Competitiveness Analysis of the Walnuts Sector: A Case of 7 Leader Countries

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 52 Sayı: 2, 139 - 147, 29.05.2021

Adem Aksoy Haluk Çağlar Kaymak

https://doi.org/10.17097/ataunizfd.773270

Cited By: 1

Öz

In the study, the production, foreign trade and competitiveness of the countries, which have an important share in world walnut production, were examined. According to the 2018 data shows that Turkey is one of the most important walnut producers in the world. The data set belonging to 2005-2019 was used in the research. In the study, Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA), Vollrath Relative Export Advantage Index (RXA), Relative Trade Advantage Index (RTA), Relative Competitiveness Index (RC), Relative Import Advantage Index (RMA) and Trade Balance Index (TBI) indices were used. According to the index results, it is concluded that Turkey is disadvantaged in terms of foreign trade competition and Turkey has importer position in world walnut trade.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Walnuts, Foreign trade, World, Turkey

Ceviz Sektörü Rekabet Gücü Analizi; Yedi Lider Ülke Örneği

Öz

Çalışmada dünya ceviz üretiminde önemli paya sahip olan ülkelerin üretim, dış ticaret ve rekabet güçleri incelenmiştir. 2018 yılı verilerine göre Türkiye’nin dünya ceviz üretiminde önemli bir ülke olduğunu göstermektedir. Araştırmada 2005-2019 yılarına ait veri seti kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada Balassa Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler Endeksi (RCA), Vollrath Nispi İhracat Avantajı Endeksi (RXA), Nispi Ticari Avantaj Endeksi (RTA), Açıklanmış Rekabetçilik Endeksi (RC), Nispi İthalat Avantaj Endeksi (RMA) ve Tiracet Balans Endeksi (TBI) indekslerinden yararlanılmıştır. İndeks sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’nin dış ticarette rekabet açısından dezavantajlı olduğu ve dünya ceviz ticaretinde ithalatçı durumda olduğu tespit edilmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ceviz, Dış ticaret, Dünya, Türkiye

Kaynakça

• Ahmad, N., Singh, S.R., Rashid, M., Mir, H., 2018. Walnut. Fruit Production in India. pp: 661-672.
• Aiginger, K., 2000. Specialization of European manufacturing. Australian Economic Quarterly, 2: 81-92.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.14 0.2635&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 16 Nisan 2020).
• Akça, Y., 2014. Ceviz Yetiştiriciliği. Anıt Matbaası, Ankara, 328 s.
• Akdağ, N., 2013. Geçiş Ekonomilerinde Ticari Serbestleşmenin Rekabet Gücüne Etkisi, Bilecik Şeyhedebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Bilecik, 128 s..
• Akhtar, W., Akmal, N., Shah, H., Niazi, M.A., Tahir, A., 2013. Export competitiveness of Pakistani horticultural products. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 26 (2): 87-96.
• Altay, B., Gürpınar, K., 2008. Açıklanmış karşılaştırmalı üstünlükler ve bazı rekabet gücü endeksleri: Türk mobilya sektörü üzerine bir uygulama. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10 (1): 257-274.
• Anderson, K.J., Teuber, S.S., Gobeille, A., Cremin, P., Waterhouse, A.L., Steinberg, F.M., 2001.Walnut polyphenolics inhibit in vitro human plasma and LDL oxidation. J Nutr., 131: 2837-2842.
• Atik, H., 2005. Yenilik ve Ulusal Rekabet Gücü, Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara 144 s.
• Balassa, B., 1965. Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. The Manchester School, 33: 99-123.
• Bashimov, G., 2016. Türkiye’nin domates ihracat performansı ve rekabet gücü. Alınteri, 31 (B):1-8.
• Bojnec, S., Fertö, I., 2007. Comparative advantages in agro-food trade of Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia with the European Union. IAMO Discussion Paper No. 106, Germany. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/28499 /1/548778310.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 16 Nisan 2020).
• Bojnec, S., Fertö, I., 2012. Does EU enlargement increase agrofood export duration? World Economy, 35 (5): 609-631.
• Britton M.T., Leslie C.H., McGranahan G.H., Dandekar A.M., 2007. Walnuts. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, Transgenic Crops V (ed. by E.C. Pua and M.R. Davey), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 60: 349-370
• Esmaeili, A., 2014. Revealed Comparative advantage and measurement of international competitiveness for dates. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 26 (3): 209-217.
• Çakmak, Ö.A., 2005. Açıklanmış karşılaştırmalı üstünlükler ve rekabet gücü: Türkiye tekstil ve hazır giyim endüstrisi üzerine bir uygulama. Ege Akademik Review, 5 (1): 65-76.
• Çukur, F., Demirbaş, N., Gölge, E., 2017. International competitiveness of the Turkish olive oil sector. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 31 (3): 162-168.
• FAO, 2020. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/faostat/ en/#data/QC (Erişim Tarihi: 10 Mayıs 2020)
• Fertö, I., Hubbard L.J., 2003. Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness in Hungarian Agri-food sectors. The World Economy, 26 (2): 247-259.
• Fertö, I., 2008. The evolution of Agri-food trade patterns in Central European countries. Post-Communist Economies, 20(1): 1-10.
• Frohberg, K., Hartmann, M. 1997. Promoting CEA agricultural exports through association agreements with the EU: why it is not working (No. 1). Discussion Paper, Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/28578 (Erişim Tarihi: 8 Mayıs 2020)
• Girzu, M., Carnat, A., Privat, A.M,, Fialip, J., Carnat, A.P., Lamaison, J.L., 1998. Sedative effect of walnut leaf extract and juglone, an isolated constituent. Pharm Biol. 36 (4): 280-286.
• Güvenç, İ., Kazankaya, A., 2019. Türkiye’de Ceviz Üretimi, Dış Ticareti ve Rekabet Gücü. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 29 (3): 418-424.
• Havrila, I., Gunawardana, P., 2003. Analyzing comparative advantage and competitiveness: An application to Australia's textile and clothing industries. Australian Economic Papers 42 (1): 103-117.
• Hinloopen, J., Marrewijk, C.V., 2000. “On the Empirical Distribution of the Balassa Index”, Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 137: 1-35
• INTRACEN, 2020. International Trade Center. http://www.intracen.org/itc/market-info-tools/statistics-importproduct-country/ (Erişim Tarihi: 05 May 2020).
• Jaiswal, B.S., Tailang, M., 2017. Juglans regia: A Review of Its Traditional Uses Phytochemistry and Pharmacology. Indo American Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 7 (9): 390-398
• Kanaka, S., Chinadurai, M., 2012. A study of comparative advantage of Indian agricultural exports. Journal of Management and Science, 2 (3): 1-9.
• Ketenci, C.K., Bayramoğlu, Z., 2018. Türkiye’de Ceviz Üretiminin Rekabet Analizi, Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi 5 (3): 339-347.
• Lafay, G. 1992. The Measurement of Revealed Comparative Advantages in MG Dagenais and PA Muet eds., International Trade Modeling, Chapman & Hill, London. 1992. ISBN: 10: 0412450003.
• Lyfor, C.P., Welch, J.M., 2004. Measuring competition for textiles: does the U.S make the grade. Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma, February 18, U.S. OECD/FAO. 2017.
• Pilinkiene, V., 2014. Evaluation of international competitiveness using the revealed comparative advantage indices: The case of the Baltic States, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (13): 353-359.
• Serin, V., Civan, A., 2008. Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness: A Case study for Turkey towards the EU. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 10 (2): 25-41.
• Şen, S. M., 2011. Ceviz. ÜÇM Yayıncılık Ankara, 220 s.
• Tao, Y., Fu, X., 2007. China’s textile ındustry international competitive advantage and policy suggestion. Journal of the Washington Institute of China Studies, 2(1): 84-97. https://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/ view/24/53 (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Nisan 2020).
• Terin, M., Yavuz, F., 2018. Türkiye Peynir Sektörünün Uluslararası Rekabetçiliğinin Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleriyle Karşılaştırılmalı Analizi, Türk Tarım–Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6 (9): 1243-1250.
• Terin, M., Yıldırım, İ., Aksoy, A., Sarı, M.M., 2018. Competition power of Turkey’s honey export and comparison with Balkan Countries. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 24 (1): 17-22.
• Topcu, BA., Sarıgül, S.S., 2015. Comparative advantage and the product mapping of exporting sectors in Turkey. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 3 (18): 330-348.
• Torok, A., Jambor, A., (2016). Determinants of the revealed comparative advantages: The case of the European ham trade. Agricultural Economics, 62 (10): 471-482.
• TÜİK, 2020. Türkiye istatistik Kurumu İnternet Sayfası. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn= 92&locale=tr (Erişim Tarihi: 05 Mayıs 2020).
• Ullah, M.S., Kazuo, I., 2013. Dynamics of comparative advantage and export potentials in Bangladesh. The Ritsumeikan Economic Review, 61 (4): 471-484. http://ritsumeikeizai.koj.jp/koj_pdfs/61401.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 16 Nisan 2020).
• Utkulu, U., Seymen, D., 2004. Trade, Competitiveness and Revealed Comparative Advantage: Evidence for Turkey towards the EU’, Europen Trade Study Group 6th Annual Conference, Etsg 2004, Nottingham.
• Widodo, T., 2008. Dynamic changes in comparative advantage: Japan “flying geese” model and its implications for China. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 1 (3): 200-213.
• Vollrath, T.L., 1991. A theoretical evaluation of alternative trade intensity measures of revealed comparative advantage. Weltwirtsch. Arch., 130: 263-279.
• Yücer, M.M., 2013. Ceviz. Hasad Yayıncılık, İstanbul, s: 92.