Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri arasındaki orman ürünleri ticaretinin rekabet analizi

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin orman ürünleri ticaretindeki rekabet edebilirliği analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma, 2006'dan 2016'ya kadar olan bir dönemde üç ayrı emtia grubu (HS44: Odun ve odun kömürü ürünleri, HS:47 Odun hamuru, lifli selülozik malzeme, atık, vb., HS48: Kağıt ve karton, kağıt hamuru, kâğıt ve karton ürünleri) baz alınarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Türkiye'nin AB ülkeleriyle orman ürünleri ticaretinde rekabet edebilirliğini ortaya koymak için, Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlük Endeksi, Göreli İhracat Avantajı Endeksi, Göreli İthalat Avantajı Endeksi ve Göreli Ticaret Avantajı Endeksi kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, Türkiye ve AB ülkelerinin orman ürünleri ticaretindeki rekabet edebilirliğini incelemek için ülkeler arası Göreli İhracat Avantajı ve Göreli İthalat Avantajı göstergeleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, Türkiye’nin Göreli İhracat Avantajının 2012’den itibaren iyileşmesine rağmen, aynı dönemde Göreli İthalat Avantajının kötüleştiğini, dolayısıyla AB ülkelerine kıyasla son yıllarda ticari bir dezavantaj olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Orman ürünleri ticareti, Uluslararası rekabet, Türkiye, Avrupa Birliği

Competitiveness analysis of forest products trade between Turkey and European Union countries

The study assessed the competitiveness of Turkey and European Union countries in the trade of forest products. The study covered a period from 2006 to 2016 and focused on three commodity groups with the following harmonized system (HS) codes; HS44: Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal; HS47: Pulp of wood, or other fibrous cellulosic material, recovered (waste and scrap) paper or paperboard; and HS48: Paper and paperboard, articles of paper pulp, paper or paper board. To analyze the competitive (dis)advantage of Turkey in forest products trade with the European Countries, the Revealed Comparative Advantage Index, Relative Export Advantage Index, Relative Import Advantage Index, and the Relative Trade Index were used. In addition, Cross Relative Export Advantage and Cross Relative Import Advantage indicators were used to examine the competitiveness of Turkey and European Countries in forest products trade. The findings indicated that although Turkey’s Relative Export Advantage Index has been improving from 2012, the Relative Import Advantage Index worsened during the same period hence a trade disadvantage compared to the European Union countries in recent years.

Keywords:

Forest products trade, International competitiveness, Turkey, European Union,

PDF

___

Balassa, B., 1965. Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies, 33: 99-123.
Bobirca, A., Miclaus, P.G., 2011. A multilevel comparative assessment approach to international services trade competitiveness: The case of Romania and Bulgaria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3): 1-6.
Bojnec, S., Fertö, I., 2009. Agro-food trade competitiveness of Central European and Balkan Countries. Food Policy, 34: 17–25.
Deardorff, A.V., 1998. Benefits and costs of following comparative advantage. In University of Michigan, School of Public Policy, Research Seminar in International Economics Discussion Paper (No.423).
Durand, M., Giorno. C., 1987. Indicators of international competitiveness: Conceptual aspects and evaluation. OECD Economic and Studies, 9: 147–82.
EU, 2018. European Union. http://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/fıgures/economy_en, Accessed: 25.07.2018.
Eurostat Comext, 2017. European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade 2017, European Union, Trade with Turkey, Eurostat Comext – Statistical regime 4. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113456.pdf, Accessed: 01.11.2017.
Fertö, I., Hubbard, L., 2003. Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness in Hungarian agri-food sectors. World Economy, 26(2): 247–59.
Kovalčík, M., 2011. Profitability and competitiveness of forestry in European Countries. Journal of Forest Science, 57(9):369–76.
Krugman, P., 1994. Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73: 28–44.
Maksymets, O., Lönnstedt, L., 2016. International competitiveness: A case study of American, Swedish, and Ukrainian forest industries. The International Trade Journal, 30(2): 159 –176.
Mercenier, J., Yeldan, E., 1997. On Turkey’s trade policy: is a customs union with Europe enough? European Economic Review, 41(3-5): 871-880.
Ok, K., 2003. Küresel Liberalizasyonun Dünya Ve Türkiye Orman Kaynakları Açısından Sonuçları. IMF, Dünya Bankası Politikaları ve Doğal Kaynaklarımız, TMMOB, Ankara, ISBN: 975-395-594-4,
Prasad, R.N., 2004. Fiji’s Export Competitiveness: A Comparison With Selected Small Island Developing States. Economic Department, Reserve Bank of Fiji.
Prestemon, J.P., Buongiorno J., Wear, D.N., Siry, J.P., 2003. International trade in forest products. In: Forests in a Market Economy (Eds: Sills, E.O., Abt, K.L.,) Forestry Sciences, 72, Springer, Dordrecht, pp.177-199.
Puttock, G.D., Sabourin, M., Meilke, K.D., 1993. International Trade in forest products: An overview. Forests Products Journal, Madison, 44(3): 49-56.
Siggel, E., 2006. International competitiveness and comparative advantage: A survey and a proposal for measurement. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 6(2): 137-159.
Sirgmets, R., Teder, M., Kaimre, P., 2019. The structural changes and competitiveness of the forest and wood Sector in the Baltic Countries within 1999-2016. Baltic Forestry, 25(1): 97-104.
Thornhill, D.J., 1988. The Revealed comparative advantage of Irish exports of manufacturers 1969-1982. Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, 25(5): 91-146.
United Nations, 2017. UN Comtrade Database - International Trade Statistics - Import/Export Data. http://comtrade.un.org, Accessed: 20.10.2017.
Uusivuori, J., Tervo, M., 2002. Comparative advantage and forest endowment in forest products trade: Evidence from panel data of OECD countries. Journal of Forest Economics, 8: 53-75.
Vollrath, T.L., 1991. A theoretical evaluation of alternative trade intensity measures of revealed comparative advantage. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 127(2): 265-280.
Vollrath, T.L., Huu Vo, D., 1988. Investigating the nature of world agricultural competitiveness. Technical Bulletin. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Economic Research Service, 1754: 10-11.
Yılmaz, B., 2003. Turkey’s Competitiveness in the European Union: a comparison with five candidate countries – Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania – and the EU15, Ezoneplus Working Paper,12, September 2003.