Mehmet Saltuk ARIKAN, Ahmet Cumhur AKIN, Mustafa Bahadır ÇEVRİMLİ, Mustafa Agah TEKİNDAL

Türkiye’de Perakende Dana Eti Fiyatlarındaki Değişimin Garch Yöntemiyle Belirlenmesi, 2014-2017

Türkiye’de kırmızı et tüketiminde büyükbaş hayvan etine olan talep her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bu talebin ve fiyatın oluşmasında tüketici tercihleri, kırmızı et piyasasına yapılan devlet müdahaleleri, alınan ithalat kararları, uygulanan politikalar ve desteklemeler de etkili olmaktadır. Ancak bu uygulamaların etkisinin reel piyasada dana eti fiyatlarına olumlu yansımaması sebebiyle, fiyat istikrarının sağlanması ve sürdürülebilir yapıya kavuşması imkânsızlaşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada; Ocak 2014 ilk hafta ile Aralık 2017 son haftası arasındaki döneme ait verilere göre Türkiye’de kırmızı et sektöründe uygulanan politikalar ve devlet müdahaleleri kapsamında perakende dana kıyma ve kuşbaşı ortalama fiyatları volatilite tahmin modelleme yöntemi ile analiz edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Durağan olmayan serilerin farkları alınarak durağan hale getirilmiştir. Birim kök testi uygulanan serilere daha sonra Genelleştirilmiş Otoregresif Koşullu Değişen Varyans (GARCH 1,1) modeli kurularak, fiyatlardaki dalgalanmayı açıklayan en uygun model olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Tahmin sonuçları incelenen dönemde perakende dana kuşbaşı ve kıyma fiyatlarında belirgin dalgalanmaların yaşandığını göstermekle birlikte bu dönemde uygulanan politikaların ve piyasaya yapılan müdahalelerin fiyatlardaki istikrarsızlık ve belirsizliği gidermede yeterli olmadığını açıklamaktadır.

Determining the Change in Retail Prices of Veal in Turkey by GARCH Method Between 2014-2017

In Turkey, the demand for veal in the red meat market is steadily increasing. In the formation of this demand and price; additional factors such as consumer preferences, government interventions in the red meat market, import decisions, also the implemented policies and subsidies are effective besides the main factors. However, the fact that such practices do not affect the veal prices in the market makes it impossible to ensure price stability and a sustainable market. The analysis of the change in retail prices is important for both producers and consumers so that the validity of this view can be tested. The aim of this study was to analyze the retail prices of minced meat and the veal cubes from the first week of January 2014 to the last week of December 2017 via using the volatility estimation modeling method in the context of the effectiveness of the policies and market interventions applied in the red meat sector implemented in Turkey. Non-stationary series were made stationary by differencing. By developing a Generalised Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH 1,1) model using the series subject to a unit root test, it was found to be the optimal model that best explains the fluctuation of the prices. The results of the estimation show that the retail prices of veal cubes and minced meats fluctuated conspicuously in the said period and that the implemented policies and the market interventions were not adequate to eliminate the instability and uncertainty of the prices.

PDF

___

1. MFALT: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock of Turkey. Livestock data. https://www.tarim.gov.tr/sgb/Belgeler/SagMenuVeriler/HAYGEM. pdf, Accessed: 15.03.2018.
2. Özertan G, Saghaian SH, Tekgüç H: Dynamics of price transmission and market power in the Turkish beef sector. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 30 (349): 53-76, 2015.
3. Bölük G, Karaman S: Market power and price asymmetry in farm-retail transmission in the Turkish meat market. New Medit, 16 (4): 2–11, 2017.
4. GDMMB: General Directory of Meat and Milk Board. Weekly meat price bulletin. https://www.esk.gov.tr/; Accessed: 09.02.2018.
5. Rezitis AN, Stavropoulos KS: Greek meat supply response and price volatility in a rational expectations framework: A multivariate GARCH approach. Eur Rev Agric Econ, 39 (2): 309-333, 2011. DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbr038
6. Revell BJ: One man’s meat… 2050? ruminations on future meat demand in the context of global warming. J Agric Econ, 66 (3): 573-614, 2015. DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12121
7. Sarris A: Food commodity price volatility and food insecurity. BioBased Appl Econ, 2 (3): 213-236, 2013. DOI: 10.13128/BAE-13114
8. Bazga B, Ipate I, Ipate N: Price volatility in context of food security for sustainable development. In, 3th International Conference, Competitiveness of Agro-Food and Environmental Economy, Romania, November 6-7, 2014.
9. Weaver RD, Natcher WC: Competitiveness in vertical market chains: Evidence for beef markets. In, NEC-165 Conference, The American Consumer in the Changing Food System, Washington DC, May 3-5, 2000.
10. Rezitis AN, Stavropoulos KS: Price volatility and rational expectations in a sectoral framework commodity model: A multivariate GARCH approach. Agric Econ, 42 (3): 419-435, 2011. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00521.x
11. Sckokai P, Moro D: Modelling the impact of the CAP single farm payment on farm investment and output. Eur Rev Agric Econ, 36 (3): 395423, 2009. DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbp026
12. Tangermann S: Risk management in agriculture and the future of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. ICTSD, 34, 2011.
13. Taya S: Stochastic model development and price volatility analysis. OECD Food Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 57, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2012. DOI: 10.1787/5k95tmlz3522-en
14. Hernandez MA, Ibarra R, Trupkin DR: How far do shocks move across borders? Examining volatility transmission in major agricultural futures markets. Eur Rev Agric Econ, 41 (2): 301-325, 2014. DOI: 10.1093/ erae/jbt020
15. Luo W, Liu R: Analysis of meat price volatility in China. Chinese Agric Econ Rev, 3 (3): 402-411, 2011. DOI: 10.1108/17561371111165815
16. Kesavan T, Aradhyula SV, Johnson SR: Dynamics and price volatility in farm-retail livestock price relationships. J Agric Resour Econ, 17 (2): 348361, 1992.
17. Rezitis A: Mean and volatility spillover effects in Greek producerconsumer meat prices. Appl Econ Lett, 10 (6): 381-384, 2003. DOI: 10.1080/ 1350485032000081299
18. Fakari B, Aliabadi MMF, Mahmoudi H, Kojori M: Volatility spillover and price shocks in Iran’s meat market. Custos e Agronegocio On Line, 12 (2): 84-98, 2016.
19. Engle RF: Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50, 987-1007, 1982. DOI: 10.2307/1912773
20. Bollerslev T: Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. J Econom, 31, 307-327, 1986.
21. Gujarati DN: Basic Econometrics. 2nd ed., Literatür Press, İstanbul, 2001.
22. Laurent S, Peters, JP: GARCH 2.2: An Ox package for estimating and forecasting various ARCH models. J Econ Surv, 16 (3): 447-484, 2002. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6419.00174
23. Yurdakul F: Unit-Root tests developed in the presence of structural breaks. In, Ünsal A, Köse N (Eds): Econometric Selection Articles, Gazi Üniv İİBF GVİ, Ankara, 2003.
24. TOG: Turkish Official Gazette. Decision on the application of tariff quotas for import of beef for use by the general directorate of meat and milk. July 1, 2014, 29069, 2014.
25. MFALT: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock of Turkey. Import of beef cattle. https://www.tarim.gov.tr/Duyuru/174/Besilik-Sigir-Ithali; Accessed: 07.03.2018.
26. CBTR: Central Bank of the Turkish Republic. Development report of July. http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/aceb4269-28a8-475c8319-a4383d61c32a/afiyattemmuz15.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID= ROOTWORKSPACE-aceb4269-28a8-475c-8319-a4383d61c32a-m3fBcr7; Accessed: 23.05.2018.
27. TOG: Turkish Official Gazette. Decision to make a decision on the application of tariff quotas on imports of certain agricultural products originating from the European Union. No:29445, 14.08. 2015.
28. TOG: Turkish Official Gazette. Decision on the application of tariff quotas for import of beef for use by the general directorate of meat and milk. No:29459, (1st replicate). 28.08.2015.
29. Akın AC, Arıkan MS, Çevrimli MB: Effect of import decisions in Turkey between 2010-2017 on the red meat sector. In, 1st International Health Science and Life Congress in Burdur, May 2-5, Burdur-Turkey, 2018.
30. CBTR: Central Bank of the Turkish Republic. Recent developments in food prices. 3rd Inflation report. http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/ connect/60abf85f-4165-44c8-ba5e-ccc31607200f/3b17-3.pdf?MOD =AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-60abf85f-4165-44c8-ba5eccc31607200f-m3fBboK; Accessed: 28.05.2018.
31. TOG: Turkish Official Gazette. Additional decision on import regime decision, No: 30107, 27.06.2017.
32. TOG: Turkish Official Gazette. Decision on the application of tariff quotas on imports of live animals and meat. No: 30138, 29.06.2017.
33. Tutkun M, Tatar AM, Şireli HD: The livestock situation of Turkey. In, 5th International Scientific Agricultural Symposium, Oct 23-26, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2014.
34. TSI: Turkish Statistical Institute. Concentration ratios by classes in sections. No:15846, 29.03.2013.
35. TSI: Turkish Statistical Institute. Concentration ratios by classes in sections. No: 15846, 21.08.2014.
36. RTMD: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development, 10th Development Plan (2014-2018). Special report on livestock commission, Ankara, Turkey, 2013.
37. Uchezuba DI, Mbai S: Modelling price expectation and volatility effects on producer behaviour: A case of Namibian Beef market. Int J Appl Agric Res, 11 (1): 83-102, 2016.
38. Ayyıldız M, Çiçek A: Analysis of red meat prices with Garch method: The case of Turkey. Turk J Agric Food Sci Technol, 6 (12): 1775-1780, 2018. DOI: 10.24925/turjaf.v6i12.1775-1780.2095
39. Çiçek H, Doğan İ: Türkiye’de canlı sığır ve sığır eti ithalatındaki gelişmeler ve üretici fiyatlarının trend modelleri ile incelenmesi. Kocatepe Vet J, 11 (1): 1-10, 2018.
40. Erdoğdu H, Çiçek H: Modelling beef consumption in Turkey: the ARDL/bounds test approach. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 41 (2): 255-264, 2017. DOI: 10.3906/vet-1606-43
41. Cevger Y, Sakarya E: Meat prices and factors affecting them in Turkey. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 30 (1): 1-6, 2006.
42. Aral Y, Çevrimli MB, Akdoğan N, Aydin E, Arıkan MS, Akın AC, Özen D: Investigation of intermediary margins in the marketing of beef and lamb meat in Ankara province, Turkey. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 22 (5): 685-691, 2016. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2016.15139