Imported Intermediate Goods and Firm Performance in Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the use of imported intermediate goods, which is the main reason of the foreign trade deficit. The level of import dependency is seen as one of the most important problems for the Turkish manufacturing industry. In this study, we used firm-level data provided by the Turkish Statistical Institute examined the relationship between firm performance and the use of imported intermediate goods for the period between 2003 and 2015. We utilized Standard Least Squares and Fixed Effects methods, and show that the companies using imported intermediate goods are more efficient, have more employees and pay more wages compared to other companies. Finally, we highlight that the increase in firm age and having foreign partners positively affect the firm performance. We believe that these findings should be considered by policy makers when it comes to the strategy of reducing the use of imported inputs and encouraging the use of domestic intermediate goods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Imported Input
• Firm-level Data
• Manufacturing Industry

Türk İmalat Sanayiinde İthal Girdi Kullanımı ve Firma Performansı

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk imalat sanayi sektörü için en önemli sorunlardan birisi olarak görülen dış ticaret açığının lokomotifi olan ithal ara malı kullanımını firma seviyesinde incelemektir. Bu çerçevede, firma performansı ile ithal ara malı kullanımı arasındaki ilişkinin analiz edildiği çalışmada, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu tarafından sağlanan firma seviyesindeki veriler kullanılmıştır. 2003-2015 yılları arasında üretim sektöründe faaliyet gösteren firmaların ithal ara mal kullanımı ile firma performansı arasındaki ilişki Standart En Küçük Kareler ve Sabit Etkiler yöntemleri kullanılarak tahmin edilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen analizler sonucunda ithal ara malı kullanan firmaların, ithal ara malı kullanmayan firmalardan daha verimli olduğu tespit edilmiştir, ayrıca ithal girdi kullanan firmaların diğer firmalara göre daha fazla çalışan istihdam ettiği ve çalışanlarına daha fazla ücret ödediği bulunmuştur. Son olarak, firma yaşındaki artışın ve yabancı ortak sahibi olmanın firma performansını olumlu yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Bu tespitlerin, politika yapıcıların ithal girdi kullanımının azaltılıp yerli ara malı kullanımını teşvik ederken dikkate alması gerektiği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İthal Ara Malı
• Mikro Veri
• İmalat Sanayii

Kaynakça

1. Alkın, H. (2020). Türkiye’nin ihracatının katma değer dağılımı ve ithal girdi bağımlılığı: 2000-2014 dönemi için küresel değer zinciri analizi. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 20(1), 66-89. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.734201
2. Almeida, R. and Fernandes, A. M. (2008). Openness and technological innovations in developing countries: Evidence from firm-level surveys. The Journal of Development Studies, 44(5), 701-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380802009217
3. Amiti, M. and Konings, J. (2011). Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs, and productivity: Evidence from Indonesia. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1611-1638. doi:10.1257/aer.97.5.1611
4. Andersson, T. and Fredriksson, T. (2000). Distinction between intermediate and finished products in intra-firm trade. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18(5), 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(98)00041-1
5. Bas, M. and Strauss-Kahn, V. (2014). Does importing more inputs raise exports? Firm-level evidence from France. Review of World Economics, 150(2), 241-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-013-0175-0
6. Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B., Redding S. J. and Schott P. K. (2007). Firms in international trade. Journal of Economic Perspective, 21(3), 105-130. doi:10.1257/jep.21.3.105
7. Campa, J. and Goldberg L. S. (1997). Evolving external orientation of manufacturing industries: Evidence from four countries (NBER Working Paper No. 5919). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w5919
8. Choi, I. (2006). Combination unit root tests for crosssectionally correlated panels. In Corbae D., Durlauf S. N. and Hansen B. E. (Eds.), Econometric theory and practice: Frontiers of analysis and applied research (pp. 311–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Chu, A. C., Fan, H., Furukawa, Y., Kou, Z. and Liu, X. (2021). Minimum wages, import status, and firms' innovation: Theory and evidence from China. Economic Inquiry, 59(1), 441-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12933
10. Damijan, J. P., Konings, J. and Polanec, S. (2014). Import churning and export performance of multi‐product firms. The World Economy, 37(11), 1483-1506. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12196
11. Demir, N. ve Kula, M. (2008). Türkiye ekonomisinin sektörler arası bağlantılarında ihracat-ithalat ilişkileri. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Dış Ticaret Politikaları, 3(1-2), 85-116. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/uedtp
12. Dutta, P. B. and Ghosh, N. (2021). Wage inequality and unemployment in the presence of imported intermediate goods: A theoretical analysis. Foreign Trade Review, 56(4), 375-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0015732520986893
13. Edwards, L., Sanfilippo, M. and Sundaram, A. (2018). Importing and firm export performance: New evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 86(1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/saje.12154
14. Ekonomi Bakanlığı. (2017). Girdi tedarik stratejisi eylem planı. Erişim adresi: https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5b9230df13b87613646658ce/gites_raporu.pdf
15. Eşiyok, A. (2008). Türkiye ekonomisinde üretimin ve ihracatın ithalata bağımlılığı, dış ticaretin yapısı: Girdi-çıktı modeline dayalı bir analiz. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Dış Ticaret Politikaları, 3(1-2), 117-160. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/uedtp
16. Feenstra, R. C. and Hanson G. H. (1996). Globalization, outsourcing and wage inequality American Economic Review, 86(2), 240–245. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
17. Feng, L., Li, Z. and Swenson, D. L. (2017). Trade policy uncertainty and exports: Evidence from China's WTO accession. Journal of International Economics, 106, 20-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2016.12.009
18. Goldberg, P. K., Khandelwal, A. K., Pavcnik, N. and Topalova, P. (2010). Imported intermediate inputs and domestic product growth: Evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(4), 1727-1767. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.4.1727
19. Halpern, L., Koren, M. and Szeidl, A. (2015). Imported inputs and productivity. American Economic Review, 105(12), 3660-3703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150443
20. Hummels, D., Ishii, J. and Yi, K. M. (2001). The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade. Journal of international Economics, 54(1), 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(00)00093-3
21. Kasahara, H. and Rodrigue, J. (2008). Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 87(1), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.12.008
22. Kleinert, J. (2004). The role of multinational enterprises in globalization. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
23. Lo Turco, A. and Maggioni, D. (2015). Imports, exports and the firm product scope: Evidence from Turkey. The World Economy, 38(6), 984-1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12201
24. Lööf, H. and Anderson, M. (2010). Imports, productivity and origin markets: The role of knowledge intensive economies. World Economy, 33(3), 458–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2010.01263.x
25. Markusen, J. (1989). Trade in producer services and in other specialized intermediate inputs. American Economic Review, 79(1), 85–95. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
26. Okafor, L. E. (2021). Export market destinations, imported intermediates, and productivity: Firm-level evidence from Ghana. The International Trade Journal, 35(4), 383-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853908.2020.1718567
27. Özcan-Tok, E. ve Sevinç, O. (2019). Üretimin ithal girdi yoğunluğu: Girdi-çıktı analizi (TCMB Ekonomi Notları Sayı. 2019-06), Erişim adresi: https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/526e82f7-76fe-4c98-bd1d-780e2acdfd57/en1906eng.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-526e82f7-76fe-4c98-bd1d-780e2acdfd57-mGmht09
28. Özenç, B. ve Düşündere, A. (2017). 2000 Sonrasında ithal ara malı bağımlılığı ve katma değer üretimi (TEPAV Değerlendirme Notu No. 201713). Erişim adresi: https://www.tepav.org.tr/tr/haberler/s/4187.
29. Pamukcu, T. and De Boer, P. (2000). Determinants of imports of Turkey: An application of structural decomposition analysis (1968- 1990). Yapi Kredi Economic Review, 11(1), 3-27. Retrieved from http://users.metu.edu.tr/
30. Pavcnik, N. (2002). Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvement: Evidence from Chilean plants. Review of Economic Studies, 69(1), 245–276. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
31. Rivera-Batiz, L. and Romer, P. (1991). International trade with endogenous technological change. European Economic Review, 35(4), 971–1001. doi:10.3386/w3594
32. Romer, P. (1987). Growth based on increasing returns due to specialization. American Economic Review, 77(2), 56–62. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
33. Roy, S. (2020). Intermediate input imports, domestic input use and firm-level outcomes: Evidence from survey data. Foreign Trade Review, 55(3), 320-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0015732520920467
34. Saygılı, S., Cihan, C., Yalçın, C. ve Hamsici, T. (2010). Türkiye imalat sanayiin ithalat yapısı (TCMB Çalışma Tebliği No. 10/02). Erişim adresi: https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/16e81cc5-44d8-4d2b-a7d4b61cedb0b4c1/WP1002.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPA CE-16e81cc5-44d8-4d2b-a7d4-b61cedb0b4c1-m3fB8Ud
35. Schor, A. (2004). Heterogeneous productivity response to tariff reduction: Evidence from Brazilian manufacturing firms. Journal of Development Economics, 75(2), 373–396. doi:10.3386/w10544
36. Simsek, M. C. (2018, July). International technology transfer and productivity in the Turkish automotive parts industry. Paper presented at the Midwest International Trade Conference. Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Retrieved from https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=MWITFall2018&paper_id=27
37. Smeets, V. and Warzynski, F. (2013). Estimating productivity with multi-product firms, pricing heterogeneity and the role of international trade. Journal of International Economics, 90(2), 237-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.01.003
38. Strauss-Kahn, V. (2004). The role of globalization in the within-industry shift away from unskilled workers in France. In R. Baldwin and A. Winters (Eds.), Challenges to globalization (pp. 209-234), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Topalova, P. and Khandelwal, A. (2011). Trade liberalization and firm productivity: The case of India. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00095
40. Türkan, E. (2006). Türkiye’de üretimin ithalat ve ihracat bağımlılığı. Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası Kitaplar-Çalışmalar
41. Van Biesebroeck, J. (2005). Firm size matters: Growth and productivity growth in African manufacturing. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53(3), 546-583. https://doi.org/10.1086/426407
42. Veeramani, C. (2009). Impact of imported intermediate and capital goods on economic growth: A cross country analysis (SSRN Working Paper No. WP-2008-029). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/Sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1325181
43. Wooldridge, J.M. (2003). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. South-Western: Thomson Learning.
44. Yi, K. M. (2003). Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade? Journal of Political Economy, 111(1), 52–102. https://doi.org/10.1086/344805
45. Yu, M. and Li, J. (2014). Imported intermediate inputs, firm productivity and product complexity. The Japanese Economic Review, 65(2), 178-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jere.12041