Dış Ticaret ve Göç İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Çekim Modeli Analizi: Almanya Örneği

Abstract

With the transformation of countries into a more integrated structure through globalization, there has been a significant increase in the mobility of humans as well as volume of economic activities among countries. When the issue is considered within the scope of EU, it is seen that Germany is a center of attraction. As of 2017, it was observed that Germany was the country with the highest number of immigrants in the union and most of the migration was from CEE countries. In this context, the aim of this study is to examine whether the migration Germany got from CEE countries in the period of 2000-2016 has had an impact on the foreign trade of the country. As a result of analysis carried out with the panel gravity model, it has been found that the migration Germany got from the mentioned countries does not have a significant effect on the import and export of the country. On the other hand, it has been concluded that membership of origin countries to the Customs Union and GDP levels has a positive significant impact on Germany’s export, whereas per capita, income levels of origin countries and distance between origin countries and Germany has a negative significant effect.

Keywords

• International migration,Foreign trade,European Union,panel gravity model

Dış Ticaret ve Göç İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Çekim Modeli Analizi: Almanya Örneği

Abstract

Küreselleşme sürecinde ülkelerin daha entegre bir yapılanmaya gitmesiyle birlikte ülkeler arasındaki iktisadi faaliyetlerin hacminde olduğu kadar insan hareketliliğinde de önemli artışlar meydana gelmiştir. Konuya Avrupa Birliği kapsamında bakıldığında, birlik içerisinde Almanya’nın bir cazibe merkezi özelliği taşıdığı görülmektedir. Zira 2017 yılı itibariyle birlik içinde en fazla göç alan ülkenin Almanya olduğu, göçün büyük kısmının ise Orta ve Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinden gerçekleştiği görülmüştür. Teorik açıdan ise bir ülkeye gerçekleşen göçün, o ülkenin dış ticareti üzerinde etkili olduğu bilinen bir olgudur. Çeşitli kanallar aracılığıyla göç, ülkenin gerek ithalatını gerek ihracatını arttırabilmektedir. Bu kapsamda, bu çalışmada Almanya’nın Orta ve Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinden 2000-2016 döneminde aldığı göçün, ülkenin dış ticareti üzerinde etki yaratıp yaratmadığının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Panel çekim modeli ile gerçekleştirilen analiz sonucunda söz konusu dönemde Almanya’nın adı geçen ülkelerden aldığı göçün ülkenin ithalatı ve ihracatı üzerinde anlamlı bir etki oluşturmadığı bulgusu elde edilmiştir. Buna karşılık, Almanya’nın ihracatı üzerinde ülkelerin Gümrük Birliği’ne üyeliklerinin ve GSYH’lerinin pozitif, kişi başına düşen gelir düzeylerinin ve Almanya ile aralarındaki uzaklığın ise negatif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Uluslararası göç,dış ticaret,Avrupa Birliği,panel çekim modeli

References

1. Blanes-Cristobal, J.V. (2008). Characteristics of immigrants and bilateral trade. Reviste de Economic Aplicada, XVI (48), 133–159.
2. Bratti, M., Luca, D. B., & Gianluca, S. (2014). On the pro-trade effects of immigrants. Review of World Economics, 150(3), 557–594.
3. Breuer, J.B., Mcnown, R., & Wallace, M. (2002). Series-specific Unit Root Tests with Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(5), 527–546.
4. Casi, L. (2019, 13 Şubat). Enhancing trade through migration–a gravity model of the network effect. Retreived from http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2009/papers/casi.pdf
5. Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (1998). The migratory process and the formation of ethnic minorities. In The Age of Migration, Palgrave, London, 19–47.
6. Cernosa, S. (2011). Openness to trade, migration and foreign trade investments of the EU. WIFO Working Paper, No: 401/2011.
7. Crisp, J. (1999). Policy challenges of the new diasporas: migrant networks and their impact on asylum flows and regimes. UNHCR Policy Research Unit Working Paper, No: WPTC-99-05.
8. Duenas, M., & Giorgio, F. (2011). Modeling the international trade network: a gravity approach. Retreived from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2867.pdf (14.02.2019)

9. Esteve, V., Maria, A. P. A., & Maria, S. D. (2017). International trade and migrations: a review. Cuadernos Economicos de ICE, (94), 137–154.
10. Frank, A. G., Gills, B., & Gills, B. K. (Eds.). (1996). The world system: five hundred years or five thousand?. Routledge, London, UK.
11. Faustino, H., & Nuno, L. (2008). Using the gravity equation to explain the Portuguese immigration–trade link. ISEG Working Paper, No. WP 12/2008/DE/SOCIUS.
12. Garmaza, V. (2011). The impact of immigration on trade: the case of Sweden. Södertörn University (unpublished master thesis), Sweden.
13. Georgiev, N. (2011). Positive and negative effects of mass non-European immigration into selected EU memberstates (Doctoral dissertation, Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií), Czech Republic.
14. Girma, S., & Yu, Z. (2000). The link between immigration and trade: evidence from the UK. GLM Research Paper, No: 2000/23.
15. Gould, D. M. (1991). Immigrant links to the home country: empirical implications for U.S. and Canadian bilateral trade flows. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Research Paper, No. 9102.
16. Hatzigeorgiou, A. (2010). Does immigration stimulate foreign trade? evidence from Sweden. Journal of Economic Integration, 25 (2), 376–402.
17. Karagöz, K. (2016). Migration–trade nexus revisited: empirical evidence from Turkish emigrants in OECD countries. Theoritical and Applied Economics, XXIII(609), 127–142.
18. Kim, C., & Gieyoung, L. (2016). Immigration and international trade: evidence from recent South Korean experiences. International Area Studies Review, 19(2), 165–176.
19. Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47–57.
20. Martin-Montaner, J., Francisco, R., & Guadalupe, S. (2014). International trade and migrant networks: is it really about qualifications?. Estudios de Economica, 41(2), 251–260.
21. Mundra, K. (2005). Immigration and international trade: a semi parametric empirical investigation. Journal of International Trade&Economic Development, 14(1), 65–91.
22. Pan, C. I., Chang, T., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2015). Military spending and economic growth in the Middle East countries: bootstrap panel causality test. Defence and Peace Economics, 26(4), 443–456.
23. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CWPE, No: 0435.
24. Petersen, W. (1958). A general typology of migration. American Sociological Review, 23(3), 256–266.
25. Piperakis, A. S., Chris, M., & Peter, W. W. (2003). Immigration, trade costs and trade: gravity evidence for Greece. Journal of Economic Integration, 18(4).
26. Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the statistical society of London, 48(2), 167–235.
27. Shellito, K. (2016). The economic effect of refugee crises on host countries and implications for the Lebanese case. Joseph Wharton Scholars. Retreived from https://repository.upenn.edu/joseph_wharton_scholars/3 (15.02.2019).
28. Stouffer, S. (1940). Intervening opportunities: a theory relating mobility and distance. American Sociological Review, 5(6), 845-867. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2084520.
29. Taylor, M. P., & Sarno, L., (1998). The behavior of real exchange rates during the post-Bretton Woods period. Journal of International Economics, 46, 281–312
30. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative studies in society and history, 16(4), 387–415.
31. Wilpert, C. (1992). The use of social networks in Turkish migration to Germany. S. 177–189 in: Mary M. Kritz, LinL. L im und Hania Zlotnik (Hg.). International Migration Systems, London: Clarendon Press.
32. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2016). Panel veri ekonometrisi Stata uygulamalı. 3. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
33. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2013). İleri panel veri analizi Stata uygulamalı. 2. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
34. Zolberg, A. R. (1983). Patterns of international migration policy: A diachronic comparison. In Minorities: Community and Identity, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 229–246.