TİCARETİN YOKSULLUK ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ; TÜRKİYE İÇİN TEMEL BULGULAR
Açık ticaret rejiminin ekonomik büyümeyi harekete geçirerek yoksulluk oranını azalttığı fikri, yapılan araştırmalarla desteklenmektedir. Ticaret politikaları, fakirleri nispi fiyatlar, istihdam seviyesi, gelir, ücretler ve devlet gelirleri yoluyla etkilemektedir. Fakat ülkelerin, hane halklarının ve piyasaların özellikleri farklı olduğu için, ticaret reformunun sonucu farklı olacaktır. Gelir ve varlıkların dağılımı, iş gücü piyasasının özellikleri, ticaret reformuyla ilgili politikalar, başlangıç koşulları, riskler ve dışsal şoklara karşı savunmasızlık gibi bazı faktörler nedeniyle, açık dış ticaret politikalarının hem kazananları hem de kaybedenleri olacaktır. Bu çalışmada, ticaret açıklığı ve yoksulluk arasındaki ilişkinin farklı boyutları literatürden seçilmiş bazı çalışmalar ile özetlenmeye çalışılmış ve Türkiye’de Düzey 2 bazında OECD (2016) Bölgelerin Rekabet Edebilirlik Endeksi ve TÜİK verilerini kullanarak yoksulluk ve ticaret açıklığına dair temel bulgular sunulmuştur. Yoksulluk ve ticaret açıklığı arasındaki etkileşimin ana belirliyicileri arasında iş gücü piyasaları, eğitim, teknoloji ve yeniliğe açıklık, altyapı gibi faktörleri saymak mümkündür. Türkiye’de İBBS 2 düzeyinde bu faktörler incelendiğinde, bölgeler arası farklılaşmanın büyük olduğu ve ülke genelindeki ticaret açıklığının bölgeler düzeyinde aynı etkiyi yapmadığı görülmektedir. Literatürde belirtilen ticaret açıklığının büyüme ve yoksulluğu azaltma etkisi rekabet gücü yüksek olan bölgelerde net bir şekilde görülürken, göç ve iş gücü piyasası sorunları nedeniyle rekabet gücü yüksek bazı bölgelerde yoksulluğun da göreli yüksek olduğu görülmüştür.
EFFECTS OF TRADE ON POVERTY; KEY FINDINGS FOR TURKEY
Developments in transport and communications technologies accelerated world trade and globalization over the past two decades. There is a large body of literature examining the link between trade and poverty. Evidence from a variety of sources supports the idea that open trade regime decreases poverty incidence if it stimulates the economic growth. One of the sources of benefits from trade reforms is investment. If the domestic reforms are effective, level of investment is increased by private traders. Higher investment and expansion in the economic activities create new employment opportunities. Another source of benefit from trade reforms is the technological progress. Open trade regimes induce the economic growth by the way of technological progress. New inputs, new technologies, new management techniques become available to domestic producer. Generally, it is accepted that increase in technology and knowledge lead to higher productivity. Trade policies affect the poor through relative prices, employment level, income, wages and government revenue. Since the features of countries, households and markets are different, the outcome of the trade reform will be different. Because of some factors such as the distribution of endowments, characteristics of labor market, policies associated with trade reform, initial conditions, risks and vulnerability to external shocks, there will be both gainers and losers after the trade reform. This paper reviews some selected studies from the literature to summarize the relationship between trade openness and poverty. There are no general conclusions about whether trade will increase or decrease poverty. Economy has many channels to explain the relationship between trade and poverty. Thus understanding these channels may help to design liberalization to promote poverty alleviation. Government should implement some supporting policies to protect the poor from the adverse effects of the trade reform and to increase the benefits that the poor obtain from trade reform. Supporting policies associated with the trade reforms should promote efficient and equitable growth. In this sense institutional and policy reforms should expand not only the economic activities but also they should create opportunities for the poor to benefit from trade reform. Efficient labor markets and improved infrastructure play a key role. Also investment for technological improvement, education and training are the other crucial factors to obtain sustainable growth and poverty reduction in the long run. Actually, trade reforms affect the poverty incidence largely by the ways of employment and wages. The changes in the employment and wage levels depend on the nature of the labor market. Employment is an essential factor in the fight against poverty. There should be enough jobs for all people who are available and looking for work. Not only the quantity of employment and the quality of employment is crucial for poverty reduction. In this study, OECD (2016) Regional Competitiveness Index and data from TSI are used to illustrate key findings for NUTS 2 regions in Turkey. Main determinants of the interaction between poverty and trade openness are factors such as labor market, education, technology and innovation, infrastructure. These factors are examined in Turkey at NUTS 2 level. A great variation in trade openness and factors between regions is found. Country trade performance as a whole does not seem to have the same effect at the regional level. While the impact of trade openness on growth and poverty reduction stated in the literature is clearly seen in regions with high competitiveness performance, poverty is also found to be relatively high in some regions with high competitive performance because of migration and labor market problems. It is the fact that some countries and regions does not adapt the transition period for the open trade regime. Generally, the economic performance of the liberalized economy depends on the initial conditions which give information about the ability of the economy to meet requirements of the globalization. Policy makers should take into consideration the features of the initial conditions to follow a successful transition path. It is important to say that the policies which are not appropriate to initial economic conditions lead to decrease in credibility of the policies. Thus the economic performance of the countries is affected negatively. Actually, trade reform is not a direct strategy for poverty reduction, but it has some negative and positive effects on the poor. Cross country evidence supports the idea that trade liberalization leads to higher economic growth, if the other supporting policies associated with the trade reform are implemented effectively. Also, generally, people living in urban and well connected areas can benefit from trade liberalization, while the poor in the rural areas can not
Adams R. H. (2003). Economic Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Findings from a New Data Set. World Bank Working Paper, No. 2972.
Agénor P. (2002). Macroeconomic Adjustment and the Poor: Analytical Issues and CrossCountry Evidence, World Bank Working Paper, No.2788.
Atan M., Özcan M. ve Arslantürk Y. (2015). Açlık ve Yoksulluk Sınırı Belirlemede Düzey 2 Bazında Bölgesel Etkinliğe Dayalı Mekânsal İlişkiler: Türkiye Örneği. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 1(2).
Badiane, O. ve Kherallah M. (1999). Market Liberalization and the Poor. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 59, 103-123.
Dollar, D. (2004). “Globalization, Poverty and Inequality since 1980,” World Bank Working Paper, No. 3333.
Eichengreen, B. (2001). Crisis Prevention and Management: Any New Lessons from Argentina and Turkey?, Mimeographed, Department of Economics, University of California Berkeley.
Harrison A. (1996). Openness and Growth: A Time Series, Cross Country Analysis for Developing Countries. Journal of Development Economics, 48, 419-447.
Harrison A. ve Hanson G. (1999). Who Gains from Trade Reform? Some Remaining Puzzles. Journal of Development Economics, 59, 125-154.
Hertel W. T. ve Reimer J. J. (2004). “Predicting the poverty Impacts of Trade Reforms” World Bank Working Paper, No. 3444.
Kurt S. ve Berber M. (2008). Türkiye’de Dışa Açıklık ve Ekonomik Büyüme. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2).
McKay A., Winters L. A. ve Kedir A. M. (2000). A Review of Empirical Evidence on Trade, Trade Policy and Poverty. A Report to DFID prepeared as a Backround Document for the Second Development White Paper.
OECD (2016). “An Introduction to the Economic Structure of Turkey’s Regions” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD
O’Rourke, K. H. (2001). “Globalization and Inequality: Historical Trends”, NBER Working Paper, No: 8339.
Ravallion M. (2001). Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages. World Development, 29, 1803-1815.
Summers L. H. (1999). “Distinguished Lecture on Economic in Government: Reflections on Managing Global Integration,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.13.
Wacziarg R. (1998). Measuring the Dynamic Gains from Trade. World Bank Working Paper, No. 2001.
Williamson, J. G. (2000). Land, Labor and Globalization in the Pre-Industrial Third World.” NBER Working Paper, No. W7784.
Winters L. A. (2002). Trade Liberalization and Poverty: What are the Links?. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Yapraklı, S. (2007). Ticari ve Finansal Dışa Açıklık İle Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Üzerine Bir Uygulama. İstanbul Üniversitesi, İktisat Fakültesi, Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, Sayı:5, İstanbul
Yenturk, N. (2002). Arjantin Krizi: Dış Borç ile Tango, İktisat, İsletme ve Finans, 193, 51-66.