KÜRESEL DEĞER ZİNCİRLERİ BAĞLAMINDA İKTİSADİ BAĞIMSIZLIK HEDEFLERİNİN YENİDEN TANIMLANMASI

Küresel Değer Zincirlerinin (KDZ) ticarete olan etkisi Dünya Ticaret Örgütü gibi uluslararası organizasyonlar ve konunun uzmanı birçok ekonomist tarafından bir “paradigma kayması” olarak nitelenmektedir. Yaşanan köklü değişim dış ticaret politikası hedeflerinin yeniden belirlenmesi ihtiyacını doğurmanın yanı sıra, geleneksel analiz yöntemlerinin de hem ampirik hem de teorik anlamda sorgulanmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, politika hedeflerinin belirlenmesinde KDZ’lerin yapısal özelliklerinin ve farklı ülke rollerinin önemini vurgulayarak, KDZ göstergelerinin doğru yorumlanmasına katkı sağlayacak bütüncül ve genel bir çerçeve sunmaktır. Çalışmada KDZ altında gelişen ithalat bağımlılığının, dışa bağımlılığın temel göstergesi olmaktan çıktığı ve ithalatın ihracat içerisindeki payının azaltılmasına yönelik politikaların ülkelerin bağımsızlık hedefleriyle ters düşebileceği görülmüştür. Bu bağlamda ülkelerin iktisadi bağımsızlıkları zincirdeki pazarlık güçleri ve katma değer paylarını önceleyen bir yaklaşım çerçevesinde yeniden tanımlanmıştır. Son olarak, KDZ literatürü bağlamında kullanımı öne çıkan ve KDZ’lerin yapısal özelliklerini ve ülkelerin katılımlarını ölçmekte kullanılan birçok yeni göstergenin hesaplanma yöntemi ve katma değer ile ilişkisi de sunulmuştur. Ancak literatürdeki Türkiye odaklı diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak, bu araştırma makalesinde ampirik bir analiz yürütülmemiştir.

REDEFINING THE OBJECTIVES OF ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE IN GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS

Many trade economists, even the WTO, consider The Global Value Chains (GVCs) as a "paradigm shift" in international trade. The radical change occurring in global trade patterns not only creates a need for new foreign trade policy targets but also makes the traditional methods of analysis questionable both empirically and theoretically. This study aims to furnish a holistic frame of research for the correct interpretation of GVC indicators by emphasizing the structural features of GVCs and the importance of different country roles inside in defining the new trade policy objectives. Our study shows that the import dependency in GVCs is no more the main source of foreign dependency and targeting a decrease in the import share of exports can act in a contradictory way with countries’ objectives for economic independence. Hence, we redefine the concept of trade dependency by the bargaining power and total value-added shares of countries within the global value chains. Finally, we present in a comparative approach the calculation methods of the new GVC indicators that are available in the literature and used for the analysis of the structure of GVCs and the participation of individual countries. However other than previous work focusing on the Turkish case, we do not conduct an empirical analysis in this research paper.

___

  • Antràs P., & Helpman, E. (2004). Global Sourcing. Journal of Political Economy, 112(3): 552-80.
  • Antràs, P. (2003). Firms, Contracts, and Trade Structure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (4): 1375–1418.
  • Antràs, P., Chor, D., Fally, T., & Hillberry, R. (2012). Measuring the Upstreamness of Production and Trade Flows. American Economic Review, 102: 412–16.
  • Antràs, P., & Chor, D. (2013). Organizing the global value chain. Econometrica, 81: 2127-2204.
  • Baldwin, R. (2006). Globalisation: The Great Unbundling (S). Secretariat of the Economic Council, Globalisation challenges for Europe (Helsinki: Finnish Prime Minister’s Office), 5–47.
  • Baldwin, R. (2011). Trade and Industrialisation after Globalisation’s Second Unbundling: How Building and Joining a Supply Chain are Different and Why It Matters, NBER Working Paper 17716.
  • Baldwin, R., & Venables, A. J. (2013). Spiders and Snakes: Offshoring and Agglomeration in the Global Economy, Journal of International Economics, 90: 245–54.
  • BEC (2002). CLASSIFICATION BY BROAD ECONOMIC CATEGORIES, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/53/Rev.4, New York: United Nations.
  • Costinot, A., Vogel, J., & Wang, S. (2013). An Elementary Theory of Global Supply Chains. The Review of Economic Studies, 80 (1): 109-144.
  • Daudin, G., Rifflart, C., & Schweisguth, D. (2011). Who Produces for Whom in the World Economy? Canadian Journal of Economics, 44(4): 1403–37.
  • de Backer, K., & Miroudot, S. (2014) Mapping Global Value Chains. ECB Working Paper, No.1677.
  • de Backer, K., & Yamano, N. (2007). The measurement of globalisation using international input-output tables. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2007/8, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • Dedrick, J., Kraemer, K. L., & Linden, G. (2010). Who Profits from Innovation in Global Value Chains? A Study of the iPod and Notebook PCs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19: 81–116.
  • Dietzenbacher, E., Isidoro, R., & Bosma, N.S. (2005). Using Average Propagation Lengths to Identify Production Chains in the Andalusian Economy. Estudidos de Economı´a Aplicada, 23: 405–22.
  • Dietzenbacher, E., & Romero, I. (2007). Production Chains in an Interregional Framework: Identification by Means of Average Propagation Lengths. International Regional Science Review, 30: 362–83.
  • Fally, T. (2012). Production Staging: Measurement and Facts. University of California, Berkeley, mimeo.
  • Feenstra, R.C., & Hanson, G.H. (1996). Globalisation, Outsourcing and Wage Inequality. American Economic Review, 86 (2): 240-45.
  • Gereffi, G. (1994). The organisation of buyer driven global commodity chains: how US retailers shape overseas production networks.
  • Gereffi, G. & Korzeniewicz, M. (Der.), Community Chains and Global Capitalism (95-112), Connecticut: Praeger.
  • Gereffi, G. (2001). Beyond the Producer-Driven/Buyer-Driven Dichotomy: The Evolution of Global Value Chains in the Internet Era. IDS Bulletin, 32 (3): 30–40.
  • Gereffi, G., & Memodovic, O. (2003). The Global Apparel Value Chain: What Prospects for Upgrading by Developing Countries? United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Sectoral Studies Series.
  • Hausmann, R., Hwang, J., & Rodrik, D. (2007). What You Export Matters. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1): 1–25.
  • Hummels, D., Ishii, J., & K.-M. Yi (2001). The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World Trade. Journal of International Economics, 54: 75-96.
  • IDE-JETRO & WTO (2011). Trade Patterns and Global Value Chains in East Asia: From Trade in Goods to Trade in Tasks. Cenevre: WTO. http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Press/pdf/20110606_news.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022).
  • IMF (2011). World Economic Outlook. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
  • Johnson, R.C., & Noguera, G. (2012). Accounting for Intermediates: Production Sharing and Trade in Value Added. Journal of International Economics, 86: 224-236.
  • Koopman, R., Powers, W., Wang, Z., & Wei, S.-J. (2010). Give Credit where Credit is Due: Tracing Value Added in Global Production Chains. NBER Working Paper 16426, Cambridge, MA.
  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Kummritz, V. (2016). Do Global Value Chains Cause Industrial Development? CTEI Working Paper 2016-01.
  • Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2013). Building Eora: A Global Multi Regional Input-Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution. Economic Systems Research, 25(1): 20–49.
  • Liang, G. (2016). The “Fox–Apple” partnership in the global value chain: How did foreign direct investment and contract manufacturing reshape the landscape of the electronics industry? Xing, Y. (Der.) Uncovering value added in trade: New approaches to analyzing global value chains (s. 141-166), Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
  • Linden, G., Kraemer, K. L., & Dedrick, J. (2009). Who captures value in a global innovation network? The case of Apple’s iPod, Communications of the ACM, 52(3): 140–44.
  • Marin, D., & Schweisguth, D. (2011). Two examples: Germany and France. İçinde Globalization of Industrial Production Chains and Measurement of Trade in Value Added: Measuring International Trade in Value Added for a Clearer View of Globalization. WTO ve Commission des Finances du Sénat Konferans Bildiri Kitabı, Cenevre.
  • Maurer, A., & Degain, C. (2010). Globalization and trade flows: what you see is not what you get! WTO Staff Working Paper N° ERSD -2010-12.
  • Melitz, M. J. (2003). The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, 71: 1695–1725.
  • OECD (2008). Staying Competitive in the Global Economy: Compendium of Studies on Global Value Chains, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264046313-en (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
  • OECD (2018). Trade in Value Added 2018 Principal Indicators. OECD STAN Archives. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TIVA_2018_C1 (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
  • OECD (2021). OECD Inter-Country Input-Output Database. http://oe.cd/icio (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
  • OECD & CEFTA (2013). Trade in intermediate goods and international supply chains in CEFTA. CEFTA Issues Paper, 6.
  • Pittiglio R. (2014): An essay on intra-industry trade in intermediate goods. Modern Economy, 5: 468–488.
  • Rahman, J., Zhao, T., & Bakker, B.B. (2013). Export Performance in Europe, IMF Working Papers, 2013 (062). https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2013/062/article-A001-en.xml (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
  • Romero, I., Dietzenbacher, E., & Hewings, G. J. D. (2009). Fragmentation and Complexity: Analyzing Structural Change in the Chicago Economy. Revista de Economı´a Mundial, 23: 263–82.
  • Van der Marel, E. (2015). Positioning on the Global Value Chain Map: Where do You Want to Be? ECIPE Occasional Paper No.1.
  • WTO (2021). Information note on trade in intermediate goods: second quarter 2021. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/stat_03nov21_e.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022)
  • WTO & Commission des Finances du Sénat (2011). Globalization of Industrial Production Chains and Measurement of Trade in Value Added: Measuring International Trade in Value Added for a Clearer View of Globalization. Konferans Bildiri Kitabı, Cenevre.
  • Xing, Y., & Detert, N. (2010). How the iPhone widens the United States trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 257, Aralık.
  • Yamano, N. (2014). Development Of Inter-Country Input-Output Table For OECD-WTO TiVA Indicators: Practical Solutions Using Available Data Sources. International Conference on the Measurement of Trade and Economic Globalization, Aguascalientes, 29 Eylül-1 Ekim 2014.
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-3284
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1999
  • Yayıncı: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF LOCAL PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF HEALTH TOURISM ON THE SUPPORT GIVEN TO HEALTH TOURISM: EXAMPLE OF AKYAZI

Cemil ÖRGEV, Buse METE, Hüseyin ASLAN, İsmail ŞİMŞİR

TÜRKİYE’DE HANELERİN SİGARA TÜKETİM HARCAMALARINDA YASAL DÜZENLEMELERİN ETKİLERİ: 2007 VE 2019 YILLARI OAXACA-BLINDER AYRIŞTIRMASI

Cansu BAHÇECİ, Gökhan ÖZKUBAT, Sercan DEMİROĞULLARI, Şenay ÜÇDOĞRUK BİRECİKLİ

POLİS TEŞKİLATI VE ROLÜNÜN PARAMİLİTARİZASYONU: KOLOMBİYA’DA POLİS ŞİDDETİNİN 2021 PROTESTOLARINA ETKİLERİ

Onur AĞKAYA

KARİYER PLANLAMA DERSİNİN KARİYER KARARI VERME YETKİNLİĞİNE ETKİSİ: LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Sema DALKILIÇ, Aynur Çiğdem ATA, Elçin DALKILIÇ, Ayşe İpek ATAÇ

DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF LOCAL PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF HEALTH TOURISM ON THE SUPPORT GIVEN TO HEALTH TOURISM: EXAMPLE OF AKYAZI

Cemil ÖRGEV, Buse METE, Hüseyin ASLAN, İsmail ŞİMŞİR

KÜRESEL DEĞER ZİNCİRLERİ BAĞLAMINDA İKTİSADİ BAĞIMSIZLIK HEDEFLERİNİN YENİDEN TANIMLANMASI

Ayçıl YÜCER

KIZ ÖĞRENCİLERİN CAM TAVAN ALGISI: GASTRONOMİ VE MUTFAK SANATLARI BÖLÜMÜ ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA

Turgay BUCAK

EKONOMİ ALANINDAKİ OBEZİTE ÇALIŞMALARI ÜZERİNE VOS VIEWER ANALİZİ

Melike TORUN, Özgür ASLAN

SAHA ÇALIŞANLARININ GÖZLEMLERİ ARACILIĞIYLA MADDE BAĞIMLISI ÇOCUĞU OLAN AİLELERİN ÖZELLİKLERİ VE DENEYİMLERİ

Gamze ÇAKIR, Burak ACAR, Kardelen KILINÇ, Nuriye SAYHAN, Yakup DEMİRLİ, Ömer Miraç YAMAN

Yapay Zeka, Kritik ve Klinik: Nörobilim Araştırmaları Perspektifinden Toplum, Teşhis ve Tedavi

Sinan KÜRÇÜ