Yeni Sanayileşmiş Ülkelerde Jeopolitik Riskin Turizm Talebi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, jeopolitik risklerin turizm talebi üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır. Bu etki, 9 yeni sanayileşmiş ülkenin (Brezilya, Çin, Filipinler, Güney Afrika, Hindistan, Malezya, Meksika, Tayland ve Türkiye) 1995- 2019 dönemine ait verileri kullanılarak ikinci nesil panel veri yöntemleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca jeopolitik riskin yanı sıra, ekonomik büyüme ve döviz kurunun da turizm talebi üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışmada değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönem ilişkisi yatay kesit bağımlılığını dikkate alan panel AMG yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, jeopolitik riskler Çin, Filipinler, Güney Afrika, Hindistan, Meksika, Tayland, Türkiye ve panelin genelinde turist sayılarını olumsuz etkilemektedir. Ayrıca Türkiye, Filipinler, Tayland, Meksika, Güney Afrika, Brezilya, Malezya ve panelin genelinde gayri safi yurt içi hasıladaki artışlar turist sayısını pozitif yönde etkilemektedir. Tayland, Türkiye ve Filipinler gibi ekonomileri turizme bağlı ülkelerde ise reel efektif döviz kurundaki artışların turist sayısını daha büyük ölçüde pozitif etkilediği sonucuna varılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, jeopolitik risklerin azaltılmasının yeni sanayileşmiş ülkeleri turistler için daha cazip hale getireceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jeopolitik Risk
• Turizm Talebi
• Yeni Sanayileşmiş Ülkeler
• İkinci Nesil Panel

The Impact of Geopolitical Risk on Tourism Demand in Newly Industrialized Countries

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of geopolitical risks on tourism demand. This effect was analysed using second-generation panel data methods with data from nine newly industrialized countries (Brazil, China, Philippines, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, and Turkey) covering the period from 1995 to 2019. In addition to geopolitical risk, the effects of economic growth and exchange rates on tourism demand were also examined. In the study, the long-term relationship between variables was analysed using the panel AMG method, which takes cross-sectional dependence into account. According to the results obtained, geopolitical risks negatively affect the number of tourists in China, Philippines, South Africa, India, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, and the panel as a whole. In countries whose economies are highly dependent on tourism, such as Thailand, Turkey, and Philippines, it was also concluded that increases in the real effective exchange rate have a greater positive impact on tourist numbers. The findings suggest that reducing geopolitical risks would make newly industrialized countries more attractive to tourists.

Keywords

• Geopolitical Risk
• Tourism Demand
• Newly Industrialized Countries
• Second-Generation Panel

References

1. Akadiri, S. S., Eluwole, K. K., Akadiri, A. C., & Avcı, T. (2020a). Does causality between geopolitical risk, tourism and economic growth matter? Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, (43), 273-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.09.002
2. Akadiri, S. S., Lasisi, T. T., Uzuner, G., & Akadiri, A. C. (2020b). Examining the causal impacts of tourism, globalization, economic growth and carbon emissions in tourism island territories: Bootstrap panel granger causality analysis, Current Issues in Tourism, 23(4), 470-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1539067
3. Akram, K., Mamun, Md. Al, Raza, S., & Suleman, M. T. (2024). Global geopolitical crisis and tourism development in the USA, Current Issues in Tourism, 27(20), 3352-3368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2262709
4. Alam, M. S., & Paramati, S. R. (2016). The impact of tourism on income inequality in developing economies: Does Kuznets Curve hypothesis exist?. Annals of Tourism Research, 61(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.09.008
5. Aydın, A., Darıcı, B., & Taşçı, H. M. (2015). Economic determinants of international tourism demand: an empirical application on Turkey. Erciyes University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, (45), 143-177. https://doi.org/10.18070/euiibfd.85938
6. Aydın, N. (2021a). The effect of outward foreign direct invesment on economic growth of the home country. Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19(41), 551-574. https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.722444
7. Aydın, N. (2021b). The effect of outward foreign direct invesment on foreign trade: Panel data analysis. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 39(1), 51-70.
8. Balli, F., Uddin, G. S., & Shahzad, S. J. H. (2019). Geopolitical risk and tourism demand in emerging economies. Tourism Economics, 25(6), 997-1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166198318

9. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., & Mestre, R. (1998). Error‐correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single‐equation framework. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(3), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9892.00091
10. Bayraktaroğlu, E., Gürsoy, S., Günay, F., & Karakuş, Y. (2021). Geopolitical risks and international tourist arrivals to Turkey: A causality study. Anais Brasileiros De Estudos Turisticos-Abet, 11, 1-16. https://periodicos.ufjf.br/index.php/abet/article/view/34237/23520
11. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
12. Broda, C. (2006). Exchange rate regimes and national price levels. Journal of International Economics, 70(1), 52-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2005.11.002
13. Bruegel (2021, Ocak 26). Bruegel Datasets. Real effective exchange rates for 178 countries: A new database, https://www.bruegel.org/publications/datasets/real-effective-exchange-rates-for-178-countries-a-new-database.
14. Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2018). Measuring geopolitical risk. Board of governors of the federal reserve system, International Finance Discussion Paper, 1222, 1-66. https://doi.org/10.17016/IFDP.2018.1222
15. Croissant, Y., & Millo, G. (2019). Panel data econometrics with R (1 Baskı). England: West Sussex John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
16. Darvas, Z. (2021). Timely measurement of real effective exchange rates. Bruegel Working Paper, No. 15/2021. https://www.bruegel.org/system/files/wp_attachments/WP-2021-15-231221-1.pdf
17. Demir, E., Gözgör, G., & Paramati, S. R. (2019). Do geopolitical risks matter for inbound tourism?, Eurasian Business Review, 9(2), 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-019-00118-9
18. Demir, Y., & Görür, C. (2020). Investigation of the relationship between various energy consumption and economic growth belonging to OECD countries by panel cointegration analysis. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 32, 15-33. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2020.32.0005
19. Demir, E., Simonyan, S., Chen, M. H., & Marco Lau, C. K. (2020a). Asymmetric effects of geopolitical risks on Turkey’s tourist arrivals. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 23-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.04.006
20. Demir, E., Gözgör, G., & Paramati, S. R. (2020b). To what extend economic uncertainty effects tourism investments? Evidence from OECD and NON-OECD economies. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100758
21. Dünya Bankası- World Bank (2025a, Ocak 25). International tourism, Number of arrivals. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?view=chart
22. Dünya Bankası- World Bank (2025b, Ocak 25). GDP (Constant LCU) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KN?view=chart
23. Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: A novel estimator. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper, No: 17692. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/1/MPRA_paper_17692.pdf
24. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C.W.J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236
25. Ghosh, S. (2022). Geopolitical risk, economic growth, economic uncertainty and international inbound tourism: An Indian Illustration. Emerald Publishing Limited, 7(1), 2-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-07-2020-0081
26. Göçer, İ., & Kovacs, P. (2023). The effects of geopolitical risks on tourism revenues of the Middle East and Asian countries. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 30 (1(634), 77-90. https://store.ectap.ro/articole/1642.pdf
27. Gray, C. W. (1997). Reforming legal systems in developing and transition countries. Finance & Development, 34, 14-16. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1997/09/pdf/gray.pdf
28. Gültekin, H. (2024). Geopolitical risk and tourism: Asia Pacific countries. 19 Mayıs Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.52835/19maysbd.1553562
29. Güloğlu, B., & Bayar, G. (2016). Sectoral exports dynamics of Turkey: Evidence from panel data estimators. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 1-20.
30. Hailemariam, A., & Ivanovski, K. (2021). The impact of geopolitical risk on tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(22), 3134-3140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1876644
31. Herman, S. (2023). Dynamic common correlated effects of geopolitical risk on international tourism arrivals. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 23(2), 132-149. https://doi.org/10.2478/foli-2023-0023
32. Kurt, S., Sezgin, F., & Sart, G. (2018). A panel data analysis for determinants of patent production in G-7 countries. Journal of Administrative Sciences,16(32), 285-298.
33. Lee, C. C., Olasehinde-Williams, G., & Akadiri, S. S. (2021). Geopolitical risk and tourism: Evidence from dynamic heterogeneous panel models, International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2389
34. Lim, C. (1997). Review of international tourism demand models. Annals of Tourism Research. 24(4), 835-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00049-2
35. Mahadevan, R., & Suardi, S. (2019). Panel evidence on the impact of tourism growth on poverty, poverty gap and income inequality. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(3), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1375901
36. Muth, J. F. (1961). Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica, 29(3), 315- 335. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909635
37. Neal, T. (2015). Estimating heterogeneous coefficients in panel data models with endogenous regressors and common factors, Working Paper, 1-29.
38. Parray, W. A., Soudager, M. A., Dada, Z. A., Yasmin, E., & Darzi, T. A. (2024). Impact of geopolitical risk on tourism demand: Evidence from asymmetric NARDL approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 7(5), 2546- 2559. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-06-2022-0248
39. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis, Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597-625.
40. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435, 1-39. https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf
41. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
42. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
43. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted Lm test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
44. Polat, M., Alptürk, Y., & Gürsoy, S. (2021). Impact of geopolitical risk on BIST tourism index and tourist arrivals in Turkey. Journal of Tourism Theory and Research, 7(2), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.24288/jttr.926617
45. Sarı, Y., & Oğuz, Y. E. (2018). A comparison causality analysis about the effect of real exchange rate on the tourism demand. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 17(66), 603-620. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.338205
46. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
47. Soyu Yıldırım, E. (2023). The relationship of geopolitical risk and tourism in Turkey: Fourier toda-yamamoto causes analysis. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University the Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 59, 327-347. https://doi.org/10.53568/yyusbed.1229582
48. Stryzhak, O., Sayar, R., & Arı, Y. O. (2022). Geopolitical risks, GDP and tourism: An ARDL-ECM cointegration study on Ukraine. CES Working Papers, 14(1), 85-113.
49. Syed, Q. R., Bouri, E., Zafar, R. F., & Adekoya, O. B. (2021). Does geopolitical risk mitigate inbound tourism? Evidence from panel quantile regression. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2784
50. Tiwari, A. K., Das, D., & Dutta, A. (2019). Geopolitical risk, economic policy uncertainty and tourist arrivals: evidence from a developing country. Tourism Management, 75(4), 323-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.06.002
51. Turan, T., Karakaş, M., & Özer, H. A. (2018). The relationship between military expenditure and economic growth: A panel cointegration and causality analysis. Journal of Finance, 175, 140-153.
52. Tütüncü, A., & Sırkıntıoğlu Yıldırım, Ş. (2023). Which is more effective on tourism, geopolitical risk or economic political uncertainty?. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 3(57), 119-132. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/57.3.23.07
53. Tütüncü, A. (2024). Geopolitical risk and tourism in Turkey. Review of Economics and Political Science, 9(4), 382-398. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-11-2022-0094
54. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
55. Wu, T. P., & Wu, H. C. (2019). The link between tourism activities and economic growth: evidence from China’s provinces, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358416683769
56. Zhang, H., Jiang, Z., Gao, W., & Yang, C. (2022). Time-varying impact of economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk on tourist arrivals: Evidence from a developing country. Tourism Management Perspectives, 41(20). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100928