SECTORAL PERFORMANCE OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ON EMPLOYMENT IN TURKEY

Year 2004, Volume: 6 Issue: 22, 265 - 270, 10.06.2004

Yaprak Gülcan

https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.678864

Abstract

The relationship between Foreigtı Direct Investment (FDI) and employment has become an important subject for macroeconomic policies and explicitly pronounced as the policy objective at all levels. The aim of this paper is to investigate the quantitative relationship between FDI and the number of jobs created on the sectoral basis in Turkey for the 1980-2002 period. In order to do this first, the job elasticities of the sectors are estimated. Then, the relative performance of the FDI receiving sectors are calculated by forming Relative Average Project Index and Relative Average Job Index. Judging by the estimated elasticity, the potential for job creation seems to be the highest in Services sector (44%), but on the other hand, in terms of RAPI and RAJI, the manufacturing sector has been the most successful. Interestingly, Services sector is relatively more successful in creating jobs than attracting projects for the same period in Turkey.

Keywords

Foreign Direct Investment, Unemployment Multinational Companies, Sectoral Performance

References

• [1] MICKSEWICZ, T.;RADOSEVIC, S; VARBLANE, U„ The Value of Diversity: Foreign Direct Investment and Employment in Central Europe During Economic Recovery, One Europe or Several? Program Working Paper Series 05/00, 2000.
• [2] DUNNING, J.H., Explaining International Production, Unwin Hyman, London, 1988.
• [3] WOOD, A., North-South Trade, Employment and Inequality: Changing Fortunes in a Skill Driven World, Oxford, Clarendon Press 1994.
• [4] ALTZINGER, W.; BELLAK, C., Direct versus Indirect FDI: Impact on Domestic Exports and Employment, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Working Paper No.9, 1999
• [5] UN World Investment Report 1994, Transnational Corporations, Employment and the Work Place, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 1994
• [6] UN World Investment Report 2002, Transnational Corporations And Export Competitiveness, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2002.
• [7] BERGSTEN, C.F.; HORST, et. al. American Multinationals and American Interest, Washington D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1978.
• [8] CAMPBELL, D, Foreign Investment, Labour Immobility and The Quality of Employment, International Labour Review, Yol. 133, No.2, 1994.
• [9] htpp://www.dpt.gov.tr
• [10] CÖMERT, F., İstihdam Sorunu ve Yabancı Sermaye, Hazine Dergisi, Sayı 13, p.1-27, 2000
• [11] Radikal,7 Mayıs
• [12] FOREİGN DİRECT INVESTMENT IN TURKEY 2002, Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry Undersecretariat of Treasury, General Directorate of Foreign Investment, 2003.
• [13] GÜLCAN, E.Y., Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımların Bölgesel Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi: Türkiyeden Görgül Kamtlar, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 1999.
• [14] LOEWENDAHL, H.; LOEWEND AHL, E., Turkey’s Performance in Attracting Foreign Direct Investment Implications of EU Enlargement, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes, Working Paper No.8, 2001.
• [15] ALDEN, J., The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Job Creation: the Experience of VVales in Foreign Direct Investment and the Global Economy, The Stationery Office, England, 1999.
• [16] PAPACONSTANTTNOU, G., Globalization and Employment: Characteristics, Trends and Policy Issues, Paper presented in OECD Conference on Technology, Innovation Policy and Employment, Helsinki, 7-9 October 1993.
• [17] HILL, S.; MUNDAY, M., The Regional Distribution of Foreign Manufacturing Investment in the UK, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994.