Buradasınız

TÜRKİYE İMALAT SANAYİNDE İTHALATIN PİYASAYI DİSİPLİNE ETME HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: PANEL VERİ YAKLAŞIMI

TESTING THE IMPORTS AS MARKET DISIPLINE HYPOTHESIS IN TURKISH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY: PANEL DATA APPROACH

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
The relationship between openness and competition is known as “the import-as-market discipline” hypothesis and it has attracted a great deal of attention in the empirical literature. The argument is that domestic industries, which have an oligopolistic structure, are forced to behave more competitively once domestic markets are exposed to international competition. This will reduce the market power of domestic firms leading to lower mark-ups and higher output levels. In this paper, the import discipline hypothesis ise tested by utilizing panel data econometric techniques for the data of two-digit Turkish manufacturing industries, and it is concluded that import penetration played an important role in disciplining the market for the years 1966-2001 in two-digit Turkish manufacturing industries.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Dısa açılma ve rekabet arasındaki iliski “ithalatın piyasayı disipline etme“ hipotezi olarak bilinir ve ampirik literatürün yogun ilgisini çekmektedir. Oligopolistik yapıya sahip yerel endüstriler, uluslar arası rekabete maruz kalarak daha rekabetçi davranmaya zorlanır. Bu durum, fiyatmaliyet marjlarının düsmesine ve çıktı seviyesinin artmasına neden olarak, yerel firmaların piyasa gücünü azaltacaktır. Bu makalede, iki haneli Türkiye imalat sanayi verileri ile panel veri ekonometrik teknikleri kullanılarak disipline edici ithalat hipotezi test edilmis ve ithalat penetrasyonunun Türkiye imalat sanayi iki haneli alt sektörlerinde 1966-2001 döneminde, piyasayı disipline etmede önemli bir rolü oldugu sonucuna varılmıstır.
1-15

REFERENCES

References: 

BALTAGI, Badi; (2001), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Chichester,
Eng.: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 292s.
BRANDER, James ve Paul KRUGMAN; (1983), “A 'Reciprocal Dumping'
Model of International Trade”, NBER Working Paper, No. 1194.
VENABLES, Anthony; (1985), “ Trade and Trade Policy with Imperfect
Competition: The Case of Identical Product and Free Entry”, Journal of
International Economics, 29: ss. 23-42.
CAVES, Richard; (1985), “International Trade and Industrial Organization:
Problem Solved and Unsolved”, European Economic Review, 28, ss.
377-395.
CURRIE, Janet ve Ann HARRISON; (1997), “Sharing the Costs: The Impact of
Trade Reform on Capital and Labor in Morocco”, Journal of Labor
Economics, 15(3, part 2) ss. 44-71.
EPIFANI, Paolo; (2003), “Trade Liberalization, Firm Performance, and Labor
Market Outcomes in the Developing World: What Can We Learn from
Micro- Level Data?” World Bank, Labor & Employment Policy
Research Working Papers no. 3063. ss. 1-68.
ENGN, Nazım; Erol KATIRCIOGLU ve Cevdet AKCAY; (1995), “The
Impact of Trade Liberalization on the Turkish Manufacturing Industry:
An Empirical Assessment.” In Policies for Competition and
Competitiveness, ed. R. Erzan,. Vienna, Austria: United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), ss. 86–122.
DIEBOLD, Francis ve Marc NERLOVE; (1990), “Unit roots in economic time
series: a selected survey”. In: Fomby, T.; Rhodes, E. (eds.), Advances
in econometrics: co-integration, spurious regressions and unit roots.
Greenwich: JAI Press, 379s.
FOROUTAN, Faezeh; (1996), “Turkey 1976-85: Foreign Trade, Industrial
Productivity and Competition,” in Industrial Evolution in Developing
Countries, Eds. M. J. Roberts and J. R. Tybout, A World Bank Book,
Washington, ss.1-64.
GRANGER, Clieve ve Paul NEWBOLD; (1974), “Spurious regressions in
econometrics”, Journal of Econometrics, 2 (2), ss. 111-120
HALL, Robert; (1988), “The Relation Between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S.
Industry”, Journal of Political Economy, 96(5), ss. 921-47.
HAUSMAN, Jerry; (1979), “Specification Tests in Econometrics.”
Econometrica, 46, no. 6, ss. 1251–1271.HAUSMAN, Jerry ve William TAYLOR; (1981), “Panel Data and
Unobservable Individual Effects” Econometrica, 49, no. 6, ss. 1377–
1397.
HOEKMAN, Bernard, Hiau Looi KEE ve Marcelo OLARREAGA; (2001),
“Markups, Entry Regulation and Trade: Does Country Size Matter?”
Policy Research Working Paper no. 2662, World Bank, ss.1-37.
IM, Kyung So; Hashem PESARAN ve Yongcheol SHIN; (2003), “Testing for
unit roots in heterogeneous panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 115, ss.
53-74,
KATIRCIOGLU, Erol; (1989), Türkiye malat Sanayiinde Yogunlasma ve Yogunlasmayı
Belirleyen Faktörler 1975-1985, Tüses Arastırma Vakfı
Yayını, ss. 1-37.
KIVILCIM Metin; Ebru VOYVODA ve Erinç YELDAN; (2002), “The Impact
of the Liberalization Program on the Price–Cost Margin and Investment
of Turkey’s Manufacturing Sector After 1980 Emerging Markets
Finance and Trade, vol. 38, no. 5, September–October, ss. 72–103.
KÖSE, A. Hasim; Erinç YELDAN; (1998), “Dısa Açılma Sürecinin Dinamikleri”
Toplum ve Bilim, ss. 45-69.
KRISHNA, Panagariya ve Devashish MITRA; (1998), “Trade Liberalization,
Market Discipline and Productivity Growth: New Evidence from India”,
Journal of Development Economics, 56(2): 447-462.
LEVIN, Andrew ve Chien LIN; (1992), ”Unit root tests in panel data:
asymptotic and finite-sample properties”, University of California, San
Diego Working Paper, ss. 23-92.
LEVIN, Andrew; Chien Lin; (1993), “Unit root tests in panel data: new results”,
University of California, San Diego Working Paper, ss. 56-93.
LEVINSOHN, James; (1993), “Testing the imports -as- market- discipline
hypothesis”, Journal of International Economics, 35, ss. 1-22.
MADDALA, G. S. ve Shaoven WU (1999), “A comparative study of unit root
tests with panel data and a new simple test”, Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, Special Issue, ss. 631-52.
MIHÇI, Sevinç ve Arzu WIGLEY; (2003), “Avrupa Birligi le Gümrük Birligi’nin
Türk malat Sanayii Alt Sektörleri Üzerinde Kârlılık Etkileri”,
Gazi Üniversitesi ..B.F Dergisi, Cilt 5, Sayı 3, ss. 77-91.
MIHÇI, Sevinç ve Arzu WIGLEY; (2004), “Effects of Customs Union with
European Union on the Market Structure and Pricing Behaviour of
Turkish Manufacturing Industry”, European Study Group ETSG
Conferances, Nottingham, ss. 1-19.
Erciyes Üniversitesi
ktisadi ve
dari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 29, Temmuz-Aralık 14 2007, ss.1-15
NEYAPTI, Bilin; Fatma TASKIN ve M. ÜNGÖR; (2003), "Has European
Customs Union Agreement Really Affected Turkey's Trade?", Bilkent
Economic Papers, ss. 1-14.
RESENDE, Marcelo ; (2006), “Profit Persistence in Brazil,: A Panel Data
Study” Estudos Econômicos (São Paulo) vol.36 no.1 São
Paulo Jan./Mar, ss. 1-12.
ROBETRS, Mark ve James R. TYBOUT (eds.); (1996), Industrial Evolution
in Developing Countries, New York: Oxford University Press, ss. 946-
948.
SEK, smail; (2005), "Gümrük Birligi’nin Türkiye'nin net ihracatı üzerine etkileri",
Ege Üniversitesi, zmir, manuscript, ss. 1-24.
TAYLOR, Scott; (1994), “Once-off and continuing gains from trade”, Review
of Economic Studies, 61, ss. 589-601.
TYBOUT, James; (2001), “Plant- and Firm-level Evidence on ‘New’ Trade
Theories”, NBER Working Paper no. 8418, ss. 1-54.
VERGL, Hasan ve Ertugrul YILDIRIM; (2006),”AB-Türkiye Gümrük Birligi’nin
Türkiye’nin Rekabet Ortamı Üzerine Etkisi, ktisat, sletme ve
Finans Dergisi, Haziran.
YALÇIN, Cihan; (2000), “Price-Cost Margins and Trade Liberalization in
Turkish Manufacturing Industry: A Panel Data Analysis.” Central
Bank of the Republic of Turkey, Research Department Working
Paper, Ankara, ss. 1-23.
YALÇIN, Cihan ve Ali ÇULHA; (2005), “The Determinants of The Price Cost
Margins of Manufacturing Firms in Turkey, Research and Monetary
Policy Department Working Paper, No: 05/15, ss. 1-31.
WOOLDRIDGE, Jeffrey; (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and
Panel Data, Cambridge: The MIT Pres. 752s.

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