Affiliation:
1. MARDİN ARTUKLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Abstract
Studies on institutions, which are one of the main determinants of economic growth, have been increasing intensively in recent years. In this context, despite many empirical and theoretical studies on the relationship between democracy and economic growth, there is no consensus about the effect of democracy on economic growth. This study analyzes the relationship between democracy and economic growth for MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey) countries. Firstly, the cross-sectional dependence was examined in the study for the 1973–2021 period. The second generation panel unit root test (Pesaran CADF (2007)) was chosen because of the cross-sectional dependence among the series. The stationarity of the variables at I(1) is ensured. Having determined the cointegration relationship (Westerlund Durbin-H test (2008)) between the series, the Panel CCE estimator was used to estimate the cointegration coefficients. Kónya causality test was used for the causality between democracy and economic growth. It is found that an increase in the level of democracy boosts the economic growth. It is suggested that the MIST nations continue to undertake policies targeted at establishing democratic institutions that contribute to economic progress.
Reference77 articles.
1. Acaravcı, A., Bozkurt, C., & Erdoğan, S. (2015). “Democracy-Economic Growth Nexus in MENA Countries”, Journal of Business and Economics Studies, 3(4), 119-129.
2. Acemoglu, D.,& Robinson, J. A. (2000a). “Political losers as a barrier to economic development”, American Economic Review, 90(2), 126-130.
3. Acemoglu, D.,& Robinson, J. A. (2000b). “Why did the West extend the franchise? Democracy, inequality, and growth in historical perspective”, The quarterly journal of economics, 115(4), 1167-1199.
4. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2000c). “Democratization or repression?” European Economic Review, 44(4-6), 683-693.
5. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2000d). “Political losers as a barrier to economic development”, American Economic Review, 90(2), 126-130.