Türkiye’nin Bölgesel İhracatının Eğilim ve Panel Yerçekimi Analizi

Year 2024, , 385 - 413, 24.09.2024

Güzin Bayar

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1403393

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin ihracatının bölgeler bazında gösterdiği farklılıklar panel regresyon analizleri ile incelenmiştir. Panel tahmin yöntemi olarak Sözde Poisson En Çok Olabilirlik (Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood-PPML) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Türkiye’nin ülkeler bazındaki 1996-2021 yılları arasında ihracatının yerçekimi panel analizi sonuçları, ihracatı en çok etkileyen faktörün mesafe olduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye daha uzak ülkelere daha az ihracat yapmaktadır. İkinci en önemli faktörün arz yönlü bir faktör olarak Türkiye’nin gayrısafi yurt içi hasılası olduğu görülmektedir. Üçüncü önemli faktör ise dış taleptir. Türkiye’nin ihracatının, diğer değişkenlerin etkileri sabit tutulduğunda, en çok Orta Doğu ülkelerine pozitif ayrıştığı, onu sırasıyla gelişmekte olan Avrupa ülkelerinin, Gümrük Birliği ülkelerinin, ve Sahra Altı Afrika Ülkelerinin izlediği görülmektedir. Gelişmekte olan Asya ülkeleri ile Latin Amerika ve Karayip ülkelerine ihracat genelden negatif ayrışmaktadır. Bölgelerin farklı gelir esnekliklerini gözlemlemek üzere bölge kuklaları ile ticaret ortağı ülkelerin GSYH’larının etkileşim değişkenleri de denkleme alınmıştır. Tahmin sonuçları, Türkiye’nin Orta Doğu ülkelerindeki, kalkınma yolundaki Avrupa ülkelerindeki ve Gümrük Birliği içinde olduğumuz Avrupa ülkelerindeki GSYH artışlarını göreli olarak daha iyi değerlendirerek ihracatını artırabilirken, kalkınma yolundaki Asya ülkelerinde ve Latin Amerika ve Karayip ülkelerinde yaşanan gelir artışlarına etkili bir cevap veremediğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Türkiye, İhracat, Panel, Yer Çekimi Modeli, PPML

Trend and Panel Gravity Analysis of Türkiye's Regional Exports

Abstract

In this study, the differences in Türkiye 's exports on the basis of regions were examined by panel regression analysis. Analysis method is Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML).
The results of the gravity panel analysis of Türkiye's exports between 1996-2021 on the basis of countries show that the factor affecting exports the most is distance. Türkiye exports less to far away countries. It is seen that the second most important factor is Türkiye's GDP as a supply-side factor. The third important factor is foreign demand. When the effects of other variables are kept constant, it is seen that Türkiye's exports are the most positively differentiated to Middle East countries, followed by Emerging European countries, Customs Union countries, and Sub-Saharan African Countries. Exports to Emerging Asian countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries are generally negatively differentiated.
In order to observe the different income elasticities of the regions, interaction variables of the GDPs and the Region dummies of the trade partner countries are taken into the equation. The estimation results show that Türkiye exports relatively better as the GDP increases in the Middle East countries, Emerging European countries and Customs Union countries. Results further show that Türkiye is not able to respond effectively to the income increases experienced in Emerging Asian countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries.

Keywords

Türkiye, Export, Panel, Gravity Model, PPML

References

• Abiad, A., Mishra, P., & Topalova, P. (2011). How does trade evolve in the aftermath of financial crises? IMF Working Paper, WP/11/3. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/How-Does-Trade-Evolve-in-the-Aftermath-of-Financial-Crises-24553
• Acemoğlu, D., & Üçer, M. (2018). High-quality versus low-quality growth ın turkey: causes and consequences. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP14070. https://cepr.org/publications/dp14070
• Adam, A., Moutos, T. (2008). The trade effects of the EU-Turkey customs union. The World Economy, 685-700.
• Akçay, F., & Saygılı R. F., (2019). Türkiye’nin bölgesel ekonomik örgütlerle ihracatı üzerine çekim modeli uygulaması: AB dışında alternatifler mümkün mü?. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 193-214. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/huniibf/issue/44834/379205
• Akkemik, A. K., & Göksal, K. (2010). Do chinese exports crowd-out turkish exports. İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 25(287), 9-32.
• Altıntaş, H., Çetin, R., & Öz, B. (2011). The impact of exchange rate volatility on Turkish exports: 1993-2009. The South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6(2), 67–78.
• Alper, E. (2002). Business cycles, excess volatility and capital flows: evidence from Mexico and Turkey. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 38(4), 25-58.
• Anderson, J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69, 106-16.
• Anderson, J. E., & Van Wincoop, E., (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. The American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192.
• Anderson, S., De Palma, A., & Thisse, J., (1992). Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. MIT Press.
• Armington, P. S., (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. Staff Papers - International Monetary Fund, 16(1), 159-178. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/024/1969/001/article-A007-en.xml
• Artan, S. (2012). Çekim modeli türkiye’nin ticaret akımlarının belirleyicilerini ve ticaret potansiyelini açıklayabilir mi?. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 122-145. https://dergi.neu.edu.tr/public/journals/7/yazardizini/artan-s-2012-nisan.pdf
• Arkolakis, C., Costinot, A., Donaldson, D., & Rodriguez-Clare, A., (2012). The Elusive Pro-Competitive Effects of Trade. Manuscript.
• Atıcı, C., Armağan, G., Tunalıoğlu, R., & Çınar, G. (2011). Does Turkey’s ıntegration into the european union boost ıts agricultural exports?. Agribusiness, 27(3), 280-291.
• Aydın, M. E., Çıplak, U., Yücel, M. E. (2004). Export supply and ımport demand models for the Turkish economy. TCMB Çalışma Kağıdı, 04/09. https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/bdb5d26a-a97d-436e-aa4a-72ccfdbee655/WP0409ENG.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-bdb5d26a-a97d-436e-aa4a-72ccfdbee655-m3fw5JY
• Bacchetta, M., Beverelli, C., Cadot, O., Fugazza, M., Grether, J. M., Helble, M., Nicita, A., & Piermartini, R. (2012). A Practical Guide to Trade Policy Analysis. Birleşmiş Milletler Ticaret ve Kalkınma Konferansı (UNCTAD) ve Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (WTO) Yayını. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/gds2012d2_en.pdf
• Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H., (2001). The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs, and ıncome similarity. Journal of International Economics, 53(1), 1-27.
• Bayar, G. (2018). Export equations : a survey of the literature. Empirical Economics, 54(2), 629-672.
• Bayar, G. (2014). Türkiye’nin kalkınmış ülkelere ve Orta Doğu-Kuzey Afrika ülkelerine ihracatı : karşılaştırmalı yer çekimi analizi. Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 119-164. https://dergi.neu.edu.tr/public/journals/7/yazardizini/bayar,-g-2014-nisan.pdf
• Benedictis, L. D., & Vicarelli, C. (2005). Trade potentials in gravity panel data models. Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy, 5(1), Makale 20.
• Bergstrand, J. H. (1985). The gravity equation in ınternational trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Review o f Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 474-81.
• Bergstrand, J. H. (1989). The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and factor proportions theory in ınternational trade. Review o f Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 143-53.
• Bhattacharya, R., & Wolde, H. (2010). Constraints on trade in the MENA region. Uluslararası Para Fonu (IMF) Çalışma Kağıdı, WP/10/31. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1031.pdf
• Bilgin, M. H., Gözgör, G., & Demir, E. (2018). The determinants of Turkey’s exports to Islamic countries: The impact of political risks. The Journal of Internatıonal Trade & Economıc Development, 27(5), 486–503.
• Bussiere, M., Fidrmuc, J., & Schnatz, B. (2008). EU enlargement and trade ıntegration: lessons from a gravity model. Review of Development Economics, 12(3), 562-576.
• Cogley, T. F., & Nason, J. M., (1995). Effects of the Hodrick-Prescott filter on trend and difference stationary time series ımplications for business cycle research. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 19(1-2), 253-278.
• Coşar, E. E. (2002). Price and income elasticities of Turkish export demand: A panel data application. Central Bank Review, 2, 19–53. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1564
• Çıplak, U., & Yücel, M. E. (2004). Export supply and import demand models for the Turkish economy. The Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, Research Department Working Paper No:04/09.
• Deardoff, A. V. (1998). Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world?. In the Regionalization of the World Economy, edited by J. A. Frankel. Chicago: University of Chicago. Eaton, J., & Kortum, S., (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica, 70(5), 1741-1779.
• Eaton, J., Kortum, S., & Kramarz, F., (2011). An anatomy of ınternational trade: evidence from french firms. Econometrica, 79(5), 1453-1498.
• Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in non-stationary panel models: A novel estimator. Munich Personal Repec Archive (MPRA) paper no. 17692. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/
• Egger, P. (2002). An econometric view on estimation of gravity models and the calculation of trade potential. The World Economy, 25(2), 297-312.
• Eicker, F. (1963). Asymptotic normality and consistency of the least squares estimators for families of linear regressions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 447–456.
• Ekanayake, E. M., & Ledgerwood, J. R. (2009). An analysis of the ıntra-regional trade in the middle east and north africa region. International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 3(1), 19-29.
• Endoh, M. (1999). Trade creation and trade diversion in the EEC, the LAFTA and the CMEA: 1960-1994. Applied Economics, 31, 207-16.
• Feenstra, R. C., J. R. Markusen & A. K. Rose, (2001). Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. Canadian Journal of Economics, 34, No. 2 (May), pp. 430-47.
• Frankel, J. (1997). Regional trading blocs in the world economic system. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.
• Gylfason, T., Martínez‐ Zarzoso, I., & Wijkman, P. M., (2015). Free trade agreements, ınstitutions and the exports of eastern partnership countries. Journal of Common Market Studies, [e-journal] 53(6), 1214-1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12275.
• Harb, N. (2007). Trade between Euro Zone and Arab countries: A panel study. Applied Economics, 39, 2099-2107.
• Head, K., & T. Mayer, (2013). Gravity equations: toolkit, cookbook, workhorse. Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 4, eds. Gopinath, Helpman, and Rogoff, Elsevier.
• Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153-162.
• Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Estimating trade flows: trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal o f Economics, 123,441-87.
• Helpman, E., (1984). Increasing returns, imperfect markets, and trade theory. in Handbook of International Economics, ed. by Ronald W. Jones and Peter B. Kenen Vol. 1 (Amsterdam: North-Holland; New York, N.Y., U.S.A).
• Helpman, E. (1987). Imperfect competition and ınternational trade: evidence from fourteen ındustrial countries. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 1(1), 62-81.
• Helpman, E., & Krugman P. R. (1985). Market structure and foreign trade; ıncreasing returns ımperfect competition and the ınternational economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1987.
• Hodrick, R. J., & Prescott, E. C. (1997). Postwar U.S. business cycles: an empirical investigation. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 29(1), 1-16.
• Horsewood, N., & Voicu, A. M. (2012). Does corruption hinder trade for the New EU members?. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 6, 2012-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2012-47.
• Kamel, E. M. (2021). The MENA region's need for more democracy and less bureaucracy: A gravity model controlling for aspects of governance and trade freedom in MENA. World Economy, 44, 1885–1912.
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobatón, P., (2002). Governance matters II: updated indicators for 2000-01. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 2772. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/613411468765868451/governance-matters-ii-updated-indicators-for-2000-01
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M., (2004). Governance matters III: Updated indicators for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. World Bank Economic Review, 18, 253- 287.
• Khorana, S., McGuire, S., & Perdikis, N., (2014). Multilateral agreements and global governance of ınternational trade regimes. Scientific Paper FP-7, Atlantic Future Project.
• Kien, N. T., (2009). Gravity model by panel data approach an empirical application with ımplications for the ASEAN free trade area. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 26(3), 266-77.
• King, R. G., & Rebelo, S. (1993). Low frequency filtering and real business cycles. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 17(1-2), 207-231.
• Koççat, H. (2008). Exchange rates, exports and economic growth in Turkey: evidence from johansen cointegration tests. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(1), 5–11.
• Krisztin, T., & Fischer, M. M. (2015). The gravity model for international trade: specification and estimation issues. Spatial Economic Analysis, 10(4), 451–470.
• Lehman, N., Herzer, D., Martinez-Zarzoso, M. I., & Vollmer, S. (2007). The ımpact of a customs union between Turkey and the EU on Turkey’s exports to the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(3), 719-743.
• Linnemann, Hans, (1966). An Econometric Study of International Trade Flows. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
• Mayer, T., & Zignago, S. (2011). Notes on CEPII’s distances measures : The GeoDist database. CEPII Working Paper, 2011-25. http://www.cepii.fr/pdf_pub/wp/2011/wp2011-25.pdf
• McPherson, M. Q., & Trumbull, W. N. (2008). Rescuing observed fixed effects: using the hausman-taylor method for out-of-sample trade projections. The International Trade Journal, 22(3), 315-340.
• Melitz, M., & Ottaviano, G., (2008). Market size, trade, and productivity. Review of Economic Studies, 75(1), 295-316.
• Mnsari, A., & Nechi, S. (2021). New nonlinear estimators of the gravity equation. Economic Modelling, 95, 192-202.
• Nardis, S., De Santis, R., & Ve Vicarelli, C. (2008). The Euro’s effecs on trade in a dynamic setting. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 5(1), 73-85.
• Neyaptı, B., Taşkın, F., & Üngör, M. (2007). Has European customs union agreement really affected turkey’s trade. Applied Economics, 39, 2121-2132.
• Oguledo, V. I., & Macphee, C. R. (1994). Gravity Models: A reformulation and an application to discriminatory trade arrangements. Applied Economics, 26, 107-20.
• Okawa, Y., & Van Wincoop, E., (2010). Gravity in ınternational finance. Working Paper 7, Hong Kong Institute for Monetary Research. https://www.aof.org.hk/uploads/publication/103/ub_full_0_2_240_wp-no-07_2010.pdf
• Poyhonen, P. (1963). A tentative model for the volume of trade between countries. Welwirtschaftliches Archiv, 90(1), 93-99.
• Razmi, A., & Blecker, R. (2008). Developing country exports of manufactures: moving up the ladder to escape the fallacy of composition?. Journal of Development Studies, 44(1), 21-48.
• Rojid, S., (2006). COMESA trade potential: A gravity approach. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 947-951.
• Saputra, P. M. (2019). Corruption perception and bilateral trade flows: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Journal of International Studies, 12(1), 65-78. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2019/12-1/4
• Sayan, S. (2006). Business cycles and workers’ remittances: how do migrant workers respond to cyclical movements of gdp at home?. IMF Working Paper, No:WP/06/52. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp0652.pdf
• Shepherd, B. (2016). The Gravity Model of International Trade: A User Guide (An updated version). United Nations ESCAP, ST/ESCAP/2766.https://www.unescap.org/resources/gravity-model-international-trade-user-guide-updated-version
• Silva Santos, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641-658.
• Silva Santos, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. (2022). The log of gravity at 15. Porteguese Economic Journal, 21, 423-437.
• Soeng, R., & Cuyvers, L. (2018). Domestic institutions and export performance: Evidence for Cambodia. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 27(4), 389-408.
• Suvankulov, F., & Güç, Y. (2012). Who is trading well in Central Asia? A gravity analysis of exports from the regional powers of the region. Eurosian Journal of Business and Economics, 5(9), 21-43.
• Şimdi, H., & Tunahan, H. (2016). The power of trade costs over ınternational trade: causality analysis in frequency domain for Turkey. Journal Articles. Center For Economic Analyses, 41-50.
• Tamaș, A., & Miron, D., (2021). The governance ımpact on the romanian trade flows. An augmented gravity model. Amfiteatru Economic, 23(56), 276-289.
• Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International Economics Policy, The Twentieth Century Fund. New York.
• Trotignon, J. (2010). Does regional ıntegration promote the multileralization of trade flows? a gravity model using panel data. Journal of Economic Integration, 25(2), 223-251.
• Tumbarello, P. (2007). Are regional trade agreements in Asia stumbling or building blocks? Implications for the Mekong-3 countries. International Monetary Fund Working Paper,, WP/07/53.
• Türkiye Ticaret Bakanlığı (2024), 20/05/2024 tarihinde https://ticaret.gov.tr/dis-iliskiler/serbest-ticaret-anlasmalari/yururlukte-bulunan-stalar adresinden alınmıştır.
• Transparency International (2023). Corruption Perceptions Index., 05 Mayıs, 2023-20 tarihinde https://www.transparency.org/en/ adresinden alınmıştır. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu-TÜİK (2024), https://www.tuik.gov.tr/
• Tüzemen, Ö. B., & Tüzemen, S. (2021). Revisiting the role of exchange rate volatility in Turkey’s exports: Evidence from the structural VAR Approach. Economic Annals, LXVI, 231, 127-149.
• Uz, İ. (2010). Testing for structural change in the bilateral trade elasticities of Turkey. METU Studies in Development, 37, 53-72. http://www2.feas.metu.edu.tr/metusd/ojs/index.php/metusd/article/view/239/278
• Westerlund, J., Wilhelmsson, F. (2011). Estimating the gravity model without gravity using panel data. Applied Economics, 43, 641-649.
• White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity, Econometrica, 48, 817–838.
• Xuegang, (2008). Study on Xinjiang’s bilateral trade: using a gravity model. Asia Europe Journal, 6, 507-517.
• Yılmaz, O., & Kaya V. (2007). İhracat, ithalat ve reel doviz kuru ilişkisi: Türkiye için bir VAR modeli. İktisat Isletme ve Finans, 2007, 22(250), 69–84.
• Zarzoso, I. M., & Lehmann, F. N. (2003). Augmented gravity model: an empirical application to mercosur-european union trade flows. Journal of Applied Economics, 2, 291-316.