نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد، مرکز تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

2 استاد اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصاد، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران

3 کارشناس ارشد اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصاد، دانشگاه الزهرا،تهران، ایران

چکیده

تنوع فعالیت­های اقتصادی از یک سو و نقش رو به افزایش دولت­ها در جهت گسترش خدمات عمومی، تأمین اجتماعی، تعهدات دولت در عرصه­های اقتصادی و اجتماعی و تلاش در جهت تحقق رشد اقتصادی و توزیع عادلانه درآمد، نقش مولفه­های نهادی را به مسئله­ای مهم و تأثیرگذار تبدیل کرده است.
 از آنجا که براساس دیدگاه اقتصاددانان نهادگرا، ضعف ساختار و عملکرد نهادها یکی از دلایل توسعه‌نیافتگی است، این پژوهش با هدف بررسی نقش اندازه دولت در تأثیر متغیرهای نهادی شاخص کیفیت حکمرانی، آزادی اقتصادی و تسهیلات اعطایی بخش خصوصی بر توزیع­ درآمد کشورهای منتخب طی دوره 2015-2004 انجام شده است.
 الگوسازی داده­ها براساس روش رگرسیون آستانه­ای انجام شده است که نسبت به سایر
روش­های تخمین، برآوردهای سازگارتری ارائه می­نماید
. در ادامه با استفاده از آزمون ریشه واحد لوین لین چو نسبت به تعیین مانایی داده­ها اقدام گردید. نتایج آزمون نشان می­دهد که در طی دوره پژوهش متغیرهای حکمرانی خوب، تسهیلات اعطایی به بخش خصوصی و ضریب جینی در سطح مانا و متغیرهای اندازه دولت و آزادی اقتصادی با یک­بار تفاضل­گیری مانا می­شوند.
به منظور برآورد مدل با استفاده از آزمون رگرسیون آستانه­ای، با توجه به اینکه برای تصریح یک الگوی غیرخطی، ابتدا تصریح مدل خطی جهت ایجاد یک الگوی پایه برای آزمون کردن فرضیه خطی بودن مدل انجام می­شود. مدل خطی حداقل مربعات تعمیم یافته عملی در چارچوب آزمون­های تشخیصی (خودهمبستگی، ناهمسانی واریانس و داشتن توزیع نرمال)، آزمون ­F لیمر و آزمون هاسمن به صورت رگرسیون­های پنل دیتا با اثرات ثابت زمانی تخمین زده شده است. براساس نتایج بدست آمده، آزمون تصریح الگوی رمزی رضایت بخش نیست که نشان­دهنده خطای تصریح مدل خطی می­باشد که نتیجه مذکور این احتمال را تقویت می­کند که رابطه غیرخطی به الگوی واقعی نزدیک­تر می­باشد.
برآورد مدل رگرسیون آستانه­ای، با استفاده از سطوح آستانه­ای محاسبه شده و آزمون­های­ اثر آستانه­ای انجام شده صورت گرفته است. مقادیر سطوح آستانه­ای بدست آمده برای متغیر اندازه دولت 85/7 و 16/8 می­باشد. سطوح آستانه­ای بدست آمده نشان می­دهد زمانی که اندازه دولت به 85/7درصد می­رسد تابع توزیع درآمدی دچار شکست شده و نحوه اثر متغیرهای الگو بر میزان توزیع درآمد تغییر می­کند. درمرحله بعد جستجو برای یافتن آستانه دوم نشان می­دهد که وقتی اندازه دولت 16/8 درصد است، بار دیگر نحوه تأثیر متغیرهای آزادی اقتصادی، تسهیلات اعطایی بخش خصوصی و حکمرانی خوب بر توزیع درآمد تغییر می­کند.
همچنین با توجه به این‌که براساس آزمون­ اثر آستانه­ای مقادیر آستانه معنی‌دار می­باشند، تأثیر ضرایب به‌دست‌آمده در مدل متأثر از مقادیر آستانه‌ای به‌دست آمده می‌باشد. تحلیل نتایج بدست آمده از برآورد مدل رگرسیون آستانه­ای حاکی از آن است که در رژیم دولت بزرگ متغیرهای شاخص کیفیت حکمرانی و آزادی اقتصادی بیشترین تاثیر منفی معنی­دار و تسهیلات اعطایی بخش خصوصی تأثیر مثبت معنی­دار بر توزیع درآمد دارند.
یافته‌های این تحقیق، لزوم برنامه‌ریزی و جهت‌گیری اصولی در کشورهای منتخب را در راستای بهبود شاخص­های اندازه دولت، حکمرانی خوب و آزادی اقتصادی، تنظیم مقررات، افزایش کارایی و اثربخشی و حمایت از بخش خصوصی را تأیید می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the role of government size in the impact of institutional variables on income distribution in selected countries

نویسندگان [English]

  • ali khajeh mohammad lou 1
  • Mehdi Pedram 2
  • Behnaz Mehrjoo 3

1 Ph.D. Student in Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, tehran payamnour University, tehran, iran

2 Professor of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Al-Zahra University, Tehran, Iran

3 M.A in Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Al-Zahra University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The diversity of economic activities on the one hand and the increasing role of governments to expand public services, social security, economic and social obligations of the state in an effort to achieve economic growth and the equitable distribution of income on the other hand, has transformed the role of institutional components into an important and influential issue.
Since institutional economists believe the weakness of the structure and function of institutions is one of the causes of underdevelopment, this study aimed to investigate the effect of the institutional variables of the governance quality index, economic freedom and facilities granted by banks to the private sector on the distribution of income from 2004-2015.
Data modeling was performed based on the threshold regression method, which yields more consistent estimates compared with other estimation methods. Later, data stationary was examined using the Levine Lin Cho unit root test. The results show that during the research period, the variables of good governance, facilities given to the private sector and the Gini coefficient are stationary at level, and the variables of government size and economic freedom are stationary in the first differences.
In order to estimate the model by using the threshold regression test, considering that in order to specify a nonlinear model, in the first step the linear model should be specified to create a basic model to test the hypothesis that the model is linear.
The linear model of feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) has been estimated in the framework of diagnostic tests (correlation, heteroscedasticity, and normal distribution), F Limmer test, and Hausman test as panel data regressions with fixed effects.
According to the results, the Ramsey test to model specification is not satisfactory, indicating the error of specifying the linear model, which reinforces the possibility that the nonlinear relation is closer to the actual model. The estimation of the threshold regression model has been calculated By using threshold levels, and threshold effect tests.
The values of the threshold levels obtained for the government size variable are 7.85 and 8.16. The obtained threshold levels show that when government size reaches 7.85%, the income distribution function fails and the effect of model variables on income distribution varies.
In the next step, the search for the second threshold shows that when the size of the government is 8.16 percent, the way in which the variables of economic freedom, private sector facilities and good governance affect the distribution of income changes again.
Also, due to the fact that according to the threshold effect test, threshold values are significant, the effect of the coefficients obtained in the model is affected by the threshold values obtained.
Analysis of the results obtained from the estimate of the threshold regression model shows that in the regime of the big government, the variables of the index of quality of governance and economic freedom have the most significant negative effect and the private sector facilities have a significant positive effect on income distribution.
The findings of this study confirm the necessity of planning and orientation in the countries under study in order to improve indicators of government size, good governance and economic freedom, regulations, efficiency and effectiveness, and support for the private sector.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Institutional factors
  • Government Size
  • Income Distribution
  • Threshold regression

Abdellatif, A. M. (2003). Good governance and its relationship to democracy and economic development. In Global Forum III on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity, Seoul. 20, 31-40. ##Akbari, N., Farahmand, S., & Jamali, S. (2011). Spatial analysis of the effect of government fiscal policies on income inequality in Iran (GWR Approach). Journal of Quantitative Economics,8(3), 1-29. in Persian. ##Akram, Z., Wajid, S., Mahmood, T., & Sarwar, S. (2011). Impact of poor governance and income inequality of poverty in Pakistan. Far East Journal of Psychology and Business, 4(3), 43-55.‏ ##Askari, M,. (2010). The impact of oil revenues on the creation of a rentier government and democracy. Journal of Political Science, 13, 197-181. In Persian. ##Baradaranshoraka , H., & MalekSadati, S. (2008). Governance Quality s Asia Development Key. Journal of Strategy,42(13), 359-383. in Persian. ##Bashiri, A., & Shaghaghi Shahri, V.  (2011). Good Governance Corruption and Economic Growth An economic approach to good governance. Journal of  Business Reviews, 48 (1), 69-81. in Persian. ##Carter, J.R. (2006). A note on economic freedom and income inequality, Public Choice, 130, 163–177. ##Cameron, D. (1978). The Expansion of the Public Economy: a Comparative Analysis, American Political Science Review, 72.1243-1261. ##-D’Onofrio, A., & Murro, P. (2013). Local banking development and income distribution across Italian provinces. Italian Economic Journal, 4(3), 58-71. ##Gani, A., & Duncan, R. (2004). Fiji’s governance index, paper presented to the Fiji Update, organized by the Australian National University and the University of the South Pacific, University of the South Pacific, Suva.1-39. ##Graafland, J., & Lous, B. (2018). Economic freedom, income inequality and life satisfaction in OECD countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(7), 2071-2093. ##Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty?. Economics of governance, 3(1), 23-45. ##Hilaire, H. G. (2016). Does good governance improve public health expenditure-health outcomes nexus? New empirical evidence from Africa. Faculté des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion (FASEG), 1, 1-24. ##Hoseini, S., & Najafi, S. (2009). Income Distribution in Rural and Urban Areas of Iran (1363-1386). Agricultural Economics Research, 1(3), 147-165. In Persian. ##Jalali Naeini, A.R., & Ghaffari, M. (2015). Experimental study of the effect of institutional quality on inequality. Journal of Planning and Budgeting, 20(3), 163-145. in Persion. ##Jasbi, J., & Nafri, N. (2009). Designing a Good Governance Model Based on Open System Theory, Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 4 (16), 117-85. In Persian. ##Kabiri, A,. (2010). Sociological explanation of good governance  (PhD thesis), Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modarres University. In Persian. ##Kar, S., & Saha, S. (2012). Corruption, shadow economy and income inequality: evidence from Asia.‏ Discussion Paper. IZA DP, 7106, 1-34. ##Kaufmann, D., & Institution, B. (2010). The Worldwide Goverance Indicators.Policy research working paper, world bank, 5430, 2-28##Khosroabad, M., Zayanderoody,  M., & Shakibaee, A.( 2016). The Effect of Good Governance Indicators on Income Inequality Selected Countries Southwest Asia and the Countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Social Welfare Quarterly; 16 (61),159-185. In Persian. ##Kigongo-bukenya, I. M. N., & kaddu, S. (2010). Enhancing democracy and good governance: A curriculum proposal for information and knowledge management professionals in the SCECSAL region. Library review, 60(5),362-369. ##Kotera, G., Okada, K., & Samreth, S. (2012). Government size, democracy, and corruption: An empirical investigation. Economic Modelling, 29(6), 2340-2348. ##Maidari, A., & Khairkhahian, J,. (2004). A comparative study of the theory of good governance with the teachings and manners of Imam Ali's government. In the collection of articles on the Quality Management Index of the Development Foundation, the Office of Economic Studies of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.479-517. In Persian. ##Malinen, T. (2016). Does income inequality contribute to credit cycles?. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 14(3), 309-325. ##Mehdiloo, A., Sadeghi, H., Assari Arani, A. (2015). Estimation of Non-Linearity Effect of Rent-Seeking Opportunities on Economic Growth in Iran: Using Markov-Switching Model. Quarterly Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research, 5(18), 30-11. In Persian. ##Mohammadzadeh, Y., Hekmati Farid, S., & Sharifi, E. (2017). The Effect of Government Size on Good Governance and Economic Performance of Selected Countries. Quarterly Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research, 7(26), 97-112. In Persian.  . ##‏Moore, B. (1966). “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy”. Boston: Beacon Press. ##Naderi, M.M (2011). Good governance, brief introduction and critique of Islam. Journal of Management research, 1, 94-69. In Persian. ##Nematnejad, k,. (2015). The effect of quality regulation on income distribution in the group of high-income countries. Conference Paper, International Conference on Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering. In Persian. ##Ranjbar, Homayoun; Samati, Morteza; Farahbakhsh, Maryam and Mohseni, Fazilat (2012). Analysis of the relationship between oil revenues and quality and economic growth (a case study of OPEC member countries). Conference Paper, The first regional conference on national production, labor protection and Iranian capital. Islamic Azad University, Bandar Gaz Branch. In Persian. ##Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). “Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform.Cambridge University Press. ##Sardarnia, Kh. (2009). The Effect of Social Capital on Good Governance, Journal of Economic and Political Information, 23 (260) 132-145. In Persian. ##Sameti, M., Ranjbar, H., & Mohseni, F. (2012). The Effect of Good Governance Indicators on Human Development Index: the Case of ASEAN Countries. Quarterly Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research, 1(4), 223-183. ##Sepehrdoust, H., Rajabi, F., & Barooti, M. (2015). The Impact of Good Governance on Income Performance of Tax System. Quarterly Journal of Applied Theories of Economics, 2(2), 103-126. In Persian. ##- Shakibaei, A., Khosrowabadi, M., & Zayandeh Rudi, M. (2016), The Effect of Good Governance Indicators on Income Inequality Selected Countries Southwest Asia and the Countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Social Welfare Quarterly, 16( 61), 159-185. In Persian. ##Shafique, S., Haq, R., & Arif, G. M. (2006). Governance and  Inequality [with Comments]. The Pakistan Development Review, 751-760.‏ ##Shahabadi, A., Amiri, B., & Sarigol, S. (2016). Institutions and Income Equality (Case Study: Selected Non-Aligned Movement Countries). Economics Research, 16(61), 155-179. In Persian. ##- Shahabadi, A., & Pourjavan, A. (2010). Governance, Competitiveness and Economic Growth in Selected Countries. Journal of Development Strategy, 2 (22), 168-129. In Persian. ##- Shalizi, Z. (Ed.). (2003).ustainable development in a dynamic world: transforming institutions, growth, and quality of life (Vol. 25). World Bank Publications. ##-Stowe, K. (1992). Good piano won't play bad music: administrative reform and good governance. Public Administration, 70(3), 387-394.‏ ##-Sulaiman, N. F. C., Yussof, I., Zaidi, M. A. S., & Sulaiman, N. (2017). Long Run Relationship between Income Inequality and Economic Growth: Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(6), 2222-6990. ##-World Bank (2002). World development report: Building institutions for Markets. UK: Oxford University Press. p. 303. ##