You are here

Home » Content

Türkiye’nin Eksik Dış Ticareti, Ticari Potansiyeli ve Yeni Fırsatlar

Turkey’s Missing Trade, Potential Trade and New Opportunities

Journal Name:

  • Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This study aims to determine the potential trade of Turkey with seven geographical regions with which she intensively trades and reveals how much of this potential she uses. The main findings are as follows:On the one hand, while estimating a basic gravity equation it is confirmed that a change in the bilateral trade volume essentially depends on countries’ national income and distance between countries as expected. Nevertheless, contrary to previous studies’ findings, it is observed that border neighbourhood has a positive effect on the trade of Turkey with her neighbour countries. On the other hand, it is revealed that Turkey under-trades with her trade partners. If Turkey had fully used her trade potential during 1995-2013 period, she would have effectuated $ 65,9 billion more export and $ 42,9 billion more imports. Although the European Union (EU) is still her most important trade partner, the actual trade of Turkey with the EU is very close to her potential trade with the EU. On the contrary, there is a great gap between actual and potential trade levels of Turkey with the other regions, especially Africa and Middle East. This situation that emerged new opportunities for Turkish trade sector can be expected to have impact on the foreign trade market diversification policy of Turkey.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışma Türkiye’nin yoğun olarak dış ticaret yaptığı yedi coğrafi bölge ile potansiyel dış ticaretini belirlemeyi ve bu potansiyelin ne kadarını kullanabildiğini ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Ana bulgular şu şekildedir: Bir taraftan, temel Çekim Denklemi (Gravity Equation) tahminlenmek suretiyle, ikili dış ticaret hacmindeki bir değişimin temel olarak ülkelerin milli gelirlerine ve ülkelerin arasındaki mesafeye bağlı olduğu, beklendiği gibi, teyit edilmiştir. Buna rağmen, önceki çalışmaların bulgularının aksine sınır komşuluğunun Türkiye’nin komşularıyla ticaretine pozitif etkisi olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Diğer taraftan, Türkiye’nin dış ticaret ortaklarıyla potansiyelinin altında ticaret yaptığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Eğer Türkiye 1992-2012 döneminde ticaret potansiyelini tam olarak değerlendirseydi her yıl ortalama 65,9 milyar dolar daha fazla ihracat ve 42,9 milyar $ daha fazla ithalat yapmış olurdu. Avrupa Birliği (AB) en önemli ticari ortağı olmasına rağmen Türkiye’nin AB ile mevcut ticareti AB ile potansiyel ticaretine çok yakındır. Buna karşın, Türkiye’nin, özellikle Afrika ve Ortadoğu gibi diğer bölgeler ile mevcut ve potansiyel ticaret seviyeleri arasında büyük açık vardır. Türk dış ticaret sektörü için alternatif bölgelerde yeni fırsatlar ortaya çıkaran bu durum Türkiye’nin dış pazar çeşitlendirme politikası üzerine etki etmesi beklenebilir
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_190707_28_pp_25-47.pdf
  • 1
25-47
  • Turkish

JEL Codes:

REFERENCES

References: 

ANDERSON, J. (1979), “A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity
Equation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 69 No: 1 pp. 106-116.
BERGSTAND, J. H. (1985), “The Gravity Equation in International Trade:
Some Microeconomic Foundation and Emprical Evidence”, The Reviewe of
Economic and Statistics, Vol. 67(3) pp. 474-481.
BERGSTAND, J. H. (1989), “The Generalized Gravity Equation,
Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in
Internaational Trade ”, The Reviewe of Economic and Statistics, Vol. 71(1)
pp. 143-153.
BRÜLHAN, M. and Kelly, M. J. (1999), “Ireland’s Trading Potential with
Central and Eastern European Countries: A gravity Study”, The Economic
and Social Review, Vol. 30 No: 2 pp. 159-174.
BYERS, J.A. (1997), “Surface Distance between Two Points of Latitude
and Longitude”, (http://www.chemical-ecology.net/java/lat-long.htm,
14/2/2009)
CHIONIS, D., LIARGOVAS, P. and ZANIAS, G. (2002), “Greece’s Trade
with the Balkan Countries: Is It too Little?”, Journal of Economic
Integration, Vol. 17 No: 3 pp. 608-622.
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi
Cilt:28, Sayı:1, Yıl:2013, ss.25-47
45
Commission Of The European Union (1997) COM(97) 2000-2010, Final
Declaration.
DEĞER, C. (2003) “The Possible Trade Effects of the Third Enlargement:
The case of Turkish Exports to EU”, European Trde Study Group, Madrid
Conference, 11-13 Septembre 2003,
(http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2003/papers/cagacan.pdf, 15.12.2008)
ERZAN, R. and FLİZTEKİN, A. (1997), “Competitiveness of Turkish
SMSEs in the Customs Union”, European Economic Review, 41 (1997) pp.
881-892.
FEENSTRA, R. (1998), “Integration of trade and disintegration of
production in the global economy”, Journal of Economic Perspectives
12(1), pp: 31-50.
FEENSTRA, R., MARKUSEN, J.A. and ROSE, A.K. (1998),
“Understanding the Home Market Effect and the Gravity Equation: The
Role of Differentiated Goods”, NBER Working Papers, No. 6804,
Cambridge M.A.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
HAMİLTON, C. B., and WİNTERS, L.A. (1992), “Opening up Trade with
Eastern Europe”, Economic Policy, Vol. 14, pp. 77-116.
HAVEMAN, J. D. and HUMMELS, D. (1996), “Gravity, What is it good
for? Theory and Evidence on Bilateral Trade”, Mimeo, W. Lafayette (IN):
Purdue University.
HARRİSON, W. G., RUTHERFORD, F. T. and TARR, D. G. (1997),
“Economic Implication for Turkey of a Customs Union with the European
Union”, European Economic Review, 41 (1997) pp. 861-870.
HEAD, K., MAYER, T. (2002), “Illusory Border Effects: Distance
Mismeasurements Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade”, Document de
travail du CEPII, n.º 02-01, January.
LINNEMAN, H. (1966), “An Econometric Study of International Trade
Flows”, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam
Engin SORHUN
46
LOPES, L.P. (2003), BORDER EFFECT AND EFFECTİVE TRANSPORT
COST, ETGS2003 PAPER.
(http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2003/papers/lopes.pdf)
MERCINIER, J. and YELDAN, E. (1997), “On Turkey’s trade policy: Is a
Custms Union with Europe enough?”, European Economic Review, 41
(1997) pp. 871-880.
MARTÍN, C., GUAL, J., (1994), "Trade and foreign direct investment with
Central and Eastern Europe: its impact on Spain", Discussion Paper Series
1006, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).
MARTİN, C. and TURRİON, J. (2001), “The trade impact of the integration
of the Central and Eastern European Countries on the European Union”,
European Economy Group Working Papers, No:11,
(http://www.ucm.es/info/econeuro/documentos/documentos/dt112001.pdf,)
MCCALLUM, J. (1995), “National Borders Matter: Canada-US Regional
Trade Patterns”, American Economic Review, Vol. 85 No: 3 pp. 615-623.
NİELSEN, F. (1999), “Analyse of Pooled Time Seri Cross Sections”, The
Odum Institute,
http://www2.irss.unc.edu/irss/shortcourses/gaddyhandouts/PooledTimeSerie
sHandouts/Pooled.asp [12.3.2009’de ziyaret edildi]
POLAK, J. (1996), “Is APEC a Natural Regional Trading Bloc? A Critique
of the “Gravity Model of International Trade”, The World Economy 19(5),
pp: 533-43.
PÖYHONEN, P. (1963), “A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade
between Countries”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 90:93-99.
SORHUN, E. (2006), “What will the Enlarged Customs Union Bring?
Turkish Potential Trade with the New European Union Members”,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Business, Economics
and Management, Yasar University, Izmir Turkey
TINBERGEN, J. (1962), “Shaping the World Economy: Suggestion fora an
International Economic Policy”, The Twentieth Centruy Fund, New York
KULLANILAN PROGRAMLAR:
STATA 8 (2008), Data Analysis and Statistical

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com