TÜRKİYE İMALAT SANAYİİNDE DIŞ TİCARET VE PİYASA YOĞUNLAŞMASI İLİŞKİSİ

Abstract

Piyasa yoğunlaşması, herhangi bir endüstrideki firma sayısı ve büyüklük dağılımını dikkate alan bir kavram olarak kabul edilmektedir. Piyasadaki rekabetin dış ticaret üzerindeki etkisine yönelik, teorik iki yaklaşım bulunmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımlar: Ulusal şampiyon yaklaşımı (national champion approach) ve rekabetçi yaklaşımdır (competitive approach). Bu iki yaklaşım, yurt içi rekabetin endüstrilerin küresel piyasalardaki başarısında belirleyici olduğunu kabul etmekte iken; rekabetin dış ticareti nasıl etkilediğine yönelik çıkarımlarında ise farklılaşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Türk imalat sanayiinde piyasa yapısının dış ticaret üzerindeki etkisi 2013-2018 yılları için endüstri düzeyinde, panel veri yöntemi kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Çalışmada TUİK ile yapılan sözleşme kapsamında, firma düzeyinde mikro veri setleri kullanılmış olup, belirlenen imalat sanayi firma verileri NACE Rev.2, 4 haneli 199 endüstri düzeyinde toplulaştırılmıştır. Statik panel veri yöntemi sonucunda piyasa yoğunlaşmasının ihracat ve ithalat üzerinde pozitif etkisinin olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca ölçek ekonomisinin, ihracatı ve ithalatı negatif yönde; reel efektif döviz kuru endeksinin, ihracatı negatif yönde; emek maliyetinin ise ihracatı pozitif yönde etkilediği bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Ampirik bulgular, Türk imalat sanayi için değerlendirildiğinde firma sayısı bakımından üstünlüğe sahip KOBİ’lerin, genel olarak ihracatta büyük firmalara kıyasla daha başarılı olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmanın, piyasadaki rekabetin küresel ticaretteki etkisini araştıracak çalışmalara katkı sunması beklenmektedir.

Keywords

• Endüstri İktisadı
• Piyasa Yoğunlaşması
• Dış Ticaret

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FOREIGN TRADE AND MARKET CONCENTRATION IN THE TURKISH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Abstract

Market concentration is considered a concept that refers to the number of firms in any industry and the distribution of the sizes of these firms. There are two theoretical approaches to the effects of competition in the market on foreign trade. These approaches are the national champion approach and the competitive approach. While both approaches assume that domestic competition is a determinant of the success of industries in global markets, they have different arguments about how competition affects foreign trade. In this study, the effects of the market structure on foreign trade were examined on the industry scale using the panel data analysis method in the context of the Turkish manufacturing industry for the period between 2013 and 2018. In the scope of the contract made with TURKSTAT, the study employed micro-level firm-scale datasets, and the collected manufacturing industry firm data were consolidated at the level of 199 4-digit industries based on NACE Rev.2. According to the results of the static panel data analysis, it was determined that market concentration had positive effects on imports and exports. Furthermore, the economies of scale affected imports and exports negatively, the real effective exchange rate index affected exports negatively, and labor cost affected exports positively. Considering the empirical findings for the Turkish manufacturing industry, it was concluded that SMEs, which had a superior number of firms, were more successful in exports in general compared to larger firms. It is expected that the results of this study will contribute to future studies to be conducted to investigate the effects of competition in markets on global trade.

Keywords

• Industrial Economy
• Market Concentration
• Foreign Trade

References

1. Akgün Güngör, G. (2017). Türkiye imalat sanayinde firma ölçeği değişmeleri ve ihracat performans ilişkisi. International Journal of Academic Value Studies, 13(3), 21-39
2. Aktaş C. (2010). Türkiye’de reel döviz kuru ile ihracat ve ithalat arasındaki ilişkinin VAR tekniğiyle analizi. Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(11), 123 - 139.
3. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (Third Edition). New York: John Wiley –Sons. Bikker, J. A. ve Haaf, K. (2002). Measures of competition and concentration in the banking industry: a review of the literature. Economic & Financial Modelling, 9(2), 53-98.
4. Bonaccorsi, A. (1992). On the relationship between firm size and export intensity. Journal of International Business Studies, 4(23), 605-635.
5. Bramati, M. C., Gaggero, A. A., ve Solomon, E. (2015). International trade and domestic competition: evidence from Belgium. Review of Industrial Organization, 4(46), 383-399.
6. Chou, T.C. (1986). Concentration, profitability and trade in a simultaneous equation analysis: the case of Taiwan. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 34(4), 429-443.
7. Church, J. ve Ware, R. (2000). Industrial organization: a strategic approach. Homewood, IL: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Clougherty, J. A., ve Zhang, A. (2009). Domestic rivalry and export performance: theory and evidence from international airline markets. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2(42), 440-468.
8. Cortes, B. S. (2006). Competition and export performance in Japan. The International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, 1(4), 71-82.

9. Davut, L. (2002). Sanayi iktisadı: piyasa yapısı unsurları. İmaj Yayıncılık.
10. El-Osta, B., MacPhee, C. R. ve Rosenbaum, D. I. (1996). International trade, foreign direct investment, and domestic market performance. Eastern Economic Journal, 1(22), 63-73.
11. Erlat, G. (1993). Is there a meaningful relationship between exports and industrial concentration? Case studies from the Turkish manufacturing industry. METU Studies in Development, 20(1-2), 43-61.
12. Estrin, S., Meyer, K. E., Wright, M. ve Foliano, F. (2008). Export propensity and intensity of subsidiaries in emerging economies. International Business Review, 17(5), 574-586.
13. Glejser, H., Jacquemin, A. ve Petit, J. (1980). Exports in an imperfect competition framework: an analysis of 1,446 exporters. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 3(94), 507-524.
14. Greene, W. H. (2018). Econometric Analysis (Eight Edition). Pearson. Gujarati, D. N. ve Porter, D. C. (2012). Temel Ekonometri. (Çev. Ü. Şenesen, ve G. Şenesen Günlük) Literatür Yayıncılık.
15. Hakan, T. U. N. C. (2021). Gelişmekte olan ekonomilerde ihracatın reel efektif döviz kuru endeksine olan duyarlılığı: Panel veri analiz. Gümrük ve Ticaret Dergisi, 8(25), 12-24.
16. Henderson, D. R. ve Frank, S. D. (1990, March). Industrial organization and export competitiveness of U.S food manufactures. Paper Presented at the Third Annual Symposium on International Economic Competitiveness, Virginia.
17. Herfindahl, O. C. (1950). Concentration in the US steel industry. (Doctoral Dissertation) Columbia University. Hilke, J. C., ve Nelson, P. B. (1984). Noisy advertising and the predation rule in antitrust analysis. The American Economic Review, 74(2), 367-371.
18. Hirschman, A. O. (1945). National power and the structure of foreign trade. University of California Press. Hirschman, A. O. (1964). The paternity of an index. American Economic Review, 54, 761-762.
19. Hollis, A. (2003). Industrial concentration, output and trade: An empirical exploration. Review of Industrial Organization, 2(22), 103-119.
20. Hynes, K., Opoku, E. E., ve Yan, I. K. (2017). Reaching up and reaching out: the impact of competition on firms’ productivity and export decisions. UCD Centre for Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. WP17/19.
21. İpek, E., ve İpek, Ö. (2018). Market structure of the Turkish pharmaceutical industry. Business and Economics Research Journal, 9(3), 449-462.
22. Jorde, T. ve Teece, D. J. (1990). Innovation and cooperation: implications for competition and antitrust. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(13), 75-96.
23. Karamollaoğlu, N. (2017). Sektörel reel efektif döviz kurları: Türkiye örneği. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 54(634), 41-59.
24. Karamollaoğlu, N. ve Yalçin, C. (2020). Exports, real exchange rates and dollarization: empirical evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms. Empirical Economics, 59, 2527-2557.
25. Khemani, R. S. (1993). Glossary of industrial organisation economics and competition law. Washington, DC: OECD Publications and Information Centre.
26. Kim, D., ve Marion, B. W. (1997). Domestic market structure and performance in global markets: theory and emprical evidence from U.S food manufacturing industries. Review of Industrial Organization, 12(3), 335-354.
27. Krugman, P. (1983). New Theories of trade among industrial countries. The American Economic Review, 73(2), 343-347.
28. Liu, X., ve Shu, H. (2003). Determinants of export performance: evidence from Chinese industries. Economics of Planning, 36(1), 45-67.
29. Marvel, H. (1980). Foreign trade and domestic competition. Economic Inquiry, 18(1), 103-22.
30. O'Shaughnessy, E. (2018). Trends in the market structure of US residential solar pv installation, 2000 to 2016: an evolving industry. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 26(11), 901-910.
31. Özatay, F. (2015). Parasal iktisat kuram ve politika (4.Baskı). Ankara: Efil Yayınevi.
32. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations (First Edition). The Free Press.
33. Pugel, T. A. (1980). Foreign trade and U.S. market performance. Journal of Industrial Economics, 2(29), 119-129.
34. Ratnayake, R. (1999). Industry concentration and competition: New Zealand. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17(7), 1041-1057.
35. Reis, J., ve Forte, R. (2014). The impact of industry characteristics on firms’ export intensity. Feb Working Papers, 524, 1-23.
36. Roodman, D. (2006). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system in GMM in stata. Center for Global Development Working Paper, 103, 1-103.
37. Sousa, C. M. (2004). Export performance measurement: an evaluation of the empirical research in the literature. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004(09), 1-22.
38. Şahin, A. (2008). Dış ticaret ve piyasa yoğunlaşması ilişkisi: Türk imalat sanayi üzerine bir uygulama (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul
39. TCMB (2021). Reel efektif döviz kuru metaveri. Erişim, https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/02713545-8428-49ab-a9d9-0f770895d513/REERMetaveri.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-02713545-8428-49ab-a9d9-0f770895d513-nrijWpb
40. Tyson, L., ve Zysman, J. (1983). American industry in international competition: government policies and corporate strategies. California Management Review, 25(3), 27-52.
41. Wang, K. L., ve Wang, S. C. (2008). Profitability, concentration, imports and exports: the case of Taiwan's midstream petrochemical industries. Applied Economics, 40(11), 1457-1473.
42. Weinstock, D. S. (1982). Using the Herfindahl index to measure concentration. The Antitrust Bulletin, 27(2), 285-301.
43. White, L. (1974). Industrial organization and international trade: some theoretical considerations. American Economic Review, 64(6), 1013-1020.
44. Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Ekonometriye giriş modern yaklaşım Cilt 1. (Çeviri Editörü. E. Çağlayan). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
45. Yanar, R., ve Marangoz, E. (2022). Reel döviz kuru değişimlerinin firma ve sektör ihracat performasına etkisi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(4), 898-912.
46. Yıldırım E, Kesiklioğlu F (2012). İthalat-ihracat-döviz kuru bağımlılığı: bootstrap ile düzeltilmiş nedensellik testi uygulaması. Ege Akademik Bakış, 12(2), 137 - 148.
47. Yıldırım, K., Eşkinat, R., Kabasakal, A., ve Erdoğan, M. (2012). Endüstriyel Ekonomi. 5. Baskı, Pelikan Yayıncılık: Eskişehir.
48. Zhao, H., ve Zou, S. (2002). The impact of industry concentration and firm location on export propensity and intensity: an empirical analysis of Chinese manufacturing firms. Journal of International Marketing, 10(1), 52-71.