2000), “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, vol.5, no.1, pp. 5-32.
  10. BARZEL, Y. (1989), Economic Analysis of Property Rights (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  11. BERGGREN, N. (1999), “Economic Freedom and Equality: Friends or Foes?”, Public Choise, vol. 100 no. 3-4, pp. 203-223.
  12. BERGH, A. & NILSSON, T. (2010), “Do Liberalization and Globalization Increase Income Inequality?”, European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 488-505.
  13. BOLLEN, K.A. & JACKMAN, R.W. (1985), “Political Democracy and the Size Distribution of Income”, American Sociological Review vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 438-457.
  14. CARTER, J.R. (2006), “An Empirical Note on Economic Freedom and Income Inequality”, Public Choice vol. 130, pp. 163-177.
  15. CHONG, A. (2001), “Inequality, Democracy, and Persistence: Is There a Political Kuznets Curve?”, Economics & Politics, vol.16, no. 2, pp. 189-212.
  16. CHONG, A. & CALDERON, C. (2000), “Causality and Feedback Between Inst