The Relationship between Export and Profitability: A Micro View in the Sample of ISO 500 Firms

Öz

One of the most important research questions is whether the export orientation of firms will result in increased productivity and profitability, or reduced profitability due to the extra costs of opening up to foreign countries. In this study, the impact of exports on the financial performance of the firm as different from studies examining the sample of firms listed on the Borsa Istanbul (BIST) is discussed. Turkey's largest 500 industrial firms are used as the sample. Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ISO) 500 firms, which can be considered as one of the firms with the highest export potential, are discussed. The relationship between export and profitability of the firms whose data can be reached for 20 years in the period of 1998-2017 is revealed by panel cointegration analyzes. As a result of the analysis, a negative relationship is found between export density and profitability. The extra costs of opening to foreign countries and the necessities of maintaining a presence in high competition cause a decrease in the profitability of companies. Turkey’s trade and financial liberalization is based on a recent past, contrary to many developed countries. For this reason, it is thought that the advantages of internationalization have not yet fully reflected on the firms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Export
• Profitability
• ISO 500
• Panel Cointegration

İhracat ve Karlılık İlişkisine ISO 500 Firmaları Örnekleminde Mikro Bir Bakış Açısı

Öz

İşletmelerin ihracata yönelmelerinin, artan üretkenlik ve artan karlılıkla mı yoksa dış ülkelere açılmanın da getirdiği ekstra maliyetler nedeniyle azalan karlılıkla mı sonuçlanacağı en önemli araştırma sorularından biridir. Bu çalışma, ihracatın firmaların finansal performansları üzerindeki etkisini daha önce yaygın olarak Borsa İstanbul’a (BIST) kote olan firmalar örnekleminde inceleyen çalışmalardan farklı olarak Türkiye’nin en büyük 500 sanayi kuruluşu örnekleminde incelemek üzere ele alınmıştır. İhracat potansiyeli en yüksek firmalar arasında sayılabilecek İstanbul Sanayi Odası (ISO) 500 firmalarından 1998-2017 dönemi 20 yıllık kesintisiz verilerine ulaşılabilen firma verileri ile ihracat ve karlılık ilişkisi panel eşbütünleşme analizi ile ortaya konulmuştur. Analiz sonucunda ihracat yoğunluğu ile karlılık arasında negatif ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Dış ülkelere açılmanın getirdiği ekstra maliyetler ile birlikte yüksek rekabetin içerisinde varlığını sürdürmenin getirdiği gereklilikler firmaların karlılıklarında düşüşe sebep olmaktadır. Türkiye’nin gerek ticari gerekse finansal anlamda liberalleşme süreci pek çok gelişmiş ülkeye göre yakın bir geçmişe dayanmaktadır. Bu nedenle uluslararasılaşmanın beraberinde getirdiği avantajların firmalara henüz tam anlamıyla yansımadığı düşülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İhracat
• Karlılık
• ISO 500
• Panel Eşbütünleşme

Kaynakça

1. Abor, J. (2011). Do export status and export intensity increase firm performance?. Thunderbird International Business Review, 53(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.20386
2. Anthony, R. N. (1960). The trouble with profit maximization. Harvard Business Review, 38(6), 127-134. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
3. Barkema, H. G. and Vermeulen, F. (1998). International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.2307/256894
4. Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B. and Lawrence, R. Z. (1995). Exporters, jobs, and wages in US manufacturing: 1976-1987. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, 67-119. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534772
5. Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
6. Calabrese, G. C. and Manello, A. (2018). Firm internationalization and performance: Evidence for designing policies. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40, 1221–1242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.01.008
7. Ertürk, M. (2017). İşletme biliminin temel ilkeleri. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
8. Esen, S., Simdi, H. and Erguzel, O. S. (2016). The effect of international trading activities of firms on their financial structure. International Business Research, 9(6), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n6p1

9. Esmeray, A. and Esmeray, M. (2016). The relationship between profit and export performance revisited: Evidence from Turkish companies. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3), 1035-1037. Retrieved from https://avesis.erciyes.edu.tr/
10. Fryges, H. and Wagner, J. (2010). Exports and profitability: First evidence for German manufacturing firms. World Economy, 33(3), 399-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2010.01261.x
11. Ghoshal, S. (1987). Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5), 425-440. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250080503
12. Girma, S., Görg, H. and Strobl, E. (2004). Exports, international investment, and plant performance: Evidence from a non-parametric test. Economics Letters, 83(3), 317-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2003.10.024
13. Grazzi, M. (2012). Export and firm performance: Evidence on productivity and profitability of Italian companies. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 12(4), 413-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-011-0102-9
14. Groen, J. and Kleibergen, F. (2003). Likelihood-based cointegration analysis in panels of vector error- correction models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21(2), 295-318, https://doi.org/10.1198/073500103288618972
15. Hout, T. M., Porter, M. E. and Rudden, E. (1982). How global companies win out. Harvard Business Review, 60(5), 98–108. Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/
16. Hsu, W. T., Chen, H. L. and Cheng, C. Y. (2013). Internationalization and firm performance of SMEs: The moderating effects of CEO attributes. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.001
17. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2
18. Keskin, H. İ. ve Aksoy, E. (2019). OECD ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde gelir artışı ve işgücüne katılım arasındaki ilişki: Panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 54(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.19.02.1077
19. Kneller, R. and Pisu, M. (2010). The returns to exporting: evidence from UK firms. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D'économique, 43(2), 494-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5982.2010.01581.x
20. Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069293
21. Kuivalainen, O. and Sundqvist S. (2007). Profitability of rapid internationalization: The relationship between internationalization intensity and firms export performance. Journal of Euromarketing, 16(1/2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J037v16n01_05
22. Lu, J. W. and Beamish, P. W. (2006). SME internationalization and performance: Growth vs. profitability. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 27-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10843-006-8000-7
23. Majocchi, A. and Zucchella, A. (2003). Internationalization and performance: Findings from a set of Italian SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 23(1), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426030213001
24. Miller, S., Lavie D. and Delios A. (2016). International intensity, diversity, and distance: Unpacking the internationalization-performance relationship. International Business Review, 25(4), 907-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.12.003
25. Okuyan, H. A. (2013). Türkiye'deki en büyük 1000 sanayi firmasının karlılık analizi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 4(2), 23. Erişim adresi https://www.berjournal.com/tr/
26. Pacheco, L. (2019). Internationalization effects on performance: The case of the Portuguese textile and wearing firms. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 11(1), 1-15. Retrieved from https://ojs.cnr.ncsu.edu/
27. Pangarkar, N. (2008). Internationalization and performance of small-and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of World Business, 43(4), 475-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2007.11.009
28. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0435). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
29. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
30. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. and Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted lm test of error cross section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
31. Sambharya, R. B. (1996). Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of US multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 739-746. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
32. Singla, C. and George R. (2013). Internationalization and performance: A contextual analysis of Indian firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2500-2506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.041
33. Srithanpong, T. (2014). Exports, Imports, and profitability in Thai manufacturing: Evidence from establishment-level analysis. International Business Research, 7(12), 77. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n12p77
34. Temouri, Y., Vogel, A. and Wagner, J. (2013). Self-selection into export markets by business services firms–Evidence from France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 25, 146-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2012.02.004
35. Topal, B. Tunahan, H. and Esen, S. (2014, September). The relation between export and profitability: An analysis on top 1000 exporters in Turkey. Papers presented at 3rd International Symposium on Accounting and Finance. Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mehmet_Fatih_Bayramoglu/publication/303488018_Relations_between_Borsa_Istanbul_and_Tokyo_Stock_Exchange/links/574555db08ae9f741b408aca/Relations-between-Borsa-Istanbul-and-Tokyo-Stock-Exchange.pdf#page=170
36. Tunahan, H., Esen, S. ve Topal, B. (2015). Sahiplik yapısı ve ihracat yoğunluğunun firmaların karları üzerindeki etkisi. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 93-109. Erişim adresi: http://siyasetekonomiyonetim.org/
37. Tran, Q. T., Vu, H. and Holmes, M. (2014). Exports and profitability-a note from quantile regression approach. Applied Economics Letters, 21(6), 442-445. https://doi.org//10.1080/13504851.2013.866197
38. Vithessonthi, C. (2016). Capital investment, internationalization, and firm performance: Evidence from Southeast Asian countries. Research in International Business and Finance, 38, 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.04.019
39. Vu, H., Holmes, M., Lim, S. and Tran, T. (2014). Exports and profitability: A note from quantile regression approach. Applied Economics Letters, 21(6), 442-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.866197
40. Vogel, A. and Wagner, J. (2009). Exports and profitability: first evidence for German business services enterprises (Working Paper Series in Economics 129). Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/30246/1/60801771X.pdf
41. Wagner, J. (2014). Is export diversification good for profitability? First evidence for manufacturing enterprises in Germany. Applied Economics, 46(33), 4083-4090. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.950797
42. Wagner, J. (2012). Exports, imports, and profitability: First evidence for manufacturing enterprises. Open Economies Review, 23(5), 747-765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-011-9235-z
43. Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930500243019
44. Westerlund, J. and Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
45. Yalçıner, K. (2012). Uluslararası Finansman (1.bs.). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık
46. Yalçınkaya, Ö. ve Aydın, H. İ. (2017). Doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkileri: Seçili yükselen piyasa ekonomileri örneği (1992-2015). Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 39-64. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aicusbed
47. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2013). İleri Panel Veri Analizi (1.bs.). İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi
48. Yıldız, Y. (2018). İhracat yoğunluğu, Ar-Ge yatırımları ve firma performansı: Türkiye örneği. Ege Akademik Bakis, 18(2), 307-319. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2018237357
49. Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D. and Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 925-950. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556420
50. Zeren, F. (2015). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların CO2 emisyonuna etkisi: Kirlilik hale hipotezi mi kirlilik cenneti hipotezi mi?. Journal of Yaşar University, 10(37), 6381-6477. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.97848