Journals / Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 20

INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE CASE OF EASTERN EUROPEAN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

KURUMSAL GELİŞME VE İKTISADİ BÜYÜME: DOĞU AVRUPA GEÇİŞ EKONOMİLERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Pages
245–262
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)

Analysis results show that institutional quality and quality of public institutions affect economic growth positively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The institutional approach to economic theory, claiming that the economy cannot be evaluated independently of the effect of the institutional, has been frequently included in the growth literature since the 1990s.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study, in which panel data analysis was used, covers the years 2006-2017.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Analysis results show that institutional quality and quality of public institutions affect economic growth positively.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006-2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal İktisat · Ekonomik Büyüme · Geçiş Ekonomileri

Abstract

The institutional approach to economic theory, claiming that the economy cannot be evaluated independently of the effect of the institutional, has been frequently included in the growth literature since the 1990s. In line with this view, the effects of institutional structure on economic growth were investigated for the Eastern European transition economies sample. The study, in which panel data analysis was used, covers the years 2006-2017. In the study, indices related to the institutional structures of the countries, obtained from the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index were used. Analysis results show that institutional quality and quality of public institutions affect economic growth positively. Accordingly, 1% change in the institutional quality index affects the GDP by approximately 0.29% and the GDP per capita by 0.37% in the same direction. The effect of 1% change in the quality of public institutions index was determined to be approximately 0.35% and 0.43%, respectively. According to the findings, it can be said that the implementation of policies that will encourage institutional development in the sample countries will play an important role in ensuring a sustainable economic growth.

Özet

Bu çalışmada kurumsal yapının büyüme üzerindeki etkisi 12 Doğu Avrupa geçiş ekonomisi için incelenmiştir. 1990’lı yıllarda planlı ekonomiden serbest piyasa ekonomisine geçiş yapmış olan bu ülkelerde piyasa ekonomisine ilişkin reformlar yanında kurumsal arka planın oluşturulmasının ekonomik performansı nasıl etkileyeceği önem arz etmektedir. Çalışmanın ele alınan ülkelerde bu doğrultuda uygulanacak politikalara ışık tutması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada kurumsal yapının büyüme üzerindeki etkisi 12 Doğu Avrupa geçiş ekonomisi için incelenmiştir. 1990’lı yıllarda planlı ekonomiden serbest piyasa ekonomisine geçiş yapmış olan bu ülkelerde piyasa ekonomisine ilişkin reformlar yanında kurumsal arka planın oluşturulmasının ekonomik performansı nasıl etkileyeceği önem arz etmektedir. Çalışmanın ele alınan ülkelerde bu doğrultuda uygulanacak politikalara ışık tutması amaçlanmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AĞAZADE, S., ARTAN, S., HAYALOĞLU, P. (2020). INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE CASE OF EASTERN EUROPEAN TRANSITION ECONOMIES. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 20, 245–262. https://ajindex.com/articles/202626

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Acaravcı, Ali ve Erdoğan, Sinan (2017) “The Relationship between Institutional Structure and Economic Growth: A Comparative Analysis for Selected Countries”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 2017, 7(6), 141-146.
  2. Acemoğlu, Daron ve Robinson, James (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, New York: Crown Publishers.
  3. Ağazade S. (2016), "Doğu Avrupa Geçiş Ekonomilerinde Rekabet ve Gelir Düzeyi İlişkisi", Rekabet Dergisi, 17(2):120-146.
  4. Akçay, Selçuk (2002), “Corruption and Economic Growth: Across-National Study” Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 57(1), 1-13.
  5. Artan, Seyfettin ve Hayaloğlu, Pınar (2013) “Ülkelerarası Büyüme Farklılıklarının Açıklanmasında Kurumsal Yapının Rolü: Panel Veri Analizi” ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ İİBF DERGİSİ, ARALIK 2013, 8(3), 31- 54. Artan, Seyfettin ve Hayaloğlu, Pınar (2014) Kurumsal Yapı ve İktisadi Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği, Sosyoekonomi, 22: 348-366.
  6. Asteriou, Dimitrios ve Price, Simon (2000), “Political Instability and Economic Growth: Uk Time Series Evidence”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 48(4), 383- 399. Baltagi, B. H. (2013), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 5th ed., John Wiley and Sons Ltd., UK. Baltagi, B. H. ve P. X. WU (1999), “Unequally Spaced Panel Data Regressions With AR(1) Disturbances”, Econometric Theory, No: 15(6), s. 814-823.
  7. Barro, Robert J. (1991), “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (2), 407-444.
  8. Bhargava, A., L. Franzini ve W. Narendranathan (1982), “Serial Correlation and the Fixed Effects Model”, The Review of Economic Studies, No: 49(4), s. 533-549.
  9. Butkiewicza, James L ve Yanikkaya, Halit (2006) Institutional quality and economic growth: Maintenanceof the rule of law or democratic institutions, or both? Economic Modelling, Volume 23, Issue 4, July 2006, Pages 648-661.
  10. Darby, Julia ve diğerleri (2000), “Political Uncertainty, Public Expenditure and Growth”, Cesifo Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 310. Dawson, John W. (2003), “Causality in the Freedom–Growth Relationship” European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 479–495.
  11. De Haan, Jakob ve Siermann, Clemens L.J. (1995), “New Evidence on the Relationship between Democracy and Economic Growth”, Public Choice 86, 175-198.
  12. Devereux, Michael B. ve Wen, Jean-François (1998), “Political Instability, Capital Taxation and Growth” European Economic Review 42, 1635-1651.
  13. Driscoll, J. C. ve A. C. Kraay (1998), “Consistent Covaria