Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1

Socio-economic analysis of corruption: A survey in aegean region

Yolsuzluğun sosyo-ekonomik analizi: Ege bölgesi anket çalışması

Pages
105–122
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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 of analysis, the perception of corruption level of sampling unit is very high.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Corruption, accepted as a serious problem especially for developing countries, is defined as abusing public force and public sources for gaining private benefit.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Since it is impossible to confirm the level of corruption on the basis of official data, countries’ corruption levels are determined by measuring the perception of corruption.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of analysis, the perception of corruption level of sampling unit is very high.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Corruption, accepted as a serious problem especially for developing countries, is defined as abusing public force and public sources for gaining private benefit. Since it is impossible to confirm the level of corruption on the basis of official data, countries’ corruption levels are determined by measuring the perception of corruption. This paper consists of a survey on taxpayers which is conducted in Aegean Region and empirical analysis of this data which is implemented for determining the perception of corruption level and basic determinants of this perception, accompanied by theoretical framework. According to the results of analysis, the perception of corruption level of sampling unit is very high. The most evident factors which affect this perception are public expenditures, tax burden, institutional quality, level of democracy, tax morale and perception of political government, transparency and current legal penalties.

Özet

dayanarak tespit etmenin mümkün olmaması nedeniyle, ülkelerin yolsuzluk düzeyleri algı ölçümleri ile belirlenmektedir. Bu çalışma, teorik bilgiler eşliğinde, yolsuzluk algısını ve bu algıya etki eden temel faktörleri belirlemek amacıyla vergi mükellefleri üzerinde Ege Bölgesi’nde gerçekleştirilen bir anket çalışmasından elde edilen verilerin analizinden oluşmaktadır. Yapılan analizlerde, örnek kitlenin yolsuzluk algısı bir hayli yüksek bulunmuştur. Bu algıya etki eden faktörler içinde kamusal harcamalar, vergi yükü, kurumsal kalite, demokrasi düzeyi, vergi ahlakı, siyasal iktidarın algılanma şekli, şeffaflık ve yürürlükteki cezalar en belirgin olanlarıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİR, İ. C. (2022). Socio-economic analysis of corruption: A survey in aegean region. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1, 105–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/430484

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. AKÇAY, Selçuk. (2001), Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Yolsuzlukların Ekonomik Analizi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Afyon. ALTUĞ, E. Figen, ÇAK, Murat, ŞEKER, Murat ve BİNGÖL, Önder. (2009), Yerel Yönetimlerde Hizmetlerden Memnuniyet ve Yolsuzluklar, İstanbul Araştırması, İstanbul:
  2. İSMMMO Yayını, No.121. ASIEDU, Elizabeth. (2004), “Policy Reform and Foreign Direct Investment to Africa: Absolute Progress but Relative Decline”, Development Policy Review, 22(1), 41-48.
  3. BAŞAR, Selim. (2004), “Yolsuzlukların Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Üzerindeki Etkileri”, İktisat-İşletme ve Finans, 19 (222), 66-76.
  4. BERKMAN, Ümit. (1983), Az Gelişmiş Ülkelerde Kamu Yönetiminde Yolsuzluk ve Rüşvet, Ankara:
  5. TODAİE Yayını. BRAITHWAİTE, Valerie and AHMED, Eliza. (2005), “A Threat to Tax Morale: The Case of Australian Higher Education Policy”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 523–540.
  6. ÇELEN, Mustafa. (2007), Yolsuzluk Ekonomisi: Kamusal Bir Kötülük Olarak Yolsuzluğun Ekonomik Analizi. İstanbul:
  7. İSMMMO Yayını, No. 77. DEL MONTE, Alfredo and PAPAGNI, Erasmo. (2001), “Public Expenditure, Corruption and Economic Growth: The Case of Italy”, European Journal of Political Economy, 17, 1-16.
  8. DEMİRTAŞ, Gökhan ve AKÇAY, Selçuk. (2006), “Kurumsal Faktörlerin Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Üzerine Etkisi: Ampirik Bir Kanıt”, Gazi Üniversitesi, İİBF Dergisi, 8 (2), 15-33.
  9. DIAMOND, Larry and PLATTNER, M. F. (1993),
  10. The Global Resurgence of Democracy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Pres. DUBIN, Jeffrey A., GRAETZ, Michael J. and WILDE, Louis L. (1990), “The Effect of Audit Rates on the Federal Individual Income Tax: 1977-1986”, National Tax Journal, 43 (4), 395-409.
  11. GELİR İDARESİ BAŞKANLIĞI (2008), İstatistikler. http://www.gib.gov.tr/fileadmin/user_upload/ VI/AIGMS/2008/TABLO_2.xls.htm (Erişim: 21/01/2010).
  12. HILLMAN, Arye L. (2004), “Corruption and Public Finance: An IMF Perspective”, European Journal of Polical Economy, 20, 1067-1077.
  13. JOHNSTON, Michael. (1998), “Fighting Systemic Corruption: Social Foundations for Institutional Reform”, M. Robinson (Ed.), Corruption and Development, London: Frank Cass Publisher.
  14. KAUFMANN, Daniel, KRAAY, Aart and MASTRUZZI, Massimo. (2007), “Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996-2006”, Washington DC: Policy Research Working Paper Series, No. 4280, World Bank. KUGLER, Maurice, VERDIER, Thierry and ZENOU, Yves. (2005), “Organized Crime, Corruption and Punishment” Journal of