Faktör Hareketliliği Bağlamında Göç ve Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Ticarete Etkisinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Year 2021, Issue: 81, 127 - 150, 31.12.2021

Hande Aksöz Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.26650/jspc.2021.81.903847

Abstract

Bu çalışma faktör hareketliliği çerçevesinde göç ve doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının ticaret üzerindeki etkisini karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, Türkiye’nin en büyük ticaret partnerlerinden olan Almanya, Fransa, İtalya, Birleşik Krallık ve ABD’ye giden göçmenlerin, bu ülkelerden Türkiye’ye gelen doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının ve ticarete etki eden döviz kuru, yabancı istihdamı, küreselleşme indeksi ve politik istikrar indeksi değişkenlerinin 2000-2018 yılları arasındaki yıllık verilerini kapsamaktadır. Ticaret-Göç ve Ticaret-Doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlar bağlantılarının analizinde dinamik panel veri modeline dayalı Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Tahmincisi (GMM) tahmin yönteminden faydalanılmaktadır. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, 2000-2018 yıllarında Türkiye’den giden göçmenlerin, Türkiye’ye gelen yabancı yatırımlara göre ticaret üzerinde daha fazla etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, geleneksel dış ticaret teorilerinin temel varsayımları geride bırakıldığında, faktör hareketleri ile ticaretin tamamlayıcı olduğunu vurgulayan literatürle paralel sonuçlar elde edilmektedir.

Keywords

Dış ticaret, Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, Uluslararası faktör hareketliliği, Göç

A Comparative Analysis of the Effect of Migration and Foreign Direct Investment on Trade in the Context of the Factor Mobility

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of immigration and foreign direct investment on trade within the framework of factor mobility. Hence, we used annual data, spanning the period of 2000–2018, and immigration flows to Turkey’s major trade partners (Germany, France, Italy, UK, and the United States). The inward foreign direct investment flows to Turkey from these countries. However, exchange rates, foreign employment, globalization index, and political stability index variables affect trade. The findings show that migration flows from Turkey to five countries and have more impact on trade, compared to inward foreign direct investment to Turkey over the period of 2000–2018. Furthermore, when the fundamental assumptions of traditional foreign trade theories are ignored, parallel results are obtained, indicating that factor movements and trade are complementary.

Keywords

Foreign trade, Foreign direct investment, International factor mobility, Migration

References

• Aizenman, J., Noy, I. (2006). FDI and trade—two-way linkages?, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 46(3), 317–337, Erişim tarihi: 01.02.2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2006.02.004
• Anderson, T. W., Hasio, C. (1982). Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data, Journal of Econometrics, 18(1), 47–82.
• Arellano, M., Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations, Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.
• Arellano, M., Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models, Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51.
• Balestra, P., Nerlove, M. (1966). Pooling cross section and time series data in the estimation of a dynamic model: the demand for natural gas. The Econometric Society, 34(3), 585–612.
• Baldwin, R., Venables, A. J. (1994). International migration, capital mobility and transitional dynamics, Economica, 61(243), 285-300.
• Brainard, S. L. (1995). An empirical assessment of the proximity-concentration tradeoff between multinational sales and trade. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4580.
• Buigues, P., Jacquemin, A. (1994). Foreign direct investment and exports to the European community. Oxford and New York: The Oxford University Press.
• Combes, P. P., Lafourcade, M., & Mayer, T. (2005). The trade creating effects of business and social networks: evidence from France. Journal of International Economics, 66(1), 1–29.
• Dunlevy, J.A., Hutchinson, W. K. (1999). The impact of immigration on American import trade in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Journal of Economic History, 59(4) 1043–1062.
• Dunlevy, J.A., Hutchinson, W. K. (2001). The pro-trade effect of immigration on American exports during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. IZA Discussion Paper: 375.
• Egger, P. H., Enrlich, M., & Nelson, D.R. (2011). Migration and trade. The World Economy, 35(2), 216–241.
• Girma, S., Yu, Z. (2002). The link between immigration and trade: evidence from the United Kingdom. Review of World Economics, 138(1), 115–30.
• Gould, D. M. (1994). Immigrant links to the home country: empirical implications for U.S. bilateral trade flows. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 302–316.
• Gonzalez, P. A., Maloney, W. F. (2005). Migration, trade, and foreign direct investment in Mexico. The World Bank, Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2021, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/8930
• Hasio, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data (2. Baskı), UK: Cambridge Universty Press.
• Head, K., Ries, J. (1998). Immigration and trade creation: econometric evidence from Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, 31, 47–62.
• Helpman, E., Krugman, P. (1985). Market structure and foreign trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
• Kojima K. (1978) Direct foreign investment: Japanese Model versus American model Kojima (ed.) Direct foreign investment: A Japanese model of multinational business operations (pp: 83–102), New York: Praeger Publishers.
• Kojima, K. (1991). A Pacific economic community in a new international order. Singapore Economic Review, 36(2), 1–12.
• Liu, L.G., Graham, E. M. (1998). The relationship between trade and foreign investment: empirical results for Taiwan and South Korea, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper 98-7.
• Martin, P. L. (1993). Trade and migration: NAFTA and agriculture. Institute for International Economics, Retrived from Schiff, M. (1996, December), South-north migration and trade, The World Bank, Policy Research. Working Paper 1696.
• Markusen, J. R. (1983). Factor movements and commodity tade as complements, Journal of International Economics, 14(3-4), 341–356.
• Mundell, R. A. (1957). International trade and factor mobility. The American Economic Review, 47(3), 321-335.
• Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects, Econometrica, 49(6), 1417–1426.
• Pantulu, J., Poon, J.P.H. (2003). Foreign direct investment and international trade: evidence from the US and Japan. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(3), 241–259, Erişim Tarihi: 09.012021, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.3.241
• Rauch, J. E., Tridade, V. (2002). Ethnic Chinese networks in international trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 116–130.
• Russell, S. S., Teitelbaum, M. S. (1992). International migration and international trade. World Bank Discussion Paper, 160. Washington. USA.
• Samuelson, P. A. (1949). International trade and the equalization of factor prices, The Economic Journal, 58(230), 163–184.
• Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190–207.
• Wagner, D., Head, K., & Ries, J. (2002). Immigration and the trade of provinces”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49(5), 507–525.
• Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2018). İleri panel veri analizi (3. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.