Impact of Institutional Coherence on Macroeconomic Efficiency

Abstract

Kapitalizmin farklı formlarının içerisinde yeralan farklıörgütlenme biçimleri ve bu örgütlenme biçimlerinin meydana getirdiğiiktisadi kurumların iktisadi performans ve uluslararası rekabet gücüüzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi karsılastırmalı kurumsal üstünlükleryaklasımının temel tezidir. Neo – klasik okuldan farklı olarak kurumsalyapı analizini iktisadi çözümleme içerisine dahil eden karsılastırmalıüstünlükler yaklasımı kurumsal yapıyı ve örgütlenme biçimlerini temelçözümleme aracı olarak ele almaktadır. Bu kapsamda mercek altınaalının kapitalizmin heterojen yapısı ortaya çıkmakta, birbirinden çokçafarklı kurumsal yapıları barındıran kapitalizmin farklı formları dikkatiçekmektedir. Temel olarak iki farklı yapı, serbest piyasa ekonomileri veyönlendirilmis piyasa ekonomileri, kapitalist iktisadi sistemin içerisindeyeralan iki kutbu olusturmaktadır. Bu çalısmanın amacı Türkiye'yi veAvrupa Birliği'nin 15 ülkesini içeren örneklem kullanılarakKarsılastırmalı Kurumsal Üstünlükler hipotezinin test edilmesidir. Buamaca yönelik olarak, çalısmada faktör analizi ile, ülkeler kurumsalyapılarına göre sınıflandırılmakta ve kurumsal yapının iktisadiperformans etkisi rassal etki modeli kullanılarak ölçülmektedir. Eldeedilen sonuçlar Karsılastırmalı Kurumsal Üstünlükler tezini desteklerniteliktedir.Comparative Institutional Advantages theory mainly asserts thatthe varieties of capitalism, and the institutional coordination in differenteconomic models influences the economic performance of national economies. Contrary to the abstractions of the Classical and Neo-Classical theories, varieties of capitalism approach incorporates theinstitutional peculiarities of different economic models. Within thiscontext, heterogeneity of economic models of capitalism becomes thefocal point. Both, formal and non-formal modes of economiccoordination in national economies build up the institutional structures.According to the prevailing modes of economic coordinationembedded, two core division is made between the two forms ofcapitalism. They are Liberal Market Economies and CoordinatedMarket Economies. National economies are arrayed along these twoforms of capitalism. The primary objective of this paper is to test theComparative Institutional Advantages theory by using a sampleincluding Turkey and 15 members of the European Union. To this end,national economies are classified by employing factor analysis, and theimpact of institutional features on macroeconomic performance is testedby means of a random effect model. Findings of the empirical analysissupport the suggestions of the theory.IntroductionAn extensive literature on "Varieties of Capitalism" has focusedon the institutional variety among the industrialized nations. The mainargument of the Varieties of Capitalism literature relies on thecomparative institutional advantages hypothesis. The hypothesissuggests that, national economies with distinctive set of institutionalstructures and economic coordination construe comparative economicadvantages. A number of researches within this field demonstrates thatthere exists a statistically significant association between the degree ofeconomic coordination and macroeconomic performance (Bruno &Sachs, 1985; Calmfors & Driffil, 1986, Kenworthy 2006; .Primary objective of this research is to test the impact ofeconomic coordination and institutional coherence on internationalcompetitiveness. A special emphasis is put on Turkey by including tothe analysis, in order to develop policy implications. To this end, thepaper consists of three parts. First part is spared to the explanation ofthe Comparative Institutional Advantages theory, which constitutes thetheoretical background of the Varieties of Capitalism literature.Concepts of economic coordination, institutional coherence, andinstitutional embeddedness are presented on these grounds. Second partfocuses on the empirical investigation of the theory, using institutionalvariables to explain changes in the international competitiveness. Data290set and the methodology used are both introduced, and findings areinterpreted under this part. The final part presents further policyimplications inferred from the empirical investigation, and concludingremarks.