RCEP ÜLKELERİNİN DIŞ TİCARETİ VE STANDART ÜRÜN GRUPLARI BAZINDA İHRACATTAKİ KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ÜSTÜNLÜKLERİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Asya-Pasifik bölgesinde yeni bir iktisadi oluşum olarak Bölgesel Kapsamlı Ekonomik Ortaklık (RCEP) anlaşmasına taraf olan 15 ülkenin, standart ürün grupları bazında ihracattaki karşılaştırmalı üstünlüklerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için 2011-2020 arası yıllar seçilmiş ve Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükleri (RCA) ölçmek için de Balassa İndeksi ile hesaplamalar yapılmıştır. Ülkelerin ihraç ettiği ürünler, üretimdeki faktör yoğunluklarına göre (düşük, orta, yüksek teknoloji; emek, hammadde, sermaye yoğun; kolay taklit ve zor taklit, madenler ve metaller, mineral yakıtlar, tarımsal ürünler, tekstil, imalat) toplamda 13 standart ürün grubuna ayrılmış ve her grup için ayrı ayrı RCA katsayıları belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, RCEP ülkeleri (9 ülke) en fazla tarımsal ürün gruplarında uzmanlaşmıştır. Bu sektörü imalat sanayi (8 ülke) ve hammadde yoğun mallar (7 ülke) izlemiştir. Araştırma bazlı malların yer aldığı kolay taklit ve zor taklit gruplarda ise 7 ülke, yüksek teknoloji grubunda ise 6 ülke uzmanlaşmış ve ihracatta karşılaştırmalı üstünlük elde etmiştir. Araştırma bazlı bu gruplarda özellikle Çin, Vietnam, Güney Kore, Malezya, Tayland, Filipinler, Singapur ve Japonya’nın üstünlüğü söz konusudur.

Keywords

• Bölgesel Kapsamlı Ekonomik Ortaklık
• RCEP
• ihracat
• karşılaştırmalı üstünlük
• RCA

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES OF RCEP COUNTRIES IN FOREIGN TRADE AND EXPORT BASED ON STANDARD PRODUCT GROUPS

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to determine the comparative advantages of 15 countries, which are party to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement as a new economic entity in the Asia-Pacific region, in exports on the basis of standard product groups. To do so, calculations were made with the Balassa Index to measure the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) between 2011 and 2020. The products exported by the countries are divided into 13 standard product groups in total according to their factor intensities in production (low, medium, high technology; labour, raw materials, capital intensive; easy-to-imitate and hard-to-imitate, minerals and metals, mineral fuels, agricultural products, textiles, manufacturing). and RCA coefficients are determined for each group separately. According to the findings, RCEP countries (9 countries) are mostly specialised in agricultural product groups. This sector is followed by the manufacturing industry (8 countries) and raw material-intensive goods (7 countries). In the easy-to-imitate and hard-to-imitate groups where research-based goods are included, 7 countries, and in the high technology group, 6 countries have specialised and achieved a comparative advantage in exports. In these research-based groups, especially China, Vietnam, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore and Japan are advantageous.

Keywords

• The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
• RCEP
• export
• comparative advantage
• RCA

References

1. Adigwe, E. O. (2022). Comparative analysis of competitive trade in a cluster market of the European Union: The revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index. Naše Gospodarstvo/Our Economy, 68(1), 14-24.
2. Akhtar, W., Akmal, N., Shah, H., Niazi, M.A., & Tahir, A. (2013). Export competitiveness of pakistani horticultural products. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 26(2), 87-96.
3. ASEAN, (2022, 18 Mayıs). RCEP Agreement enters into force. https://asean.org/rcep-agreement-enters-into-force/
4. Australia Government, (2022, 17 Mayıs). Regional comprehensive economic partnership: About the regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement (RCEP). https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/rcep
5. Balassa, B. & Noland, M. (1989). ‘Revealed’ comparative advantage in Japan and the United States. Journal of International Economic Integration, 4(2): 8-22.
6. Beningo, S. (2005, 27 Ekim). Trade and transportation between the United States and China and between the United States and India. 2006 Conference of the Society of Government Economists. Washington.
7. Dei Susilo, I. B. F. (2021). Trade analysis of 10 RCEP member countries plus India: Have they been competing?. Welfare, 2(2), 94-108.
8. Erkan, B. (2012). Ülkelerin karşılaştırmalı ihracat performanslarının açıklanmış karşılaştırmalı üstünlük katsayılarıyla belirlenmesi: Türkiye-Suriye örneği. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(15), 195-218.

9. Erkan, B. ve Sarıçoban, K. (2014). Comparative analysis of the competitiveness in the export of science-based goods regarding Turkey and the EU+13 countries. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(8/1), 117-130.
10. Erokhin, V., Tianming, G., & Ivolga, A. (2021). Cross-country potentials and advantages in trade in fish and seafood products in the RCEP member states. Sustainability, 13, 3668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073668
11. Esmaeili, A. (2014) Revealed comparative advantage and measurement of international competitiveness for dates. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 26(3), 209-217.
12. Fertő, I. & Hubbard, L.J. (2003). The dynamics of agri-food trade patterns - The Hungarian case. The 25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa.
13. Güneş, S. & Tan, M. (2017). Static and dynamic revealed comparative advantage: A comparative analysis of Turkey and Russia. İktisadi Yenilik Dergisi, 4(3), 22-38.
14. Haufbauer C.G. & Chilas J.C. (1974). Specialisation by industrial countries: Extent and consequences, in the international division of labour: Problems and perspectives. Edited by H. Giersch. Institut für Weltwirtschaft. Tübingen: Mohr.
15. Havrila, I. & Gunawardana, P. (2003, 17 Mayıs). Analysing comparative advantage and competitiveness: An application to Australia's textile and clothing industries. Australian Economic Papers, 42(1), 103-117.
16. Khatibi, A. (2008). Kazakhstan’s revealed comparative advantage vis-à-vis the EU-27. ECIPE Working Paper No. 03. (E.T.: 20.05.2022) https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/kazakhstan2019s-revealed-comparative-advantage-vis-a-vis-the-eu-27.pdf
17. Kösekahyaoğlu, L. ve Özdamar, G. (2011). Türkiye, Çin ve Hindistan’ın sektörel rekabet gücü üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, XXX(2), 29-49.
18. Michael, N. L. (2021). Ricardian theorem reality; Assessment of Sino-Tanzania trade 2015-2019. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(04), 448. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.94033
19. Mikic, M. & Gilbert, J. (2009). Trade statistics in policymaking: A handbook of commonly used trade indices and indicators (Revised Edition). Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Publication.
20. Miteva-Kacarski, E. & Panova, K. (2022). Analyses of the trade relations between the republic of North Macedonia and Ukraine. Knowledge-International Journal, 52(1), 45-50.
21. MTI, (2022, 19 Mayıs). Ministry of trade and industry: Regional comprehensive economic partnership (RCEP) agreement. https://www.mti.gov.sg/Improving-Trade/Free-Trade-Agreements/RCEP
22. Nauwelaerts, Y. & Van Beveren, I. (2005, 28-29 Eylül). Sectoral concentration of FDI in OECD countries. In International Conference on International Trade and Logistics, Corporate Strategies and the Global Economy. Le Havre, France.
23. New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade, (2022, 20 Mayıs). Timeline and history of the RCEP negotiations. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-in-force/regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership-rcep/next-steps-and-timeline/#bookmark1
24. Prasad, R.N. (2004). Fiji’s export competitiveness: A comparison with selected small island developing states. Economic Department Reserve Bank of Fiji, Working Paper 2004/06: 1-40.
25. RCEP, (2022, 18 Mayıs). Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). https://rcepsec.org/about/
26. Sukmaya, S. G., Saptana, S., & Perwita, A. D. (2021). Agri-food commodity mapping and trade between Indonesia and Australia. In E3S Web of Conferences, 316, 02017. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202131602017
27. TÜİK. (2022, 27 Nisan). Sınıflama sunucusu: Uluslararası Standart Ticaret Sınıflaması, SITC Rev.3. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/DIESS/SiniflamaSurumDetayAction.do?surumId=13&turId=3&turAdi=%203.%20D%C4%B1%C5%9F%20Ticaret%20S%C4%B1n%C4%B1flamalar%C4%B1
28. UN Comtrade (2022, 24 Nisan). UN comtrade database. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/maintenance.html.
29. UNCTADSTAT, (2022, 15 Mart). United Nations conference on trade and develepment: Product classification. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/en/Classifications.html
30. Wander, A.E., Fernandes, S.M. ve Ferreiraa, C.M. (2008). The competitiveness of Brazilian rice in the world market: A comparative advantage approach. Competition for Resources in a Changing World: New Drive for Rural Development. October 7 - 9, 2008, Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany. (E.T.: 20.05.2022) https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.551.5838&rep=rep1&type=pdf
31. WITS. (2022, 24 Nisan). Trade data (UN comtrade). https://wits.worldbank.org/.
32. World Bank. (2022, 25 Nisan). Databank: World development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.CD&country=.
33. Yilmaz, B. & Ergun, S. J. (2003). The foreign trade pattern and foreign trade specialization of candidates of the European Union. Ezoneplus, Working Paper No:19. (E.T.: 10.05.2022) http://www.ezoneplus.org/
34. Yilmaz, B. (2003). Turkey’s competitiveness in the European Union: A comparison with five candidate countries – Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania – and the EU15. Ezonplus, Working Paper No:12. (E.T.: 10.05.2022) http://www.ezoneplus.org/