DEMOKRATİKLEŞME DÜZEYİ VE SOSYO-EKONOMİK GELİŞME İLİŞKİSİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Demokrasi kavramına dair iki farklı yaklaşım, minimalist ve maksimalist yaklaşımlar, demokrasilerin niteliğini belirlemede önemli bir ayırım olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Minimalist demokrasi yaklaşımı, demokrasi kavramının biçimsel yönünü esas almaktadır. Maksimalist yaklaşım ise demokrasiyi daha geniş bir çerçevede, niteliksel boyutlarıyla ve demokrasinin özüne ilişkin değerlerle ele almaktadır. Birçok ülke demokrasi ile yönetilmesine rağmen, demokratikleşme düzeyi ve demokrasilerinin niteliği açısından aralarında farklılıklar görülür. Biçimsel anlamda, sadece prosedürel olarak işleyen demokrasilerin yanında, demokrasinin esasını teşkil eden asli değerleriyle birlikte işleyen nitelikli demokratik rejimler de vardır. Demokrasi yazınında demokrasinin niteliği kavramı ile kastedilen, özgürlük, eşitlik ve katılım gibi ilkelerinin hayata geçirilmiş olması, yönetimin halkı temsil edilebilme düzeyi, hesap verebilirlik ve halkın taleplerine duyarlı olunmasıdır. Öte yandan, sosyal ve ekonomik yönden daha gelişmiş ülkelerin demokratikleşme açısından az gelişmiş ülkelere göre daha avantajlı bir konuma sahip oldukları ifade edilmektedir. Dolayısıyla sosyal ve ekonomik gelişmişlik düzeyi, demokratikleşme düzeyine etki eder iken aynı zamanda demokratikleşme düzeyi de sosyal ve ekonomik gelişme düzeyi üzerinde etkili olabilmektedir. Demokratikleşme ile sosyo-ekonomik gelişme ilişkisi üzerine farklı görüşler ileri sürülmüştür. Bu yaklaşımlardan biri de Modernleşme kuramıdır. Modernleşme kuramı, demokratikleşme ile sosyo-ekonomik gelişme arasında karşılıklı ilişkinin var olduğunu iddia etmektedir. Demokratikleşme ile kalkınma ilişkisini anlamaya dönük çabalar modernleşme kuramını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Demokrasinin tüm ilke ve kurumlarıyla bir ülkede uygulanması, sosyal ve ekonomik koşulları hem etkilemekte ve hem de bu koşullardan etkilenmektedir. Bu çalışma, OECD ülkelerinde 2002-2017 döneminde demokratikleşme düzeyi ile sosyo-ekonomik gelişme arasındaki ilişkileri incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışmada, Pedroni panel eşbütünleşme testi, panel sıradan en küçük kareler tahmin yöntemi ve panel Granger nedensellik test ekonometrik yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, OECD ülkelerinde demokratikleşme düzeyi sosyo-ekonomik gelişmeyi hem etkilemekte hem de sosyo-ekonomik gelişmeden etkilenmektedir.

DEMOCRATICIZATION LEVEL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP: AN EXAMINATION ON OECD COUNTRIES

Two different approaches to the concept of democracy, minimalist and maximalist approaches have emerged as an important distinction in determining the quality of democracies. The minimalist approach to democracy is based on the formal aspect of the concept of democracy. The maximalist approach, on the other hand, deals with democracy in a broader context, with its qualitative dimensions and with values related to the essence of democracy. Although many countries are governed by democracy, there are differences in the level of democratization and the quality of their democracies. In formal terms, there are not only procedural democracies but also qualified democratic regimes that function together with the essential values of democracy. The concept of the quality of democracy in the literature of democracy means that the principles such as freedom, equality and participation have been implemented, the level of representation of the public, accountability and sensitivity to the demands of the public. On the other hand, it is stated that socially and economically more developed countries have a more advantageous position in terms of democratization compared to less developed countries. Therefore, while the level of social and economic development affects the level of democratization, the level of democratization can also affect the level of social and economic development. Different views have been put forward on relationship between democratization and socio-economic development. One of these approaches is Modernization theory. Modernization theory argues that there is a mutual relationship between democratization and social and economic development. Efforts to understand relationship between democratization and development have revealed of modernization theory. It affects both social and economic conditions and is affected by these conditions implementation of democracy in a country with all its principles and institutions. This study aimed to examine relationship between democratization and social and economic development in OECD countries during the period 2002-2017. Pedroni panel cointegration test, panel ordinary least squares estimation method and panel Granger causality test econometric methods were applied in the study. The findings show that democratization level both affects social and economic development and is affected by socio-economic development in OECD countries.

PDF

___

Almond, G. ve Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Amir-ud-Din, R., Rashid, A. ve Ahmad, S. (2008). "Democracy, Inequality and Economic Development: The Case of Pakistan". MPRA Paper No. 26935. https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/26935/ . (erişim tarihi: 03.06.2019)
Baryshnikova, N. D. ve Wihardja, M. M. (2011). "The Effect of Inequality, Democracy and Economic Development on Institutions: A Dynamic Panel Study". http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1655401/Institutions_UWA.pdf . (erişim tarihi: 04.06.2019)
Bauer, P.T. (1981). Equality, The Third World And Economic Delusion. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Begović, B., Mladenović, Z. ve Popović, D. (2017). "Democracy, Financial Development, and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis". CLDS Working Paper #0317, http://www.clds.rs/newsite/Democracy%20financial%20intermediation%20and%20economic %20growth%20WP0317.pdf . (erişim tarihi: 03.05.2019)
Bollen, A. K. (1979). "Political Democracy and The Timing of Development". American Sociological Rewiew, 4(44): 572-587.
Bollen, K. A. ve Pamela, P. (2000). “Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy”. Comparative Political Studies. 33(1):58-86.
Boudriga, A. ve Ghardallou, W. (2012). "Democracy and Financial development: Does the Institutional Quality Matter" https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3193/129d17a4f170277b42323 bc4f772a54207e3.pdf. (erişim tarihi: 20.05.2019)
Coleman, J.S. (1960). “Conclusion”. G.A. Almond and J.S. Coleman (Eds.). The Politics Of The Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Collier, D. ve Levitsky, S. (1997). “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research”. World Politics. 49(3):430-451.
Cutright, P. (1963). "National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis". American Sociological Review. 28: 253–264.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. (2010). Demokrasi Üstüne. Betül Kadıoğlu (Çev.). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
Diamond, L. (1992). “Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered”. American Behavioral Scientist. 4/5(35): 450-499.
Diamond, L., Linz, J. ve Lipset M. L. (1995). “Introduction: What Makes for Democracy?”. Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset (Eds.). Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 1-66. Dünya Bankası (2019). İnternet Veri Tabanı. https://data.worldbank.org/ (erişim tarihi: 25.04.2019)
Başkaya, Fikret. (2001). Kalkınma İktisadının Yükselişi ve Düşüşü. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
Ghardallou, W. ve Boudriga, A. (2014). "Financial Development and Democracy is the Relationship NonLinear?". The Economic Research Forum (ERF) Working Paper Series. No: 886.
Heshmati, A. ve Kim, N. (2017). “The Relationship Between Economic Growth and Democracy: Alternative Representations of Technological Change”. IZA Institute Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series No: 10880.
Heywood, A. (2011). Siyaset. Bekir B. Özipek (Çev.). Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
Huang, Y. (2010). "Political Institutions and Financial Development: An Empirical Study". World Development. 12(38): 1667-1677.
Huntington, S.P. (1984). "Will More Countries Become Democratic?". Political Science Quarterly. 99: 193–218.
Huntington, S. P. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman ve London: University of Oklahoma Press.
Inglehart, R. ve Welzel, C. (2009) “How Development Leads to Democracy: What We Know About Modernization”. Foreign Affairs. 2(88): 33-48.
Kalaycıoğlu, E. (1995). “Türkiye’de Siyasal Kültür ve Demokrasi”, Ergun Özbudun, Ersin Kalaycıoğlu ve Levent Köker (Der.). Türkiye’de Demokratik Siyasal Kültür, Ankara: TDV.
Kubicek, P. (2003). “International Norms, the European Union, and Democratization, Tentative Theory and Evidence”. Paul Kubicek (Eds.). The European Union and Democratization. London: Routledge. 1-29.
Landman, T. (1999). "Economic Development and Democracy: The View From Latin America". Political Studies. 4(47): 607-626.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (2011). "Democratic Quality in Stable Democracies". Society. 48(1): 17–18.
Lipset, S. M. (1959) “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy”. American Political Science Association. 1(53): 69-105.
Lipset, S. M. (1960) Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Gardencity NY: Doubleday.
Mandon, P. ve Mathonnat, C. (2015) "Forms of Democracies and Financial Development, Etudes et Documents". CERDI. no 21. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01196108/document. (erişim tarihi: 11.05.2019)
Miletkov, M. ve Wintoki, M. B. (2009) “Legal Institutions, Democracy and Financial Sector Development”. M. Hirschey, K. John, A.K. Makhija (Eds.). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 171-196.
Moore, B. (1966). Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.
Moore, B. (2003). Diktatörlüğün ve Demokrasinin Toplumsal Kökenleri. Alaattin Şenel (Çev.). Ankara: İmge Yayınları.
Morlino, L. ve Diamond, L. (2004). “The Quality of Democracy, An Overwiev”. Journal of Democracy. 15(4):20-31.
Morlino, L. (2011). “Analysing Democratic Qualities”. Change for Democracy Actors, Structure, Processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 191–222.
Nosier, S. ve El-karamani, A. (2018). "The Indirect Effect of Democracy on Economic Growth in the MENA Region (1990-2015)". Economies. 6(61).
O'Donnell, G.A. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Owusu-Sekyere, E. ve Jonas, S. (2017). "Does Democracy Enhance Economic Growth? The case of Anglophone West Africa". African Journal of Public Affairs. 6(9): 50-58.
Plümper, T. ve Martin, C. W. (2003) “Democracy, Government Spending and Economic Growth: A Political-Economic Explanation of the Barro-effect”. Public Choice. 1-2(117): 27-50.
Pourgerami, A. 1988. The Political Economy of Development: A Cross-National Causality Test Of Development-Democracy-Growth Hypothesis. Public Choice. 58(2):123–141.
Przeworski, A., ve Limongi, F. (1997). "Modernization: Theories and Facts". World Politics. 49(2):155-183.
Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, J. D. ve Stephens, E. H. (1992). Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rustow, D.A. (1970). "Transitions to democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model". Comparative Politics. 2: 337–367.
Schedler, A. (1999). “Conceptualizing Accountability”. Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (Eds.). The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 13-28.
Schmitter P. C. ve Karl, T.L. (1991). “What Democracy Is… and Is Not”. Journal of Democracy. 2(3):75-88.
Schmitter, P. C. ve Guilhot, N. (2000). “From Transition to Consolidation. Extending the Concept of Democratization and the Practice of Democracy”. Michel Dobry (Eds.). Democratic and Capitalist Transitions in Eastern Europe Lessons for the Social Sciences. London: Kluwert Academic Publishers. 131-46.
Schumpeter, J. (1970). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin Tilly, C. (2014). Demokrasi. Ebru Arıcan (Çev.). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
UNDP (2018) “İnsani Gelişme Endeksi ve Endikatörleri: 2018 İstatistik Güncellemesi”, http://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/library/human_development/_nsani-geli_meendeksleri-ve-goestergeleri--2018-statistiksel-gue.html. 14 Eylül 2018 (erişim 05.06.2019).
Usul, A. R. (2008) “Demokratikleşme Çalışmalarının Serüveni: Endişe, Coşku ve Kötümserlik”. Serap Yazıcı, Kemal Gözler, Fuat Keyman (Eds.). Prof. Dr. Ergun Özbudun’a Armağan Cilt 1. Ankara: Yetkin Basımevi. 477-495.
Yardımcıoğlu, F. (2013). "Eğitim ve Sağlık İlişkisi: Panel Eşbütünleşme ve Panel Nedensellik Analizi". Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 1(9): 49-74.
Zghidi, N. (2017). "Do Political Stability and Democracy Increase National Growth? Evidence from African Countries Using the GMM Method". Journal of Global Economics. 1(5): 1-5.
Zouhaier, H. ve Karim, K. M. (2012). "Democracy, Investment and Economic Growth". International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues. 3(2): 233-240.

ISSN: 2667-5617
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 6 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2006
Yayıncı: ASOS Eğitim Bilişim Danışmanlık Otomasyon Yayıncılık Reklam Sanayi ve Ticaret LTD ŞTİ