Türkiye’de Teknolojik Gelişme ve Yüksek Teknolojili İmalat Sanayi Üretiminin İhracat Üzerindeki Etkileri

Öz

Küreselleşme süreci ile beraber, uluslararası piyasalarda rekabet düzeyi artmıştır. Ülkeler sahip oldukları teknolojik gelişme düzeyleri ve yüksek teknolojili sanayi üretimleri ile birlikte, ihraç ettikleri ürünlerin değerini arttırmakta ve uluslararası rekabet üstünlüğü elde edebilmektedirler. Bu çalışma ile Türkiye’nin sahip olduğu teknolojik gelişme düzeyi ve yüksek teknolojili sanayi üretiminin ihracat değeri üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda değişkenlere Zivot ve Andrews yapısal kırılmalı birim kök testi, regresyon analizi, Granger ve frekans alanı nedensellik testi uygulanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında; teknolojik gelişme, yüksek teknolojili sanayi üretimi ve ihracat değerini temsilen; sırasıyla patent başvuru sayıları, kabul edilen patent sayıları, yüksek teknolojili sanayi üretim endeksi ve ihracat değer endeksine ait 2010-2020 dönemini kapsayan aylık veriler kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, teknolojik gelişmelerin ve yüksek teknolojili sanayi üretiminin Türkiye’nin ihracat değer endeksini yükselttiği tespit edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, teknolojik gelişme ve yüksek teknolojili sanayi üretimi arasında iki yönlü, teknolojik gelişmelerden ihracat değer endeksine doğru ise tek yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İhracat Değer Endeksi
• Teknolojik Gelişme
• Yüksek Teknolojili Sanayi Üretimi
• VAR Granger Nedensellik Testi
• Frekans Alanı Nedensellik Testi

The Effects of Technological Development and High-Tech Industrial Production on Export in Turkey

Öz

The level of competition among the countries in the international markets has increased with the globalization process. The countries increase the added value of the products they export and achieve international competitive advantage along with their technological developments and high-tech industrial production. This study investigates the effects of technological developments and high-tech industrial production on export value of Turkey. In this regards, Zivot and Andrews unit root test with structural break, regression analysis, Granger and frequency domain causality test has applied on variables. In the scope of this study, monthly datas of patent applications, patent grants, high-tech industrial production index and export value index between 2010 and 2020 were used. As a result of the study, it is found that the technological developments and high-tech industrial production index increase the export value index in Turkey. On the other hand, it is seen that there is a bidirectional causality between technological development and high-tech industrial production. In addition, it is determined that there is a unidirecitonal causality relationship from technological development to export value index.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Export Value Index
• Technological Development
• High-Tech Industrial Production
• VAR Granger Causality Test
• Frequency Domain Causality Test

Kaynakça

1. Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L. & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069-1085.
2. Akcan, A. T. (2019). İhracat değer endeksi ve yatırım ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği (1982-2017). Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 14(1), 11-18.
3. Alvares, R. & Fuentes, R. (2011). Entry into export markets and product quality. The World Economy, 34, 1237–1262.
4. Amable, B. & Verspagen, B. (1995). The role of technology in market share dynamics. Applied Economics, 27, 197-204.
5. Ang, J. B., Madsen, J. B. & Robertson, P. E. (2015). Export performance of the Asian miracle economies: The role of innovation and product variety. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 48(1), 273-309.
6. Bai, J. (1997). Estimation of a change point in multiple regression models. Review of Economic and Statistics, (79), 551–563.
7. Bai, J. & Perron, P. (1998). Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica, (66), 47–78.
8. Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16, 131-141.

9. Batista, J. C. (2011). Quality and price competition in U.S. Imports. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Economia Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
10. Bayar, G. & Tokpunar, S. (2014). Türkiye imalat sanayi sektörlerinin ihracatı – zaman serisi analizi. Sosyoekonomi, 1, 139-168.
11. Bozkurt, K. (2008). Türk imalat sanayisinde teknolojik gelişme ve ihracat performansı. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 45(522), 91-103.
12. Breitung, J. & Candelon, B. (2006). Testing for short and long run causality: A frequency-domain approach. Journal of Econometrics, (132), 363–378.
13. Chakrabarti, A. K. (1989). Technology indicators: Conceptual issues and measurement problems. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6, 99-116.
14. Chaturvedi, S. & Srinivas, K. R. (2012). Science and technology indicators: New issues and challenges. Current Science, 102(12), 1640-1644.
15. Çetin, R. (2016). Yeni sanayileşen ülkelerde ar-ge harcamaları ve yüksek teknoloji ürünü ihracatı arasındaki ilişkinin panel veri analizi yöntemi ile incelenmesi. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 66(2), 30-43.
16. Çütçü, İ. (2017). İnovasyonun ihracat performansına etkisi: Yatay-kesit analizi uygulaması. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(48), 586-596.
17. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427–431.
18. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072.
19. Di Pietro, W. R. & Anoruo, E. (2006). Creativity, innovation and export performance. Journal of Policy Modeling, 28, 133–139.
20. Dubaric, E., Giannoccaro, D., Bengtsson, R. & Ackermann, T. (2011). Patent data as indicators of wind power technology development. World Patent Information, 33, 144-149.
21. Eaton, J. & Kortum, S. (1996). Trade in ideas patenting and productivity in the OECD. Journal of International Economics, 40, 251-278.
22. Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 55, 251–276.
23. Falvey, R. (1981). Commercial policy and ıntra-ındustry trade. Journal of International Economics, 11(4), 495-511.
24. Falvey, R. & Kierzkowski, H. (1987). Product quality, intra-industry trade and (im)perfect competition. In Kierzkowski, H. (Eds.), Protection and competition in international trade, Basil-Blackwell.
25. Faruq, H. A. (2010). Impact of technology and physical capital on export quality. The Journal of Developing Areas, 44(1), 167-185.
26. Freire-Serén, M. J. (1999). Aggregate r&d expenditure and endogenous economic growth. UFAE and IAE Working Papers 436, Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
27. Flam, H. & Helpman, E. (1987). Vertical product differentiation and north-south trade. The American Economic Review, 77(5), 810-822.
28. Geweke, J. (1982). Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(378), 304-313.
29. Granger, C. W. J (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and crossspectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438.
30. Granger, C. W. J. (1986). Developments in the study of cointegrated economic variables. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), 213–228.
31. Giacchero, A., Donnini, N. & Martin, F. (2006). Innovation and competitiveness in local smes: Characteristics of firms, entrepreneurs, environment and their ınterrelationships. Cantner, U., Malerba, F. (Eds.), Innovation, industrial dynamics and structural transformation: Schumpeterian legacies, (pp.173-186).
32. Griliches, Z. (1998). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. In Griliches, Z. (Eds.), R&D and productivity: The econometric evidence, (pp. 287-343).
33. Gujarati, D. N. (2004), Economics basic econometrics, New York: Mcgraw Hill.
34. Hosoya, Y. (1991). The decomposition and measurement of the interdependency between second-order stationary processes. Probability Theory Relat Fields, 88(4), 429-444.
35. Hummels, D. & Klenow, P. (2005). The variety and quality of a nation’s exports. The American Economic Review, 95(3), 704-723.
36. Jacobsson, S., Oskarsson, C. & Philipson, J. (1996). Indicators of technological activities - comparing educational, patent and r&d statistics in the case of Sweden. Research Policy, 25, 573-585.
37. Jonason, M. (1982). Patent statistics as related to the industrial development trend in Sweden in the period 1925-1936. World Patent Information, 4(1), 3-11.
38. Lall, S. (1993). Understanding technology development. Development and Change, 24, 719-753.
39. Lou, J. & Yan, Z. (2018). The export value added and its influencing factors in China's high-tech manufacturing exports to the United States. Paper presented at the International Conference on Education Technology, Economic Management and Social Sciences (ETEMSS 2018), 23-28.
40. Martinez-Zarzoso, I. & Burguet, C. S. (2000). Measurement of export prices and changes in product quality. International Advances in Economic Research, 6, 619–632.
41. Nelson, R. R. (1981). Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: Dead ends and new departures. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(3), 1029-1064.
42. Phillips, P. & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75, 335-346.
43. Reigado, F. M. (1997). Innovation, technological transfer and entrepreneurial competitiveness. Mitra, J., Formica, P. (Eds.), Innovation and economic development, London: Oak Tree Press, 139-158.
44. Roberts R. E. (1974). Investment in innovation, Washington: National Science Foundation.
45. Scherer F. M. (1965). Firm size, market structure, opportunity and the output of patented ınventions. The American Economic Review, 55(5), 1097-1125.
46. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
47. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credits, interest and the business cycle. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.
48. Smith, K. (1992). Technological innovation indicators: experience and prospects. Science and Public Policy, 19(6), 383-392.
49. Sungur, O., Aydın, H. İ. & Eren, M. V. (2016). Türkiye’de ar-ge, inovasyon, ihracat ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Asimetrik nedensellik analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 173-192.
50. Şahbaz, A., Yanar, R. & Adıgüzel, U. (2014). Ar-Ge harcamaları ve ileri teknoloji mal ihracatı ilişkisi: Panel nedensellik analizi. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(1), 47-60.
51. Tekin, E. & Hancıoğlu, Y. (2018). İnovasyon belirleyicilerinin ihracat performansına etkisi üzerine bir araştırma. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 14(4), 897-917.
52. Wang, L., Zhang, B., Xie, R. & Su, B. (2020). The drivers of export value-added in China’s provinces: A multi-regional input–output model. Applied Economics, 52(57), 6199–6214.
53. Yao, F. & Hosoya, Y. (2000). Inference on one-way effect and evidence in Japanese macroeconomic data. Journal of Econometrics, 98(2), 225–255.
54. Yıldırım, E. & Kesikoğlu, F. (2012). Ar-Ge harcamaları ile ihracat arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri: Türkiye örneğinde panel nedensellik testi kanıtları. Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 32(1), 165-180.
55. Young, A. (2002). Improving measures of government support to industrial technology. Guellec, D. (Eds.), Science technology industry: Special issue on new science and technology indicators, Paris: OECD, 147-183.
56. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251-270.