AN ANALYSIS OF UNEQUAL EXCHANGE IN TURKIYE’S INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Year 2023, Volume: 17 Issue: 1, 1 - 5, 30.07.2023

Bülent Hoca , Elçin Aykaç Alp

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2023.1746

Abstract

Purpose- In the process of globalization, international trade has increased rapidly compared to national income (Dicken, 2015). Despite the expectation that increasing trade openness will increase economic convergence according to conventional trade and growth theories (Rowthorn, Kozul-Wright, 1998), this expectation about convergence of developing countries to developed countries has not materialized (Munck, 2021). In terms of international political economy, issues such as inequality and dependency remained on the agenda (Kiely, 2012). Alternative trade and industrial policies have been marginalized (Chang, 2002). An important theory that questions the positive expectations of conventional mainstream theories is Emmanuel's theory of "unequal exchange" (Emmanuel, 1972). However, in its original form, the theory has been subjected to various criticisms and tried to be developed. In response to the criticism that the theory is based on price and wage differences (Subasat, 2013), an approach based on international technical/organic composition and productivity differences in a more structural manner has been developed (Carchedi and Roberts, 2021). The aim of this study is to review Turkey's trade relations and point out some problems using this new approach. As the first study to apply this new approach to Turkey to our knowledge, it differs from previous unequal exchange studies (Somel, 2003; Dağıstan, 2015).
Methodology- The data subject to the analysis in the study were obtained by following the methodology applied in the study of Carchedi and Roberts (2021). In the analysis based on Turkey's international trade, five developed countries that are important in Turkey's trade in the long-run were selected and a sample was obtained. In the study, graphical analysis and time series methods were applied as in the study of Carchedi and Roberts (2021).
Findings- As a result of this study, in which five countries that are important in Turkey's long-term international trade are analyzed, the findings indicate that there are important value transfers in Turkey's trade, especially with developed countries. Changes in the terms and conditions of this transfer of value need to be examined and should be one of the crucial factors in considering trade policy.
Conclusion- Discussion about trade policy usually revolve around trade balance. However, trade balance does not appear to be a sufficient criterion when evaluating trade policies because unequal exchange is a different concept than trade balance. Consideration of value transfers through unequal exchange should also be considered. In addition, the findings indicate that the level of technology has a decisive role in unequal exchange relations.

Keywords

International trade, unequal exchange, globalization, technology, international political economy

References

• Barro, R.J. ve Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic Growth, 2nd Edition, The MIT Press.
• Bourguignon, F., and Christian M. (2002). The size distribution of income among world citizens: 1820–1990. American Economic Review, 92(3), 727–44.
• Carchedi, G., Roberts, M. (2021). The economics of modern imperialism. Historical Materialism, 29(4), 23-69
• Chang, H-J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder -Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, London: Anthem Press.
• Dağıstan, N. (2015). Uluslararası ticarette eşitsiz mübadelenin ölçülmesi: Türkiye örneği. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(3), 41-69.
• Dicken, P. (2015). Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy (Seventh ed.). The Guilford Press, New York and London.
• Dowrick, S. ve DeLong, J.B. (2003). Globalization and Convergence, in M.D. Bordo, A.M. Taylor ve J.G. Williamson (eds.), Globalization in Historical Persepective, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 191-220.
• Emmanuel, A. (1972). Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade, London: NLB.
• Fine, B. (2003). New Growth Theory, in H-J. Chang (ed.) Rethinking Development Economics, Anthem, 201-218.
• Freeman, A. (2021). Introduction to the special issue of Japanese Political Economy on international income inequality. The Japanese Political Economy, 47(2-3), 95-120
• Hahnel, R. (2014). The ABCs of Political Economy: A Modern Approach, London: Pluto Press.
• Islam, N. (2003), What have we learnt from the convergence debate? Journal of Economic Surveys, 17, 309-362.
• Kiely, R. (2012). Globalization and Imperialism, in B. Fine and A. Saad-Filho (eds.), The Elgar Companion to Marxist Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton, pp.162-167.
• Munck, R. (2021). Rethinking Development: Marxist Perspectives, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ocampo, J.A.(2003). Development and the Global Order, in H-J. Chang (ed.) Rethinking Development Economics, Anthem, 83-104.
• Pritchett, L. (1997). Divergence, big time. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(3), 3–17.
• Rowthorn, B., Kozul-Wright, R. (1998). Globalization and economic convergence: an assessment, UNCTAD Discussion Papers No. 131.
• Slaughter, M.J. (1998). International Trade and Per Capita Income Convergence: A Difference-in Differences Analysis, NBER Working Paper 6557
• Somel, C. (2003). Estimating the surplus in the periphery: an application to Turkey. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27 (6), 919–933.
• Subasat, T. (2013). Can differences in international prices measure unequal exchange in international trade? Competition and Change, 17(4), 372–79.
• UNCTAD (2016). Trade and Development Report, 2016, New York and Geneva: United Nations Publications