Küresel Bağlamda Ticaret Liberalizasyonunun Yüksek Katma Değerli Ürünlerin İhracatına Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği

Ticari açıklık kavramı, ülkeler arasındaki ticareti kısıtlayan veya büyüten bir ekonomik politika ölçüsüdür. Ticaret liberalizasyonu ya da diğer tabiriyle serbestleştirilmesi, ülkeler arasında malların serbest alışverişinde kısıtlamaların veya engellerin kaldırılması veya azaltılmasıdır. Bu engeller, vergiler ve ek ücretler gibi tarifeleri ve lisans kuralları ve kotalar gibi tarife dışı engelleri içerir. Ödemeler dengesindeki cari hesaplar dikkate alındığında en ana parametresi (x-m) olarak formüle edilen ihracat ithalat farkından oluşan cari açık ya da cari fazladır. Makro bağlamda bakıldığında, ticarette liberalizasyonlaşma süreci ile uluslararası ticaretin en başlıca konusu olan ihracat hacmi arasındaki korelasyon katsayısı ise akademik literatürde temel araştırma konularından birisi olmuştur. Heschker Ohlin teorisinin sermaye yoğun sektörleri ve ürünleri ele alındığında uluslararası ticaret’in en önemli gelir kalemleri olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, ticaret liberalizasyonu ile birlikte Türkiye’nin yüksek katma değerli üretiminin dış ticaret bağlamındaki pozitif eğilimde olan fleksibilite katsayısı GMM metodu ile birlikte hesaplanmıştır. Yüksek katma değerli ürünler (Makinalar, mekanik cihazlar ve aletler, nükleer reaktörler, bunların aksam ve parçaları) 1990-2019 dönemine ait senelik veriler şeklinde TÜİK veri tabanından alınmıştır. Ticari açıklık ise ticaret liberalizasyonun en önemli indikatörlerinden biridir. Bu kapsamda, elde edilen bulgular göstermiştir ki ticari açıklık katsayısı arttıkça yüksek katma değerli ürün ihracatı da olumlu yönde etkilenmiştir. Bu bilgiler ışığında, politika yapıcıların çok taraflı ticaret serbestleştirme politikalarından elde edilecek kazanımlara dair plan geliştirmeli ve yüksek katma değerli üretimde verim artışını sağlayarak yerel piyasanın güçlenmesi için çalışmalıdırlar.

The Effects of Global Trade Liberalization on Export of High Value Added Products: The Case of Turkey

The trade openness is a measure of economic policies that restricts or increases trade between countries. Trade liberalization is reduction of the restrictions in terms of barriers to increase the free exchange of goods or services among countries. These barriers include tariffs such as taxes and surcharges, and non-tariff barriers such as license rules and quotas. When the current accounts in the balance of payments are taken into consideration, the main parameter is the current account deficit or the current account surplus which includes export-import difference formulated as (x-m). In the macro context, the correlation coefficient between trade liberalization process and export volume, which is the main subject of international trade, has been one of the main research topics in the academic literature. When the capital-intensive sectors and its related products of Heschker Ohlin theory are taken into account, they are the most significant income items of international trade. Therefore, trade liberalization of Turkey mostly depend on high value added product’s and it’s flexibility coefficient between two variables (HVAP and trade openness). For this reason, in order to calculate coefficient of correlation of two variables (HVAP and f trade openness) GMM method is implemented in methodology part of the research article. High value-added products (machinery, mechanical devices and instruments, nuclear reactors, other pieces) is taken from TUIK database as yearly data from 1990 to 2019. Trade openness is one of the most important indicators of trade liberalization. In this context, the findings demonstrate that if the trade liberalization (trade openness) coefficient increases, high valueadded product export is positively affected. In the light of this information, policy makers should develop a plan to gain from multilateral trade liberalization policies and try to strengthen the local market by increasing productivity in terms of high value-added production.

PDF

___

Abedini, J., & Péridy, N. (2008). The Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA): An Estimation of its Trade Effects. Journal of Economic Integration, 848-872.
Acemoglu, D., & Ventura, J. (2002). The World Income Distribution. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2), 659-694.
Ahmed, N. (2000). Export Response to Trade Liberalization in Bangladesh: A Cointegration Analysis. Applied Economics, 32(8), 1077-1084.
Aldaba, R. M. (2013). Impact of Trade Liberalization on Wage Skill Premium in Philippine Manufacturing (No. 2013-25). PIDS Discussion Paper Series.
Anwar, S., Shaukat, F., & Hussain, Z. (2010). Impact of Trade Liberalization on Export of Cotton from Pakistan: A Time Series Analysis. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 26(2), 297-304.
Awokuse, T. O. (2008). Trade Openness and Economic Growth: Is Growth Export-Led or Import- Led?. Applied Economics, 40(2), 161-173.
Babatunde, M. A. (2009). Can trade liberalization stimulate export performance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of International and Global Economic Studies, 2(1), 68-92.
Çeştepe, H., Yıldırım, E., & Bahtiyar, B. (2015). The Impact of Trade Liberalization on the Export of MENA Countries to OECD Trade Partners. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1440- 1445.
Dünya Bankası (2019). Foreign direct investment, net inflows (BoP, current US$), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD, (14.10.2019).
Gnangnon, S. K. (2019). Does Multilateral Trade Liberalization Help Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?. Oxford Development Studies, 1-17.
Greenaway, D., & Sapsford, D. (1994). What Does Liberalisation Do for Exports and Growth?. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 130(1), 152-174.
Karam, F., & Zaki, C. (2019). A New Dawn for MENA Firms: Service Trade Liberalization for More Competitive Exports. Applied Economics, 1-17.
Krueger, A. O. (1980). Interactions between Inflation and Trade-Regime Objectives in Stabilization Programs. NBER Working Paper, (w0475).
Liu, Z., Mao, X., Tang, W., Hu, T., & Song, P. (2012). An Assessment of China-Japan-Korea Free Trade Agreement’s Economic and Environmental Impacts on China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 6(6), 849-859.
National Labor Committee. (2004). Elimination of Textile and Apparel Quotas in 2005 Will Shock the Developing World. Education Fund In Support of Worker and Human Rights. New York: NLC http://www. nlcnet. org (Accessed: 10 October 2008).
Rahmaddi, R., & Ichihashi, M. (2012). How Do Export Structure and Competitiveness Evolve since Trade Liberalization? An Overview and Assessment of Indonesian Manufacturing Export Performance. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 3(4), 272- 280.
Ratnaike, Y. C. (2012). Is There an Empirical Link between Trade Liberalisation and Export Performance?. Economics Letters, 117(1), 375-378.
Rodriguez, F. (2006). Comment on Hausmann and Rodrik. Economía, 6(1), 90-98.
Santos-Paulino, A. U. (2002). Trade Liberalisation and Export Performance in Selected Developing Countries. Journal of Development Studies, 39(1), 140-164.
Shafaeddin, M. (2006). NAMA: A Tool of Development or De-industrialization? (No. 6649). University Library of Munich, Germany.
Shafaeddin, S. M. (2005). Towards An Alternative Perspective on Trade and Industrial Policies. Development and Change, 36(6), 1143-1162.
Siyakiya, P. (2017). Can Trade Openness Stimulate Output Performance? A Case of Selected African Countries. Journal of International and Global Economic Studies, 10(2), 55-6.
Siyakiya, P. (2017). The Impact of Technical Regulations on Trade: Evidence from South Africa. Journal of Economics Library, 4(1), 64-75.
Sohn, C. H. (2001). A Gravity Model Analysis of Korea's Trade Patterns and the Effects of a Regional Trading Arrangement. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy Working Paper Series, 2001, 09.
The Global Economy (2019). https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/trade_openness/ Erişim Tarihi: 07.11.2019.
Tian, W., & Yu, M. (2012). China and India: Trends in Trade Over the Last Decade. The Journal of China and Global Economics, 1(1), 27-38.
TÜİK (2019). https://ticaret.gov.tr/istatistikler/dis-ticaret-istatistikleri Erişim Tarihi: 09.11.2019.
Yirmibeşoğlu, G. (2015). Globalization and International Trade. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(5), 1787-1796.
Yoffie, D.B. and Gomes-Casseres, B. (1994), International Trade and Competition: Cases and Note in Strategy and Management, 2nd Ed, McGraw Hill Inc.
Zaki, C. (2015). How Does Trade Facilitation Affect International Trade?. The European Journal of Development Research, 27(1), 156-185.

Turkish Studies - Economics, Finance, Politics-Cover

ISSN: 2667-5625
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2006
Yayıncı: ASOS Eğitim Bilişim Danışmanlık Otomasyon Yayıncılık Reklam Sanayi ve Ticaret LTD ŞTİ