DYY’nin “Nicelik” ve “Nitelik” Açısından Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analizi: Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Gelişmekte olan ülkeler her koşulda DYY (Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım)’yi teşvik etmek için DYY’ nin “niteliği”nden çok “niceliği”ne odaklanarak “finansal ve vergi teşvikleri” gibi teşvikler önermektedir. Çalışma, Türkiye’nin hem DYY’yi niceliksel olarak çekmeyi amaçlayan göreceli olarak liberal politikaları hem de diğer ülkelere (hem gelişmiş hem de gelişmekte olan) kıyasla yeteri kadar DYY çekmeme konusundaki başarısızlığı açısından tipik bir gelişmekte olan ülke olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Diğer taraftan, çalışma burada “DYY’nin Giriş Şekli” açısından ele alınan “DYY’nin iyi kalitelisi”ni çekme açısından Türkiye’nin tipik bir gelişmekte olan ülke olmadığını savunmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı bu argümanları, Türkiye’ye gelen DYY ile diğerlerini hem “nicelik” hem de “nitelik” açısından karşılaştırarak araştırmaktır. Buna göre, DYY’nin bir giriş şekli olarak “yeşilalan yatırımları” gelişmekte olan ülkelere giden DYY’ye hakimken, Türkiye örneğinde “kahverengialan yatırımları” hakimiyeti ele almaktadır. Yıl bazlı veriye baktığımızda bu bulgu 2004 yılında Türkiye’de başlayan yoğun özelleştirme dönemiyle tutarlı gözükmektedir. Çalışma UNCTAD (2010)’un sınır ötesi Birleşme ve Satın Almalar (B&SA) konusundaki yeni veri tabanını kullanmakta ve yeşilalan yatırımları verisini elde etmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• DYY, kahverengialan yatırımlarına karşı yeşilalan yatırımları, Türkiye örneği

A Comparative Analysis of FDI in Terms of “Quantity” and “Quality”: Turkish Case

Öz

Developing countries offer incentives, such as “financial and tax incentives”, to encourage Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in any case by focusing on the “quantity” of FDI rather than its “quality”. The study maintains that Turkey constitutes a typical developing country in terms of both her relatively liberalized policies aiming at attracting FDI in quantity and her failure about not attracting sufficient FDI compared to the other countries, both developed and developing. On the other hand, the study argues that it is not a typical developing country in terms of attracting “the right quality of FDI”, which is tackled here in terms of “the entry mode of FDI”. The aim of this study is to investigate these arguments through comparisons of FDI inflows to Turkey with the others in terms of both its “quantity” and “quality”. According to this, while the “greenfield investments” as an entry mode of FDI dominates the FDI inflows to developing countries, “brownfield investments” take the dominance in Turkish case. When it is looked at the year base data this finding seems consistent with the mass privatisation era of Turkey started in 2004. The study uses UNCTAD (2010)’s new database on cross-border Merger&Acquisitions (M&As) and obtain greenfield investment data

Anahtar Kelimeler

• FDI, greenfield investment versus brownfield investment, Turkish case

Kaynakça

1. Agosin, M. R. ve Ricardo, M. (2000) “Foreign Investment in Developing Countries: Does It Crowd in Domestic Investment”, UNCTAD Discussion Paper, No: 146.
2. Akpolat, A. G. ve Inancli, S. (2011) “Does Foreign Direct Investment Matter?: The Case of Turkey?” International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 7:56-66.
3. Balasubramanyam, V.N., Salisu, M. ve Sapsford, D. (1996) “Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries”, The Economic Journal, 106(434):92- 105.
4. Bhagwati, J. N. (1978) “Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Rate Regimes” Studies in International Economic Relations, 1(10).
5. Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J. D. ve Lee, J.W. (1998) “How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth” Journal of International Economics, 45:115- 135.
6. Calderón, C., Loayza, N. ve Servén, L. (2002) “Greenfield FDI vs. Mergers and Acquisitions: Does the Distinction Matter” Central Bank of Chile Working Papers, No: 173
7. Carkovic, M. V. and Levine, R. (2005) “Does Foreign Direct Investment Accelerate Economic Growth?”, Theodore et al(eds.) Does Foreign Direct Investment Promote Development?, Institute for International Economics and Centre for Global Development, Washington DC, USA.
8. Chudnovsky, D. ve Lopez, A. (1999) “Globalisation And Developing Countries: FDI And Growth And SHD”, http://www.ictsd.org/html/Chudnovsky.rtf, (23.09.2008).

9. Dunning, J. (1994) “Re-evaluating the Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment” Transnational Corporations, 3(1):23-52.
10. Dunning, J. (1997) “A Business Analytic Approach to Governments and Globalization”, Dunning (eds.) Governments, Globalization and International Business, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
11. Findlay, R. (1978) “Relative Backwardness, Direct Foreign Investment and the Transfer of Technology, A Simple Dynamic Model” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92:1-16.
12. Freeman, C. ve Hagedoorn, J. (1989) “New Technology and Catching Up” European Journal of Development Research, 1(1):53-67.
13. Globerman, S. ve Shapiro, D. (2004) “Assessing International Mergers And Acquisitions As A Mode Of Foreign Direct Investment” The Conference on Multinationals, Growth and Governance, in Honor of A. Edward Safarian, April 24-25, Toronto, Ontario. Hermes, N. ve Lensink, R. (2003) “Foreign Direct Investment, Financial Development and Economic Growth” The Journal of Development Studies, 40(1):142- 163.
14. Hisarciklilar, M., Gultekin-Karakas, D. ve Asici, A.A. (2010) “Can FDI Be A Panacea For Unemployment?: The Turkish Case”, http://www.esam.itu.edu.tr/ NottinghamWorkshopPapers/Hisarciklilar-KarakasAsici-NW.pdf, (02.01.2012).
15. Kokko, A., Zejan, M. ve Tansini, R. (2001) “Trade Regimes and Spillover Effects of FDI: Evidence from Uruguay” Welwirtschaftliches Archiv, 137: 124–149.
16. Lall, S. (2000) “FDI and Development: Research Issues In the Emerging Context” Centre for International Economic Studies University of Adelaide, Policy Discussion Papers, No:0020.
17. Lall, S. ve Rajneesh, N. (2004) “Foreign Direct Investment and Its Role in Economic Development: Do we Need a New Agenda” The European Journal of Development Research, 16 (3): 447-464.
18. London Economics (2010) “Analysis of Developments in The Fields of Direct Investment And M&A - 2010 Report”, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_ market/capital/docs/fdi-ma-study-part2-2010_en.pdf, (02.01.2012).
19. Milberg, W. (1999) “Foreign Direct Investment and Development: Balancing Costs and Benefits” International Monetary and the Financial Issues for the 1990s, 11:99-116.
20. Mortimore, M. ve Vergara, S. (2004) “Targeting Winners: Can Foreign Direct Investment Policy Help Developing Countries Industrialize”, The European Journal of Development Research, 16 (3):499-530.
21. Narula, R. (2004) “Understanding Absorptive Capacities in an Innovation System Context: Consequences for Economic and Employment Growth” DRUID Working Paper Series, No:04-02.
22. Narula, R. ve Dunning, J. (2000) “Industrial Development, Globalization and Multinational Enterprises: New Realities for Developing Countries” Oxford Development Studies, 28(2): 141-167.
23. Narula, R. ve Marin, A. (2003) “FDI Spillovers, Absorptive Capacities and Human Capital Development: Evidence from Argentina” MERIT Infonomics Research Memorandum Series, No: 2003–16.
24. Onis, Z. (2011) “Power, Interests and Coalitions: The Political Economy of Mass Privatisation in Turkey” Third World Quarterly, 32(4):707-724.
25. Ozawa, T. (1992) “Cross-Investments between Japan and the EC: Income Similarity, Technological Congruity and Economies of Scope” Cantwell (eds.) Multinational Investment in Modern Europe: Strategic Interaction in the Integrated Community, Aldershot, 3 rd Edition, Camrgidge University Press.
26. Perez, C.and Soete, L. (1988) “Catching-up in Technology: Entry Barriers and Windows of Opportunities” Dosi et al(eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, New York, Columbia University Press. Schmukler, S.L. and Zoido-Lobatón, P., (2001) “Financial Globalization: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries”, The Globalization Policy Research Report, World Bank.
27. Singh, A. (2005a) “FDI, Globalization and Economic Development: Towards Reforming National and International Rules of the Game” University of Cambridge, Working Paper Series, No: 304.
28. Singh, A. (2005b) “Globalization and The Regulation of FDI: New Proposals From The European Community and Japan” Contributions to Political Economy, 24:99-121.
29. Smarzynska, B. K. (2002) “The Composition of Foreign Direct Investment and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Transition Economies” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No: 2786.
30. Stopford, J. (1997) “Implications for National Governments” Dunning (eds.) Governments, Globalization and International Business, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
31. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Başbakanlık Hazine Müsteşarlığı (1998) Yabancı Sermaye Mevzuatı, Ankara. UNCTAD (2000) World Investment Report 2000 Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions and Development.
32. Yilmaz, K. (2007) “Türkiye için Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım Stratejisine Doğru” YASED Report, http:// www.yased.org.tr/webportal/English/Yayinlar/Pages/ FDIStrategyTurkey.aspx, (02.01.2012).
33. Xu, B. (2000) “Multinational Enterprises, Technology Diffusion, and Host Country Productivity Growth” Journal of Development Economics, 62:(477- 493).
34. Willet, T.D., Budiman, A., Denzau, A., Jo, G., Ramos, C. ve Thomas, J. (2004) “The Falsification of Four Popular Hypotheses about the Asian Crisis” The World Economy, 27(1): 25-44.