SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 592

Socio-Political Analysis of the Turkish Economy in the light of Institutional Indicators

Kurumsal Göstergeler Işığında Türkiye Ekonomisinin Sosyo-Politik Analizi

SEYFETTİN ARTAN
PINAR HAYALOĞLU
Pages
9–27
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)

The obtained results show that many institutional indicators of Turkey above the world avera- ge but reveal that Turkey does not have enough incentive institutions to realize sustainable growth.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Institutional economics points out that the main determinant of economic growth differences among the countries is differences in countries’ institutional structu- res.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This view, that advocates a strong institutional structure is an important re- ference for international relations as well as a determinant of economic perfor- mance for countries, has led many researchers to take into account the institu- tional structure studies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The obtained results show that many institutional indicators of Turkey above the world avera- ge but reveal that Turkey does not have enough incentive institutions to realize sustainable growth.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Institutional economics points out that the main determinant of economic growth differences among the countries is differences in countries’ institutional structu- res. This view, that advocates a strong institutional structure is an important re- ference for international relations as well as a determinant of economic perfor- mance for countries, has led many researchers to take into account the institu- tional structure studies. In this study, the institutional structure of Turkey, which is going through the process of change and transformation, has been analyzed using a variety of institutional indicators and international reports. The obtained results show that many institutional indicators of Turkey above the world avera- ge but reveal that Turkey does not have enough incentive institutions to realize sustainable growth.

Özet

Kurumsal iktisat, ülkeler arasındaki büyüme farklılıklarının temel belirleyicisinin bu ülkelerin kurumsal yapılarındaki farklılıklar olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Güçlü kurumsal yapının hem uluslararası ilişkilerde ülkeler için önemli bir referans hem de ekonomik performansta belirleyici olduğunu savunan bu görüş, birçok araş- tırmacının çalışmalarında kurumsal yapıyı dikkate almalarına yol açmıştır. Bu çalışmada, bir değişim ve dönüşüm sürecinden geçmekte olan Türkiye’nin ku- rumsal yapısı çeşitli kurumsal göstergeler ve uluslararası raporlardan yararlanı- larak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, Türkiye’nin birçok kurumsal göster- gede dünya ortalamasının üstünde olduğunu göstermekle beraber sürdürülebi- lir büyümeyi gerçekleştirecek teşvik edici kurumlara henüz sahip olmadığını or- taya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARTAN, S., HAYALOĞLU, P. (2014). Socio-Political Analysis of the Turkish Economy in the light of Institutional Indicators. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 592, 9–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/205951

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. ABRAMS, Burton A. and LEWIS, Kenneth A.; (1993), “Cultural and Institutional Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross- Section Analysis”, Public Choice, 83, pp. 273-289.
  2. ACEMOĞLU, Daron and et al.; (2004), “Institutions as the Fun- damental Cause of Long-Run Growth”, NBER Working Paper No. 10481 ACEMOĞLU, Daron and ROBINSON, James A.; (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, Crown Publishers,
  3. New York. AKÇAY, Selçuk; (2002), “Corruption and Economic Growth: Across-National Study” Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 57(1), ss. 1-13.
  4. CARLSSON, Fredrik and LUNDSTRÖM, Susana; (2001), “Economic Freedom and Growth: Decomposing the Effects”, Göteborg University, Working Paper in Economics No. 33. CLARK, Gregory; (2013), Fukaralığa Veda: Dünyanın Kısa İktisadi Tarihi, Çev.: E. Demircioğlu, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul. COM, 2012, “Türkiye 2012 Yılı İlerleme Raporu”, Avrupa Komi- syonu, Brüksel, http://www.abgs.gov.tr/files/strateji/2012_il- erleme_raporu.pdf (15.01.2013)
  5. CSP (2012), http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/inscr.htm (01.01.2013)
  6. DE HAAN, Jakob and SIERMANN, Clemens L. J.; (1995), “New Evidence on the Relationship between Democracy and Economic Growth”, Public Choice, 86, pp. 175-198.
  7. DE HAAN, Jakob and SIERMANN, Clemens L.J.; (1998), “Fur- ther Evidence on the Relationship between Economic Freedom and Economic Growth”, Public Choice, 95, pp. 363-380.
  8. DEMİR, Ömer; (1996), Kurumcu İktisat, 1. Basım, Vadi Yayınları, Ankara. Dünya Bankası; (1992), “Governance and Development”, Washington, DC: World Bank 992. Dünya Bankası; (2013), The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp, (05.01.2013).
  9. EMİROĞLU, Akif; (2006), Toplumbilimsel Siyasa: Siyasal So- syolojiye Giriş, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa. Fraser Institude; (2012), “Economic Freedom of the World 2011 Annual Report”, http://www.freetheworld.com/release. html, (05.01.2013). Freedom House; (2011), “Freedom of the Press 2011”, Turkey, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2011/turke y?page=251&year=2011&country=8152 (15.01.2013). Freedom House; (2012), “Freedom of the Press 2012”, http:// www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom- press-2012, (10.01.2013). Freedom House; (2013), Freedom in the World Comparative and Historical Data, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report- types/freedom-world, (10.01.2013). GCR; (2011), “The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012”,
  10. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.