TÜRKİYE’DE DEMOKRATİK AVANTAJ ARGÜMANININ İNCELENMESİ

Devlet borçlarına ilişkin göstergeler çeşitli faktörlerden etkilenmektedir. Bu anlamda devlet borçları, ekonomik, mali ve politik faktörlerden etkilenmektedir. Develet borçlanma göstergelerini etkileyen faktörlerden bir tanesi ise demokrasidir. Demokrasinin devlet borçlarının önemli bir açıklayıcısı olduğuna ilişkin temel savlar ise ancak 1990’lı yıllarda ortaya atılmıştır. Bunlardan bir tanesi ise demokratik avantaj argümanıdır. Demokrasinin birtakım borç göstergelerinin önemli bir belirleyicisi olduğunu savunan demokratik avantaj argümanına göre, demokrasideki artış borç göstergelerini güçlendirmektedir. Bu argümana göre, demokrasideki artış, borçlanma maliyetlerini, temerrüt ve kriz olasılığını ve borçlanma düzeyini düşürmektedir. Demokratik avantaj argümanının Türkiye için geçerliliğini söylemsel bir yöntemle sınayan bu çalışmanın sonucuna göre, demokrasideki artış, borçlanma maliyetlerini, temerrüt ve kriz olasılığını ve borçlanma düzeyini azaltmaktadır. Çalışmada, elde edilen söz konusu sonuçlara göre birtakım politika önerileri sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Demokratik Avantaj, Demokrasi, Devlet Borçları, Türkiye

INVESTIGATION OF DEMOCRATIC ADVANTAGE ARGUMENT IN TURKEY

Indicators related to government debt are affected by various factors. In this sense, government debts are affected by economic, economic and political factors. One of the factors affecting government debt indicators is democracy. The basic arguments that democracy is an important explanatory of government debts were made only in the 1990s. One of them is the argument for democratic advantage. According to the argument of democratic advantage, which argues that democracy is an important determinant of some debt indicators, the increase in democracy strengthens debt indicators. According to this argument, the increase in democracy reduces borrowing costs, probability of default and crisis, and borrowing level. According to the results of this study which test the validity of a democratic advantage argument for Turkey, the increase in democracy, reduces borrowing costs, the probability of default and borrowing level. In the study, some policy suggestions are presented according to the relevant results obtained.

PDF

___

Abbas, S. M., Belhocine, N., ElGanainy, A. A. ve Horton, M. (2010). A Historical Public Debt Data-base. IMF Working Papers, No. WP/10/245
Ajodah, M. J. (2014). Pay Back: Examining the Effect of Political Instability on The Probability of Sovereign Default. The Journal of Politics and International Affairs, 15, 8-34.
Archer, C. C., Biglaiser, G. ve DeRouen, K. (2007). Sovereign Bonds and the “Democratic Ad-vantage”: Does Regime Type Affect Credit Rating Agency Ratings in The Developing World? International Organization, 61(2), 341-365.
Balkan, E. M. (1992). Political Instability, Country Risk and Probability of Default. Applied Econom-ics, 24(9), 999-1008.
Ballard-Rosa, C., Mosley, L. ve Wellhausen, R. (2016). The Political Economy of Sovereign Debt Is-sues. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Beaulieu, E., Cox, G. W. ve Saiegh, S. (2012). Sovereign Debt and Regime Type: Reconsidering the Democratic Advantage. International Organization, 66(4), 709-738.
Biglaiser, G. ve Staats, J. L. (2012). Finding The “Democratic Advantage” in Sovereign Bond Ratings: The Importance of Strong Courts, Property Rights Protection, and The Rule Of Law. International Organization, 66(3), 515-535.
Bittencourt, M. (2019). Young Democracies and Government Debt: Evidence from South Ameri-ca. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 22(4), 351-368.
BoC-BoE Sovereign Default Database (2019). BoC-BoE Sovereign Default Database. Erişim Adresi: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2019/the-boc-boe-sovereign-default-database-whats-new-in-2019 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2019).
Bougharriou, N., Benayed, W. ve Gabsi, F. B. (2018). How Does Democracy Affect Public Debt? Evi-dence from the Arab World. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2018-54.
Brewer, T. L. ve Rivoli, P. (1990). Politics and Perceived Country Creditworthiness in International Banking. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 22(3), 357-369.
Center for Economic Peace (2019). Polity IV Annual Time-Series, 1800-2018. Erişim Adresi: http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html (Erişim Tarihi:15.01.2020).
Dhillon, A., Pickering, A. ve Sjöström, T. (2019). Sovereign Debt: Election Concerns and the Demo-cratic Disadvantage. Oxford Economic Papers, 71(2), 320-343.
Dhillon, A. ve Sjostrom, T. (2009). Leader Reputation and Default in Sovereign Debt. Warwick Eco-nomic Research Papers, No. 886.
DiGiuseppe, M. ve Shea, P. E. (2015). Sovereign Credit and the Fate of Leaders: Reassessing the “Democratic Advantage”. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 557-570.
Dimitriosi, K. (2011). Determinant of National Debt: Evidence from the Greek Economy in the Last Decade. Journal of Economic and Research, 2(5), 22-32.
Eisl, A. (2017). Explaining Variation in Public Debt: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effects of Govern-ance. MaxPo Discussion Paper, No. 17/1.
Enderlein, H., Müller, L. ve Trebesch, C. (2012). Democracies Default Differently: Regime Type and Debt Crisis Resolution. Unpublished manuscript, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.
Gargouri, I. ve Keantini, M. (2016). The Determinants of Public Debt. The Romanian Economic Journal, XVIII (59), 111-124.
Gasiorowski, M. J. (2000). Democracy and Macroeconomic Performance in Underdeveloped Countries: An Empirical Analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 33(3), 319-349.
Glaurdić, J., Lesschaeve, C. ve Vizek, M. (2019). Consolidated Democracy Advantage: Political In-stability and Sovereign Spreads in the EU. Comparative European Politics, 1-23.
IMF (2020). Historical Public Debt Database. Erişim Adresi: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/DEBT1@DEBT/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/TUR (Erişim Tarihi:20.02.2020).
Jensen, N. M. (2003). Democratic Governance and Multinational Corporations: Political Regimes and Inflows of Foreign Direct Investment. International organization, 57(3), 587-616.
Kim, Y. K. ve O’Neill, D. C. (2017). Transparent Motives: Democratic Advantage in International Credit Markets. Journal of International Relations and Development, 20(1), 108-132.
McGillivray, F. ve Smith, A. (2003). Who Can Be Trusted? Sovereign Debt and the Impact Of Lead-ership Change. Department of Politics New York University Working Paper.
North, D. C. ve Weingast, B. (1989). Constitutions and Commitment. The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England. Journal of Economic History, 49(4), 803-832.
Roos, J. (2019). Why Not Default? The Political Economy of Sovereign Debt. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Saiegh, S. (2005a). Can Democracy prevent default? Mimeo Dept of Political Science: University of Pittsburgh.
Saiegh, S. M. (2005b). Do Countries Have A “Democratic Advantage”? Political Institutions, Multi-lateral Agencies, and Sovereign Borrowing. Comparative Political Studies, 38(4), 366-387.
Schultz, K. A. ve Weingast, B. R. (2003). The Democratic Advantage: Institutional Foundations of Financial Power in International Competition. International Organization, 57(1), 3-42.
Swamy, V. (2015). Government Debt and Its Macroeconomic Determinants–An Empirical Investiga-tion. MPRA Paper, No. 64106.
Tomz, M. (2002). Democratic Default: Domestic Audiences and Compliance with International Agreements. Mimeo: Stanford University.
Van Rijckeghem, C. ve Weder, B. (2009). Political Institutions and Debt Crises. Public Choice, 138(3-4), 387.
World Bank (2020). J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Spread (EMBI+). Erişim Adresi: https:// databank. worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=1179&series=EMBIG# (Erişim Tari-hi:18.02.2020).