Analysis of Competitiveness of Türkiye Among E7 Countries in Terms of Selected Chapters

Yıl 2023, , 294 - 306, 28.03.2023

Mustafa Kavacık

https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.1039707

Öz

This study aims to analyze the competitiveness of Türkiye, which is among the E7 countries, with other countries in this group in terms of some selected sectors. The Comparative Export Performance (CEP) Index was used to measure competitiveness with these countries. The first five chapters in which Türkiye has achieved the highest increase in exports in the last ten years were considered through HS (Harmonized System) codes. In comparing these chapters, the CEP indexes were calculated using the 2011-2020. Chapters subject to research are 97-Works of art, collector's pieces, and antiques, 81-Other base metals employed in metallurgy and articles thereof, 96-Miscellaneous manufactured articles (pens and brushes, etc.), 75-Nickel and articles thereof and 23-Residues and waste from the food industries, prepared animal fodder. According to the findings, in 97, Türkiye has a higher export performance than Russia and Mexico, and its export performance has also increased against Indonesia since 2016. In 81, Türkiye has a better export performance against India, Indonesia, and Mexico. In, there is a higher export performance than other countries except for China. In 75, the export performance of Türkiye increased against China, India, and Brazil, especially after 2016, and showed a better performance despite a changing graphic with Mexico. Also, in 23, it can be said that although the export performance against China and Mexico has differed over the years, it has gained momentum in this process.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competitiveness, comparative export performance index, E7 countries, Türkiye

Teşekkür

The first version of this study was orally presented as an abstract at the 7th International Conference on Business and Economics Studies (ICBES 2021) held in Erzurum on September 5, 2021.

Türkiye'nin E7 Ülkeleri Arasındaki Rekabet Gücünün Belirlenmiş Fasıllar Bazında Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, E7 ülkeleri içerisinde yer alan Türkiye’nin bu gruptaki diğer ülkelerle arasındaki rekabet gücünün belirlenmiş fasıllar açısından analizinin yapılmasını amaçlamaktadır. Bu ülkelerle rekabet gücünü ölçmek için Karşılaştırmalı İhracat Performansı (KİP) Endeksi kullanılmıştır. Türkiye’nin son 10 yılda ihracatında en fazla artış oranı elde ettiği ilk beş fasılın HS (Harmonized System) kodları yardımıyla sınıflandırılması dikkate alınmıştır. Bu fasılların karşılaştırılmasında 2011-2020 arası yıllara ait veriler kullanılarak KİP endeksleri hesaplanmıştır. Araştırmaya konu olan fasılların 97-Sanat eserleri, kolleksiyon eşyası ve antikalar, 81-Diğer adi metaller, 96- Çeşitli mamul eşya (hijyenik havlu, bebek bezi, kalem, çakmak, fermuar, fırça vb.), 75- Nikel ve nikelden eşya ve 23- Gıda sanayiinin kalıntı ve döküntüleri, hayvanlar için hazırlanmış kaba yemlerdir. Bulgulara göre, Türkiye 97- nolu fasılda, Rusya ve Meksika karşısında daha yüksek ihracat performansına sahiptir ve Endonezya karşısında da 2016 yılından itibaren artmıştır. 81-nolu fasılda Türkiye Hindistan, Endonezya ve Meksika karşısında daha iyi ihracat performansa sahiptir. 96- nolu fasılda Çin dışında kalan diğer ülkelerden daha yüksek ihracat performansı bulunmaktadır. 75- nolu fasıla bakıldığında, ihracat performansının Çin, Hindistan ve Brezilya karşısında özellikle 2016 yılından sonra artmış ve Meksika ile inişli çıkışlı bir grafik çizse de daha iyi bir performans sergilemiştir. 23- nolu fasılda ise Çin ve Meksika’ya karşısında ihracat performansı yıllar itibariyle farklılık gösterse de bu süreçte yükselme ivmesi kazandığı söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rekabet gücü, karşılaştırmalı ihracat performansı endeksi, E7 ülkeleri, Türkiye

Kaynakça

• Abdikoğlu, D.İ. and Unakıtan, G. (2016). ‘International competitiveness analysis of hazelnut export in Turkey’, International Balkan and Near Eastern Social Sciences Conference Series Proceeding Book, Bulgaria, March 12-13, 76-80.
• Bashimov, G. (2017). ‘Comparative advantage in agro-food products of Turkey’. Turkish Journal Of Agricultural And Natural Sciences, 4 (3), 319-330.
• Bhattacharyya, R. (2012). ‘Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness: a case study for India in Horticultural Products’, Journal of European Economy, 11. Special Issue, 22-37.
• Bobirca, A. and Miclaus, P.G. (2007). ‘A Multilevel Comparative Assessment Approach to International Services Trade Competitiveness: The Case of Romania and Bulgaria’, International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 2(5), 263-268.
• Ceylan, N.F., Sayın, C., Özkan, B., Akpınar, M.G. and Ilbasmıs, E. (2018). ‘Comparative Advantage Analysis For Turkish Grape And Cherries Export Market’, International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Science, 2 (2), 75-86.
• Donges, J. B., Krieger-Boden, C., Langhammer, R. J., Schatz, K.-W.; Thoroe, C. S. (1982). The Second Enlargement of the European Community Adjustment Requirements and Challenges for, Policy Reform, Kieler Studien, 171. Kiel.
• Erkan, B. (2012). ‘Determining with the Indices of Revealed Comparative Advantage of Countries’ Comparative Export Performances: A Case Study for Turkey and Syria’, ZKU Journal of Social Sciences, 8, Number 15, 195-218.
• Erkan, B. and Sarıçoban, K. (2014). ‘Comparative Analysis of The Competitiveness in the Export of Science-based Goods Regarding Turkey and the Eu+13 Countries’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5, 8 (1), 117-130.
• Herciu, M. (2013). ‘Measuring International Competitiveness of Romania by Using Porter's Diamond and Revealed Comparative Advantage’, Procedia Economics and Finance, 6, 273 – 279.
• Huidrom, R., Ayhan Kose, M., Matsuoka, H., & Ohnsorge, F. L. (2020). ‘How Important Are Spillovers from Major Emerging Markets?’, International Finance, 23 (1), 47-63.
• Jakovljevic, M., Timofeyev, Y., Ranabhat, C. L., Fernandes, P. O., Teixeira, J. P., Rancic, N., & Reshetnikov, V. (2020). ‘Real GDP Growth Rates and Healthcare Spending–Comparison Between the G7 and the EM7 Countries’. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 1-13.
• Kalaycı, C. (2017). ‘The Effects of Free Trade Agreements on Turkey’s Foreign Trade: The Application of Revealed Comparative Advantage Index’, International Journal of Economics and Innovation, 3 (2), 133-147.
• Kalaycı, İ. (2012). ‘Financial Crisis Conjuncture (2007-2009) and Anatomy of Global Trade’. Eurasian Studies, 41(1), 145-182.
• Kesgingöz, H. (2018). ‘The Analysis of Turkey's Competition Power By Revealed Comparative Advantage Method (2005-2018)’. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(2), 508-523.
• Özbaş, H. and Yıldırım, O. (2022). ‘Contrasting Advantages Announced in Turkey's Foreign Trade (2001-2019)’, Third Sector Social Economic Review, 57(3), 1547-1571.
• PwC (2017), The Long View How Will The Global Economic Order Change by 2050?, 1-72.
• Sarıçoban, K. ve Kösekahyaoğlu, L. (2017). ‘A Literature Review on the Indices Used for Measuring Competitiveness with Post-trade Data’, The Journal of Academic Social Science, 5, 47, 424-444.
• Su, C.-W., Sun, T., Ahmad, S., Mirza, N., 2021. ‘Does Institutional Quality and Remittances Inflow Crowd-in Private İnvestment to Avoid Dutch Disease? A Case for Emerging Seven (E7) Economies’. Resour. Pol. 72, 102111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.10211.
• Suntharalingam, C., Ahmad T.M.A.T., Ali A.K., Rusli R., Halim N.A. (2011). ‘Competitiveness of Malaysia's fruits in the global agricultural and selected export markets: analyses of revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and Comparative Export Performance (CEP)’, Economic and Technology Management Review, 6, 1- 17.
• Şahin, D. (2016). ‘Measurement of the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry: the case of Turkey and The BRIC countries’, Ege Academic Review, 16, 4, 709-718.
• Tuerxun, A. (2017). Chinese global competitiveness’s evaluation with the method of revealed competitive advantages, (Master's thesis), İstanbul University Graduate School Of Foreign Trade.
• Varshini, N.M. and Manonmani, M. (2019). ‘Export performance of pharmaceutical industry in India’, International Journal of Management and Social Sciences (IJMSS), Special Issue 2019, 8 (2.1), 5-9.