Araştırma Makalesi

DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2018.30.0010   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2018.30.0010    Tam Metin (PDF)

Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği

Burcu KuzörenHamza ÇeştepeHüseyin İçen

Gelişmişlik düzeyi ne olursa olsun bütün ülkelerin gerçekleştirmek istediği temel amaçlardan biri olan ekonomik büyümenin kaynakları doğrudan ve dolaylı kaynaklar olarak ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Emek, fiziki sermaye ve doğal kaynaklar gibi doğrudan kaynaklar yanında beşeri sermaye ve kurumlar gibi dolaylı kaynakların da büyüme üzerinde etkili olduğu ifade edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada, beşeri sermaye ve kurumların birlikte ekonomik büyüme üzerinde nasıl bir etkiye sahip olduğu Türkiye örneğinde ampirik olarak incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla 1960-2014 dönemi verileri kullanılarak ARDL sınır testi yapılmıştır. Beşeri sermayenin göstergesi olarak okullaşma oranı, kurumların göstergesi olarak da politik özgürlükler endeksinin kullanıldığı çalışmada, iki değişkenin birlikte büyüme üzerinde pozitif bir etkiye sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Başka bir ifadeyle, Türkiye’de politik özgürlüklerin iyi olduğu dönemlerde beşeri sermayenin ekonomik büyümeyi olumlu etkilediği söylenebilir. Bu bağlamda, Türkiye’de beşeri sermaye ve kurumların niteliğinin artırılmasına yönelik politikalar belirlenmeli ve planlı bir şekilde uygulamaya geçirilmelidir.

JEL Classification : C32 , J24 , O43
DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2018.30.0010   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2018.30.0010    Tam Metin (PDF)

The Effect of Institutions and Human Capital on Economic Growth: The Case of Turkey

Burcu KuzörenHamza ÇeştepeHüseyin İçen

Regardless of the level of development, the sources of economic growth, which is one of the main objectives of all countries, are divided into two as direct and indirect sources. It is stated that indirect resources such as human capital and institutions affect the growth as well as direct resources such as labor, physical capital and natural resources. In this study, human capital and institutions that have an impact on how economic growth in Turkey’s case was examined empirically. For this purpose, ARDL bounds test was performed by using the data of 1960-2014 period. In this study, the schooling rate is used as an indicator of human capital and the index of political freedoms is used as an indicator of institutions. In other words, It can be said; human capital positively affects economic growth in Turkey when political freedoms are good. In this context, policies to improve the quality of human capital and institutions in Turkey should be identified and put into practice in a structured way.

JEL Classification : C32 , J24 , O43


Regardless of the level of their development, economic growth is one of the main goals that all countries wish to achieve. Classical production factors such as physical capital, labor and natural resources, which were considered sufficient in previous periods for economic growth, have become insufficient due to the acceleration of information and technology production along with the globalizing world. It has been stated by many economists that the factors such as geography, culture, human capital and institutions are effective as new sources in addition to the classical factors mentioned in the countries’ economic growth in unlimited competition environment. The formation of knowledge, which has become the most fundamental production factor today, is strongly dependent on human capital. On the other hand, institutions are the set of rules and restrictions that shape the interaction between people. Therefore, it is assumed that institutions affect knowledge formation both directly and indirectly through human capital. In short, institutions make significant contributions to human capital accumulation, and human capital accumulation has a positive impact on the performance of economies by accelerating technology and product growth. Institutions include written elements and unwritten factors such as family, firm, education, customs, traditions and customs as well. Institutions constitute the basis of social structure. Institutions are among the priority concepts in explaining the growth differences between countries. Institutional economists argue that good and strong institutions have positive effects on national economies while they emphasize that bad and weak institutions affect growth negatively. Poor and weak institutions hamper the growth and development of countries causing instability on investments and the economics of the country. Good and powerful institutions accelerate technological developments and information transfer processes; it also strengthens investment, production and social relations; it promotes social welfare by providing the development of human and physical capital. There are many studies investigating the relationship between human capitalgrowth and institutions-growth in the literature. These studies, which have emerged since the early 1990s, have concluded that human capital and institutional factors in general have had a positive impact on countries’ economic growth. However, there are not many studies examining the effects of human capital and institutions, which are among the indirect sources of growth, on growth together. In the studies, it has been generally observed that panel data or cross-sectional data analysis have been performed for many countries. This study differs from the studies mentioned since it investigates the impact of human capital and institutions jointly on the economic growth in Turkey sample. In the study, the impact of institutions and human capital on economic growth in Turkey has been analyzed using annual data for the period covering the years 1960-2014. In the model, consumption (public and private) expenditures, capital stock, interaction of human capital (schooling rate) and political freedoms index have been used as independent variables while Real GDP has been used as the dependent variable. Considering that human capital is not independent of institutions, human capital and political freedoms index variables have interactively included in the model in multiplicative form. In the empirical analysis, firstly the stationarity of the variables has been tested with the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) Unit Root Test. According to the results of ADF unit root test, it has been determined that the series are not stationary in all cases with constant, constant and trend, constant and no trend. When the first differences of the series have been taken, it was observed that the series became stationary. After the stationarity test, the relationship between related variables has been analyzed by using ARDL bounds test approach developed by Pesaran et al. (2001). ARDL bounds test is a method which has an advantage in testing cointegration when the variables are I(0) or I(1). This method has better performance in small samples than traditional cointegration approaches. In addition, this approach allows estimation of long run and short run coefficients simultaneously. According to the F statistic value obtained from this test, it has been determined that there is a cointegration relationship between the variables. CUSUM and CUSUMQ tests examine structural breaks of variables have been used to investigate the long-term dynamic stability of the results obtained from the ARDL model using the squares of the reversible error term. When the CUSUM graph has been examined, it has been concluded that there is no structural break in the variables used at the 5% significance level and long-term coefficients calculated under the ARDL bounds test are stable. When the error correction term is analyzed, it has been seen that the error correction mechanism works. The error correction term has been found negative and significant in accordance with the expectation. According to the results of empirical analysis, consumption expenditures and capital stock growth positively affect economic growth in Turkey for the mentioned period. In addition, in the study it has been found that the variables of human capital and institutional factors, whose effect on economic growth are considered to be essential, together have a positive effect on growth. This result is consistent with the results of previous studies Barro (1994) and Dias and Tebaldi (2012). In this context, policies aiming to increase the quality of human capital and institutions must be determined and implemented in a planned manner in Turkey. In particular, more effective legal arrangements and practices in many areas such as the prevention of corruption in the institutional sphere, the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms, and property rights are needed. In addition, necessary investments should be made to create qualified human capital accumulation and long-term and contemporary policies should be implemented in order to improve the education system which is the main source of this factor. Finally, it should be mentioned that this is the first study examining the impact of human capital and institutions together on economic growth in Turkey. In this context empirical findings are limited. Further research using different methods and variables is needed.

PDF Görünüm


  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical ınvestigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. google scholar
  • Acemoğlu, D., & Robinson, J. (2008). The Role of Institutions in Growth and Development. World Bank Working Paper No.10. google scholar
  • Arslan, Ü. (2011). Siyasi istikrarsızlık ve ekonomik performans: Türkiye örneği. Ege Akademik Bakış. 11(1), 73–80. google scholar
  • Artan, S. ve Hayaloğlu, P. (2014). Kurumsal yapı ve iktisadi büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 22(2), 347–366. google scholar
  • Bakırtaş, D. ve Aysu, A. (2017). Kurumsal yaklaşım perspektifinden inovasyon ve yenilikçi kamu alımları. Sosyoekonomi, 25(31), 127–147. google scholar
  • Barro, R. J. (1994). Democracy and growth., 98(5), NBER Working Paper, No.4909. google scholar
  • Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. W. (1993). ınternational comparisons of educational attainment. NBER Working Paper No. 4349. google scholar
  • Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. W. (2010). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950-2010. NBER Working Papers, No.15902. google scholar
  • Chi, W. (2008). The role of human capital in china’s economic development: A review and new evidence. China Economic Review, 19, 421–436. google scholar
  • Coe, D.T. ve Helpman, E., (1995). European Economic Review. 39(5) pp. 859-887. google scholar
  • Coe, D. T., Helpman, E., & Hoffmaister, A. W. (2009). International R&D spillovers and ınstitutions. European Economic Review, 53, 723–741. google scholar
  • Çalışkan, Ş., Karabacak, M. ve Meçik, O. (2013). Türkiye’de eğitim-ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: 1923-2011 (Kantitatif Bir Yaklaşım). Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(21), 29–48. google scholar
  • Dawson, J. (2013). Causality in the freedom-growth relationship. European Journal of Political Economy,19(3), 479–495. google scholar
  • Dias, J., & Tebaldi, E. (2012). Institutions, human capital, and growth: The ınstitutional mechanism. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 300–312. google scholar
  • Doğan, S., ve Bozkurt, H. Y. (2003). Eğitim ve iktisadi büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye için kointegrasyon analizi. II. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı. Derbent-İzmit, 17-18 Mayıs. google scholar
  • Freire-Seren, M. J. (2001). Human capital accumulation and economic growth. UFAE and IAE Working Papers, No. 435.99 google scholar
  • Hartwing, J. (2014). Testing the Uzawa-Lucas model with OECD Data. Research in Economics, 68, 144–156. google scholar
  • Ismihan, M., & Metin Ozcan, K. (2009). Productivity and growth in an unstable emerging market economy: The case of Turkey, 1960-2004. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 45(5), 4–18. google scholar
  • Jaggers, K., & Marshall, M. G. (2000). Polity IV Project, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland. Kaplan, F. (2016). Ekonomik büyüme: Dolaylı belirleyicileri ve bir uygulama. Ankara: Savaş Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Kar, M. ve Ağır, H. (2006). Türkiye’de beşeri sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Eşbütünleşme yaklaşımı ile nedensellk testi 1926-1994. Selçuk Üniversitesi İİBF Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(11), 51–68. google scholar
  • Mankiw, N., Romer, D., & Weil, D. (1992). A Contribution to the emprics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 407–437. google scholar
  • Mulligan, C., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Transitional Dynamics in Two-Sector Models of Endogenous Growth, NBER Working Papers, No. 3986. google scholar
  • Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. google scholar
  • Rodrik, D. (2000). Institutions for high quality growth: What they are and how to acquire them, NBER Working Papers No.7540. google scholar
  • Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primarcy of ınstitutions over geography and ıntegration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165. google scholar
  • Storper, M. (2010). Why does a city grow? Specialiasiation, human capital or institutions? Urban Studies, 47(10), 2027–2050. google scholar
  • Şahin, D. (2016). Beşeri sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisinin analizi: Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası Hakemli Ekonomi Yönetimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7, 61–85. google scholar
  • Şahin, İ. (2016). Türkiye’de 1980-2015 Yılları Arası Demokrasi, Ekonomik Özgürlük ve Yolsuzlukların Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkileri. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi. 6 (2): 317-334. google scholar
  • Şanlısoy, S. ve Kök, R. (2010). Politik istikrarsızlık-ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 101–125. google scholar
  • Şenalp, M. G. (2007). Dünden bugüne kurumsal iktisat, E. Özveren (Der.) içinde, Kurumsal İktisat, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 1-17. google scholar
  • Vergil, H., ve Abasız, T. (2008). Toplam faktör verimliliği, hesaplanması ve büyüme ilişkisi: Collins Bosworth varyans ayrıştırması. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(2), 160–188. google scholar
  • Yaylalı, M. ve Lebe, F. (2011). Beşeri sermaye ile iktisadi büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin ampirik analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 23–51. google scholar
  • Yıldırım, S. (2010). Kurumların dinamik yapısının ekonomik büyüme üzerine etkisinin analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(3), 111–126. google scholar


Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın



Kuzören, B., Çeştepe, H., & İçen, H. (2019). Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(30), 65-81.


Kuzören B, Çeştepe H, İçen H. Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 2019;0(30):65-81.


Kuzören, B.; Çeştepe, H.; İçen, H. Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 30, p. 65-81, 2019.

Chicago: Author-Date Style

Kuzören, Burcu, and Hamza Çeştepe and Hüseyin İçen. 2019. “Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 30: 65-81.

Chicago: Humanities Style

Kuzören, Burcu, and Hamza Çeştepe and Hüseyin İçen. Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 30 (Nov. 2022): 65-81.

Harvard: Australian Style

Kuzören, B & Çeştepe, H & İçen, H 2019, 'Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği', Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 30, pp. 65-81, viewed 30 Nov. 2022,

Harvard: Author-Date Style

Kuzören, B. and Çeştepe, H. and İçen, H. (2019) ‘Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği’, Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(30), pp. 65-81. (30 Nov. 2022).


Kuzören, Burcu, and Hamza Çeştepe and Hüseyin İçen. Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 30, 2019, pp. 65-81. [Database Container],


Kuzören B, Çeştepe H, İçen H. Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics [Internet]. 30 Nov. 2022 [cited 30 Nov. 2022];0(30):65-81. Available from: doi: 10.26650/ekoist.2018.30.0010


Kuzören, Burcu - Çeştepe, Hamza - İçen, Hüseyin. Kurumlar ve Beşeri Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği”. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0/30 (Nov. 2022): 65-81.




Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.