DÜNYA TİCARET ÖRGÜTÜ TARIM ANLAŞMASININ TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİ: BİR HESAPLANABİLİR GENEL DENGE MODELİ ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu çalışma, çok yanlı bir ticaret serbestleşmesi girişimi olan Dünya Ticaret Örgütü Tarım Anlaşması’nın hükümleri gereği, anlaşmaya taraf ülkelerin, ticaretin önündeki engelleri belli kurallar doğrultusunda azaltmaları sonucunda oluşması beklenen yeni durumu ve bu yeni durumun Türkiye üzerindeki kısa dönemli etkilerinin bir genel denge analizi çerçevesinde incelendiği bir çalışmadır. Bu amaç için kurulan TRCGE Modeli; tek ülkeli, çok sektörlü, statik bir hesaplanabilir genel denge çerçevesinde kurgulanmıştır. Model; dördü tarımsal, üçü tarım dışı olmak üzere toplam yedi üretici sektör, üç üretim faktörü, bir hanehalkı, devlet ve firmalar ile bir dış dünya arasındaki üretim, bölüşüm, tüketim, tasarruf, yatırım ve dış ticaret ilişkilerini eşanlı denklemler sistemi ile tanımlanmaktadır. Modelin politika deneyleri, Anlaşma hükümleri doğrultusunda Türkiye’nin ulusal yükümlülükleri esas alınarak ve dünya tarımsal ürün fiyatlarındaki en düşük ve en yüksek öngörümleme değerleriyle, hem toplam hem de kısmi etkiler bakımından altı farklı senaryo altında kurgulanmıştır. Bu politika deneyleri sonucunda üretim, bölüşüm, tüketim, tasarruf, yatırım ve dış ticarete ilişkin olarak ulaşılan sektörel düzeydeki bazı temel bulgular, ayrıntılı olarak tablolar halinde verilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası tarım ticareti, Serbestleşme, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü, Hesaplanabilir genel denge analizi, Türkiye

EFFECTS OF WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION'S AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE: A COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL STUDY

Öz

This study aims to examine the new environment that is expected to arise as participant countries of World Trade Organization Agricultural Agreement, which is a multilateral trade liberalization attempt, reduce trade barriers in accordance with certain rules and studies the effects of the new environment on Turkey in the short run within a general equilibrium analysis framework. Constructed for this purpose, TRCGE Model is formulated within a static computable general equilibrium framework of a single country and multiple sectors. The model defines production, exchange, consumption, saving, investment and foreign trade relations between a total of 7 production sectors, of which four are agricultural and three are non-agricultural, three factors of production, a single household, the government, the firms and the rest of the world by making use of simultaneous equations systems. Taking Turkey's national obligations as a foundation, policy experiments have been formulated under 6 scenarios that differ in terms of both aggregate and partial effects and make use of lowest and highest expected world agricultural product prices. Certain sectoral findings regarding production, exchange, consumption, saving, investment and foreign trade have been obtained as a result of policy experiments and are presented in detailed tables.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Agriculture in international trade, Liberalization, World Trade Organization, Computable general equilibrium analysis, Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Adelman, I. ve P. Berck (1988), “Food Security Policy in a Stochastic World”, Working Paper Series, University of Berkeley, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, No:478, Berkeley, CA.
2. Adelman, I. ve S. Robinson (1986), “U.S. Agriculture in a General Equilibrium Framework: Analysis with a Social Accounting Matrix”, Amerikan Journal of Agricultural Econimics, 68:1196–1207.
3. Adelman, I. ve S. Robinson (1987), “Macroeconomic Adjustment and Income Distribution: Alternative Models Applied to Two Economies”, Working Paper Series, University of Berkeley, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, No:385, Berkeley, CA.
4. Adilu, S., M. Veeman ve T. Veeman, (1998), Implications of the Multilateral Trade Agreement for Canadian Agriculture: Computable General Equilibrium Evaluation, Staff Papers 9804, University of Alberta, Department of Rural Economics.
5. Armington, P.S. (1969), A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production, International Monetary Fund: Staff Papers 16(1): 159–178.
6. Brooke, A., D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus ve R. Raman (1988), GAMS: A User’s Guide, Washington D.C.: GAMS Development Corporation.
7. Cahil, S. A. (1991), “Implications for Canada of One Possible Uruguay Round Outcome: Results from a Multi-commodity Analysis with Trade Analysis Simulation System (TASS)”, Working Paper 10/91, Policy Branch, Agriculture, Canada.
8. Decaluwe, B., A. Patry, L. Savard ve E. Thorbecke (1999), “Poverty Analysis within a General Equilibrium Framework”, Working Paper 9909, CREFA 99-06, www.crefa.ecn.ulaval.ca, (erişim tarihi: Haziran 2001).

9. Derviş, K., J.de Melo ve S. Robinson, (1982), General Equilibrium Models For Development Policy, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
10. Dölekoğlu, T. (2003), “Dünya Ticaret Örgütü İleri Tarım Müzakereleri ve Türkiye”, TEAE Bakış, Sayı: 3, Nüsha:4, Ankara.
11. Driesen, D. M. (2001), “What is Free Trade? The Real Issue Lurking Behind the Trade and Environment Debate” 41 Va. J. Int'l L. 279.
12. FAO (2005a), “Tariff Reduction Formula: Methodological Issues in Assessing Their Effects”, FAO Trade Policy Technique Nots, No:2, Rome. FAO (2005b),
13. Major Food and Agricultural Commodities and Producers, www.fao.org/es/ess/top/country.jsp?lang=en (erişim tarihi: Mart 2006).
14. FAO (2005c), Statistical Yearbook 2004, Rome.
15. FAPRI (2005), FAPRI 2005: U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook, Staff Report 1–05, Iowa State Univesity & University of Missouri-Columbia, Ames, Iowa.
16. Frohberg, K. (1989), “Economy-wide Effects of a Multilateral Trade Liberalization in Agriculture by Industrialized Market Economies on Canada, Japan and the European Communities.”, Working Paper 88-WP 40, CARD, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
17. GATT (1994), Schedule XXXVII, Turkey.
18. Gonzalez, C. G. (2002), “Institutionalizing Inequality: The WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Food Security and Developing Countries”, 27 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 433.
19. Hertel, T. (1990), Applied General Equilibrium Analysis of Agricultural Policies, Staff Paper, 90-9, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
20. Hwang, J. H. (2003), Macroeconomic Policies and Structural Adjustment Under IMF Stabilization Program in the Turkish Economy: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, ODTÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
21. de Janvry, A. ve E. Sadoulet (1987), “Agricultural Price Policies in General Equilibrium Models: Results and Comparisons”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(2).
22. Köse, A. H. (1996), Gümrük Birliğinin Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Etkileri: Bir Hesaplanabilir Genel Denge Modeli Çalışması, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
23. Köse, A. H. ve E. Yeldan (1996), “Çok Sektörlü Hesaplanabilir Genel Denge Modellerinin Veri Tabanı Üzerine Notlar”, METU Studies in Development, 23 (1), 59-83.
24. Lofgren, H. ve R. L. Harris, S. Robinson (2001), “A Standard Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model in GAMS”, TMD Discussion Paper, No: 75, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
25. Lofgren, H. ve R. L. Harris, S. Robinson (2002), “A Standard Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model in GAMS”, Microcomputers in Policy Research, Vol. 5, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
26. Lofgren, H. (2003a), “Exercises in General Equilibrium Modeling Using GAMS”, Microcomputers in Policy Research, Vol. 4a, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
27. Lofgren, H. (2003b), “Key to Exercises in CGE Modeling Using GAMS”, Microcomputers in Policy Research, Vol. 4b, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
28. Maraşlıoğlu, H. ve A. Tıktık (1991), Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sektörel Gelişmeler: Üretim, Sermaye Birikimi ve İstihdam1968-1988, DPT, Ankara.
29. McMahon, J. (1995), “The Uruguay Round and Agriculture: Charting a New Direction?”, 29, Infl Law, 411.
30. McNiel, D. E. (2000), “Furthering the Reforms of Agricultural Policies in the Millennium Round”, Agricultural Trade Symposium: 9 Minn. J. Global Trade, 41.
31. deMelo, J. (1987), Computable General Equilibrium Models for Trade Policy Analysis in Developing Countries: A Survey, Mimeograph, Washington D. C., World Bank
32. deMelo, J. (1988), “Computable General Equilibrium Models For Trade Policy Analysis in Developing Countries: A Survey”, Journal of Policy Modelling, 10 (4), 469–503.
33. OECD (2004), “Agricultural Support: How Is It Measured and What Does It Mean?”, OECD Policy Brief, Paris.
34. OECD (2005), Producer and Consumer Support Estimates, Paris.
35. Reinert, K. A. ve D. W. Roland-Holst (1997), “Social Accounting Matrices”, in J. F. Francois, K. A. Reinert, Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis: A Handbook, Cambridge University Pres, NewYork.
36. Robinson, S. (1989), “Multisectoral Models”, Handbook of Development Economics, Volume II, Ed. Hollis Chenery and T.N. Srinivasan, Amsterdam, North-Holland içinde.
37. Robinson, S. (1990), “Analyzing Agricultural Trade Liberalization with Single Country CGE Models”, Working Paper Series, University of Berkeley, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, No:824, Berkeley, CA.
38. Roningen, V. O. ve P. M. Dixit (1989), Economic Implications of Agricultural Policy Reform in Industrial Market Economies, USDA, ERS Staff Report, AGES, 89-36.
39. Saygılı, Ş., C. Cihan ve H. Yurtoğlu (2005), Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sermaye Birikimi, Büyüme ve Verimlilik: 1972-2003, Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı, Yayın No: 2686, Ankara.
40. Shoven, J.B. ve J. Whalley (1984), “Applied General-Equilibrium Models of Taxation and International Trade: An Introduction and Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 1007- 1051.
41. Shoven, J.B. ve J. Whalley (1992), Applying General Equilibrium, NewYork: Cambridge University Pres.
42. Steinle, J. (1995), “The Problem Child of World Trade: Reform School for Agriculture”, 4 Minn. J. Global Trade, 333.
43. Stevens, C. et al (2000), “The WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Food Security”, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.
44. Sturgess, I. (2000), “The Liberalization Process in International Agricultural Trade: Market Access and Export Subsidies”, Negotiating the Future of Agricultural Policies: Agricultural Trade and the Millennium WTO Round, Ed. S. Bilal & P. Pezaros içinde.
45. Swinbank, A. (1996), “The Impact of the GATT Agreement on E.U. Fruit and Vegetable Policy”, Food Policy, 20.
46. Şahinöz, A. A. Özaltan, ve I. Gökduman (2005), “Küreselleşme Sürecinde Türkiye Tarımı”, VI. Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği Teknik Kongresi, Ankara.
47. Şenesen, G. G. (1984), Sosyal Hesaplar Matrisi ve Türkiye İçin Bir Uygulama, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
48. Taylor, L. (1990), “Structuralist CGE Models”, Socially Relevant Policy Analysis, Ed. L. Taylor, Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT Pres içinde.
49. Taylor, L. ve S. Black (1974), “Practical General Equilibrium Estimation of Resource Pulls Under Trade Liberalization”, Journal of International Economics, 4(1), 37-58.
50. Telli, M. Ç. (2004), Sosyal Hesaplar Matrisi Üretme Yöntemi ve Türkiye Uygulaması, Planlama Uzmanlığı Tezi, DPT, Anakara.
51. TÜİK (1989), Tarımsal Yapı: Üretim, Alan, Verim, Ankara.
52. TÜİK (1994), Genel Tarım Sayımı, 1991, Ankara.
53. TÜİK (1997), 1994 Hanehalkı Gelir Dağılımı Anketi Sonuçları, Ankara.
54. TÜİK (1998), Hanehalkı İşgücü Anketi, Ankara.
55. TÜİK (1999), Tarımsal Yapı: Üretim, Fiyat, Değer, Ankara.
56. TÜİK (2001), Türkiye Ekonomisinin İnput-Output Yapısı–1996, Ankara.
57. TÜİK (2003a), Dış Ticaret, Ankara.
58. TÜİK (2003b), Tarımsal Yapı: Üretim, Fiyat, Değer, Ankara.
59. TÜİK (2003c), 2002 Hanehalkı Bütçe Araştırması Gelir Dağılımı Sonuçları, Ankara.
60. TÜİK (2003d), 2000 Genel Nüfus Sayımı: Nüfusun Sosyal ve Ekonomik Nitelikleri, Ankara.
61. TÜİK (2004a), Genel Tarım Sayımı, 2001, Ankara.
62. TÜİK (2004b), Türkiye Ekonomisinin İnput-Output Yapısı–1998, Ankara.
63. TÜİK (2004c), Hanehalkı İşgücü Anketi 2003, Ankara.
64. TÜİK (2004d), 2001 Genel Tarım Sayımı Tarımsal İşletmeler (Hanehalkı), Ankara.
65. TÜİK (2005a), Tarımsal Yapı: Üretim, Fiyat, Değer, Ankara.
66. TÜİK (2005b), Hanehalkı İşgücü Anketi 2004, Ankara.
67. United Nations (1999), Handbook of Input-Output Table Compilation and Analysis, ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/74, Department for Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, New- York.
68. Uysal, Y. (2006), Küreselleşme ve AB’ ye Tam Üyelik Perspektifinde Ege ve Türkiye Tarımında Yeniden Yapılanma, EGİFED Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dizisi, Yayın No:1, İzmir.
69. Watkins, K. (1996), “Free Trade and Farm Fallacies: From the Uruguay Round to the World Food Summit”, The Ecologist, 26-244.
70. WTO (2001), WTO Negotiations on Agriculture: Proposal by Turkey, G/Ag/Ng/W/106, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negoti_ph1_e.htm (erişim tarihi: Aralık 2001).
71. WTO (2004), Doha Work Programme Draft General Council Decision of 31 July 2004, Annex A: Framework for Establishing Modalities in Agriculture, WT/GC/W/535, Switzerland.
72. WTO (2005a), International Trade Statistics 2005, Switzerland.
73. WTO (2005b), Ministerial Conference, Sixth Session, 13 - 18 December 2005, Draft Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(05)/W/3/Rev.2, Hong Kong.
74. WTO (2005c), WTO Agriculture Negotiations: The Issues and Where We Are Now, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd00_contents_e.htm (erişim tarihi: Şubat 2005).
75. WTO (2005d), WTO Agriculture Negotiations: Market Access: Tariffs and Tariff Quotas, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd10_access_e.htm (erişim tarihi: Şubat 2005).
76. WTO, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts, Switzerland. WTO,
77. Uruguay Round Agreement, Agreement on Agriculture, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf (erişim tarihi: Ekim 2003).