Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi

Year 2019, Volume: 7 , 23 - 37, 19.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594379

Abstract

Latin Amerika’daki bölgeselleşme girişimlerinden biri olan ve 1991 yılında Brezilya, Arjantin, Uruguay,

Paraguay’ın imzaladığı anlaşma ile kurulan, 2012 yılında ise Venezuela’nın dahil olduğu Güney

Amerika Ortak Pazarı MERCOSUR, günümüzde bölgenin en büyük ticari bloğu olarak karşımıza

çıkmaktadır. Nihai hedefinin ekonomik entegrasyon olduğu organizasyonun ilk yıllarında belirgin

bir başarı sağladığı görülse de kurumsallaşmasındaki eksiklikler, ülkelerin egemenliği devretmeye

isteksizlikleri, üyelerin bireysel politikaları ve Latin Amerika’da bulunan çok sayıda bölgesel örgütün

varlığından kaynaklı kapsayıcılığının sınırlı oluşu nedenleriyle bölgeselleşmesi istenilen düzeye

ulaşamamıştır. Ekonomik bölgeselleşmenin bir göstergesi olarak bölge içi ticari ilişkilerin incelenmesi

MERCOSUR’un son dönemdeki iktisadi entegrasyon düzeyi hakkında fikir vermektedir.

Dünya sisteminde ekonomik bölgeselleşmenin temelleri 19.yy’da Avrupa’daki gelişmelere

dayandırılmakta, yeni gelişen ticaret ağları ve ülkelerin gümrük birliği çalışmaları modern anlamda

ilk ekonomik bölgeselleşme girişimlerine örnek olarak değerlendirilebilmektedir. Bu dönemde

Latin Amerika’da daha çok Pan fikirlerin ve korumacılığın etkisiyle fikirsel, kültürel ve güvenlik

temelli bölgeselleşme düşünceleri görülürken, ortak pazar kurma ve ticari ilişkilerde artış sağlama

hedefleri 20.yy’ın ilk yarısında ortaya çıkmaktadır. Latin Amerika Ekonomik Komisyonu (ECLA)

ile 1948 yılında başlayan ekonomik bölgeselleşme çalışmaları, 1990’lar sonrası kurumsallaşarak

MERCOSUR halini almış, bölge içi ticaretin ve tüm üretim faktörleri düzeyinde ekonomik serbestliğin

arttırılması hedeflenmiştir. 2006-2016 yılları arası veriler incelendiğinde GSYİH bakımından grubun

göstergelerinde etkili olan Brezilya ve Arjantin’in kendi ticaret hacimlerini arttırdıkları ancak bunu

bölge içi değil bölge dışı ticaret partnerleri ile sağladıkları görülmüştür. Dolayısıyla kapasite farklılıkları

ve ithalat bağımlılıkları gibi diğer sınırlılıklarıyla beraber Brezilya ve Arjantin’in ticaret tercihlerinin de

bölgeselleşmenin istenilen seviyeye ulaşamamasının bir nedeni olduğu ileri sürülebilmektedir.

Latin Amerika bölgeselleşmesini ekonomik açıdan ele almayı hedefleyen çalışma, Avrupa dışındaki

bölgeselleşmenin bir örneği olarak MERCOSUR’un ekonomik bölgeselleşmesini değerlendirmektedir.

Araştırmanın birinci bölümünde ekonomik bölgeselleşme çalışmaları, uluslararası ilişkilerdeki

federalizm, fonksiyonalizm, neofonksiyonalizm ve hükümetler arasıcılık gibi bölgeselleşme teorileri kapsamında incelenecek, bölgeselleşmenin sosyal, güvenlik, normatif ve ekonomik biçimlerinin

olabileceği ortaya koyulacaktır. Bölümde ekonomik bölgeselleşmenin tercihli ticaret anlaşması, serbest

ticaret anlaşması, gümrük birliği, ortak pazar ve ekonomik birlik aşamalarına değinilecek, bölgeselleşme

ve küreselleşme dalgalarının dünya ticaretine etkisi değerlendirilecektir. İkinci bölümde Güney

Amerika’da bölgeselleşme çalışmaları 19.yy’dan itibaren ele alınacak, MERCOSUR’un tarihsel gelişimi

ortaya koyulacaktır. Araştırmanın son bölümünde ise MERCOSUR’un ekonomik bölgeselleşmesi,

bölge içi ve dışı ticaret hacimleri ve ülkelerin ticari partnerleri açısından değerlendirilecek, Latin

Amerika bölgeselleşmesinin fırsatları ve sınırlılıkları analiz edilecektir.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2008) “Regional Worlds in a Post-Hegemonic Era”, 3rd GARNET Annual Conference, Bordeaux. http://amitavacharyaacademic.blogspot.com.tr/2008/10/regional-worlds-in-post-hegemonic-era. html (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Acharya, A. (2012) “Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time has Come?”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 47(1), 3-15. Aguirre, L.M. (2005) “Relations Between Latin America and the United States: Balance and Prospects”, Politics and Social Movements in an Hegemonic World: Lessons from Africa, Asia and Latin America, http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/sur-sur/201.007.11014703/2_Aguirre.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Asuncion (1991) “Southern Common Market (Mercosur) Agreement”, Foreign Trade Information System, http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/mrcsr/TreatyAsun_e.asp, (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018). Behr, T., J. Jokela (2011) “Regionalism & Global Governance: The Emerging Agenda”, Notre Europe, 85, 1-76. Börzel, T.A. (2016) “Theorizing Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance”, içinde T.A. Börzel ve T. Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press. Campos, G.L. (2016) “From Success to Failure: Under What Conditions Did Mercosur Integrate?”, Journal of Economic Integration, 31(4), 855-897. Castro-Klarén, S. (2003) “Framing Pan-Americanism: Simon Bolivar’s Findings”, CR: The New Centennial Review, 3(1), 25-53. Doctor, M. (2013) “Prospects For Deepening Mercosur Integration: Economic Asymmetry And Institutional Deficits”, Review of International Political Economy, 20(3), 515-540. Fawcett, L. (2012) “The History and Concept of Regionalism”, European Society Of International Law Conference Paper Series, 4, 1-17. Fawn, R. (2009) “Regions and Their Study: Wherefrom, What For and Whereto?”, Review of International Studies, 35(1), 5-34. Felter C., D. Renwick (2017) “Mercosur: South America’s Fractious Trade Bloc”, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mercosur-south-americas-fractious-trade-bloc (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Genna, G.M., T. Hiroi (2007) “Brazilian Regional Power in the Development of Mercosul”, Latin American Perspectives, 156(34), 43-57. Haas, E.B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International Organization, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hettne, B. (2003) “The New Regionalism Revisited”, içinde F. Söderbaum ve T. M. Shaw (Ed.), Theories of New Regionalism, NY: Palgrave, 22-42. Hurrell, A. (1995) “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics”, Review of International Studies, 21(4), 331-358. Hurrell, A. (2007) “One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in the Study of International Society”, International Affairs, 83(1) 127-146. Katzenstein P.J. (2006) “East Asia: Beyond Japan”, içinde P.J. Katzenstein ve T. Shiraishi (Ed.), Beyond Japan: The Dynamics of East Asian Regionalism, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1-33. Keohane, R.O., J.S. Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Krugman, P. (1993) “Regionalism versus Multilateralism”, içinde J. Melo ve A. Panagariya (Ed.), New Dimensions in Regional Integration, NY: Cambridge University Press, 58-79. Malamud, A., G.L. Gardini (2012) “Has Regionalism Peaked? The Latin American Quagmire and its Lessons”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 47(1), 116-133. Milward, A. (2000) The European Rescue of the Nation-State, London: Routledge. Mirus R., N. Rylska (2001) “Economic Integration: Free Trade Areas vs. Customs Unions”, Western Centre for Economic Research, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.456.7574&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Erişim Tarihi 3.1.2018). Mitrany, D. (1948) “The Functional Approach to World Organization”, International Affairs, 24(3), 350-363. Moravcsik, A. (1993) “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473-524. OECa. “Brazil Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/ profile/country/bra/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECb. “Argentina Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/arg/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECc. “Paraguay Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/pry/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECd. “Uruguay Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/ury/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECe. “Venezuela Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/ven/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Olivos (2002) “Protocolo de Olivos para la Solución de Controversias en el MERCOSUR”, Sistema de Informacion Sobre Comercio Exterior, http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/MRCSR/olivos/polivosText_s. asp#Preambulo, (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Ouro Preto (1994) “Additional Protocol to the Treaty of Asunción on the Institutional Structure of MERCOSUR Protocol of Ouro Preto”, Foreign Trade Information System, http://www.sice.oas.org/ trade/mrcsr/ourop/ourop_e.asp, (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018). Schmitter, P.C. (2005) “Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctionalism”, Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 255-272. SICE “Trade Policy Developments”, Foreign Trade Information System, http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd_e.asp (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018). Smith, M. (1997) “Regions and Regionalism”, içinde B. White, R. Little, ve M. Smith (Ed.), Issues in World Politics, London: Macmillan, 69-89. Söderbaum, F. (2011) “Theories of Regionalism”, içinde Mark Beeson ve Richard Stubbs (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism, NY: Routledge, 11-21. Söderbaum, F. (2015) “Early, Old, New and Comparative Regionalism: The Scholarly Development Of The Field”, KFG Working Paper Series, 64, 1-29. Telo, M. (2007) “Introduction: Globalization, New Regionalism and the Role of the European Union”, içinde European Union and New Regionalism. England: Ashgate Publishing, 1-21. UNCTADSTAT (t.y.) “Intra-Trade and Extra-Trade of Country Groups by Product”, Annual, 1995-2016, UNCTADSTAT, http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=24397 (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). WTO (t.y.) “Regional Trade Agreements: Facts and Figures”, WTO, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ region_e/regfac_e.htm (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018).

Economic Regionalism Of MERCOSUR: Analyse of Intra-Regional Trade Relation Between 2006-2016

Year 2019, Volume: 7 , 23 - 37, 19.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594379

Abstract

South Common Market MERCOSUR, which was one of the regionalism attempts in Latin America and

established by the treaty signed by Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay in 1991, later Venezuela joined

in 2012, is the biggest trade block of the region today. The organization’s ultimate goal is economic

integration and despite the wide expectations of success in its early years, MERCOSUR’s integration

couldn’t reach the level that was aimed due to its lack of institutionalism, the unwillingness of the

countries to hand over their sovereignty, individual policies of the members and its limits because of

the high number of organizations in Latin America, MERCOSUR’s integration couldn’t reach the level

that was aimed. Analyses of intra-regional trade relations as an indicator of economic regionalism may

provide ideas for the organization’s economic integration level in the last decade.

The roots of the economic regionalism in the world system based on the developments in Europe

in the 19th century and the new advancing trade networks and the of countries on customs union

can be regarded as the first economic regionalism attempts in the modern sense. During this period

it could be claimed that ideational, cultural and security-based regionalism was dominant in Latin

America mostly because of the Pan ideas and protectivism, However, by the mid 20th century the

aim of establishing a common market and increase on the trade relations emerged in the region. The

economic regionalism initiatives started with The Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA)

in 1948 and institutionalized after the 1990s with MERCOSUR which was established with the goal of

increasing intra regional trade and economic openness on all factors of production. When the data of

the years between 2006 and 2016 be examined it was seen that Brazil and Argentina who are the most

significant members of the group in terms of GDP have increased their own trades and influenced the

MERCOSUR’s trade indicators however mostly not because of their intra-trade relations but because

of the international partners. Therefore it can be argued that one of the reasons behind the regionalism

couldn’t reach the level that was aimed in Latin America is Brazil’s and Argentina’s trade preferences

alongside with limitations on the capacity differences and dependencies on imports.

With targeting Latin American regionalism on an economic perspective, this study analyzes

MERCOSUR and aims to assess economic regionalism of the organization as an example of the non-

European regionalism. The first chapter of the research examines economic regionalism studies on the

regionalism theories such as federalism, functionalism, neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism in

the context of international relations and puts forth the social, security, normative and economic forms

of regionalism. Also, this section explains the economic regionalism’s preferential trade agreement,

free trade agreement, customs union, common market and economic integration stages and evaluates

the impact of the regionalization and globalization waves to the world trade. The second chapter

analyzes the regionalism researchs of South America since the 19th century and historical process of

MERCOSUR. The final chapter assesses economic regionalism of MERCOSUR in terms of intra and

extra trade capacities and trade partners of member states with the opportunities and limitations of

Latin American regionalism.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2008) “Regional Worlds in a Post-Hegemonic Era”, 3rd GARNET Annual Conference, Bordeaux. http://amitavacharyaacademic.blogspot.com.tr/2008/10/regional-worlds-in-post-hegemonic-era. html (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Acharya, A. (2012) “Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time has Come?”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 47(1), 3-15. Aguirre, L.M. (2005) “Relations Between Latin America and the United States: Balance and Prospects”, Politics and Social Movements in an Hegemonic World: Lessons from Africa, Asia and Latin America, http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/sur-sur/201.007.11014703/2_Aguirre.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Asuncion (1991) “Southern Common Market (Mercosur) Agreement”, Foreign Trade Information System, http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/mrcsr/TreatyAsun_e.asp, (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018). Behr, T., J. Jokela (2011) “Regionalism & Global Governance: The Emerging Agenda”, Notre Europe, 85, 1-76. Börzel, T.A. (2016) “Theorizing Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance”, içinde T.A. Börzel ve T. Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press. Campos, G.L. (2016) “From Success to Failure: Under What Conditions Did Mercosur Integrate?”, Journal of Economic Integration, 31(4), 855-897. Castro-Klarén, S. (2003) “Framing Pan-Americanism: Simon Bolivar’s Findings”, CR: The New Centennial Review, 3(1), 25-53. Doctor, M. (2013) “Prospects For Deepening Mercosur Integration: Economic Asymmetry And Institutional Deficits”, Review of International Political Economy, 20(3), 515-540. Fawcett, L. (2012) “The History and Concept of Regionalism”, European Society Of International Law Conference Paper Series, 4, 1-17. Fawn, R. (2009) “Regions and Their Study: Wherefrom, What For and Whereto?”, Review of International Studies, 35(1), 5-34. Felter C., D. Renwick (2017) “Mercosur: South America’s Fractious Trade Bloc”, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mercosur-south-americas-fractious-trade-bloc (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Genna, G.M., T. Hiroi (2007) “Brazilian Regional Power in the Development of Mercosul”, Latin American Perspectives, 156(34), 43-57. Haas, E.B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International Organization, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hettne, B. (2003) “The New Regionalism Revisited”, içinde F. Söderbaum ve T. M. Shaw (Ed.), Theories of New Regionalism, NY: Palgrave, 22-42. Hurrell, A. (1995) “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics”, Review of International Studies, 21(4), 331-358. Hurrell, A. (2007) “One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in the Study of International Society”, International Affairs, 83(1) 127-146. Katzenstein P.J. (2006) “East Asia: Beyond Japan”, içinde P.J. Katzenstein ve T. Shiraishi (Ed.), Beyond Japan: The Dynamics of East Asian Regionalism, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1-33. Keohane, R.O., J.S. Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Krugman, P. (1993) “Regionalism versus Multilateralism”, içinde J. Melo ve A. Panagariya (Ed.), New Dimensions in Regional Integration, NY: Cambridge University Press, 58-79. Malamud, A., G.L. Gardini (2012) “Has Regionalism Peaked? The Latin American Quagmire and its Lessons”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 47(1), 116-133. Milward, A. (2000) The European Rescue of the Nation-State, London: Routledge. Mirus R., N. Rylska (2001) “Economic Integration: Free Trade Areas vs. Customs Unions”, Western Centre for Economic Research, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.456.7574&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Erişim Tarihi 3.1.2018). Mitrany, D. (1948) “The Functional Approach to World Organization”, International Affairs, 24(3), 350-363. Moravcsik, A. (1993) “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473-524. OECa. “Brazil Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/ profile/country/bra/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECb. “Argentina Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/arg/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECc. “Paraguay Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/pry/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECd. “Uruguay Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/ury/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). OECe. “Venezuela Country Profile”, The Observatory of Economic Complexity, https://atlas.media.mit.edu/ en/profile/country/ven/ (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Olivos (2002) “Protocolo de Olivos para la Solución de Controversias en el MERCOSUR”, Sistema de Informacion Sobre Comercio Exterior, http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/MRCSR/olivos/polivosText_s. asp#Preambulo, (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). Ouro Preto (1994) “Additional Protocol to the Treaty of Asunción on the Institutional Structure of MERCOSUR Protocol of Ouro Preto”, Foreign Trade Information System, http://www.sice.oas.org/ trade/mrcsr/ourop/ourop_e.asp, (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018). Schmitter, P.C. (2005) “Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctionalism”, Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 255-272. SICE “Trade Policy Developments”, Foreign Trade Information System, http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd_e.asp (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018). Smith, M. (1997) “Regions and Regionalism”, içinde B. White, R. Little, ve M. Smith (Ed.), Issues in World Politics, London: Macmillan, 69-89. Söderbaum, F. (2011) “Theories of Regionalism”, içinde Mark Beeson ve Richard Stubbs (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism, NY: Routledge, 11-21. Söderbaum, F. (2015) “Early, Old, New and Comparative Regionalism: The Scholarly Development Of The Field”, KFG Working Paper Series, 64, 1-29. Telo, M. (2007) “Introduction: Globalization, New Regionalism and the Role of the European Union”, içinde European Union and New Regionalism. England: Ashgate Publishing, 1-21. UNCTADSTAT (t.y.) “Intra-Trade and Extra-Trade of Country Groups by Product”, Annual, 1995-2016, UNCTADSTAT, http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=24397 (Erişim Tarihi 1.1.2018). WTO (t.y.) “Regional Trade Agreements: Facts and Figures”, WTO, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ region_e/regfac_e.htm (Erişim Tarihi 2.1.2018).
There are 1 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Political Science
Journal Section International Journal of Political Science & Urban Studies
Authors

Ahmet Bilal Tüzgen This is me

Publication Date July 19, 2019
Submission Date December 19, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 7

Cite

APA Tüzgen, A. B. (2019). MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies, 7, 23-37. https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594379
AMA Tüzgen AB. MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi. IPSUS. July 2019;7:23-37. doi:10.14782/ipsus.594379
Chicago Tüzgen, Ahmet Bilal. “MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi”. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies 7, July (July 2019): 23-37. https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594379.
EndNote Tüzgen AB (July 1, 2019) MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies 7 23–37.
IEEE A. B. Tüzgen, “MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi”, IPSUS, vol. 7, pp. 23–37, 2019, doi: 10.14782/ipsus.594379.
ISNAD Tüzgen, Ahmet Bilal. “MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi”. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies 7 (July 2019), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594379.
JAMA Tüzgen AB. MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi. IPSUS. 2019;7:23–37.
MLA Tüzgen, Ahmet Bilal. “MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi”. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies, vol. 7, 2019, pp. 23-37, doi:10.14782/ipsus.594379.
Vancouver Tüzgen AB. MERCOSUR’un Ekonomik Bölgeselleşmesi: 2006-2016 Yılları Bölge İçi Ticari İlişkilerin Analizi. IPSUS. 2019;7:23-37.