SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Türkiye’de Suç Oranlarının Sürekliliği

Alper ASLAN
Oğuz ÖCAL
Pages
85–92
Publication Date
2012-04-01
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 results, therefore, illustrate a very strong form of persistence for 81 provinces in Turkey assault, swindling, smuggling, opposition to the bankruptcy and enforcement law, production and use of drug and bribery crimes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this article it is investigated the convergence of crime rates in 81 provinces in Turkey during the 1998–2006 period by applying unit root persistence methodology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The IPS (Im-Peseran Shin ) tests illustrated that one cannot reject the null hypothesis of unit root for the assault, swindling, smuggling, opposition to the bankruptcy and enforcement law, production and use of drug and bribery of each state relative to a reference unit.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results, therefore, illustrate a very strong form of persistence for 81 provinces in Turkey assault, swindling, smuggling, opposition to the bankruptcy and enforcement law, production and use of drug and bribery crimes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Suç · Süreklilik · Yakınsama

Abstract

In this article it is investigated the convergence of crime rates in 81 provinces in Turkey during the 1998–2006 period by applying unit root persistence methodology. The IPS (Im-Peseran Shin ) tests illustrated that one cannot reject the null hypothesis of unit root for the assault, swindling, smuggling, opposition to the bankruptcy and enforcement law, production and use of drug and bribery of each state relative to a reference unit. The results, therefore, illustrate a very strong form of persistence for 81 provinces in Turkey assault, swindling, smuggling, opposition to the bankruptcy and enforcement law, production and use of drug and bribery crimes.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Türkiye’deki 81 ilde gerçekleşen suç oranları (1998–2006) yakınsaması birim kök süreklilik metodolojisi uygulanarak incelenmiştir. IPS (Im Peseran Shin) testlerinde yaralama, dolandırıcılık, kaçakçılık, icra iflas kanununa karşı gelme, uyuşturucu madde kullanımı ve imali ile rüşvet suçları için birim kökün yokluğu hipotezi reddedilememiştir. Sonuçta, Türkiye’de 81 il için 16 ayrı başlık olarak ele alınarak yapılan analizde, 6 suç sınıfının güçlü bir şekilde süreklilik sergilediği görülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ASLAN, A., ÖCAL, O. (2012). Türkiye’de Suç Oranlarının Sürekliliği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 85–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/155854

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. BECKER Gary S. (1968), “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach”, Journal of Political Economy, 76: 1169–1217.
  2. CHEUNG, Yin and Antonio PASCULA (2004), “Testing for Output Convergence a Re- Examination”, Oxford Economic Papers, 56: 45–63.
  3. CORMAN, Hope and Naci MOCAN (2000), “A Time-Series Analysis of Crime and Drug Use in New York City”, American Economic Review, June 2000, 90(3): 584–604.
  4. CÖMERTLER, Necmiye ve Muhsin KAR (2007), "Türkiye'de Suç Oranının Sosyo- Ekonomik Belirleyicileri: Yatay Kesit Analizi", Ankara Üniversitesi, Siyasal Bilgiler Fakülte Dergisi, 62-2: 37-57.
  5. DEADMAN, Derek and Ziggy MACDONALD (2002), “Why Has Crime Fallen? An Economic Perspective”, Institute of Economic Affairs, Published by Blackwell Publishers,
  6. Oxford. EHRLICH, Isaac (1973), “Participation İn İllegitimate Activities:A Theoretical And Empirical İnvestigation”, Journal of Political Economy, 81: 521–65.
  7. FLEISSING, Adrian and Jack STRAUSS (2001), “Unit-Root Tests of OECD Stochastic Convergence”, Review of International Economics, 9(1): 153–162.
  8. FOUNTAS, Stilianos and Wu JYH (1999), “Testing for Real Interest Rate Convergence in European Countries”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 46: 158–74.
  9. GUNDLACH, Erich (1997), “Regional convergence of output per worker in China: a Neo- classical Interpretation”, Asian Economic Journal, 11: 423–442.
  10. HOLMES, Mark (2000), “Convergence in International Output: Evidence from Panel Data Unit Root Tests”, Business Cycle Volatility and Economic Growth Research Paper, No. 00–6.
  11. HOLMES, Mark (2002), “Panel Data Evidence on Inflation Convergence in the European Union”, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 9(3): 155–158.
  12. JENKINS Michael and Petya MADZHAROVA (2008), “Real Interest Rate Convergence Under Euro”, Applied Economics Letters, 15: 473-476.
  13. JOSEPH, Chen and David GİLES (2004), “Gender Convergence in Crime: Evidence from Canadian Adult Offence Charge Data”, Journal of Criminal Justice, 32: 593-606.
  14. KARMEL, Tom (1996), “Educational Choice and the Gender Wage Gap in the Australian Labour Market, Department of Employment, Education”, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. KOCENDA, Evzen (2001), “Macroeconomic Convergence in Transition Countries”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 29: 1-23.
  15. KOCENDA, Evzen and David PAPELL (1997), “Inflation Convergence within the European Union: A Panel Data Analysis”, International Journal of Finance & Economics, 2(3): 189–98.
  16. KUTAN, Ali and Taner YİĞİT (2002), “Nominal and Real Stochastic Convergence within