Ekrem ERDEM, M. Fatih İLGÜN

5129

MALİ DİSİPLİN ÜZERİNDE POLİTİK FAKTÖRLERİN ETKİSİ: AZ GELİŞMİŞ VE GELİŞMEKTE OLAN ÜLKELERE YÖNELİK UYGULAMALI BİR ANALİZ

İkinci dünya savaşı sonrası ekonomik kalkınma ve refah devleti amaçları doğrultusunda artan bütçe açıkları sonucunda, mali disiplindeki bozulma hem gelişmiş hem gelişmekte olan ülkelerin çoğunda kalıcı hale gelmiştir. Benzer gelişmişlik düzeyine sahip ülkelerde kamu mali dengesinde gözlemlenen farklılaşma sadece mali hedefler ve makroekonomik şoklarla açıklanamamakta, bunlara ilave olarak, politik faktörlerin de etkili olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Buradan hareketle, çalışmanın amacı, az gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde politik faktörlerin kamu mali dengesi üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesidir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda 1985-2012 yılları arasında 49 az gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülke için politik faktörleri temsil eden 14 değişkenin kamu borç stoku üzerindeki etkisi panel GMM yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar yönetim biçimi, politik istikrar ile meclis ve hükümet yapısı şeklinde gruplandırılabilecek politik faktörlerinden 11 tanesinin kamu borç stoku üzerinde anlamlı etkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir. 
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Politik Fak, Mali Disiplin, Kamu Borç Stoku, Panel GMM

THE EFFECT OF POLITICAL FACTORS ON FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE: AN APPLIED ANALYSIS OF LOWEST ADVANCED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY

The deterioration in fiscal discipline has become more permanent in the majority of developed and developing countries, as a result of increasing budget deficits in the direction of economic development and welfare state purposes after the Second World War. It is understood that the differentiation observed in fiscal balance in countries with similar development levels is not only explained by fiscal targets and macroeconomic shocks, but also political factors are influential. Hence, the aim of the study is to examine the impact of political factors on the fiscal balance in underdeveloped and developing countries. In accordance with this purpose, the effect of 14 variables representing political factors on public debt stock is analyzed by panel GMM method for a sample of 49 underdeveloped and developing countries over the period of 1985-2012. The results show that 11 of the political factors -which can be grouped into the regime, political stability, structure of parliament and government- have a significant effect on the public debt stock. Political Factors; Fiscal Discipline; Public Debt Stock; Panel GMM  
Keywords:

Political Factors, Fiscal Discipline, Public Debt Stock, Panel GMM,

PDF

___

  • Acosta, A. M., & Coppedge, M. (2001). Political determinants of fiscal discipline in Latin America, 1979-1998. In International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Marriot Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, DC.
  • Agnello, L., & Sousa, R. M. (2013). Political, institutional, and economic factors underlying deficit volatility. Review of International Economics, 21(4): 719-732.
  • Alesina, A. & Drazen, A. (1991). Why are stabilizations delayed? American Economic Review 81 (December): 1170–1188.
  • Alesina, A., G. D. Cohen & Roubini N. (1992). Macroeconomic policy and elections in OECD democracies. Economics & Politics 4(1): 1-30.
  • Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1994). The political economy of budget deficits. NBER Working Paper Series No. 4637.
  • Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1995). Fiscal expansions and adjustments in OECD countries. Economic policy, 10(21): 205-248.
  • Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G. (1990). A positive theory of fiscal deficits and government debt. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(3): 403-414.
  • Alt, J. E., & Lassen, D. D. (2006). Transparency, political polarization, and political budget cycles in OECD countries. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3): 530-550.
  • Arellano, M. & Bond S. (1991). Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations, Review of Economic Studies 58:277–97.
  • Barro, R. (1979). On the determination of public debt. Journal of Political Economy 87: 240– 271.
  • Brender, A., & Drazen, A. (2005). Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. Journal of monetary Economics, 52(7): 1271-1295.
  • Buchanan, J.M. 1958. Public principles of public debt. Homewood, (Ill. Baskı): Richard D. Irwin.
  • Cukierman, A. & Meltzer A. (1989). A Political Theory of government debt and deficits in a neo-Ricardian frameworks. American Economic Review, 79: 713-33.
  • De Haan, J., & Sturm, J. E. (1994). Political and institutional determinants of fiscal policy in the European Community. Public Choice, 80(1-2): 157-172.
  • De Haan, J., & Sturm, J. E. (1997). Political and economic determinants of OECD budget deficits and government expenditures: A reinvestigation. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(4): 739-750.
  • Drazen, A. (2001). The political business cycle after 25 years. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, Volume 15: 75-138.
  • Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Methuen & Co.
  • Fatás, A. & Mihov I. (20039. The Case for Restricting Fiscal Policy Discretion. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118:1419–47.
  • Franzese, R. J. (2001). The positive political economy of public debt: an empirical examination of the OECD postwar experience. Workshop on Political Economy, The Eitan Berglas School of Economics, 30-31 January.
  • Freitag, M., & Sciarini, P. (2001). The Political Economy of Budget Deficits in the European Union The Role of International Constraints and Domestic Structure. European Union Politics, 2(2): 163-189.
  • Güvel, E. A., & Koç, A. G. A. (2010). Bütçe Açıklarının Politik Ve Kurumsal Belirleyicileri: Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2): 286-301.
  • Grilli, V., Masciandaro, D., & Tabellini, G. (1991). Political and monetary institutions and public financial policies in the industrial countries. Economic policy, 6(13), 341-392.
  • Hagen, J. von (1991). A note on the empirical effectiveness of formal fiscal restraints. Journal of Public Economics 44: 99-110.
  • Hibbs, D. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review 71: 1467-1487.
  • Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey W., & Harvey S. R. (1988). Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data. Econometrica 56:1371–95.
  • Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 115(1): 53-74.
  • Kramer, G. (1971). Short-term fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior, 1896-1964. American Political Science Review 65: 131-143.
  • Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization: the case of Brazil. Stanford University Press.
  • Nickell, Stephen J., (1981). “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects,” Econometrica, 49:1417–26.
  • Nordhaus, V. (1975). The Political Business Cycle. Review of Economic Studies, 42: 169-190.
  • Persson, T. ve Svensson, L. (1989), "Why a stubborn conservative would run a deficit: Policy with time-inconsistent preferences", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104: 325-346.
  • Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (1999). The size and scope of government:: Comparative politics with rational politicians. European Economic Review, 43(4): 699-735.
  • Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. E. (2003). Do electoral cycles differ across political systems?. Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research.
  • Rae, Douglas (1968), "A Note on the Fractionalization of Some European Party Systems", Comparative Political Studies, 1: 413-418.
  • Rogoff, K. (1990). Equilibrium political budget cycles. American Economic Review 80: 21- 36.
  • Romer, D. (2012). Advanced Macroeconomics, Fourth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Roodman, D. (2006). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Center for Global Development Working Paper Number 103.
  • Roubini, N. ve Sachs, J.D. 1989. “Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrial Democracies”. European Economic Review 33: 903-933.
  • Schaltegger, C. A., & Torgler, B. (2007). Government accountability and fiscal discipline: A panel analysis using Swiss data. Journal of Public Economics, 91(1): 117-140.
  • Shi, M., & Svensson, J. (2006). Political budget cycles: Do they differ across countries and why?. Journal of public economics, 90(8): 1367-1389.
  • Sorensen, B. E., Wu L. & Yosha O. (2001). Output Fluctuations and Fiscal Policy: U.S. State and Local Governments 1978–1994. European Economic Review 45:1271–310.
  • Strom, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289.
  • Tabellini, G. and Alesina, A. (1990), "Voting on the budget deficit”, American Economic Review, 80: 37-49.
  • Tavares, J. (2004). Does right or left matter? Cabinets, credibility and fiscal adjustments. Journal of Public Economics, 88(12): 2447-2468.
  • Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British journal of political science, 25(03): 289-325.
  • Tsebelis, G., & Chang, E. C. (2004). Veto players and the structure of budgets in advanced industrialized countries. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3): 449-476.
  • Volkerink, B., & De Haan, J. (2001). Fragmented government effects on fiscal policy: New evidence. Public choice, 109(3-4): 221-242.
  • Yay, T. (1997). İktisat Metodolojisinde Gelişmeler Üzerine Düşünceler. İktisat Dergisi, 365: 47-55.
  • Weingast, B. R., Shepsle, K. A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. The Journal of Political Economy, 642-664.
  • Woo, J. (2003). Economic, political, and institutional determinants of public deficits. Journal of Public Economics, 87(3): 387-426.
İstanbul İktisat Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2602-4152
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1939
  • Yayıncı: İstanbul Üniversitesi
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

TÜRKİYE’DE FİNANSALLAŞMANIN EMEK PAYI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ ÜSTÜNE BİR DENEME

Halil TUNALI, Onur ÖZDEMİR

ÇEVREYE DUYARLI BÜTÇELEME SİSTEMİ: BOLOGNA ÖRNEĞİ

Erkan KILIÇER

MALİ DİSİPLİN ÜZERİNDE POLİTİK FAKTÖRLERİN ETKİSİ: AZ GELİŞMİŞ VE GELİŞMEKTE OLAN ÜLKELERE YÖNELİK UYGULAMALI BİR ANALİZ

Ekrem ERDEM, M. Fatih İLGÜN

AVERAGE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES OF TURKEY IN EU ACCESSION PROCESS

Başak TANINMIŞ YÜCEMEMİŞ, Kazım Okan EROL

HİBRİT İŞ ÖZELLİKLERİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE MAVİ YAKALI ÇALIŞANLARIN İŞ MOTİVASYONU VE İSRAFIN ÖNLENEREK KAYNAKLARIN VERİMLİ KULLANILMASI

Levent ÇİNKO, Tayfun UTAŞ