A Comparison of Transportation Infrastructure of APEC Countries with Cluster Analysis

Year 2023, Volume: 24 Issue: 3, 393 - 402, 31.07.2023

Serkan Taştan Kıvanç Halil Arıç Sara Moujahid

https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1252506

Abstract

The transportation infrastructure, which is one of the factors that enable countries to increase their economic competitiveness at local and global levels, significantly contributes to the economic growth of countries by facilitating the flow of goods and services between countries. In this context, even though there is an ever-increasing demand for the development of infrastructure opportunities, especially in line with the economic developments experienced in APEC countries, it is inevitable that there will be differences between countries in terms of infrastructure opportunities since the countries in the region have different levels of development. It is known that APEC member countries generally make investments to develop their transportation infrastructures. However, it cannot be said that some developing APEC countries are at a sufficient level even in terms of basic transportation infrastructures. In this study, APEC countries with regard to transportation infrastructures were examined via cluster analysis in order to determine possible differences along with similarities between those countries. According to the results, APEC countries were partitioned into three and six clusters in 2008 and 2019, respectively. In both 2008 and 2019, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan were the countries with the best transportation infrastructure facilities. On the other hand, it was seen that Vietnam, the Philippines, and Peru had the worst transportation infrastructure facilities in both years. China, which was in the same cluster with the worst performing countries in terms of transportation infrastructures in 2008, was in the third best cluster countries in 2019, making the greatest progress in this process.

Keywords

Transportation Infrastructure, Cluster Analysis, APEC

APEC Ülkelerinin Ulaştırma Altyapılarının Kümeleme Analizi ile Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Ülkelerin ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde ekonomik anlamda rekabetçiliklerini artırabilmelerini sağlayan unsurlardan biri olan ulaştırma altyapısı, ülkeler arasındaki mal ve hizmet akışını kolaylaştırarak ülkelerin ekonomik büyümelerine katkı sağlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda APEC ülkelerinde yaşanan ekonomik gelişmeler doğrultusunda altyapı olanaklarının geliştirilmesine yönelik sürekli artan bir talep olsa bile bölge ülkelerinin farklı gelişmişlik düzeylerine sahip olmaları nedeniyle altyapı olanakları noktasında ülkeler arasında farlılıklar gözlenmesi kaçınılmazdır. APEC üyesi ülkelerin genel olarak ulaştırma altyapılarını geliştirmeye yönelik yatırımlar yaptıkları görülmektedir. Yine de bazı gelişmekte olan APEC ülkelerinin temel ulaşım altyapıları noktasında bile yeterli düzeyde oldukları söylenemez. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada ulaştırma altyapıları kapsamında APEC üyesi ülkeler kümeleme analizi ile incelenmiş ve böylelikle ülkeler arasındaki benzerliklerle birlikte olası farklılıkların belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ulaşılan sonuçlara göre ülkeler 2008 yılında üç kümeye ayrılırken 2019 yılında altı kümeye bölünmüşlerdir. Hem 2008 hem de 2019 yıllarında Singapur, Hong Kong ve Japonya en iyi ulaştırma altyapı imkânlarına sahip ülkeler olmuşlardır. Diğer taraftan Vietnam, Filipinler ve Peru’nun ise her iki yıl içinde en kötü ulaştırma altyapı olanaklarına sahip olan ülkeler oldukları görülmüştür. 2008 yılında ulaştırma altyapıları açısından en kötü ülkeler ile aynı kümede bulunan Çin, 2019 yılında genel olarak en iyi üçüncü küme ülkeleri arasında yer alarak bu süreçte en büyük ilerlemeyi gösteren ülke olmuştur.

Keywords

Ulaştırma Altyapısı, Kümeleme Analizi, APEC

References

• Brooks, D. H. (2009). Infrastructure’s role in lowering Asia’s trade costs. In D. H. Brooks ve D. Hummels (Ed.), Infrastructure’s Role in Lowering Asia’s Trade Costs: Building for Trade (pp. 1-16). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Brooks, D. H., ve Stone, S. F. (2010). Infrastructure and trade facilitation in Asian APEC. Asian Development Review, 27(1), 135-159.
• Calinski, R. B. ve Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics, 3, 1–27.
• Cantos, P., Pastor, J. M., ve Serrano, L. (2011). Quantifying the benefits from structural reforms in railway transport market in APEC economies. The Impact and Benefits of Structural Re-forms in the Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Sectors in APEC Economies. APEC Policy Support Unit, January 2011, 1-488.
• Charrad, M., Ghazzali, . N., Boiteau, V., ve Niknafs, A. (2014). NbClust: An R Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a Data Set. Journal of Statistical Software, 61(6), 1–36.
• Clark, X., Dollar, D. ve Micco, A. (2002). Maritime Transport Costs and Port Efficiency, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 2781. 1-37.
• Coventry University, “The Role of Transport in Economic Development”, https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/what-is-economics-in-the-world-of-global-logistics/0/steps/95653
• De, P. (2009). Trade transportation costs in South Asia: an empirical investigation. In D. H. Brooks ve D. Hummels (Ed.), Infrastructure’s Role in Lowering Asia’s Trade Costs: Building for Trade (pp. 230-260). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Ivanov, V. I. (2001). APEC and Subregional Cooperation in Northeast Asia. ERINA REPORT (38), 42-46.
• James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., ve Tibshirani, R. (2013). An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R. Springer Science & Business.
• Kaufman, L., ve Rousseeuw, P. (1990). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley.
• Kimura, F., Y. Takahashi, ve K. Hayakawa (2007). Fragmentation and Parts and Components Trade: Comparison between East Asia and Europe. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 18(1), 23–40.
• Krzanowski W.J., ve Lai Y.T. (1988). A Criterion for Determining the Number of Groups in a Data Set Using Sum-of-Squares Clustering. Biometrics, 44(1), 23–34.
• Kumari, M., ve Bharti, N. (2020). Does bureaucracy affect the outcome of logistics performance? Empirical evidence from South Asia. American Journal of Business, 36(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-08-2020-0134
• Kwon, Y., ve Yoo, A. (2013). Infrastructure Development and Investment in the APEC Region. KIEP Research Paper No. World Economic Update, Vol. 3 No. 52, 13-52.
• Le, T. H., Nguyen, H. K., Nguyen, T.-V.-L., Khuat, T.-M.-H., Pham, T.-P.-T., ve Nguyen, T.-L. (2022). Impact of Green Logistics on International Trade: An Empirical Study in Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 12(4), 97–105.
• Lletı́ R., Ortiz, M. C., Sarabia, L. A., ve Sánchez, M. S. (2004). Selecting variables for k-means cluster analysis by using a genetic algorithm that optimises the silhouettes. Analytica Chimica Acta, 515(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2003.12.020
• Ma, L. ve Zhang J. (2009). Infrastructure development in a fast-growing economy: the People’s Republic of China. . In D. H. Brooks ve D. Hummels (Ed.), Infrastructure’s Role in Lowering Asia’s Trade Costs: Building for Trade (pp. 182-229). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• MacQueen, J. B., (1967). Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations, Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 281–297.
• Marriott, F. H. C. (1971). Practical problems in a method of cluster analysis. Biometrics, 27, 501–514.
• Na, S., Xumin, L., ve Yong, G. (2010). Research on k-means Clustering Algorithm: An Improved k-means Clustering Algorithm. 2010 Third International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology and Security Informatics, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/IITSI.2010.74
• Nekhoroshkov, V. P., Aroshidze, A. A., Nekhoroshkov, E. V., Yuchzhong, K., Avdokush-in, E. F., Kotenkod, A. G., ve Timukhine, K. M. (2022, January). Logistics Efficiency of APEC Economies: Diagnosis, Interconnections and Digital Experience for Russia. Trans-portation Research Procedia, Vol. 61,118-124.
• OECD. (2017). Report: Selected Good Practices for Risk Allocation and Mitigation in Infrastruc-ture in APEC Economies. Finance and Central Bank Deputies’ Meeting Hoi An, Viet Nam, 20 October 2017, (2017/FDM2/002).
• Panennungi, M. A. (2013). APEC 2020: Connectivity and Trade Performance: Concept and Its Evidence from APEC Economies. Working Papers in Economics and Business, Article 201309. https://ideas.repec.org/p/lpe/wpecbs/201309.html
• Rousseeuw, P.J. (1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65.
• Sinaga, K. P., ve Yang, M.-S. (2020). Unsupervised K-Means Clustering Algorithm. Ieee Access, 8, 80716–80727. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988796
• Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., ve Hastie, T. (2001). Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 63(2), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00293
• Wu, J. (2012). Cluster Analysis and K-means Clustering: An Introduction. In J. Wu (Ed.), Advances in K-means Clustering: A Data Mining Thinking (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29807-3_1
• Yacob, M. N., Zainal Abidin, M., ve Ramlan, T. (2012). APEC: Outcomes of 2011 and Outlook for 2012. Institute of Strategic and International Studies, ISIS FOCUS NO. 2/2012.
• Yang, W., Long, H., Ma, L., ve Sun, H. (2020). Research on Clustering Method Based on Weighted Distance Density and K-Means. Procedia Computer Science, 166, 507–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.02.056
• Zamora-Torres, A. I., ve Lenin Navarro Chávez, J. C. (2020). Trade and investment facilitation: efficiency in programs and actions in APEC. e-APEC Study Centers Consortium Confer-ence (e-ASCCC), 60-75.