Journals / TİSK Akademi / 2012 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 13

Democracy and trade: the case of OECD and MENA countries

Demokrasi ve dış ticaret: OECD ve MENA ülkeleri örneği

Pages
198–219
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)

According to the results from augmented gravity analysis, democracy affects the bilateral trades between countries to a large extend.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Economic effects of democracy have been the major topic the scientists have been discussing for a long time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We consider that this discussion aroused again after 1980s in which globalization and liberalization efforts came to the agenda.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results from augmented gravity analysis, democracy affects the bilateral trades between countries to a large extend.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Economic effects of democracy have been the major topic the scientists have been discussing for a long time. We consider that this discussion aroused again after 1980s in which globalization and liberalization efforts came to the agenda. The discussion specifically focused on the effects of democracy on the trade between the countries and globalization. However, there is no consensus on the direction and the degree of the effects of democracy on foreign trade and globalization. This study analyses democracy and foreign trade relationship for OECD and MENA countries. In this study, using augmented gravity model, the relationship between foreign trade and democracy analyzed for OECD and MENA countries for the period of 1997-2006. According to the results from augmented gravity analysis, democracy affects the bilateral trades between countries to a large extend. JEL Classification: P50, F13, F14, C23

Özet

Demokrasinin ekonomik etkileri uzun zamandan beri araştırmacıların tartıştığı konuların başında gelmektedir. Küreselleşme ve liberalleşme faaliyetlerinin hız kazandığı 1980’li yıllardan sonra ise bu tartışmanın yeniden alevlendiğini görmekteyiz. Tartışma özellikle, demokrasinin ülkeler arasındaki ticaret ve küreselleşmeye olan etkilerine odaklanmıştır. Ancak demokrasinin dış ticaret ve küreselleşme üzerindeki etkilerinin yönü ve derecesi konusunda henüz bir mutabakatın sağlanamadığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışma, demokrasi ve dış ticaret ilişkisini OECD ve MENA ülkeleri için analiz etmektedir. Genişletilmiş çekim modelinin kullanıldığı çalışmada, OECD ve MENA ülkeleri için dış ticaret ve demokrasi ilişkisi 1997- 2006 dönemi için test edilmiştir. Genişletilmiş çekim modeli analizi sonucuna göre; demokrasi, ülkeler arasındaki ikili ticareti önemli ölçüde etkilemektedir. JEL Sınıflaması: P50, F13, F14, C23

🔖

Cite This Article

KALAYCI, C., ADTAN, S. (2012). Democracy and trade: the case of OECD and MENA countries. TİSK Akademi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 13, 198–219. https://ajindex.com/articles/364598

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Adam, A. ve Filippaios, F. (2007). Foreign Direct Investment and Civil Liberties: A New Perspective. European Journal of Political Economy. 23, 1038-1052
  2. Blanchard, O. ve Shleifer, A. (2000). Federalism With and Without Political Centralization; China Versus Russia. NBER Working Paper. No. 7616 Clague, C. ve Diğerleri. (1996). Property and Contract Rights in Autocracies and Democracies. Journal of Economic Growth. 1, 243-76
  3. Cordova, J.E.L. ve Meissner, C.M. (2005). The Globalization of Trade and Democracy. 1870-2000. NBER Working Paper. No:11117 Easton, S.T. ve Walker, M.A. (1997).
  4. Income, Growth, and Economic Freedom. American Economic Review. 87, 328-332
  5. Decker, J.H. ve Lim, J.J. (2009). Democracy and Trade: An Empirical Study. Economics of Governance. 10, 165-186
  6. De Haan, J. ve Sturm, J.E. (2000). On the Relationship between Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. European Journal of Political Economy. 16, 215-241
  7. Doucouliagos, H. ve Ulubaşoğlu, M. (2006). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis. School Working Paper Economic Series 2006. SWP 2006/04 Drury, A.C., Krieckhaus, J. ve Lusztig, M. (2006).
  8. Corruption, Democracy and Economic Growth. International Political Science Review. 27(2), 121-136 EIU. Democracy Index 2010: Democracy in Retreat. A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit. 20 fiubat 2011 tarihinde http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_ Index_2010_web.pdf adresinden erişildi. Fidrmuc, J. (2002).
  9. Economic Reform, Democracy and Growth During Post Communist Transition. European Journal of Political Economy. 19, 583-604 Freedom House. The Freedom in the World 16 Eylül 2010 tarihinde www.freedomhouse. org/template.cfm?page= 351&ana_page=363&year=2010 adresinden erişildi. Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2011: The Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy. 13 Kasım 2011 tarihinde http://www.freedomhouse. org/images/File/fiw/historical/ CountryStatus RatingsOverview1973-2011.pdf adresinden erişildi. Haggard, S. (1997). Democratic Institutions and Economic Policy. In Christopher Clague (ed.). Institutions and Economic Development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 16 Eylül 2010 tarihinde http://www.systemicpeace. org/inscr/p4v2009.xls adresinden erişildi. IMF. Direction of Trade Statistics. 20.05.2010 tarihinde http://www.imfstatistics. org/dot adresinden erişildi. Lipset, S.M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy. American Political Science Review. 53, 69-105
  10. Marshall, M.G. ve Cole, B.R. (2009). Global Report 2009: Conflict,