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

Cointegration analysis of wild and farmed sea bream and sea bass prices in Turkey

Market integration is an indicator of the extent to which different products are interrelated, and the presence of marketintegration between products suggests that they are substitutes. The objective of this study was to determine the market interactionbetween wild and farmed products of two fish species, namely sea bream and sea bass. For this purpose, the relationship between theproducer price time series of cultured sea bream, wild sea bream, cultured sea bass, and wild sea bass in the period of 2009–2017 wastested using the cointegration analysis technique. It was found that the wild sea bream and sea bass prices and the farmed sea breamand sea bass prices were cointegrated in the long term, followed each other’s patterns, and were affected by the prices in the previousperiod. It was concluded that farmed sea bream and sea bass and wild sea bream and sea bass were substitutes in terms of market prices.

PDF

___

1. General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Production of Fisheries and Aquaculture Products. Ankara, Turkey: General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture; 2018.
2. Turkish Statistical Institute. Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute; 2018.
3. Arıkan MS, Aral Y. Economic analysis of aquaculture enterprises and determination of factors affecting sustainability of the sector in Turkey. Veterinary Journal of Ankara University 2019; 66 (1): 59-66. doi: 10.1501/Vetfak_0000002888
4. Doğan K. Ülkemizin akuakültür potansiyeli ve pazar durumu. Deniz ve Balıkçılık Aylık Sektörel İhtisas Dergisi 2003; 3 (2): 1-11 (in Turkish).
5. Dağtekin M. Fishery production and marketing structure in Trabzon. MSc, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey, 2008.
6. Turkish Statistical Institute. Producer Price of Fisheries and Aquaculture.. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute; 2018.
7. Regnier E, Bayramoglu B. Competition between farmed and wild fish: the French sea bass and sea bream markets. Aquaculture Economics & Management 2017; 21 (3): 355-375. doi: 10.1080/13657305.2016.1189012
8. Bjørndal T, Guillen J. Market Competition between Farmed and Wild Fish: A Literature Survey. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2016.
9. Bronnmann J, Ankamah-Yeboah I, Nielsen M. Market integration between farmed and wild fish: evidence from the whitefish market in Germany. Marine Resource Economics 2016; 31 (4): 421-432. doi: 10.1086/687929
10. Asche F, Guttormsen AG, Sebulonsen T, Sissener EH. Competition between farmed and wild salmon: the Japanese salmon market. Agricultural Economics 2005; 33 (3): 333-340. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0864.2005.00072.x
11. Anderson JL. Market interactions between aquaculture and the common-property commercial fishery. Marine Resource Economics 1985; 2 (1): 1-24. doi: 10.1086/mre.2.1.42628874
12. Damodar GN. Temel Ekonometri. 6th ed. İstanbul, Turkey: Literatür Yayıncılık; 2009 (in Turkish).
13. Hatemi-J A. A new method to choose optimal lag order in stable and unstable VAR models. Applied Economics Letters 2003; 10 (3): 135-137. doi: 10.1080/1350485022000041050
14. Engle RF, Granger CWJ. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society 1987; 5 (2): 251-276.
15. Johansen S. Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 1988; 12 (2-3): 231-254. doi: 10.1016/0165-1889(88)90041-3
16. Stock JH, Watson MW. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society 1993; 61 (4): 783-820.
17. Johansen S, Juselius K. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 1990; 52 (2): 169-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.1990.mp52002003.x
18. Asche F, Bjørndal T, Young JA. Market interactions for aquaculture products. Aquaculture Economics & Management 2001; 5 (5-6): 303-318. doi: 10.1080/13657300109380296