Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlük ile Liberal Tarım Politikaları Arasındaki Bağlantı: Çin ve Hindistan, ABD ve Avrupa Birliği'nin Uygulamaları

Year 2022, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 579 - 587, 21.06.2022

Özlem Toplu Yılmaz

Abstract

Bu çalışma Çin, Hindistan, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) ve Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) dünya tarım ticaretindeki karşılaştırmalı üstünlüklerini analiz edip, ülkelerin uyguladıkları tarım politikalarının üstünlükler üzerinde etkisi olup olmadığını araştırmaktadır. Çin ve Hindistan son yıllarda tarım ticaretinde dünyadaki sıralamaları yükselmiştir. Bu iki ülke özellikle Hindistan tarımı tarifeler yoluyla korumaya çalışırken, ABD ve AB tarım sektörlerini iç destekler yoluyla korumaktadır. Çin ve Hindistan önderliğindeki gelişmekte olan ülkelerin gelişmiş ülkelerin uyguladığı yüksek koruma oranlarından rahatsız olması hep Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ) turlarında öne çıkan konu olmuştur. Korumacılığın, karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğe etkisi bu çalışmada ekonometrik model ile analiz edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, korumacı politikaların ABD ve AB’nin karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğünün artmasına etki etmediği, iç destek oranlarının düşük olduğu, sadece tarifelerin uygulandığı Çin ve Hindistan’da da karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğün yükseldiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlük, Korumacılık, Dış Ticaret Hadleri, Gümrük Tarifeleri, İç Destek Ödemeleri

The Nexus between Comparative Advantage and Liberal Agricultural Policies: Implications of China, India, USA, and the EU

Abstract

This study analyzes the comparative advantages of China, India, the United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU) in the world agricultural trade and investigates whether the protection policies implemented by the countries have an impact on comparative advantages. China and India have moved to the high ranks in the world agricultural trade in recent years. While these two countries, especially India, try to protect their agricultural sector through tariffs, the USA and the EU protect their agricultural sectors through domestic supports. The developing countries, led by China and India, have complained about the high protection rates applied by the developed countries, and this has always been a prominent subject in the World Trade Organization (WTO) rounds. In this study, the issue of whether protectionism affects comparative advantage has been tried to be analyzed with the econometric model. According to the findings, it was concluded that protectionist domestic policies did not affect the comparative advantage of the USA and the EU, but comparative advantage increased in China and India, where domestic protection rates are low and these countries pursue only tariffs in the agricultural trade.

Keywords

Revealed Comparative Advantage, Protectionism, Terms of Trade, Import Tariffs, Domestic Support Payments

References

• Balassa, B. (1964). The Purchasing Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal. Journal of Political Economy, 72(2), 584-596.
• Batra A., Khan, Z. (2005). Revealed Comparative Advantage: An Analysis for India and China. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, Working Paper No. 168.
• Baumann, R. (2013). Brazilian, Chinese, and Indian exports: is the regional market really a source of learning? Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 33(1), 102-119.
• Bilas, V., Bošnjak, M. (2015.). Revealed Comparative Advantage and Merchandise Exports: The Case of Merchandise Trade between Crotia and the Rest of the European Union Member Countries. Ekon. Misao Praksa DBK. God XXIV. BR. 1, 29-47.
• Bojnec S., Ferto I. (2018). Drivers of the duration of comparative advantage in the European Union’s agri-food exports. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 64, 51–60. doi: 10.17221/173/2016-AGRICECON.
• Çakmak, Ö. A. (2005). Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler ve Rekabet Gücü: Türkiye Tekstil ve Hazır Giyim Endüstrisi üzerine bir Uygulama. Ege Academic Review, 5(1), 65-76.
• Dickey, D.A. and W.A. Fuller (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427-431.
• Erkan, B. (2012). Ülkelerin Karşılaştırmalı İhracat Performanslarının Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlük Katsayılarıyla Belirlenmesi: Türkiye-Suriye Örneği. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 8(15), 195-218.
• French, S. (2017). Revealed Comparative Advantage: What Is It Good For? Journal of International Economics, 106, 1-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.02.002.
• Grant, W. (1997). The Common Agricultural Policy. New York: St. Martin Press.
• Grant, W. (January 2006). Why it won’t be like this all the time: The Shift from Duopoly to Oligopoly in Agricultural Trade. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Working Paper No. 191/06, University of Warwick.
• Hassan, M.U. and Ahmad, H.K. (2018). An Estimation of Normalized Revealed Comparative Advantage and its Determinants In Pakistan. Pakistan Vision, 19(1), 231-257.
• Hopewell, K. (2014). Different paths to power: The rise of Brazil, India, and China at the World Trade Organization. Review of International Political Economy 22(6), 1128-58.
• Jaso, M. (2016). Global Trade After the Failure of the Doha Round, The New York Times. (1.1.2016).
• Liesner, H. H. (1958). The European Common Market and British Industry. Economic Journal, 68, 302-316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2227597.
• Nayyar, D. (2008). China, India, Brazil and South Africa in the World Economy: Engines of Growth? UNU Wider World Institute for Development Economics Research, Discussion Paper No. 2008/05. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580606.003.0002.
• OECD (2021a). OECD Dataset: Monitoring and Evaluation. https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?QueryId=83564&vh=0000&vf=0&l&il=&lang=en (10.08.2021).
• OECD (2021b). Terms of trade (indicator). doi: 10.1787/7722246c-en (24.10.2021).
• Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57, 1361-1401.
• Peterson, E. Wesley (2009). A Billion Dollars a Day, The Economics and Politics of Agricultural Subsidies. Wiley- United Kingdom: Blackwell Publication.
• Ricardo, D. (1817). Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray, ISBN 9783487409290.
• Schmitz, H. & Messner, D. (2008). Poor and Powerful - the Rise of China and India and the Implications for Europe. Discussion Paper / German Development Institute; 13/2008. ISBN: 978-3-88985-402-5, 1-77.
• Serin, V. & Civan, A. (2008). Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: A Case Study for Turkey towards the EU. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 10(2), 25-4.
• The Economist (31 July 2008). So near and yet so far, Trade ministers have come too close to a deal to let the Doha Round die.
• Widodo, T. (2009). Dynamic Comparative Advantages in the ASEAN+3. Journal of Economic Integration, 24(3), 505-529.
• Wosiek, R. and Visvizi, A. (2021). The VWRCA Index: Measuring a Country’s Comparative Advantage and Specialization in Services. Economies, 9(2), 1-12. DOI: 10.3390/economies9020048.
• WTO(2021a). World Tariff Profiles 2021. Retrieved October 24, 2021, from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/tariff_profiles_list_e.htm.
• WTO (2021b). Tariffs. Retrieved October 29, 2021, from https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tariffs_e/tariffs_e.htm.
• WTO (2021c). WTO Data Portal. Retrieved September 09, 2021, from https://timeseries.wto.org/.
• Yalçınkaya, H., Çılbant, C., Erataş, F. & Hartoğlu, D. (2014). Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükle Ekseninde Rekabet Gücünün Analizi: Türk-Çin Dış Ticaret Üzerine bir Uygulama. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24, 41-57. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11611/JMER294.