Küresel Değer Zincirlerine Katılımda Etkili Faktörler: Panel Veri Yaklaşımıyla Next-11 Ülkeleri

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, küreselleşen üretim yapılarında giderek daha önemli hale gelen küresel değer zincirlerine (KDZ) katılımın belirleyicilerini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Özellikle Next-11 ülkeleri özelinde yapılan bu inceleme, bu ülkelerin küresel üretim sistemine entegrasyon düzeylerini belirlemeyi ve hangi faktörlerin bu entegrasyonu artırdığını ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. Yöntem: Araştırmada, Koopman vd. (2010) tarafından geliştirilen brüt ihracatı katma değer temelli ayrıştırma yöntemi kullanılarak OECD TiVA 2023 veri setinden elde edilen verilerle KDZ katılım endeksleri oluşturulmuştur. Panel veri analizi yoluyla ileri ve geri yönlü katılım oranlarını etkileyen faktörler incelenmiş, tüm sektörler için ve ayrıca otomotiv sektörü özelinde iki ayrı model tahmin edilmiştir. Bulgular: Analiz sonuçları, ülkelerin yapısal özellikleri nedeniyle küresel değer zincirlerine (KDZ) katılım düzeylerinin farklı belirleyicilerden etkilendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Panel veri analizinde genel ülke grubu düzeyinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilememiştir. Ancak ülke bazında gerçekleştirilen ayrı analizlerde, etkili faktörler ve bunların yönleri bakımından önemli farklılıklar gözlemlenmiştir. Ülke özelinde heterojenlik gösteren bu bulgular, yüksek teknoloji ihracatı, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve patent başvurularının KDZ katılımı üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Buna ek olarak, küreselleşme düzeyi ile ekonomik karmaşıklık endeksinin de katılım üzerinde pozitif yönlü etkileri belirlenmiştir. Otomotiv sektörü özelinde yapılan değerlendirmelerde ise özellikle Ar-Ge kapasitesini temsil eden patent sayısı ile ekonomik karmaşıklığın belirleyici rol oynadığı görülmüştür. Nominal döviz kurunun etkisi sektörler arasında farklılık göstermekle birlikte, özellikle otomotiv sektörü kapsamında birçok ülke için KDZ katılımını pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç ve Katkılar: Çalışma, Next-11 ülkelerinin küresel değer zincirlerine etkin katılımının yalnızca dış ticaret performanslarını artırmakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda üretim yapılarında yapısal dönüşümü desteklediğini göstermektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde teknoloji, yatırım ve dışa açıklık temelli sanayi politikalarının önemini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, döviz kurlarının KDZ katılımı üzerindeki olumlu etkilerinin, firmaların küresel rekabette avantaj elde etmesinde belirleyici bir unsur olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Sınırlılıklar: Çalışma, OECD TiVA veri setinin zaman ve ülke kapsamı ile sınırlıdır. Veri eksikliği nedeniyle İran ve Nijerya analize dahil edilememiştir. Ayrıca bazı potansiyel belirleyicilerin veri setinde yer almaması, analiz kapsamının genişletilmesini sınırlamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Küresel değer zincirleri (KDZ)
• Next-11 ülkeleri
• Katılım belirleyicileri
• Panel veri analizi

Determinants of Participation in Global Value Chains: A Panel Data Approach for Next-11 Countries

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the determinants of participation in global value chains (GVCs), which have become increasingly important within globalized production structures. Focusing specifically on the Next-11 countries, the research seeks to identify the degree of integration of these economies into the global production system and to explore the key factors that enhance this integration. Methodology: The study constructs GVC participation indices using data from the OECD TiVA 2023 database, applying the value-added decomposition methodology developed by Koopman et al. (2010). A panel data analysis is employed to examine the factors influencing forward and backward participation rates. Two separate models are estimated: one covering all sectors and another focusing solely on the automotive sector. Findings: The analysis reveals that due to structural differences across countries, the determinants of GVC participation vary significantly. While no statistically significant relationships were found at the panel level for the entire country group, country-specific estimations exhibit substantial heterogeneity in both the significance and direction of the effects. High-technology exports, foreign direct investment, and patent applications are found to have a significant and positive impact on GVC participation at the national level. Additionally, globalization and economic complexity also contribute positively. In the automotive sector, patent activity reflecting R&D capacity and economic complexity emerge as key determinants. Although the effect of nominal exchange rates varies across sectors, it is found to significantly and positively influence participation in many countries within the automotive sector. Implications: The study demonstrates that effective participation in GVCs not only enhances trade performance but also supports structural transformation in the Next-11 economies. The findings underscore the importance of technology-driven, investment-oriented, and outward-looking industrial policies for developing countries. Furthermore, exchange rate policies that support competitiveness appear to play a crucial role in facilitating GVC integration. Limitations: This research is constrained by the temporal and geographical coverage of the OECD TiVA database. Due to missing data, Iran and Nigeria were excluded from the analysis. Moreover, the absence of certain potentially relevant variables in the dataset limited the scope of the empirical investigation.

Keywords

• Global value chains (GVCs)
• Next-11 countries
• Determinants of participation
• Panel data analysis

References

1. Alcaer, J., & Oxley, J. (2014). Learning by Supplying. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 204-223. JSTOR.
2. Allard, C., Kriljenko, M. J. I. C., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. J. R., Kitsios, E., Trevino, M. J. P., & Chen, M. W. (2016). Trade Integration and Global Value Chains in sub-Saharan Africa: In Pursuit of the Missing Link. International Monetary Fund.
3. Arslan, İ. K., & Çöp, S. (2020). Küresel Değer Zincirleri ile Uluslararası Rekabet Gücü Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 55(3), 1700-1723. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.20.08.1425
4. Baek, Y., & Urata, S. (2023). Does Global Value Chain Participation Improve Firm Productivity? A Study of Selected ASEAN Developing Countries. Asian Economic Journal, 37(2), 232-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/asej.12304
5. Baldwin, R. (2013). Global Supply Chains: Why They Emerged, Why They Matter, and Where They Are Going. Içinde D. K. Elms & P. Low (Ed.), Global Value Chains in a Changing World (ss. 13-59). World trade organization.
6. Baldwin, R., & Venables, A. J. (2013). Spiders and Snakes: Offshoring and Agglomeration in the Global Economy. Journal of International Economics, 90(2), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.02.005
7. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q., & Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence in a Fixed Effects Panel Data Model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004
8. Banga, K. (2022a). Digital Technologies and Product Upgrading in Global Value Chains: Empirical Evidence from Indian Manufacturing Firms. The European Journal of Development Research, 34(1), 77-102. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00357-x

9. Banga, K. (2022b). Impact of Global Value Chains on Total Factor Productivity: The Case of Indian Manufacturing. Review of Development Economics, 26(2), 704-735. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12867
10. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
11. Cheng, Y., & Yao, X. (2021). Carbon Intensity Reduction Assessment of Renewable Energy Technology Innovation in China: A Panel Data Model with Cross-Section Dependence and Slope Heterogeneity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135, 110157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110157
12. Constantinescu, C., Mattoo, A., & Ruta, M. (2019). Does Vertical Specialisation Increase Productivity? The World Economy, 42(8), 2385-2402. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12801
13. Del Prete, D., Giovannetti, G., & Marvasi, E. (2016). North African Countries and Firms in International Production Networks. EUI RSCAS, 2016(26). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2771882
14. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series With a Unit Root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427-431. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
15. Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-Section Dependence in Nonstationary Panel Models: A Novel Estimator [MPRA Paper]. University Library of Munich, Germany. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:17692
16. Erkanlı, H., & Karsu, S. (2012). Değer Zincirinde Entellektüel Sermaye. Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 216-237.
17. Fernandez-Stark, K., Bamber, P., & Gereffi, G. (2011). The Offshore Services Value Chain: Upgrading Trajectories in Developing Countries. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 4(1-3), 206-234.
18. Fernandez-Stark, K., & Gereffi, G. (2016). Global Value Chain Analysis: A Primer (Second Edition). Içinde S. Ponte, G. Gereffi, & G. Raj-Reichert (Ed.), Handbook on Global Value Chains (Paperback edition, ss. 54-76). Edward Elgar Publishing.
19. Francisco, J. P., Canare, T., & Labios, J. R. (2018). Obstacles and Enablers of Internationalization of Philippine SMEs Through Participation in Global Value Chains (Discussion Paper No. 2018-07). Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
20. Gereffi, G., & Fernandez-Stark, K. (2011). Global Value Chain Analysis: A Primer. https://hdl.handle.net/10161/12488 Giovannetti, G., & Marvasi, E. (2018). Governance, Value Chain Positioning and Firms’ Heterogeneous Performance: The Case of Tuscany. International Economics, 154, 86-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2017.11.001
21. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J.-E. (2019). The KOF Globalisation Index – revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543-574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
22. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043
23. Harvie, C., Narjoko, D., & Oum, S. (2013). Small and Medium Enterprises’ Access to Finance: Evidence from Selected Asian Economies (ERIA-DP-2013-23). Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
24. Hillberry, R. (2011). Causes of International Production Fragmentation: Some Evidence. İçinde A. Sydor (Ed.), Global Value Chains: Impacts and Implications (ss. 77-102). Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:155780989
25. Hossain, Md. S., & Baars, J. V. (2022). Global Value Chain: An Empirical Investigation of Bangladesh’s Garments and Textile Industry. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 11(3), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i3.1726
26. Hsiao, C., Pesaran, M. H., & Pick, A. (2011). Diagnostic Tests of Cross‐section Independence for Limited Dependent Variable Panel Data Models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(2), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00646.x
27. Hummels, D. L., Ishii, J., & Yi, K.-M. (2001). The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World Trade. Trade and Wages, 54(1), 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(00)00093-3
28. Ignatenko, A., Raei, F., & Mircheva, B. (2019). Global Value Chains: What are the Benefits and Why Do Countries Participate? IMF Working Papers, 19(18), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484392928.001
29. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
30. Johnson, R. C. (2018). Measuring Global Value Chains. Annual Review of Economics, 10(1), 207-236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053600
31. Johnson, R. C., & Noguera, G. (2012). Accounting for Intermediates: Production Sharing and Trade in Value Added. Journal of International Economics, 86(2), 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.10.003
32. Jones, R. W., & Kierzkowski, H. (1990). The Role of Services in Production and International Trade: A Theoretical Framework. İçinde The Political Economy of International Trade: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Baldwin (ss. 31-48). Blackwells.
33. Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2000). A Handbook for Value Chain Research (C. 113). University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies Brighton.
34. Kersan-Škabić, I. (2019). The Drivers of Global Value Chain (GVC) Participation in EU Member States. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 32(1), 1204-1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1629978
35. Koopman, R., Powers, W., Wang, Z., & Wei, S.-J. (2010). Give Credit Where Credit Is Due: Tracing Value Added in Global Production Chains (w16426; s. w16426). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16426
36. Kowalski, P., Gonzalez, J. L., Ragoussis, A., & Ugarte, C. (2015). Participation of Developing Countries in Global Value Chains: Implications for Trade and Trade-Related Policies. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/5js33lfw0xxn-en
37. Lee, J. Y., Kim, D., Choi, B., & Jiménez, A. (2023). Early Evidence on How Industry 4.0 Reshapes MNEs’ Global Value Chains: The Role of Value Creation Versus Value Capturing by Headquarters and Foreign Subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00596-6
38. Lodefalk, M. (2013). Servicification of Manufacturing—Evidence from Sweden. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 6(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEBR.2013.054855
39. Moazzem, K. G., & Sehrin, F. (2016). Economic Upgrading in Bangladesh’s Apparel Value Chain during the Post-MFA Period: An Exploratory Analysis. South Asia Economic Journal, 17(1), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1391561415621824
40. Ndubuisi, G., & Owusu, S. (2021). How Important is GVC Participation to Export Upgrading? The World Economy, 44(10), 2887-2908. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13102
41. OECD. (2024). The Future of the Automotive Value Chain: Implications for FDI-SME Linkages (64. bs, OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Papers) [OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Papers]. https://doi.org/10.1787/cb730d65-en
42. Ofreneo, R. E. (2016). Auto and Car Parts Production: Can the Philippines Catch Up with Asia? Asia Pacific Business Review, 22(1), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2014.990212
43. O’Neill, J., Wilson, D., Purushothaman, R., & Stupnytska, A. (2005). How Solid are the BRICs? [Global Economics Paper No: 134]. Goldman Sachs.
44. Özatağan, G. (2011). Dynamics of Value Chain Governance: Increasing Supplier Competence and Changing Power Relations in the Periphery of Automotive Production—Evidence from Bursa, Turkey. European Planning Studies, 19(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.530393
45. Pathikonda, V. G., & Farole, T. (2016). The Capabilities Driving Participation in Global Value Chains (Policy Research Working Paper Series No 7804). The World Bank. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/7804.html
46. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels (IZA Discussion Papers 1240). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:iza:izadps:dp1240
47. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
48. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
49. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
50. Reddy, K., & Sasidharan, S. (2023). Digitalization and Global Value Chain Participation: Firm-Level Evidence from Indian Manufacturing. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 50(3), 551-574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-023-00270-4
51. Rogerson, C. M. (2013). Improving Market Access Opportunities for Urban Small, Medium and Micro-Enterprises in South Africa. Urbani izziv, 24(2), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-02-005
52. Song, Y., Liu, C., & Langston, C. (2006). Extending Construction Linkage Measures by the Consideration of the Impact of Capital. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1207-1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600599152
53. Soontornthum, T., Cui, L., Lu, V. N., & Su, J. (2020). Enabling SMEs’ Learning from Global Value Chains: Linking the Logic of Power and the Logic of Embeddedness of Interfirm Relations. Management International Review, 60(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-020-00425-8
54. Stehrer, R., Foster, N., & de Vries, G. (2012). Value Added and Factors in Trade: A Comprehensive Approach. wiiw Working Paper, 80(2012), 1-22.
55. Stojkoski, V., Koch, P., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2023). Multidimensional Economic Complexity and Inclusive Green Growth. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 130. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00770-0
56. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
57. Thangavelu, S. M., Wang, W., & Oum, S. (2018). Servicification in Global Value Chains: Comparative Analysis of Selected Asian Countries with OECD. The World Economy, 41(11), 3045-3070.
58. Timmer, M. P., Erumban, A. A., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & de Vries, G. J. (2014). Slicing Up Global Value Chains. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(2), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.2.99
59. UNCTAD. (2013). Global Value Chains and Development: Investment and Value Added Trade in the Global Economy (DIAE/2013/1).
60. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.967
61. Wicaksono, P., Hikmah, Y., & Ilmiawani, R. N. (2023). Productivity and Global Value Chains: A Tale from the Indonesian Automobile Sector. Economies, 11(10), 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11100262
62. Wicaksono, P., & Priyadi, L. (2016). Decent Work in Global Production Network: Lessons Learnt from the Indonesian Automotive Sector. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies (JSEAE), 33(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1353/ase.2016.0006
63. Wiklund, J., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Building an integrative model of small business growth. Small Business Economics, 32(4), 351-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9084-8
64. World Bank. (2013). Doing Business 2014: Understanding Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9984-2
65. Wuri, J., Widodo, T., & Hardi, A. S. (2023). Speed of Convergence in Global Value Chains: Forward or Backward Linkage. Heliyon, 9(7), e18070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18070
66. Yanikkaya, H., Tat, P., & Altun, A. (2024). Do Lower Tariff Rates Promote Global Value Chain Participation? World Trade Review, 23(1), 1-19. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745623000289
67. Zhang, Q. (2024). The Impact of Digitalization on the Upgrading of China’s Manufacturing Sector’s Global Value Chains. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01698-8