KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2

YÖNETİŞİM GÖSTERGELERİYLE DIŞ TİCARET ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNANCE INDICATORS AND FOREIGN TRADE: THE CASE OF OECD COUNTRIES

Abdullah Takım(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0187-8862
Müsemma Çökerdenoğlu(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2905-2974
Sayfa
1632–1651
Yayın Tarihi
2025-10-24
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Analiz sonuçları, yönetişimin altı bileşeninin her birinin hem ihracat hem de ithalat ile karşılıklı (çift yönlü) nedensellik ilişkisi içinde olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Yönetişim kavramı son yıllarda, ekonomik büyüme literatüründe önemli bir yer edinmiş, ekonomik performansın belirleyici unsurlarından biri olarak değerlendirilmiştir. 1990’lı yıllardan itibaren iyi yönetişim uygulamaları yalnızca bir kalkınma hedefi olarak benimsenmekle kalmamış, aynı zamanda ekonomik ve sosyal gelişmenin kurumsal altyapısını oluşturan temel unsurlardan biri haline gelmiştir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışmada, dış ticaret ile yönetişim göstergeleri arasındaki ilişkiyi OECD ülkeleri örneğinde analiz ederek, kurumsal yapıların ticaret performansı üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Analiz sonuçları, yönetişimin altı bileşeninin her birinin hem ihracat hem de ithalat ile karşılıklı (çift yönlü) nedensellik ilişkisi içinde olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2002-2022 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Yönetişim Göstergeleri · İhracat · İthalat

Özet

Yönetişim kavramı son yıllarda, ekonomik büyüme literatüründe önemli bir yer edinmiş, ekonomik performansın belirleyici unsurlarından biri olarak değerlendirilmiştir. 1990’lı yıllardan itibaren iyi yönetişim uygulamaları yalnızca bir kalkınma hedefi olarak benimsenmekle kalmamış, aynı zamanda ekonomik ve sosyal gelişmenin kurumsal altyapısını oluşturan temel unsurlardan biri haline gelmiştir. Bu doğrultuda, yönetişim kavramının ölçülebilir ve karşılaştırılabilir bir yapıya kavuşturulması ihtiyacı doğmuş, bu ihtiyaca yanıt olarak Dünya Bankası tarafından altı temel bileşenden oluşan Dünya Yönetişim Göstergeleri (WGI) geliştirilmiştir. Ekonomik büyümenin temel bileşenlerinden biri olan dış ticaret, ülkelerin üretim kapasitesini artırarak kalkınma süreçlerine önemli katkılar sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, dış ticaret ile yönetişim göstergeleri arasındaki ilişkiyi OECD ülkeleri örneğinde analiz ederek, kurumsal yapıların ticaret performansı üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada 37 OECD ülkesine ait 2002-2022 dönemine ilişkin yönetişim göstergeleri ile dış ticaret verileri kullanılmıştır. Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) panel nedensellik testi aracılığıyla, her bir dış ticaret göstergesi için altı yönetişim ölçütüne dayalı iki ayrı model oluşturulmuş ve bu modeller nedensellik ilişkisi çerçevesinde karşılıklı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, yönetişimin altı bileşeninin her birinin hem ihracat hem de ithalat ile karşılıklı (çift yönlü) nedensellik ilişkisi içinde olduğunu göstermektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, yönetişim kalitesinin ülkelerin dış ticaret performansını doğrudan etkilediğini, aynı zamanda ihracat ve ithalatın da yönetişim göstergeleri üzerinde karşılıklı ve belirleyici bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu sonuçlar, yönetişim ve dış ticaret arasında dinamik bir etkileşimin olduğunu, ekonomik faaliyetlerin yalnızca yönetişimden etkilenmekle kalmayıp aynı zamanda kurumsal yapıları da dönüştürebildiğini göstermektedir.

Abstract

In recent years, the concept of governance has gained significant prominence in the economic growth literature and has been regarded as one of the key determinants of economic performance. Since the 1990s, good governance practices have not only been adopted as a development goal but have also become one of the fundamental components forming the institutional foundation of economic and social development. In line with this, the need to render the concept of governance measurable and comparable has emerged in response to this need, the World Bank developed the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), which consist of six key components. As one of the essential components of economic growth, foreign trade contributes significantly to development processes by enhancing countries’ production capacities. This study aims to analyze the relationship between foreign trade and governance indicators within the context of OECD countries, with the objective of revealing the impact of institutional structures on trade performance. To this end, the study utilizes governance indicators and foreign trade data from 37 OECD countries covering the period from 2002 to 2022. Using the panel causality test developed by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012), two separate models were constructed for each foreign trade indicator based on six governance measures, and these models were analyzed to determine the existence and direction of csusality relationships. The results indicate that each of the six governance dimensions exhibits a bidirectional (two-way) causal relationship with both exports and imports. The findings reveal that while the quality of governance has a direct impact on foreign trade performance, exports and imports also exert a reciprocal and significant influence on governance indicators. These results point to a dynamic interaction between governance and foreign trade, whereby economic activities are not only shaped by governance structures but may also play a transformative role in shaping institutiional structures.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Takım, A., Çökerdenoğlu, M. (2025). YÖNETİŞİM GÖSTERGELERİYLE DIŞ TİCARET ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2, 1632–1651. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1660494

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (77)

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369
  2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J., & Thaicharoen, Y. (2003). Institutional causes, macroeconomic symptoms: Volatility, crises and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 49–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00208-8
  3. Ali, M. S. B., & Mdhillat, M. (2015). Does corruption impede international trade? New evidence from the EU and the MENA countries. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development, 36(4), 107–120. http://hdl.handle.net/10576/38667
  4. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369
  5. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J., & Thaicharoen, Y. (2003). Institutional causes, macroeconomic symptoms: Volatility, crises and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 49-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00208-8
  6. Álvarez, I. C., Barbero, J., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Zofío, J. L. (2018). Does institutional quality matter for trade? Institutional conditions in a sectoral trade framework. World Development, 103, 72-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.010
  7. Anderson, J., & Marcouiller, D. (2002). Insecurity and the pattern of trade: An empirical investigation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 342-352. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3211782
  8. Aryeetey, E., & Goldstein, M. (2000). Ghana: Social-policy reform in Africa. In Reforming social policy: Changing perspectives on sustainable human development. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA.
  9. Bah, M., Ondoa, H. A., & Kpognon, K. D. (2021). Effects of governance quality on exports in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Economics, 167, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2021.05.003
  10. Bahramian, P., & Saliminezhad, A. (2019). On the relationship between export and economic growth: A nonparametric causality-in-quantiles approach for Turkey. The Journal of International Trade Economic Development, 29(1), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2019.1648537
  11. Baltagi, B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Barro, R. J. (1996). Determinants of economic growth: A cross-country empirical study (No. 5698). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w5698
  13. Berden, K., Bergstrand, J. H., & Etten, E. (2014). Governance and globalization. The World Economy, 37(3), 353-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12135
  14. Berkowitz, D., Moenius, J., & Pistor, K. (2006). Trade, law, and product complexity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 363-373. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.2.363
  15. Bojnec, Š., Fertő, I., & Fogarasi, J. (2014). Quality of institutions and the BRIC countries' agro-food exports. China Agricultural Economic Review, 6(3), 379-394 https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-02-2013-0034
  16. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
  17. Butkiewicz, J. L., & Yanikkaya, H. (2006). Institutional quality and economic growth: Maintenance of the rule of law or democratic institutions, or both? Economic Modelling, 23(4), 648-661.
  18. Chang, H. (2007). Understanding the relationship between institutions and economic development: Some key theoretical issues. In H.-J. Chang (Ed.), Institutional change and economic development. United Nations University Press.
  19. Dampare, G. A., & Piesse, J. (2002). Financial development, political institutions, and economic growth in the ECOWAS sub-region: An empirical analysis. The Management Centre, King’s College London.
  20. Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade, and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 133-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00206-4
  21. Doyle, E. (2001). Export-output causality and the role of exports in Irish growth: 1950-1997. International Economic Journal, 15(3), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168730100000042
  22. Doğan, Z., & Kurt, Ü. (2016). Yeni kurumsal iktisadın dalları. Journal of life Economics, 3(1), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.15637/jlecon.118
  23. Dumitrescu, E., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
  24. Fallon, J., & Richard, H. (1997). The rule of law as a concept in constitutional discourse. Columbia Law Review, 97(1), 1-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123446
  25. Fosu, A. K. (2003). Political instability and export performance in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 39(4), 68-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/713869426
  26. Gallup, J. L., Sachs, J. D., & Mellinger, A. D. (1999). Geography and economic development. International Regional Science Review, 22(2), 179-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001799761012334
  27. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2009). Cultural biases in economic exchange? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1095-1131. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1095
  28. Güney, T. (2017). Hükümet etkinliği ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. International Review of Economics and Management, 5(4), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.335671
  29. Gyimah-Brempong, K., & Traynor, T. L. (1999). Political instability, investment, and economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African Economies, 8(1), 52-86. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/8.1.52
  30. Gylfason, T., Martínez‐Zarzoso, I., & Wijkman, P. M. (2015). Free trade agreements, institutions, and the exports of Eastern Partnership countries. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(6), 1214-1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12275
  31. Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355399555954
  32. Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. R. (1985). Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing returns, imperfect competition, and the international economy. MIT Press.
  33. Henisz, W. J. (2000). The institutional environment for multinational investment. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 16(2), 334-364. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/16.2.334
  34. Horsewood, N., & Voicu, A. M. (2012). Does corruption hinder trade for the new EU members? Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 6, 2012-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2012-47
  35. Julius, S., Azu, N. P., & Muhammad, M. Y. (2019). Assessing the impact of terrorism in trade development in the SADC region: A gravity model approach. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 9(10), 1147-1159. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr.2019.910.1147.1159
  36. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2002). Growth without governance. Economia, 3(1), 169-229.
  37. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2002). Growth without governance. World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper, 2928. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/19206
  38. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Governance and growth: Causality which way? – Evidence for the world, in brief. World Bank.
  39. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2004). Governance matters III: Governance indicators for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. The World Bank Economic Review, 18(2), 253-288. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/18134
  40. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2005). Governance matters IV: Governance indicators for 1996–2004. World Bank. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.718081
  41. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2006). Governance matters V: Aggregate and individual governance indicators for 1996–2005. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/265051468322155295
  42. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2006). The Worldwide Governance Indicators project: Answering the critics. World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/7203
  43. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2007). Governance matters VI: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2006. World Bank. https://ssrn.com/abstract=999979
  44. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2008). Governance matters VII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007. World Bank. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/6870
  45. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200046
  46. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1999). Aggregating governance indicators. World Bank. Kaufmann, Daniel and Kraay, Aart and Zoido, Pablo, Governance Matters (August 1999). https://ssrn.com/abstract=188568
  47. Levchenko, A. A. (2007). Institutional quality and international trade. The Review of Economic Studies, 74(3), 791-819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2007.00435.x
  48. Levent, A. (2016). Yönetişim ve yeni kurumsal iktisat. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 17-32.
  49. Lopez, L., & Weber, S. (2017). Testing for Granger causality in panel data. University of Neuchatel Institute of Economic Research, Irene Working Paper, 17(03), 1-12. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/191498
  50. Mădălina, R. (2015). Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Calea Dorobanţi, nr. 15-17, Bucharest, Romania. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01324-6
  51. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681-712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696
  52. Méndez-Picazo, M. T., Galindo-Martín, M. Á., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2012). Governance, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9-10), 865–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.742323
  53. Méon, P.-G., & Sekkat, K. (2004). Kurumların kalitesi MENA'nın dünya ekonomisine entegrasyonunu sınırlıyor mu? Dünya Ekonomisi, 27(9), 1475-1498.
  54. Méon, P.-G., & Sekkat, K. (2005). Does corruption grease or sand the wheels of growth? Public Choice, 122(1–2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-005-3988-0
  55. Mıra, R., & Hammadache, A. (2017). Good governance and economic growth: A contribution to the institutional debate about state failure in Middle East and North Africa. Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 11(3), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/25765949.2017.12023313
  56. Moschos, D. (1989). Export, expansion, growth and the level of economic development: An empirical analysis. Journal of Development Economics, 30, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(89)90052-7
  57. Naude, W. A. (2004). The effects of policy, institutions and geography on economic growth in Africa: An econometric study based on cross-section and panel data. Journal of International Development, 16, 821–849. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1129
  58. Nitsch, V., & Schumacher, D. (2004). Terrorism and international trade: An empirical investigation. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(2), 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2003.12.009
  59. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
  60. North, D., Acemoğlu, D., Fukuyama, F., & Rodrik, D. (2008). Governance, growth, and development decision making. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.
  61. Onafowora, O. A., & Owoye, O. (2024). Trade openness, governance quality, and economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean. International Economics, 179, 100527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2024.100527
  62. Özşahin, Ş., & Karaçor, Z. (2013). Ekonomik büyümenin belirleyicilerinden biri olarak beşeri sermaye: yükseköğrenimin türkiye ekonomisi için önemi, Niğde Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 6(1), 148-162.
  63. Panas, E., & Vamvoukas, G. (2002). Further evidence on the export-led growth hypothesis. Applied Economics Letters, 9, 731-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850210126840
  64. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic test for cross-section dependence in panel. IZA Discussion Paper, 1240, 1-39.
  65. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  66. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  67. Rodrik, D. (Ed.). (2003). In search of prosperity: Analytic narratives on economic growth. Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1r2fkg.1
  68. Rosenberg, N., & Birdzell, L. (1986). How the West grew rich: The economic transformation of the industrial world. Basic Books.
  69. Saha, Ş., & Ben Ali, M. S. (2017). Corruption and economic development: New evidence from the Middle Eastern and North African countries. Economic Analysis and Policy, 54, 83-95. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2903583
  70. Smith, A. (2007). The wealth of nations: An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (J. B. Wight, Ed.). Harriman House Limited
  71. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106
  72. Temple, J. (1999). The new growth evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(1), 112-156. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.37.1.112
  73. Thomas, M. (2010). What do the worldwide governance indicators measure? European Journal of Development Research, 22, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2009.32
  74. World Bank. (1994). Governance: The World Bank's experience. Washington DC: World Bank.
  75. Word Bank Worldwide. (2024). Governance Indicators. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators
  76. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2018). Panel veri ekonometrisi: Stata uygulamalı. Beta Yayınları.
  77. Yu, S., Beugelsdijk, S., & de Haan, J. (2015). Trade, trust and the rule of law. European Journal of Political Economy, 37, 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.11.003