SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1

Institutional Quality and Economic Growth: Panel Causality Analysis

Kurumsal Kalite ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Panel Nedensellik Analizi

Cengiz AYTUN
Cemil Serhat AKIN
Pages
89–100
Publication Date
2014-06-01
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)

According to the results, a causality relation for the low income group doesn't exist.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to analyze the relation between the institutional quality and economic growth via panel data analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data from 83 countries was analyzed for four income groups by covering the years as 2000-2010.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, a causality relation for the low income group doesn't exist.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000-2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal Kalite · Ekonomik Büyüme · Panel Nedensellik Analizi

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the relation between the institutional quality and economic growth via panel data analysis. The data from 83 countries was analyzed for four income groups by covering the years as 2000-2010. Apart from the previous studies, this application takes into consideration income groups of countries. According to the results, a causality relation for the low income group doesn't exist. On the other hand, one way causality relation exists from institutional quality towards economic growth in middle income groups, and bidirectional causality exists for high income group. In this respect, these results show that institutional quality policies which sustain economic growth could be effective apart from low level income groups.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı kurumsal kalite ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin panel veri analizi ile araştırılmasıdır. 83 ülkeye ait veriler, dört gelir grubu için 2000-2010 yıllarını kapsayacak şekilde analiz edilmiştir. Önceki çalışmalardan farklı olarak uygulama, ülkelerin gelir gruplarını göz önünde bulundurmaktadır. Sonuçlara göre alt gelir gurubunda nedensellik ilişkisi bulunmamaktadır. Orta gelir gruplarında kurumsal kaliteden ekonomik büyümeye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi bulunurken, yüksek gelir grubunda nedensellik her iki yönde bulunmaktadır. Bu açıdan bulgular ekonomik büyümeyi sağlayacak kurumsal kalite politikalarının düşük gelir grubu haricinde etkili olacağına işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYTUN, C., AKIN, C. S. (2014). Institutional Quality and Economic Growth: Panel Causality Analysis. Çukurova Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1, 89–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/828154

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Arellano, M., & S, Bond. 1991. Some tests of speciŞcation for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies 58: 277–297.
  2. Ayal, E.B. & Karras, G. 1998. Components of Economic Freedom and Growth: An Empirical Study, The Journal of Developing Areas, 32 (3): 327-338.
  3. Baltagi, B. H. 2005. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (3rd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Barro, R.J. 1991. Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106: 407–443.
  4. Barro, R.J. 1994. Democracy and growth. NBER Working Paper No. 4909, NBER. Blundell, R.,&Bond, S. 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.
  5. Burkhart, R. E., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. 1994. Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis. American Political Science Review, 88 (4): 903–10.
  6. Carlsson, F.& S. Lundström, 2002. Economic Freedom and Growth: Decomposing the Effects, Public Choice, 112: 335-344.
  7. Chong, A., & Calderón, C. 2000. Causality and Feedback between Institutional Measures and Economic Growth. Economics and Politics, 12 (1): 69–81.
  8. Claque, C., Keefer, O., Knack, S. & Olsen, M. 1996. Property and Contract Rights in Autocracies and Democracies. Journal of Economic Growth 1(2):243-276.
  9. Dawson, J. W. 2003. Causality in the Freedom-Growth Relationship, European Journal of Political Economy 19(3): 479-495.
  10. Eggertsson, T. 1990. Economic Behavior and Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Farr, W. K., Lord, R.A. & Wolfenbarger, J.L. 1998,
  12. Economic Freedom, Political Freedom, and Economic Well-Being: A Causality Analysis. The Cato Journal, 18(2): 247-62.
  13. Granger, C. W. J. 1969. Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438.
  14. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., & Hall, J., 2012. Economic Freedom Dataset, published in Economic Freedom of the World: 2012 Annual Report. Fraser Institude. [Data file], Retrieved from http://www.freetheworld.com/2012/EFWdataset2012.xls (Erişim Tarihi, 03 Şubat 2013).
  15. Helliwell, J. F. 1994. Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth. British Journal of Political Science, 24 (2): 225–48.
  16. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.
  17. Islam, S., 1996,
  18. Economic Freedom, Per Capita Income and Economic Growth, Applied Economic Letters, 3: 595-597.
  19. Jha, R., 2005, Macr