The potential effects of the Zangezur Corridor on Türkiye’s foreign trade

Öz

The Zangezur corridor connects Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. An exclave of Azerbaijan. After the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, the obstacles to opening the Zangezur corridor were solved through the ceasefire agreement. Implementing the Zangezur corridor will shorten the route used nowadays by the Baku—Tiflis—Kars railway by almost 150 km. For this reason, it is thought that this corridor would decrease transportation costs and increase trade volumes. Türkiye, which will have direct land contact with Turkic countries, is the country of one of the most prominent effects of the opening of the Zangezur corridor. The main objective of this study is to determine the effect of Türkiye’s trade volumes on the opening of the Zangezur corridor. To investigate this, the study constructs a built-in structural gravity model with a new economic geography perspective covering 182 countries from 2007 to 2023. Then, the coefficient values obtained from the model are used to determine the possible change in Türkiye's trade with nine Asian countries that are expected to use this corridor directly. According to the results, it is expected that Türkiye’s top three export-enlarging countries, respectively, are Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan, which will be import-enlarging Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Uzbekistan.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• zangezur corridor
• international trade
• international economics
• political economy
• structural gravity model

Zangezur Koridorunun Türkiye'nin dış ticareti üzerindeki potansiyel etkileri

Öz

Zengezur koridoru. Azerbaycan ile Azerbaycan'ın bir eksklavı olan Nahçıvan Özerk Cumhuriyeti'ni birbirine bağlamaktadır. 2020 Dağlık Karabağ Savaşı'ndan sonra Zengezur koridorunun açılmasının önündeki engeller ateşkes anlaşmasıyla çözülmüştü. Zengezur koridorunun hayata geçirilmesi günümüzde Bakü-Tiflis-Kars demiryolunun kullandığı güzergâhı yaklaşık 150 km kısaltacaktır. Bu nedenle bu koridorun taşıma maliyetlerini düşüreceği ve ticaret hacmini artıracağı düşünülmektedir. Türki ülkelerle doğrudan kara teması kuracak olan Türkiye. Zangezur koridorunun açılmasının en belirgin etkilerinden birinin yaşanacağı ülkedir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı. Türkiye'nin ticaret hacminin Zangezur koridorunun açılması üzerindeki etkisini belirlemektir. Bunu araştırmak için çalışmada. 2007-2023 yılları arasında 182 ülkeyi kapsayan yeni bir ekonomik coğrafya perspektifiyle yerleşik bir yapısal çekim modeli oluşturulmuştur. Daha sonra modelden elde edilen katsayı değerleri. Türkiye'nin bu koridoru doğrudan kullanması beklenen dokuz Asya ülkesi ile ticaretindeki olası değişimi belirlemek için kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre. Türkiye'nin ihracatını artıran ilk üç ülkenin sırasıyla Ermenistan. Azerbaycan ve Türkmenistan. ithalatını artıran ülkelerin ise Azerbaycan. Ermenistan ve Özbekistan olması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• zangezur koridoru
• uluslararası ticaret
• uluslararası iktisat
• politik iktisat
• yapısal çekim modeli

Kaynakça

1. Acicbe, C., (2020). The events in zangezur from 1918 to 1921 and the transfer of Zangezur to Armenia. Review of Armenian Studies. 42(42). 151–167.
2. Agayev, M., (2023). Assessing the importance of new corridors in the South Caucasus in the context of the Russian- Ukrainian war (CESD press publications).
3. Anderson, J., E., and van Wincoop E., (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review. 93 (1): 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455214
4. Aracioğlu, B., and Esmer. S. (2023). The effects of Zangezur Corridor on Türkiye’s eastern mediterranean ports hinterland. Journal of Maritime Research: Amphora. 2(4). 1–16.
5. Ateş, E., (2024). Kuşak- yol girişimi ve Türkiye (Suat Beylur (ed.); 1st ed.). Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Uluslararası Türk-Kazak Üniversitesi Avrasya Araştırma Enstitüsü (ERI).
6. Ateş, E., and Seymen, D., (2022). Bir kuşak bir yol girişimi ve Türkiye: Türkiye girişime dâhil olmalı mı? One Belt One Road Initiative and Turkey: Should Turkey Be Involved in the Initiative? Akademik Bakış. 31(16). 279–301.
7. Azizi, H., and Isachenko, D. (2023). Turkey-Iran rivalry in the changing geopolitics of the South Caucasus. In SWP Comment. No.49 (49; SWP Comment. Issue 49). https://doi.org/10.18449/2023C49
8. Baldwin, R., and Taglioni, D. (2007). Trade effects of the Euro: a comparison of estimators. Journal of Economic Integration. 22(4). 780–818. https://doi.org/10.11130/jei.2007.22.4.780

9. Bosker, M., and Garretsen, H. (2010). Trade costs in empirical new economic geography. Papers in Regional Science. 89(3). 485–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00314.x
10. Breusch, T. S., and Pagan, A. R. (1979). A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation. Econometrica. 47(5). 1287–1294.
11. Tunalı Çalışkan, E. and Kaya, A. A. (2015). Yeni ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımı çerçevesinde işgücünün hareketliliği: Avrupa Birliği uygulaması. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi. 6(1). 37. https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.45984
12. Chedia, A. R. (2024). Zangezur Corridor: economic potential and political constraints. Russia in Global Affairs. 22(1). 194–216. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2024-22-1-194-216
13. Commonspace, (2020). Document: Full text of the agreement between the leaders of Russia. Armenia and Azerbaijan. Commonspace Web Site. https://www.commonspace.eu/news/document-full-text-agreement-between-leaders-russia-armenia-and-azerbaijan
14. Dadaşlı, R., and Valiyev, O. (2024). Debating on transport corridors of Azerbaijan in the context of globalization. Universal Journal of History and Culture. 6(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.52613/ujhc.1411712
15. Dadparvar, S., and Kaleji, V. (2024). The Persian Gulf-Black Sea international transport and transit corridor: goals and constraints. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies. 26(2). 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2023.2233360
16. Diriöz, A. O. (2022). An energy-focused alternative and complementary route to the Silk Road. Eurasian Research Journal. 4(2). 7–22. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2022.2-01
17. Eldem, T. (2022). Russia’s war on Ukraine and the rise of the Middle Corridor as a third vector of Eurasian connectivity. Connecting Europe and Asia via Central Asia. The Caucasus. and Turkey (64; 64/2022). https:// doi.org/10.18449/2022C64
18. Garciá-Pérez, G., Bogunã, M., Allard, A., and Serrano, M. Á. (2016). The hidden hyperbolic geometry of international trade: World Trade Atlas 1870-2013. Scientific Reports. 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33441
19. Gawliczek, P., and iskandarov, khayal. (2023). The Zangezur corridor as part of the global transport route (against the backdrop of power games in the South Caucasus region). Security and Defence Quarterly. 41(1). 36–53. https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/161993
20. Gulahmadov, M.. and Hajiyeva, N. (2023). the geopolitical implication of the Zangazur Corridor: a driver for regional advancement and linkage. Agora International Journal of Economical Sciences. 17(2). 47–53. https://doi.org/10.15837/aijes.v17i2.6441
21. Gulahmadov, M., and Huseyn, R. (2023). The Zangazur Corridor as the new haulage hub for integration and cooperation in the South Caucasus. Business & IT. XIII(1). 121–128. https://doi.org/10.14311/bit.2023.01.14
22. Ismailzade, F., and Babayev, B. (2021). The economic importance of the South Caucasus Zangazur Corridor. In Compass Policy Brief (121335; Compass Policy Brief. Issue 121335). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/121335/
23. J. B. Ramsey, (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 31(2). 350–371.
24. Jabbarov, A., Abbasova, S., and Tanrıverdi, H. (2022). Zəngəzur-Naxçivan-İstanbul marşrutu üzrə regional əməkdaşliq perspektivləri. Uluslararası Turizm. Ekonomi ve İşletme Bilimleri Dergisi. 6(1). 42–52.
25. Karimov, S. I. ogly. (2024). Political opportunities and risks of opening the Zangezur Corridor. its role in increasing transport connectivity in the South Caucasus. Общество: Политика. Экономика. Право. 6(4). 41–46. https://doi.org/10.24158/pep.2024.4.6
26. Kaya, E., Karakuş, Y., and Onat, G. (2024). Azerbaijan and Turkey’s tourism ties: the role of Zangezur Corridor. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Issues. 6(1). 16–27. https://doi.org/10.51525/johti.1406400
27. Kazancı, B. A., and Barun, İ. K. (2023). İpek Yolu üzerinde alternatif güzergâhın Türkiye açısından önemi: olası Türk Koridoru. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences. 25(2). 570–581.
28. Koolaee, E., and Rashidi, A. (2024). The Zangezur Corridor and threats to the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the South Caucasus e Zangezur Corridor and reats to the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the South Caucasus. Caucasus Analytical Digest. 136(1). 3–6. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000657553
29. Leyla. J, (2023). The assessment of potential passenger transportation through east Zangezur-Nakhchıvan tourism route. Azerbaijan Technical University.
30. Linders, G. J. M.. Burger, M. J. and Van Oort, F. G. (2008). A rather empty world: the many faces of distance and the persistent resistance to international trade. Cambridge Journal of Regions. Economy and Society. 1(3). 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsn019
31. Mustafayev, B., and Sadıgova,N. (2022). Giving Zangezur to Armenians by the Russians in history and recent developments. Electronic Turkish Studies. 17(6). 1585–1601.
32. Ottaviano, G. I. P. (1999). Integration, geography and the burden of history. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 29(2). 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-0462(98)00038-6
33. Özpay, G. (2018). Bakü-Tiflis-Kars demiryolu ve Türkiye açisindan jeopolitik önemi The Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway and its geopolitical importance in terms of Turkey. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi / Marmara Geographical Review. 37. 103–111.
34. Peace Building and Human Rights, (2021). Implementation review of the 2020 ceasefire terms between Armenia And Azerbaijan.
35. Saha, D., Giucci, R., Lucke, M., Kirchner, R., Movchan, V., and Zachmann, G. (2018). The economic effect of a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on Armenia and Azerbaijan. In Berlin Economics.
36. Sultanova, A., and Rahimov, R. (2024). EasyChair Preprint East-West transport corridor for Azerbaijan importance and geo-economic interests (12502).
37. The Official Web Site of The President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, (2020). Statement by the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and President of the Russian Federation. https://president.az/en/articles/view/45923
38. TRT Avaz, (2024). Zengezur Koridoru’na uzanan kara ve demir yollarının inşaatı aralıksız sürüyor. TRT Avaz Web Site. https://www.trtavaz.com.tr/haber/tur/avrasyadan/zengezur-koridoruna-uzanan-kara-ve-demir-yollarinin-insaati-araliksiz-suruyor/659d03607b6096f62a6e8d87
39. Tunalı Çalışkan, E.. and Kaya, A. A. (2018). Yeni ekonomik coğrafya ekosistemi ve akış diyagramları. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar. 644(1). 77–100.
40. Valiyev, J. (2023). The role of the existing Middle Corridor and the planned Zahngazur Corridor in the economy of Azerbaijan. 13th International Scientific and Practical Conference «Scientific Horizon in the Context of Social Crises». 144. 34–42.
41. White, H., (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 48(4). 817–838.