TÜRKİYE’NİN EKSİK DIŞ TİCARETİ, TİCARİ POTANSİYELİ VE YENİ FIRSATLAR

Öz

Bu çalışma Türkiye’nin yoğun olarak dış ticaret yaptığı yedi coğrafi bölge ile potansiyeldış ticaretini belirlemeyi ve bu potansiyelin ne kadarını kullanabildiğini ortaya çıkarmayıamaçlamaktadır. Ana bulgular şu şekildedir: Bir taraftan, temel Çekim Denklemi (GravityEquation) tahminlenmek suretiyle, ikili dış ticaret hacmindeki bir değişimin temel olarakülkelerin milli gelirlerine ve ülkelerin arasındaki mesafeye bağlı olduğu, beklendiği gibi,teyit edilmiştir. Buna rağmen, önceki çalışmaların bulgularının aksine sınır komşuluğununTürkiye’nin komşularıyla ticaretine pozitif etkisi olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Diğer taraftan,Türkiye’nin dış ticaret ortaklarıyla potansiyelinin altında ticaret yaptığı ortaya çıkmıştır.Eğer Türkiye 1992-2012 döneminde ticaret potansiyelini tam olarak değerlendirseydi heryıl ortalama 65,9 milyar dolar daha fazla ihracat ve 42,9 milyar $ daha fazla ithalatyapmış olurdu. Avrupa Birliği (AB) en önemli ticari ortağı olmasına rağmen Türkiye’ninAB ile mevcut ticareti AB ile potansiyel ticaretine çok yakındır. Buna karşın, Türkiye’nin,özellikle Afrika ve Ortadoğu gibi diğer bölgeler ile mevcut ve potansiyel ticaret seviyeleriarasında büyük açık vardır. Türk dış ticaret sektörü için alternatif bölgelerde yeni fırsatlarortaya çıkaran bu durum Türkiye’nin dış pazar çeşitlendirme politikası üzerine etki etmesibeklenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ticaret Potansiyeli, Eksik Dış Ticaret, Çekim Denklemi, AB, Akdeniz, Ortadoğu, Afrika, KEİ, Orta Asya Ülkeleri, Türkiye

TURKEY’S MISSING TRADE, POTENTIAL TRADE AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Öz

This study aims to determine the potential trade of Turkey with seven geographicalregions with which she intensively trades and reveals how much of this potential she uses.The main findings are as follows:On the one hand, while estimating a basic gravityequation it is confirmed that a change in the bilateral trade volume essentially depends oncountries’ national income and distance between countries as expected. Nevertheless,contrary to previous studies’ findings, it is observed that border neighbourhood has apositive effect on the trade of Turkey with her neighbour countries. On the other hand, it isrevealed that Turkey under-trades with her trade partners. If Turkey had fully used hertrade potential during 1995-2013 period, she would have effectuated $ 65,9 billion moreexport and $ 42,9 billion more imports.Although the European Union (EU) is still her most important trade partner, the actualtrade of Turkey with the EU is very close to her potential trade with the EU. On thecontrary, there is a great gap between actual and potential trade levels of Turkey with theother regions, especially Africa and Middle East. This situation that emerged newopportunities for Turkish trade sector can be expected to have impact on the foreign trademarket diversification policy of Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Whistleblowing, Ethical Climate, Egoistic Ethical Climate, Benevolent Ethical Climate, Principled Ethical Climate

Kaynakça

1. ANDERSON, J. (1979), “A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 69 No: 1 pp. 106-116.
2. BERGSTAND, J. H. (1985), “The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundation and Emprical Evidence”, The Reviewe of Economic and Statistics, Vol. 67(3) pp. 474-481.
3. BERGSTAND, J. H. (1989), “The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in Internaational Trade ”, The Reviewe of Economic and Statistics, Vol. 71(1) pp. 143-153.
4. BRÜLHAN, M. and Kelly, M. J. (1999), “Ireland’s Trading Potential with Central and Eastern European Countries: A gravity Study”, The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 30 No: 2 pp. 159-174.
5. BYERS, J.A. (1997), “Surface Distance between Two Points of Latitude and Longitude”, (http://www.chemical-ecology.net/java/lat-long.htm, /2/2009)
6. CHIONIS, D., LIARGOVAS, P. and ZANIAS, G. (2002), “Greece’s Trade with the Balkan Countries: Is It too Little?”, Journal of Economic integration, Vol. 17 No: 3 pp. 608-622.
7. Commission Of The European Union (1997) COM(97) 2000-2010, Final Declaration.
8. DEĞER, C. (2003) “The Possible Trade Effects of the Third Enlargement: The case of Turkish Exports to EU”, European Trde Study Group, Madrid Conference, 11-13 Septembre 2003, (http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2003/papers/cagacan.pdf, 15.12.2008)

9. ERZAN, R. and FLİZTEKİN, A. (1997), “Competitiveness of Turkish SMSEs in the Customs Union”, European Economic Review, 41 (1997) pp. 892.
10. FEENSTRA, R. (1998), “Integration of trade and disintegration of production in the global economy”, Journal of Economic Perspectives (1), pp: 31-50.
11. FEENSTRA, R., MARKUSEN, J.A. and ROSE, A.K. (1998), “Understanding the Home Market Effect and the Gravity Equation: The Role of Differentiated Goods”, NBER Working Papers, No. 6804, Cambridge M.A.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
12. HAMİLTON, C. B., and WİNTERS, L.A. (1992), “Opening up Trade with Eastern Europe”, Economic Policy, Vol. 14, pp. 77-116.
13. HAVEMAN, J. D. and HUMMELS, D. (1996), “Gravity, What is it good for? Theory and Evidence on Bilateral Trade”, Mimeo, W. Lafayette (IN): Purdue University.
14. HARRİSON, W. G., RUTHERFORD, F. T. and TARR, D. G. (1997), “Economic Implication for Turkey of a Customs Union with the European Union”, European Economic Review, 41 (1997) pp. 861-870.
15. HEAD, K., MAYER, T. (2002), “Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurements Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade”, Document de travail du CEPII, n.º 02-01, January.
16. LINNEMAN, H. (1966), “An Econometric Study of International Trade Flows”, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam LOPES, L.P. (2003), BORDER EFFECT AND EFFECTİVE TRANSPORT COST, ETGS2003 PAPER. (http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2003/papers/lopes.pdf)
17. MERCINIER, J. and YELDAN, E. (1997), “On Turkey’s trade policy: Is a Custms Union with Europe enough?”, European Economic Review, 41 (1997) pp. 871-880.
18. MARTÍN, C., GUAL, J., (1994), "Trade and foreign direct investment with Central and Eastern Europe: its impact on Spain", Discussion Paper Series , Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).
19. MARTİN, C. and TURRİON, J. (2001), “The trade impact of the integration of the Central and Eastern European Countries on the European Union”, European Economy Group Working Papers, No:11, (http://www.ucm.es/info/econeuro/documentos/documentos/dt112001.pdf,)
20. MCCALLUM, J. (1995), “National Borders Matter: Canada-US Regional Trade Patterns”, American Economic Review, Vol. 85 No: 3 pp. 615-623.
21. NİELSEN, F. (1999), “Analyse of Pooled Time Seri Cross Sections”, The Odum Institute, http://www2.irss.unc.edu/irss/shortcourses/gaddyhandouts/PooledTimeSerie sHandouts/Pooled.asp [12.3.2009’de ziyaret edildi]
22. POLAK, J. (1996), “Is APEC a Natural Regional Trading Bloc? A Critique of the “Gravity Model of International Trade”, The World Economy 19(5), pp: 533-43.
23. PÖYHONEN, P. (1963), “A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade between Countries”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 90:93-99.
24. SORHUN, E. (2006), “What will the Enlarged Customs Union Bring? Turkish Potential Trade with the New European Union Members”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Business, Economics and Management, Yasar University, Izmir Turkey
25. TINBERGEN, J. (1962), “Shaping the World Economy: Suggestion fora an International Economic Policy”, The Twentieth Centruy Fund, New York KULLANILAN PROGRAMLAR: STATA 8 (2008), Data Analysis and Statistical