Ara ve Sermaye Malları İthalatı Verimliliği Etkiler mi? Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’den Kanıtlar.

Abstract

Amaç: Küresel değer zincirleri, üretimi ülkeler arasında bölüştürerek ticareti yoğunlaştırır ve karşılıklı bağımlılıklar yaratır. Son zamanlarda bazı ülkeler ticaret kısıtlamaları getirerek bu kaynak verimli yapıları ve küresel ekonomik ilişkileri zorlamaktadır. Bu çalışma, ara malların ve sermaye mallarının ithalatının verimliliği nasıl etkilediğini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Verimlilik genellikle emek, sermaye, enerji veya toplam verimlilik (TFP) kullanılarak hesaplanır. Bu araştırma, verimliliği toplam çıktının ara girdiye bölünmesi olarak tanımlamakta ve 2010-2022 yılları arasındaki FIGARO girdi-çıktı tablolarını kullanarak 23 Avrupa Birliği ülkesi ve Türkiye'yi incelemektedir. Çalışmada, geçmiş verimlilik seviyelerinin iç dinamiklerini yakalamak için İki Aşamalı Sistem Genelleştirilmiş Moment Tahmincisi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Polonya, Slovakya, Kıbrıs, İtalya ve Belçika hariç, ara malların ithalatı verimliliği %2,52-25,27 oranında artırmaktadır. Buna karşılık, yatırım mallarının ithalatı Macaristan, Letonya, Polonya, İsveç ve Slovakya hariç tüm ülkelerde verimliliği %0,54 ile %9,15 arasında düşürmektedir. Sonuç ve Katkılar: Literatüre alternatif olarak tanımlanan verimlilik değişkeni, 19344 veri kullanılarak incelenmiş ve açıklayıcı değişkenlerle istikrarlı ve güçlü bir ilişkiye sahip olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Ara malları ithalatının verimlilik üzerindeki etkisi önceki çalışmalarla tutarlı olsa da yatırım mallarının ithalatına ilişkin sonuçlar paradoksaldır. Bu araştırma, firma düzeyindeki veriler yerine makroekonomik ölçekteki verileri kullanması bakımından da diğerlerinden farklıdır. Sınırlılıklar: Sermaye gelirleri, girdi-çıktı tablolarında işletme fazlası olarak gösterilir ancak makine ve ekipman gibi üretim araçlarının getirilerini veya değerlerini yansıtmaz; bu da verimlilik ölçümünü sınırlar.

Keywords

• Verimlilik
• Ara malı ithalatı
• Yatırım malı ithalatı
• Girdi-Çıktı
• OP-LP.

Do Intermediate and Capital Goods Imports Affect Productivity? Evidence from the European Union and Türkiye.

Abstract

Purpose: Global value chains divide production between countries, intensifying trade and creating interdependencies. Recently, some countries have imposed trade restrictions, straining these resource-efficient structures and global economic relations. This study aims to determine how the import of intermediate and capital goods affects productivity. Methodology: Productivity is usually calculated using labor, capital, energy, or total productivity (TFP). This research defines productivity as total output divided by intermediate input, examining 23 European Union countries and Turkey with FIGARO input-output tables from 2010 to 2022. The study used the Two-Stage System Generalized Moment Estimator method to capture the internal dynamics of past productivity levels. Findings: For countries other than Poland, Slovakia, Cyprus, Italy and Belgium, imports of intermediate goods increase productivity in the range of 2.52 to 25.27 percent. Imports of investment goods, on the other hand, reduce productivity in the range of 0.54 to 9.15 percent in all countries except Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Sweden and Slovakia. Implications: The productivity variable, defined as an alternative to the literature, was examined using 19344 data, and it was observed to have a stable, strong relationship with the explanatory variables. Although the effect of imports of intermediate goods on productivity is consistent with previous studies, the results for imports of investment goods are paradoxical. The research differs from others in that it uses macroeconomic-scale data rather than firm-level data. Limitation: Capital incomes are shown as operating surpluses in the input-output tables but do not reflect the returns or values of production tools such as machinery and equipment, which limits productivity measurement.

Keywords

• Productivity
• Intermediate goods imports
• Investment goods imports
• Input-Output
• OP-LP Model.

References

1. Ahn, M. J., & Choi, M. J. (2016). From Firm-Level Imports to Aggregate Productivity: Evidence from Korean Manufacturing Firms Data. International Monetary Fund.
2. Amiti, M., & Konings, J. (2007). Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs, and productivity: Evidence from Indonesia. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1611-1638.
3. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.
4. Bandick, R., Karpaty, P., & Tingvall, P. (2024). Import, Productivity, and Export Performances. Economics, 18(1), 20220084.
5. Bas, M., & Strauss-Kahn, V. (2014). Does importing more inputs raise exports? Firm-level evidence from France. Review of World Economics, 150(2), 241-275.
6. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-143.
7. Camino‐Mogro, S., & Carrillo‐Maldonado, P. (2023). Do imports of intermediate inputs generate higher productivity? Evidence from Ecuadorian manufacturing firms. The World Economy, 46(5), 1471-1521.
8. Caselli, M. (2018). Do all imports matter for productivity? Intermediate inputs vs capital goods. Economia Politica, 35(2), 285-311.

9. Constantinescu, C., Mattoo, A., & Ruta, M. (2019). Does vertical specialisation increase productivity?. The World Economy, 42(8), 2385-2402.
10. Emako, E., Nuru, S., & Menza, M. (2023). The effect of foreign direct investment on capital accumulation in developing countries. Development Studies Research, 10(1), 2220580.
11. Eurostat (2025). ESA supply, use and input-output tables. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/esa-supply-use-input-tables/database#Use%20tables , (Accessed August 27, 2025.
12. Fernandes, A. M. (2007). Trade policy, trade volumes and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries. Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 52-71.
13. Gao, Y., Ma, W., & Chen, C. (2025). Intermediate inputs, import trade and corporate ESG performance. Finance Research Letters, 74, 106693.
14. Guliyev, H., Huseynov, N., & Nuriyev, N. (2023). The relationship between artificial intelligence, big data, and unemployment in G7 countries: New insights from dynamic panel data model. World Development Sustainability, 3, 100107.
15. Habiyaremye, A. (2013). Imported Capital Goods and Manufacturing Productivity: Evidence from Botswana's Manufacturing Sector. South African Journal of Economics, 81(4), 581-604.
16. Halpern, L., Koren, M., & Szeidl, A. (2015). Imported inputs and productivity. American Economic Review, 105(12), 3660-3703.
17. Kasahara, H., & Lapham, B. (2013). Productivity and the decision to import and export: Theory and evidence. Journal of International Economics, 89(2), 297-316.
18. Kasahara, H., & Rodrigue, J. (2008). Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 87(1), 106-118.
19. Khanna, R., & Sharma, C. (2025). Imported inputs and productivity: Unraveling the dynamics in India's manufacturing sector. Managerial and Decision Economics, 46(1), 409-424.
20. Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317-341.
21. Martínez Zarzoso, I., Said, M., & Zaki, C. (2021). Trade policy and input liberalization: the effect on Egyptian firms’ productivity. Review of Development Economics, 25(3), 1305-1325.
22. Mo, J., Qiu, L. D., Zhang, H., & Dong, X. (2021). What you import matters for productivity growth: Experience from Chinese manufacturing firms. Journal of Development Economics, 152, 102677.
23. Muendler, M. A. (2004). Trade, technology, and productivity: A study of Brazilian manufacturers, 1986-1998.
24. Mulugeta, E. T., & Söderbom, M. (2024). Imported inputs and firm productivity: does foreign ownership matter?. International Economics and Economic Policy, 21(3), 685-704.
25. Newman, C., Rand, J., & Tarp, F. (2023). Imports, supply chains and firm productivity. World Development, 172, 106371.
26. Okafor, L. E., Bhattacharya, M., & Bloch, H. (2017). Imported intermediates, absorptive capacity and productivity: Evidence from Ghanaian manufacturing firms. The World Economy, 40(2), 369-392.
27. Olley, S., & Pakes, A. (1992). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry.
28. Olper, A., Pacca, L., & Curzi, D. (2014). Trade, import competition and productivity growth in the food industry. Food Policy, 49, 71-83.
29. Pane, D. D., & Patunru, A. A. (2023). The role of imported inputs in firms’ productivity and exports: evidence from Indonesia. Review of World Economics, 159(3), 629-672.
30. Paul, C. J. M., & Yasar, M. (2009). Outsourcing, productivity, and input composition at the plant level. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 42(2), 422-439.
31. Topalova, P., & Khandelwal, A. (2011). Trade liberalization and firm productivity: The case of India. Review of economics and statistics, 93(3), 995-1009.
32. Wang, X., Wang, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, Q. (2024). Effects of imported inputs on export sophistication: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 60(15), 3494-3511.
33. Yasin, M. Z. (2022). Technical efficiency and total factor productivity growth of Indonesian manufacturing industry: does openness matter?. Studies in Microeconomics, 10(2), 195-224.
34. Yu, M., & Li, J. (2014). Imported intermediate inputs, firm productivity and product complexity. The Japanese Economic Review, 65(2), 178-192.
35. Zaclicever, D., & Pellandra, A. (2018). Imported inputs, technology spillovers and productivity: firm-level evidence from Uruguay. Review of World Economics, 154(4), 725-743.