Türkiye İmalat Sanayinde Yurtiçi Satışlar ve İhracat İlişkisi: BİST Sınai Endeksinde Yer Alan İmalat Sanayi İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama (2010-2020)

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkiye ihracatında stratejik öneme sahip olan imalat sanayinin yurtiçi satışları ve ihracatı arasındaki ilişki 2010-2020 yılları için incelenmektedir. Çalışmanın veri setini Borsa İstanbul (BIST)’da işlem gören, BIST Sınai Endeksi içinde yer alan ve 2010 yılı itibarıyla itibariyle aktif büyüklüğü 100 Milyon TL’nin üzerinde olan imalat sanayi işletmeleri oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada panel veri analizi çerçevesinde panel eş bütünleşme testleri uygulanmıştır. Modelin uzun dönem regresyon katsayıları incelenmiş ve model tahmini için Panel Düzeltilmiş Standart Hataları tahmincisi (Panel Corrected Standart Errors- PCSE) kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca ihracat ve yurt içi satışlar değişkenleri arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisinin incelenmesi için panel nedensellik testi uygulanmıştır. 2010-2020 dönemi itibarıyla BIST Sınai Endeksinde yer alan 68 sanayi işletmesinin yurtiçi satışları ile ihracatları arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi bulunduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu iki değişken arasında ilgili literatür çerçevesinde iktisadi anlamda tamamlayıcılık ilişkisi olduğu da tespit edilmiştir. Ampirik analiz sonuçlarına göre BİST Sınai Endeksinde yer alan imalat sanayi işletmelerinin yurtiçi satışlarında meydana gelen %1 düzeyindeki artışın bu işletmelerin ihracatlarını %0,77 oranında artırdığı, bu işletmelerin ihracatlarının %1 düzeyinde artmasının ise yurtiçi satışlarını %0,17 oranında artırdığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yurtiçi Satış
• İhracat
• Panel Veri Analizi
• Türkiye
• İmalat Sanayi
• BİST

The Relationship of Domestic Sales and Export in Turkish Manufacturing Industry: An Application on Manufacturing Industry Enterprises in the BIST Industrial Index (2010-2020)

Öz

In this study, the relationship between domestic sales and exports of the manufacturing industry, which has a strategic importance in Turkey's exports, is examined for the years 2010-2020. The data set of the study consists of manufacturing industry enterprises that are traded in Borsa Istanbul (BIST), included in the BIST Industrial Index, and with an asset size of over 100 million TL as of 2010. In the study, panel cointegration tests were applied within the framework of panel data analysis. The long-term regression coefficients of the model were examined and the Panel Corrected Standard Errors (PCSE) estimator was used for model estimation. In addition, panel causality test was applied to examine the causality relationship between export and domestic sales variables. It has been concluded that there is a cointegration relationship between the domestic sales and exports of 68 industrial enterprises included in the BIST Industrial Index as of the 2010-2020 period. It has also been determined that there is a complementary relationship between these two variables in the economic sense within the framework of the relevant literature. According to the results of the empirical analysis, it was found that the 1% increase in the domestic sales of the manufacturing industry enterprises included in the BIST Industrial Index increased the exports of these enterprises by %0,77, while the 1% increase in the exports of these enterprises increased their domestic sales by %0,17.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Domestic Sale
• Export
• Panel Data Analysis
• Turkey
• Manufacturing Industry
• BIST

Kaynakça

1. Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2004). A panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127–1177. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598781.
2. Bai, J. ve Ng, S. (2005). A New look at panel testing of stationarity and the PPP hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (Third Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
4. Baltagi, B., Feng, Q. ve Kao, C. (2012). A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Center for Policy Research, (193), 1-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004.
5. Barbieri, L. (2006). Panel unit root tests: A review. Quaderni Dipartimento Di Scienze Economiche E Sociali, (43), 1-53. Erişim adresi: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Panel-Unit-Root-Tests%3A-A-Review-Barbieri/d9df8e496a187eb9af6a2a80d26f10041e5c4b59. Bardaji, J., Bricongne, J. C., Campagne, B. ve Gaulier, G. (2018). Domestic and export performances of French firms. The World Economy, 42(3), 785-817. doi:10.1111/twec.12713.
6. Belke, A., Oeking, A. ve Setzer, R. (2015). Domestic demand, capacity constraints and export dynamics: Emprical evidence for vulnerable euro area countries. Economic Modelling, (48), 315-325. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2014.10.035.
7. Berman, N., Berthou, A. ve Hericourt, J. (2011). Export dynamics and sales at home. Centre D'etudes Prospectives Et D'Informations Internationales, (33), 1-43. Erişim adresi: http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2011/wp2011-33.pdf.
8. Bobeica, B., Esteves, P.S., Rua, A. ve Staehr, K. (2016). Exports and domestic demand pressure: a dynamic panel data model for the euro area countries. Review of World Economics, (1777), 10-125. Erişim adresi: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1777.en.pdf.

9. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. doi: 10.2307/2297111
10. Bugamelli, M., Gaiotti, E. ve Viviano, E. (2014). Domestic and foreign sales: Complements or subsitutes. Banca D'Italia- Questioni di Economia e Finanza, (248). Erişim adresi: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2584919.
11. Buono, I. ve Formai, S. (2018). The heterogeneous response of domestic sales and export to bank credit shocks. Journal of International Economics, 113, 55-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2018.03.001.
12. Chang, Y. ve Song, W. (2002). Panel unit root tests in the presence of cross-sectional dependency and heterogeneity. 10th International Conference on Panel Data, Berlin, July 5-6, 1-20. Erişim adresi: https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpd/pd2002/b5-2.html.
13. Crespo, A. ve Sepulveda, J. A. (2015). The role of physical and financial constraints in export dynamics. Italy: European University Institute Max Weber Programme.
14. Çiftçi, C. ve Durusu Çiftçi, D. (2013). The interrelationship between domestic sales and export : the case of Turkish manufacturing sector 1996-2010. Akdeniz İktisadi İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 13(27), 77-98. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/372809.
15. De Hoyos, R. E. ve Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496. doi: 10.1177/1536867X0600600403.
16. Dumitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29, 1540-1460. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014.
17. Erbahar, A. (2019). Two worlds apart? Export demand shocks and domestic sales. Review of World Economics, 156, 313-342. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10290-019-00364-z.
18. Esteves, P. S. ve Prades, E. (2017). Does export concentration matter in economic adjustment programs? Evidence from The Euro-Area. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(2), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.polmod.2017.10.005.
19. Esteves, P. S. ve Rua, A. (2015). Is there a role for domestic demand pressure on export performance? Empirical Economics, 49, 1173-1189. doi:10.1007/s00181-014-0908-5
20. Frees, E. W. (1995). Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 69, 393-414. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01658-M
21. Frees, E. W. (2004). Longitudinal and panel data: Analysis and applications for the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality ımplicit in the analysis of variance . Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675-701. doi:10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522.
23. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791.
24. Gujarati, D. (2016). Örneklerle ekonometri. (N. Bolatoğlu, Çev.) Ankara: Literatür Yayınları.
25. Gujarati, D. N. ve Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (Fifth Edition). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
26. Gül, S. (2019). An analysis on the domestic sales and export: a dynamic model for the Turkish manufacturing firms. Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, 19(2), 1-29. Erişim adresi: https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/1da8b505-0022-4ef2-97a6-e2243a37d220/wp1902.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-1da8b505-0022-4ef2-97a6-e2243a37d220-mA0mWEh.
27. Hood, M. V., Kidd, Q. ve Morris, I. L. (2008). Two sides of the same coin? Employing granger causality tests in a time series cross-section framework. Political Analysis, 16(3), 324-344. Erişim adresi: https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v16y2008i03p324-344_00.html.
28. Hsiao, C. (2005). Why panel data? The Singapore Economic Review, 50(2), 143-154. doi: 10.1142/S0217590805001937.
29. Hurlin, C. ve Mignon, V. (2007). Second generation panel unit root tests. HALSHS Sciences Humanies et Sociales, (1), 1-24. Erişim adresi:https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00159842/.
30. Koçbulut, Ö. ve Altıntaş, H. (2016). İkiz açıklar ve Feldstein-Horioka hipotezi: OECD ülkeleri Üzerine yatay kesit bağımlılığı altında yapısal kırılmalı panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (48), 145-174. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erciyesiibd/issue/28008/297415.
31. McQuoid, A. ve Rubini, L. (2014). The opportunity cost of exporting. Society for Economic Dynamics Meeting Papers, 412, 1-33. Erişim adresi: https://www.economicdynamics.org/meetpapers/2014/paper_412.pdf.
32. Menyah, K., Nazlıoğlu, Ş. ve Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2014). Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in african countries: New ınsights from a panel causality approach. Economic Modeling, (37), 386-394. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.11.044.
33. Nazlıoğlu, Ş., Payne, J. E., Lee, J., Rayos-Velazquez, M. ve Karul, Ç. (2021). Convergence in OPEC carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from new panel stationarity tests with factors and breaks. Economic Modelling, 100, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2021.105498.
34. Özdemir, D. (2022). Yurtiçi satışlar ve ihracat ilişkisi: BIST sınai endeksinde yer alan işletmeler üzerine bir uygulama (2010-2020) (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara Hacıbayram Veli Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Ensititüsü, Ankara.
35. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 69(7), 1-39. Erişim adresi: https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf.
36. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.
37. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM test of error cross-section ındependence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23116064.
38. Salomon, R. ve Shaver, M. (2005). Export and domestic sales: their interrelationship and determinants. Strategis Management Journal, 26(9), 855-871. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20142273.
39. Sun, S. ve Anwar, S. (2016). Interrelationship among foreign presence, domestic sales and export intensity in Chinese manufacturing industries. Routledge, 48(26), 2443–2453. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2015.1122733.
40. Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323. doi: 10.2307/1913012.
41. Toraganlı, N. ve Yalçın, C. (2016). Export, real exchange rates and external exposures: Emprical evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms. Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, 16(24), 1-44. Erişim adresi: https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/b0b2a9a0-db21-4499-977b-9524d46082d5/wp1624.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-b0b2a9a0-db21-4499-977b-9524d46082d5-m3fw6jp Kaynak türüne göre kılavuza uygun hazırlanmalıdır.
42. Üzümcü, A. (2008). İktisadi büyüme. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım.
43. Üzümcü, A. (2020). Endüstri 4.0 ve Dış Ticaret Stratejileri Üzerindeki Etkisi. Teknolojik gelişmenin son evresi endüstri 4.0 ve Türkiye üzerine değerlendirmeler (s. 55-85). içinde Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
44. Vannoorenberghe, G. (2012). Firm-Level volatility and exports. Journal of International Economics, 86, 57-67. doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.08.013.
45. Wang, J; Wei, Y; Liu, X; Wang, C. ve Lin, H. (2014). Simultaneous impact of the presence of foreign MNEs on indigenous firms export and domestic sales. Management International Review, 54, 195-223.doi: 10.1007/s11575-013-0195-y.
46. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistic, 69(6), 709-748. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x.
47. Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics a modern approach. Ohaio: Cengage Learning.
48. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2020). Panel veri ekonometrisi stata uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.