TÜRK HİZMETLER SEKTÖRÜNDE HECKSCHER-OHLIN MODELİNİN TESTİ

Abstract

Dünya ve Türkiye’de önemi giderek artan hizmet sektörünün ticaretindeki faktör bileşenleri konusunda yapılan çalışmalar oldukça yetersizdir. Heckscher-Ohlin modeli, ülkeler arasındaki ticaretin şeklini ticari malların faktör bileşenlerine dayandırarak teorik olarak güçlü bir şekilde açıklamasına rağmen, teorinin ampirik geçerliliği araştırmacılar tarafından hala sorgulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, 2002 yılı girdi-çıktı ve ithalat kullanım tablosu verileri kullanılarak Türkiye’nin hizmet ticaretinin Heckscher-Ohlin modelinde öngörüldüğü gibi gerçekleşip gerçekleşme-diği incelenmiştir. Net nihai talep ve tamamlayıcı ithalat yaklaşımlarına dayanılarak yapılan hesaplamalar sonucunda, Türk hizmetler sektöründe dış ticaret ile faktör yoğunluğu arasındaki ilişkinin teoride öngörüldüğü doğrultuda geliştiği; göreceli olarak emek yoğun hizmetlerin ihraç, sermaye yoğun hizmetlerin ise ithal edildiği tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Heckscher-Ohlin Modeli, Türk Hizmetler Sektörü, Girdi-Çıktı Analizi

TESTING THE HECKSCHER-OHLIN MODEL IN THE SERVICE SECTOR OF TURKEY

Abstract

Although the service sector has increasingly gained importance both in the world and in Turkey, there are few studies on factor contents of trade in service sectors. While the Heckscher-Ohlin model can strongly predict the pattern of trade across countries, its empirical testing has still be discussed by researches. This study investigates whether trade in the service sector of Turkey runs in the direction that the Heckscher-Ohlin theory predicts using 2002 input-output and import use tables of Turkey. The results using the net final demand approach and the complementary import approach reveal that the relationship between foreign trade and factor intensity is in accordance with the predictions of the theory that while Turkey’ exports include relatively labor intensive goods, its imports include relatively capital intensive goods

Keywords

• Heckscher-Ohlin Model, Turkey’s Service Sector, Input-Output Analysis

References

1. AHO, M.C., ORR, J.A. (1981). Trade-sensitive employment: who are the affected workers?, Monthly Labor Review Online, 104 (2), February, 29-35. ss.
2. ALAUDDIN, M., TISDELL, C. (1988). The use of input-output analysis to determine the appropriateness of technology and industries: evidence from Bangladesh, Economic Development and Culturel Change 36 (21988), 369-391. ss.
3. ARMAH, B. (1995). Manufacturing trade-related employment growth: self-employed and wage and salary earners in comparative perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 33, April.
4. AYDOĞUŞ, O. (1999). Girdi çıktı modellerine giriş, Gazi Yayınevi, Ankara.
5. BERNHOFEN, D. M., BROWN, J.C. (2009). Testing the general validity of the Heckscher- Ohlin theorem: the natural experiment of Japan, CCES Discussion Paper Series 13, Center for Research on Contemporary Economic Systems, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
6. BOWEN, H.P., LEAMER, E., SVEIKAUSKAS, L. (1987). Multicountry, multifactor tests of the factor abundance theory, American Economic Review, American Economic Association, 77 (5), December, 791-809. ss.
7. CLARK, A., KULKARNI, K.G. (2009). Testing the application of Heckscher-Ohlin theorem to contemporary trade between Malaysia and Singapore, Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets, November, 113-128. ss.
8. ÇAKIR, M., ÖZDEMİR, A., ÇAKIR, F. (2009). Türkiye’de hizmet sektöründeki çarpan katsayıları -girdi-çıktı yöntemiyle-. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 46(528), 53-64.ss.

9. DİLBER, İ. (2007). Turizm sektörünün Türkiye ekonomisi üzerindeki etkisinin girdi-çıktı tablosu yardımıyla değerlendirilmesi, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 14 (2), 205-220. ss.
10. FEENSTRA, R.C. (2004). Advanced international trade: theory and evidence, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA.
11. FIELEKE, S.N. (1995). The soaring trade in nontradables, New England Economic Review, November/December, 25-36. ss.
12. FISHER, E.O’N., MARSHALL, K.G. (2007). The empirical validity of the Heckscher-Ohlin model. www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/events/seminar-papers/19Jul07.pdf, [Erişim tar.: 25.03.2010].
13. GÜNÇAVDI, Ö., KÜÇÜKÇİFÇİ, S. (2001). Foreign trade and factor intensity in an open developing country an input-output analysis for Turkey, Russian and East European Finance and Trade, 37 (1), January-February, 75-88. ss.
14. HASHIM, S.R. (1996). Growth, technology and employment, Studies in Indian Economy, R.K. Koti (ed.), 167-95. ss.
15. KUCERA D., MILBERG, W. (2003). Deindustrialization and changes in manufactoring: trade factor content calculations for 1978-1995, Review of World Economics, 139 (4), 601-624. ss.
16. LEAMER, E.E. (1984). Sources of international comparative advantage: theory and evidence, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
17. MASKUS, K.E. (1985). A test of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek theorem: the Leontief commonplace, Journal of International Economics, 19 (3-4), 201-12. ss.
18. ROMALIS, J. (2003). Factor proportion and the structure of commodity trade, http://faculty. chicagobooth.edu/john.romalis/research/factor.pdf, [Erişim Tarihi: 15.03.2010].
19. SARMA, A., RAM, K. (1989). Income, output and employment linkages and import intensities of manufacturing industries in India, Journal of Development Studies 25 (2), 192-209. ss.
20. TREFLER, D. (1995). The case of missing trade and other mysteries. American Economic Review, December, 85(5), 1029-1046. ss.
21. TÜİK (2009). 2002 girdi-çıktı tablosu, www.tuik.gov.tr, [Erişim Tarihi:01.12.2009].
22. TÜİK (2010). Haber bülteni, Sayı 16, 28 Ocak 2009. [Erişim adresi: http://www.tuik. gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=6180, [Erişim Tarihi: 26.03.2010].
23. WTO (2009). World trade report 2009, World Trade Organization, Geneva.