The Geopolitical Test of Foreign Trade: Turkey's Risks And Future Opportunitıes in The Period 1985-2023

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 1059 - 1089

Bahadır Murat Çakmaklı

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1574984

Öz

This study analyzes the relationship between Turkey’s foreign trade dynamics and geopolitical risks during the period 1985–2022 by employing the Zivot-Andrews unit root test and the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach. The Zivot-Andrews test accounts for potential structural breaks in the time series, while the ARDL method identifies both short- and long-term relationships among the variables. The findings reveal that the most significant determinant of Turkey’s exports is the current and lagged values of imports, indicating that an increase in imports positively contributes to export performance. Conversely, the direct impact of geopolitical risk on foreign trade appears to be limited and statistically insignificant in most cases. However, factors such as military coups, terrorist attacks, and economic crises have intensified the perception of geopolitical risk and contributed to the instability of Turkey’s trade flows. Turkey’s vulnerability to geopolitical shocks may prompt European countries to reassess their trade relations, potentially reducing their reliance on Turkey as a reliable supplier. Consequently, it is essential for policymakers to consider the supportive role of imports in export growth and to implement strategies aimed at mitigating geopolitical risks. Such measures are crucial for ensuring sustainable economic development and strengthening Turkey’s trade relations, particularly with the European Union.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Foregein Trade , Geopolitical Risk , Türkiye

Dış Ticaretin Jeopolitik Sınavı: Türkiye’nin 1985-2023 Dönemindeki Riskleri ve Gelecek Fırsatları

Öz

Bu çalışma, 1985-2022 döneminde Türkiye'nin dış ticaret dinamikleri ile jeopolitik riskler arasındaki ilişkiyi analiz etmek amacıyla Zivot-Andrews birim kök testi ve ARDL (Autoregressive Distributed Lag) sınır testi yöntemlerini kullanmaktadır. Zivot-Andrews testi, serilerdeki yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alarak durağanlık analizini güçlendirmiş, ARDL yöntemi ise değişkenler arasındaki kısa ve uzun dönemli ilişkileri ortaya koymuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, Türkiye'nin ihracatında en belirleyici unsurun ithalatın mevcut ve geçmiş değerleri olduğunu ve ithalat artışlarının ihracatı desteklediğini göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, jeopolitik risk değişkeninin dış ticaret üzerindeki doğrudan etkisinin sınırlı olduğu ve çoğunlukla istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Ancak, darbeler, terör olayları ve ekonomik krizler gibi unsurların jeopolitik risk algısını artırarak dış ticaretin istikrarını zayıflattığı görülmektedir. Türkiye'nin jeopolitik risklere karşı kırılganlığı, Avrupa ülkeleriyle olan ticaret ilişkilerini olumsuz etkileyebilir ve alternatif tedarikçi arayışlarını gündeme getirebilir. Sonuç olarak, dış ticaret politikalarının oluşturulmasında ithalatın ihracat üzerindeki destekleyici rolü göz önünde bulundurulmalı, aynı zamanda jeopolitik riskleri azaltıcı stratejiler geliştirilmelidir. Bu yaklaşım, Türkiye’nin ekonomik kalkınması ve dış ticarette sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanması açısından kritik önemdedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkiye , Dış Ticaret , Jeopolitik Risk

Kaynakça

• Alparslan, U. (2022). Energy independence only comes with clean. Ember. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/energy-independence-only-comes-with-clean/
• Alesina, A., Özler, S., Roubini, N., & Swagel, P. (1996). Political instability and economic growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138862
• Anderson, J. E. (2010). The gravity model: A user guide (NBER Working Paper No. 16576). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16576
• Bakan, S. (2022). Savaş, dünya ekonomisi ve finansal piyasalar için de felaket mi? Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 59–74.
• Balassa, B. (1965). Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
• Baldwin, R. (2016). The great convergence: Information technology and the new globalization. Harvard University Press.
• Baldwin, R., & Martin, P. (1999). Two waves of globalization: Superficial similarities, fundamental differences. In H. Siebert (Ed.), Globalization and labour markets (pp. 3–34). University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/papers/w6904
• Bashir, M. F., Shahbaz, M., Malik, M. N., Ma, B., & Wang, J. (2023). Energy transition, natural resource consumption and environmental degradation: The role of geopolitical risk in sustainable development. Resources Policy, 85(A), 103985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103985
• Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823
• Cohen, S. (1999). Geopolitics in the new world era: A new perspective on an old discipline. In S. Cohen, Reordering the world (pp. 38–62). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429494741-3
• Crozet, M., & Hinz, J. (2020). Friendly fire: The trade impact of the Russia sanctions and counter-sanctions. Economic Policy, 35(101), 97–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiaa006
• Cœuré, B. (2013, November 23). The political dimension of European economic integration. European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2013/html/sp131123.en.html
• Darvas, Z. M., & Martins, C. (2022). The impact of the Ukraine crisis on international trade (Bruegel Working Paper No. 20/2022). Bruegel. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274179
• Esty, D. C., & Porter, M. E. (2005). National environmental performance: An empirical analysis of the international competitiveness effects of environmental regulations. In The global competitiveness report 2005–2006 (pp. 19–30). World Economic Forum. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44379244
• Gupta, R., Gozgor, G., & Kaya, H. (2019). Effects of geopolitical risks on trade flows: Evidence from the gravity model. Eurasian Economic Review, 9(4), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-018-0118-0
• Hossain, B. S., Voumik, L. C., Ahmed, T. T., Alam, M. B., & Tasmim, Z. (2024). Impact of geopolitical risk, GDP, inflation, interest rate, and trade openness on foreign direct investment: Evidence from five Southeast Asian countries. Regional Sustainability, 5(4), 100177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100177
• Huang, H., & Zhang, M. (2025). Does geopolitical risk affect export resilience? Evidence from China. In Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Risk Management (ICBAR ’24) (pp. 1114–1119). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3718751.3718934
• International Monetary Fund. (2022). World economic outlook: Countering the cost-of-living crisis. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2022/10/11/world-economic-outlook-october-2022
• İkizlerli, D., & Ülkü, N. (2012). Political risk and foreigners’ trading: Evidence from an emerging stock market. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 48(3), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.2753/REE1540-496X480306
• İnançlı, S., & Akı, A. (2020). Türkiye’nin enerji ithalatı ve yenilenebilir enerji arasındaki ilişkinin ampirik olarak incelenmesi. Econder Uluslararası Akademik Dergi, 4(2), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.35342/econder.849015
• Kılıç, B. (2023). İç savaşın ihracata olan etkisi: Türkiye ve Suriye üzerine bir inceleme. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25(1), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.856971
• Kim, Y. S., Park, K. J., & Kwon, O. B. (2019). Geopolitical risk and trading patterns of foreign and domestic investors: Evidence from Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 48(2), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajfs.12253
• Krugman, P., & Obstfeld, M. (2021). International economics: Theory and policy. Pearson.
• Nazir, S., Sohag, K., & Mariev, O. (2025). Geopolitical risk and trade reorientation dynamics: A comparative study. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 61(8), 2338–2359. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2025.2451188
• Ozcan, M., Yildirim, M., & Ozturk, S. (2016). Generation expansion planning scenarios to reduce natural gas dependency of Turkey. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 34(2), 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598716629873
• Özer, A. C. (2019). Türkiye’nin komşu ülkelerle ticareti üzerine bir değerlendirme. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 292–313. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.476770
• Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1999). An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. In S. Strom (Ed.), Econometrics and economic theory in the 20th century: The Ragnar Frisch centennial symposium (pp. 371–413). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL521633230.011
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2678547
• Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (2019). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
• Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton University Press.
• Schiffling, S., & Kanellos, N. (2022, March 3). Five essential commodities that will be hit by war in Ukraine. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/five-essential-commodities-that-will-be-hit-by-war-in-ukraine-177845
• Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. Methuen & Co., Ltd.
• Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Wang, G. (2020). Geopolitical risk revealed in international investment and world trade. Risk Management, 22(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-020-00058-z
• Wilson, T. (2022). Environmental risks and their impact on global politics. Environmental Policy Journal, 18(4), 85–99.
• Wright, T. M., & Rider, T. J. (2014). Disputed territory, defensive alliances and conflict initiation. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 31(2), 119–144. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26271355