Ticaret Akımlarının Yapısal Çekim Modeli ile Sınanması: Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Bu araştırma, Türkiye’nin dış ticaret akımlarını hem Tinbergen’in (1962) temel çekim modeli hem de Anderson & van Wincoop’un (2003) yapısal çekim modeli kapsamında sınamayı hedeflemektedir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’nin 139 ticaret partneriyle olan ticaret ilişkisi, 2010-2018 döneminde EKK, FGLS ve NLS yöntemleriyle tahmin edilmiştir. Ayrıca ülke-spesifik sabit etkiler modeliyle küresel çaptaki ticaret yapısı yine 2010-2018 dönemini kapsayacak şekilde 140 ülke ile sınanmıştır. Analizde mesafe, dil birliği, sınır ilişkisi, denize kıyısı olmama durumu gibi doğal ticaret maliyetlerinin ve tarife oranlarının ve gümrük birliklerin hacim etkileri tahmin edilmiştir. Yapısal çekim modeli kapsamında çok yönlü direnç terimleri analize dâhil edilmiştir. Çok yönlü direnç terimleri; uzaklık endeksleri, ülke-spesifik sabit etkiler modeli ve bu çalışmada önerilen ithalat fiyat endeksleri ile temsil edilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre ihracatçı ve ithalatçı ülkenin milli gelirleri, gümrük birliği durumu, dil birliği, uzaklık endeksleri, ithalatçı fiyat endeksleri ve sınır ilişkisi ticareti pozitif etkilerken; mesafe ve denize kıyısı olmama durumu ticareti negatif etkilemektedir. Tarife oranlarının ise ticarete belirgin bir etkisi görünmemiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapısal çekim modeli
• Çok yönlü direnç terimleri
• Ülke-spesifik sabit etkiler modeli

Estimating Trade Flows with Structural Gravity Model: Case of Turkey

Öz

This research aims to estimate Turkey’s trade flows within the context of Tinbergen’s (1962) basic gravity model and Anderson & van Wincoop’s (2003) structural gravity model. For this purpose, trade relations of Turkey with its 139 partners have been estimated by using OLS, FGLS and NLS methods for 2010–2018 times period. Also, structure of the global trade structure of 140 countries is estimated by country specific fixed effects model for the same 2010–2018 times period. Volume effects of tariff rates and natural trade impediments such as distance, common language, border relations and state of landlockedness have been estimated in the analysis. Multilateral resistance terms are included into the analysis within the context of structural gravity model. Multilateral resistance terms are proxied with remoteness indexes, country-specific fixed effects model and a multilateral resistance index that have been derived in this research. According to results, while national incomes of exporter and importer country, custom union, common language, remoteness indexes, import price indexes and common border have positive effects on trade, distance and being a landlocked country have negative effects on trade. Tariff rates don’t appear to have a distinctive effect on trade.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Structural gravity model
• Multilateral resistance terms
• Country-specific fixed effects model

Kaynakça

1. Akça, E. E., & Bal, H. (2020). Türkiye’nin İhracatında Linder Hipotezi’nin Geçerliliği Üzerine Ampirik Bir İnceleme: Genişletilmiş Çekim Modeli’nden Bulgular. Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 29-49.
2. Anderson, J. E. (1979). A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation. The American Economic Review, 69(1), 106-116.
3. Anderson, J. E. (2011). The Gravity Model. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 133-160.
4. Anderson, J. E., & Wincoop, E. v. (2003). Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192.
5. Anderson, J. E., & Yotov, Y. V. (2010). The Changing Incidence of Geography. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2157-86.
6. Antonuccia, D., & Manzocchi, S. (2006). Does Turkey have a special trade relation with the EU?: A gravity model approach. Economic Systems, 30(2), 157-169.
7. Armington, P. S. (1969). A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production. Staff Papers, 16(1), 159–178.
8. Bacchetta, M., Beverelli, C., Cadot, O., Fugazza, M., Grether, J.-M., Helble, M., . . . Piermartini, R. (2012). A practical guide to trade policy analysis. New York: United Nations Publication.

9. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade? Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 72-95.
10. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2009). Bonus vetus OLS: A simple method for approximating international trade-cost effects using the gravity equation. Journal of International Economics, 77(1), 77-85.
11. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. J. Wiley & Sons.
12. Bergeijk, P. A., & Brakman, S. (2010). The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Bergstrand, J. H. (1985). The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 474-481.
14. Bergstrand, J. H. (1989). The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 143-153.
15. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287-1294.
16. Chaney, T. (2008). Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade. The American Economic Review, 98(4), 1707-1721.
17. Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1983). Diagnostics for heteroscedasticity in regression. Biometrika, 70(1), 1-10.
18. Deardorff, A. (1998). Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World? J. A. Frankel içinde, The Regionalization of the World Economy (s. 7-32). University of Chicago Press.
19. Dinçer, G. (2013). Dış Ticaret Kuramında Çekim Modeli. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 24(88), 1-34.
20. Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, Geography, and Trade. Econometrica, 70(5), 1741-1779.
21. Esfahani, M. N., & Rasoulinezhad, E. (2017). Iran’s trade policy of Asianization and de-Europeanization under sanctions. Journal of Economic Studies, 44(4), 552-567.
22. Fally, T. (2015). Structural gravity and fixed effects. Journal of International Economics, 97(1), 76-85.
23. Frank, K. A. (2000). Impact of a Confounding Variable on a Regression Coefficient. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(2), 147-194.
24. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2014). Gravity Equations: Workhorse, Toolkit, and Cookbook. G. Gopinath, E. Helpman, & K. Rogoff içinde, Handbook of International Economics (Cilt 4, s. 131-195). Elsevier.
25. Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. R. (1985). Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy. The MIT Press.
26. Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 441-487.
27. Kahouli, B., & Maktouf, S. (2015). Trade creation and diversion effects in the Mediterranean area: Econometric analysis by gravity model. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 24(1), 76-104.
28. Kaufmann, W. J., & Comins, N. F. (2008). Discovering the Universe (8 b.). W. H. Freeman.
29. Kılıç, E. (2019). Mekânsal yer çekimi modelleri ile OECD ülkelerinde dış ticaret ilişkisinin analizi. Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi.
30. Krugman, P. R. (1980). Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade. The American Economic Review, 70(5), 950-959.
31. Krugman, P. R. (1995). Increasing returns, imperfect competition and the positive theory of international trade. G. M. Grossman, & K. Rogoff içinde, Handbook of International Economics (s. 1243-1277). Elsevier.
32. Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, M. J. (2018). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Pearson Education.
33. Linnemann, H. (1966). An econometric study of international trade flows. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
34. Martinez-Zarzoso, I. (2011). The log of gravity revisited. Applied Economics, 311-327.
35. McCallum, J. (1995). National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns. The American Economic Review, 85(3), 615-623.
36. Melitz, M. J. (2003). The Impact of Trade on Intra‐Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695-1725.
37. Mohammed, M., & Magai, P. S. (2020). Effects of Regional Economic Integration on Regional Trade in Africa: The Case of Regional Economic Communities. Business Management Review, 22(2), 119-134.
38. Newton, I. (1687/1999). The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. (I. B. Cohen, & A. Whitman, Dü) Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (2000). The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause? NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 15, 339-390.
39. Papazoglou, C. (2007). Greece’s Potential Trade Flows: A Gravity Model Approach. International Advances in Economic Research, 13(4), 403-414.
40. Starck, S. C. (2012). The Theoretical Foundation of Gravity Modeling: What are the developments that have brought gravity modeling into mainstream economics? (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Copenhagen Business School, Kopenhag.
41. Tatlıcı, Ö., & Kızıltan, A. (2011). Çekim Modeli: Türkiye'nin İhracati Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Atatürk Ü. İİBF Dergisi, 287-299.
42. Temurov, I., & Kilicaslan, Y. (2016). Conflict or Distance: What Determines the International Trade? World Journal of Applied Economics, 2(2), 15-31.
43. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy; Suggestions for an International Economic Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
44. Türkcan, K., & Pişkin, E. (2014). Ticaret Anlaşmalarının Türkiye'nin İhracat Dinamiğine Etkisi: Yaygın ve Yoğun Ticaret. Ankara: Discussion Paper, No. 2014/10, Turkish Economic Association.
45. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2 b.). The MIT Press.
46. Yotov, Y. V., Piermartini, R., Monteiro, J.-A., & Larch, M. (2016). An Advanced Guide to Trade Policy Analysis: The Structural Gravity Model Online Revised Version. Geneva: World Trade Organization.