Türkiye’nin Başlıca Ticaret Ortaklarına Yönelik İhracat Şoklarının Kalıcılığı: Panel Durağanlık Testlerinden Bulgular

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin en yüksek ihracat hacmine sahip olan yirmi ülke ile gerçekleştirdiği ihracata yönelik şokların kalıcı olup olmadığını ampirik olarak incelemektedir. İhracatın şoklara verdiği tepkiler, yatay kesit bağımlılığını ve yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan panel durağanlık testleri aracılığıyla analiz edilmektedir. Bu bağlamda, birinci ve ikinci nesil panel durağanlık testlerine ek olarak Fourier yaklaşımına dayalı yapısal kırılmalı panel durağanlık testlerinden yararlanılarak, şokların uzun dönemli etkileri kapsamlı biçimde değerlendirilmektedir. Analizde Ocak 2013–Mart 2025 dönemini kapsayan aylık veriler kullanılmakta ve Türkiye’nin en büyük yirmi ihracat ortağına ait reel ihracat serileri incelenmektedir. Ampirik bulgular, panel genelinde ihracat serisinin durağan olmadığını ve dışsal şokların kalıcı etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve yapısal kırılmalar dikkate alındığında da bu sonucun değişmediği gözlenmektedir. Ülke bazında elde edilen sonuçlar ise ihracat şoklarının etkilerinin homojen olmadığını göstermektedir. Özellikle Almanya, Belçika, Irak, İspanya, İtalya, Rusya ve Ukrayna ile yapılan ihracatta durağanlık boş hipotezinin reddedilmesi, bu pazarlara yönelik ihracatın şoklara karşı daha kırılgan bir yapı sergilediğine işaret etmektedir. Buna karşılık bazı ülkelerde ihracat serilerinin şoklara verdiği tepkilerin geçici olduğu görülmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, Türkiye’nin ihracata dayalı büyüme modelinde şoklara karşı yapısal kırılganlıkların varlığına işaret etmekte ve pazar çeşitlendirmesinin, ihracat kompozisyonunun iyileştirilmesini ve esnek dış ticaret politikalarının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• İhracat şokları
• panel durağanlık
• yatay kesit bağımlılığı
• yapısal kırılmalar
• Türkiye

The Persistence of Export Shocks to Türkiye’s Major Trading Partners: Evidence from Panel Stationarity Tests

Abstract

This study empirically investigates whether shocks to Türkiye’s exports to its top twenty trading partners have permanent effects. The responses of exports to shocks are analyzed using panel stationarity tests that account for cross-sectional dependence and structural breaks. In this framework, first- and second-generation panel stationarity tests, along with Fourier-based panel stationarity tests that allow for smooth structural changes, are employed to comprehensively assess the persistence of shocks. The analysis uses monthly data covering the period from January 2013 to March 2025 and examines the real export series for Türkiye’s twenty largest export destinations. The empirical findings indicate that, at the panel level, export series are non-stationary, implying that shocks exert persistent effects on Türkiye’s exports. This result remains robust after controlling cross-sectional dependence and structural breaks. Country-specific results further reveal considerable heterogeneity in the persistence of export shocks across trading partners. In particular, exports to Germany, Belgium, Iraq, Spain, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine exhibit persistent shock effects, suggesting a fragile export structure with respect to these key markets. For some other countries, however, export shocks are found to have transitory effects, indicating a faster adjustment toward long-run equilibrium. Overall, the findings highlight the presence of structural vulnerabilities in Türkiye’s export-led growth model and underscore the importance of export market diversification, improvements in export composition, and flexible trade policies to mitigate the long-term effects of shocks and enhance resilience against global economic disturbances.

Keywords

• Export shocks
• panel stationarity
• cross-sectional dependence
• structural breaks
• Türkiye

References

1. Aghion, P., Bacchetta, P., Ranciere, R., ve Rogoff, K. (2009). Exchange rate volatility and productivity growth: The role of financial development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56(4), 494-513.
2. Alessandria, G., Johnson, R. C., ve Yi, K. M. (2023). Perspectives on trade and structural transformation. Oxford Development Studies, 51(4), 455-475.
3. Awokuse, T. O. (2007). Causality between exports, imports, and economic growth: Evidence from transition economies. Economics Letters, 94(3), 389-395.
4. Bai, J., ve Ng, S. (2002). Determining the number of factors in approximate factor models. Econometrica, 70(1), 191-221.
5. Bai, J., ve Ng, S. (2005). A new look at panel testing of stationarity and the PPP hypothesis (s. 426-450). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bayar, G., Ünal, M., ve Tokpunar, S. (2015). Determinants of Turkish exports to European Union countries: a Sectoral panel data analysis. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(6), 1307-1325.
7. Berument, M. H., Dincer, N. N., ve Yasar, P. (2016). Persistency of Turkish export shocks: a quantile autoregression (QAR) approach. Empirica, 43(3), 445-460.
8. Caballero, R. J., ve Corbo, V. (1989). The effect of real exchange rate uncertainty on exports: empirical evidence. The World Bank Economic Review, 3(2), 263-278.

9. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., ve Sansó, A. (2006). A guide to the computation of stationarity tests. Empirical Economics, 31(2), 433-448.
10. Chand, R., Singh, R., Lal, S., Chand, N., ve Jain, D. K. (2022). Determinants of exports in a small and vulnerable economy: Fijiislands—a disaggregated analysis. The European Journal of Development Research, 34(6), 2948.
11. Comunale, M., ve Felice, G. (2022). Trade and structural change: An empirical investigation. International Economics, 171, 58-79.
12. Cömert, H., ve Çolak, M. S. (2016). The impacts of the global crisis on the Turkish economy, and policy responses. İçinde The Global South after the Crisis, ed. Hasan Cömert ve Rex A. McKenzie (s. 223-254). Edward Elgar Publishing.
13. Dickey, D. A., ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(4), 1057-1072.
14. Dedeoğlu, D., ve Kaya, H. (2013). Energy use, exports, imports and GDP: New evidence from the OECD countries. Energy Policy, 57, 469-476.
15. Dridi, J., ve Zieschang, K. (2004). Export and import price indices. IMF Staff Papers, 51(1), 157-194.
16. Fast, D., Fleck, S. E., ve Smith, D. A. (2022). Unit Value Indexes for Exports–New Developments Using Administrative Trade Data. Journal of Official Statistics, 38(1), 83-106.
17. Gaulier, G., Martin, J., Méjean, I., ve Zignago, S. (2008). International Trade Price Indices, CEPII Research Center, Working Paper No 2008-10.
18. Guloglu, B., ve Bayar, G. (2016). Sectoral exports dynamics of Turkey: Evidence from panel data estimators. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(7), 959-977.
19. Güloğlu, B., Bayar, G., ve Tokpunar, S. (2020). Effect of foreign trade on industrial employment: the case of Turkey. Applied Economics, 52(55), 6075-6089.
20. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148-161.
21. Hadri, K., ve Kurozumi, E. (2011). A locally optimal test for no unit root in cross-sectionally dependent panel data. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 165-184.
22. Hadri, K., ve Kurozumi, E. (2012). A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Economics Letters, 115(1), 31-34.
23. Halicioglu, F. (2011). A dynamic econometric study of income, energy and exports in Turkey. Energy, 36(5), 3348-3354.
24. Hausmann, R., Hwang, J., ve Rodrik, D. (2007). What you export matters. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1), 1-25.
25. Hoffmann, R., Ging, L. C., ve Ramasamy, B. (2003). Shocks to Malaysia's exports: Temporary or Permanent? Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 5(1), 19-31.
26. Islam, M. N. (1998). Export expansion and economic growth: testing for cointegration and causality. Applied Economics, 30(3), 415-425.
27. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2014). Turkey: 2014 Article IV consultation—Staff report (IMF Country Report No. 14/329). Washington, DC: IMF.
28. Junz, H. B., ve Rhomberg, R. R. (1973). Price competitiveness in export trade among industrial countries. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 412-418.
29. Kamin, S. B., Marazzi, M., ve Schindler, J. W. (2004). Is China “exporting deflation”?. International Finance Discussion Papers (IFDP), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Number 791.
30. Karacan, S., ve Korkmaz, Ö. (2022). Turkish exports before and after the 2001 financial crisis: A panel gravity model. Foreign Trade Review, 57(1), 27-40.
31. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., ve Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
32. Kónya, L. (2004). Unit-root, cointegration and Granger causality test results for export and growth in OECD countries. International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies, 1(2), 67-94.
33. Kose, M. A., Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., ve Wei, S. J. (2009). Financial globalization: A reappraisal. IMF Economic Review, 56(1), 8-62.
34. Kravis, I. B., ve Lipsey, R. E. (1971). Price Competitiveness in World Trade. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), 1-30.
35. Lee, J., Huang, C. J., ve Shin, Y. (1997). On stationary tests in the presence of structural breaks. Economics Letters, 55(2), 165-172.
36. Lim, S. Y., Chia, R. C. J., ve Ho, C. M. (2010). Long-run validity of export-led growth: an empirical reinvestigation from linear and nonlinear cointegration test. Economics Bulletin, 30(2), 1182-1190.
37. Loecker, J. D. (2013). Detecting learning by exporting. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 5(3), 1-21.
38. Miao, G., ve Wegner, E. (2022). Using unit value indices as proxies for international merchandise trade prices. OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2022(1), 1-48.
39. Michelis, L., ve Zestos, G. K. (2004). Exports, imports and GDP growth: Causal relations in six European Union countries. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 1(2), 71-85.
40. Nazlioglu, S., ve Karul, C. (2017). A panel stationarity test with gradual structural shifts: Re-investigate the international commodity price shocks. Economic Modelling, 61, 181-192.
41. Nazlioglu, S., Payne, J. E., Lee, J., Rayos-Velazquez, M., ve Karul, C. (2021). Convergence in OPEC carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from new panel stationarity tests with factors and breaks. Economic Modelling, 100, 105498.
42. Ozturk, I., ve Acaravci, A. (2010). Testing the export-led growth hypothesis: empirical evidence from Turkey. The Journal of Developing Areas, 44(1), 245-254.
43. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
44. Phillips, P. C., ve Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
45. Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21(1), 1-33.
46. Silver, M. (2007). Do Unit Value Export, Import, and Terms-of-Trade Indices Represent or Misrepresent Price Indices? IMF Working Paper, WP/07/121.
47. Silver, M. (2010). The wrongs and rights of unit value indices. Review of Income and Wealth, 56, Special Issue (SI) 1, S206-S223.
48. Sul, D., Phillips, P. C., ve Choi, C. Y. (2005). Prewhitening bias in HAC estimation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(4), 517-546.
49. Šonje, A., Podobnik, B., ve Vizek, M. (2010). Long-run relationship between exports and imports in transition European countries. Ekonomski Pregled, 61(1-2), 3-18.
50. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2015). UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics 2015. United Nations. New York, USA.
51. Van Biesebroeck, J. (2005). Exporting raises productivity in sub-Saharan African manufacturing firms. Journal of International Economics, 67(2), 373-391.
52. Wacziarg, R., ve Welch, K. H. (2008). Trade liberalization and growth: New evidence. The World Bank Economic Review, 22(2), 187-231.
53. World Bank (WB) (2014). Turkey’s transitions: integration, inclusion, institutions. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
54. Yin, Y., ve Wu, S. (2001). Stationarity tests in heterogeneous panels. İçinde Nonstationary panels, panel Cointegration, and dynamic panels (s. 275-296). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
55. Zivot, E., ve Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270.