AVRUPA ÜLKELERİNDE İNOVASYON VE DIŞ TİCARET ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada inovasyonun dış ticaret üzerindeki etkisi Avrupa ülkeleri örneğinde 2000-2017 dönemi verileri temel alınarak ve panel veri yöntemleri kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada inovasyon göstergesi olarak Ar-Ge yoğunluğu kullanılmış olup, dış ticarete ilişkin ise ihracat yoğunluğu, ithalat yoğunluğu ve ihracatın ithalatı karşılama oranı değişkenleri dikkate alınmıştır. Değişkenlerin durağan olmadıklarına işaret eden birim kök testi sonuçları ve model parametrelerinin ülkelere göre heterojenliği dikkate alınarak inovasyon ve dış ticaret değişkenleri arasındaki ilişki Westerlund (2007) HDM koentegrasyon testi ve Pesaran (2006) CCEMG modeli çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Westerlund (2007) HDM koentegrasyon testi sonucunda, inovasyon ile her üç dış ticaret değişkeninin koentegre olduğu bulunmuştur. Pesaran (2006) CCEMG yöntemi dâhilinde ihracat, ithalat ve ihracatın ithalatı karşılama oranı için tahmin edilen modellerden ise sadece ilkinde inovasyonun dış ticaret üzerinde etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Bulgular hem uzun hem de kısa dönemde inovasyonun ihracatı pozitif yönde etkilediğini gösterirken, ithalatı ve ihracatın ithalatı karşılama oranını etkilemediğine işaret etmektedir. Bununla birlikte CCEMG modeli ile yapılan tahminlerle, inovasyon ve dış ticaret değişkenleri arasındaki ilişkinin ülkelere göre farklılık gösterdiği, Türkiye için ise bu ilişkinin desteklenmediği görülmüştür. Elde edilen sonuçlar, ülkelere göre farklılıkların olduğuna işaret etmekle birlikte ihracat artışına ilişkin politika hedefleri belirleyen ülkelerin inovasyonu destekleyici tedbirleri de dikkate almaları gerektiğini göstermektedir. Böyle bir tercih kalıcı rekabet üstünlüğünü destekleyen inovasyon ve teknolojik yetenek birikimine katkı sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnovasyon
• dış ticaret
• panel koentegrasyon
• CCEMG tahmincileri
• Avrupa ülkeleri

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INNOVATION AND FOREIGN TRADE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Öz

This study investigates the effect of innovation on foreign trade in European countries for the period of 2000-2017 using panel data methods. R&D intensity was used as an indicator of innovation, and export intensity, import intensity and the ratio of exports to imports were considered as foreign trade indicators. Considering the results of unit root tests indicating the nonstationary of the variables and the heterogeneity of parameters across countries, the relationship between innovation and foreign trade variables was examined by using Westerlund (2007) HDM cointegration test and Pesaran (2006) CCEMG model. Westerlund (2007) HDM cointegration test showed that innovation and all three foreign trade variables are cointegrated. Among the models estimated for exports, imports, and the ratio of exports to imports within the framework of Pesaran (2006) CCEMG method, it was found that innovation affects foreign trade only in the first model. These findings supports that innovation influences exports positively in both the long and short run. However, innovation did not influence imports and the ratio of exports to imports. Furthermore, the CCEMG model showed that the relationship between innovation and foreign trade variables varies across countries, while this relationship was not supported for Turkey. The results indicate that although there are differences across countries, when setting policy targets for export growth, they should also consider measures to support innovation. It is thought that such a preference will contribute to the innovation and technological capability accumulation that support permanent competitive advantage. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Innovation
• Foreign Trade
• Panel cointegration
• CCEMG Estimators
• European Countries
• Innovation

Kaynakça

1. Alarcón, S., & Sánchez, M. (2016). Is there a virtuous circle relationship between innovation activities and exports? A comparison of food and agricultural firms. Food Policy, 61, 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.004
2. Basile, R. (2001). Export behaviour of Italian manufacturing firms over the nineties: The role of innovation. Research Policy, 30(8), 1185-1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00141-4
3. Bernard, A. B., Eaton, J., Jensen, J. B., & Kortum, S. (2003). Plants and productivity in international trade. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1268-1290. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803769206296
4. Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both? Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(98)00027-0
5. Bernard, A. B., & Wagner, J. (1997). Exports and success in German manufacturing. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 133, 134-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02707680
6. Bojnec, Š., & Fertő, I. (2011). Impacts of research and development on manufacturing trade. Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, 29(1), 65-88.
7. Chudik, A., Pesaran, M. H., & Tosetti, E. (2011). Weak and strong cross-section dependence and estimation of large panels. Econometrics Journal, 14, C45-C90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2010.00330.x
8. Cipollina, M., Demaria, F., & Pietrovito, F. (2016). Determinants of trade: The role of innovation in presence of quality standards. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 16, 455-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-016-0234-z

9. Clerides, S. K., Lach, S., & Tybout, J. R. (1998). Is 'learning-by-exporting' important? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 903-947. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555784
10. D’Angelo, A. (2012). Innovation and export performance: A study of Italian high-tech SMEs. Journal of Management & Governance, 16, 393-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9157-y
11. DiPietro, W. R., & Anoruo, E. (2006). Creativity, innovation, and export performance. Journal of Policy Modeling, 28(2), 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2005.10.001
12. Dohse, D., & Niebuhr, A. (2018). How different kinds of innovation affect exporting. Economics Letters, 163, 182-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.12.017
13. Dünya Bankası, Dünya Kalkınma Göstergeleri Veritabanı. (çevrim içi). 05.01.2019 tarihinde https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators adresinden erişilmiştir.
14. Everaert, G., & Groote, T. D. (2016). Common correlated effects estimation of dynamic panels with cross-sectional dependence. Econometric Reviews, 35(3), 428-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.966635
15. Fagerberg, J. (1988). International competitiveness. The Economic Journal, 98(391), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233372
16. Ghazalian, P., & Furtan, W. H. (2007). The effect of innovation on agricultural and agri-food exports in OECD countries. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 32(3), 448-461. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40982690
17. Greenhalgh, C. (1990). Innovation and trade performance in the United Kingdom. The Economic Journal, 100(400), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234188
18. Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Yeaple, S. R. (2004). Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Economic Review, 94(1), 300-316. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282804322970814
19. Kapetanios, G., Pesaran, M. H., & Yagamata, T. (2011). Panels with nonstationary multifactor error structures. Journal of Econometrics, 160(2), 326-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.10.001
20. Karakaya, A., Ağazade, S., & Perçin, S. (2017). Türk imalat sanayinde ihracat ve inovasyon arasındaki ilişki. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 3(2), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.326740
21. Krugman, P. R. (1979). Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. Journal of International Economics, 9(4), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1996(79)90017-5
22. Lachenmaier, S., & Wößmann, L. (2006). Does innovation cause exports? Evidence from exogenous innovation impulses and obstacles using German micro data. Oxford Economic Papers, 58(2), 317-350. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpi043
23. Landesmann, M., & Pfaffermayr, M. (1997). Technological competition and trade performance. Applied Economics, 29(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368497327254
24. Levin, A., & Lin, C-F. (1992). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. UC San Diego Working Paper, 92-123.
25. Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra‐industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695-1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00467
26. Montobbio, F., & Rampa, F. (2005). The impact of technology and structural change on export performance in nine developing countries. World Development, 33(4), 527-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.001
27. Nazlıoğlu, Ş. (2010). Makro iktisat politikalarının tarım sektörü üzerindeki etkisi: Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler için bir karşılaştırma. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
28. Oliviero, A. C., & Medda, G. (2020). Linkages between R&D, innovation, investment and export performance: Evidence from European manufacturing firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(12), 1379-1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1769841
29. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge WP 0435 In Economics.
30. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
31. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A sample panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
32. Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Reviews, 34(6-10), 1089-1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623
33. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
34. Pla-Barber, J., & Alegre, J. (2007). Analysing the link between export intensity, innovation and firm size in a science-based industry. International Business Review, 16(3), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.02.005
35. Posner, M. (1961). International trade and technical change. Oxford Economic Papers, 13(3), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a040877
36. Roberts, M., & Tybout, J. (1997). The decision to export in Colombia: An empirical model of entry with sunk costs. American Economic Review, 87(4), 545-564.
37. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
38. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
39. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2017). Panel zaman serileri analizi: Stata uygulamalı. Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
40. Vernon, V. (1966), International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190-207. https://doi.org/10.2307/1880689
41. Verspagen, B., & Wakelin, K. (1997). Trade and technology from a Schumpeterian perspective. International Review of Applied Economics, 11(2), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692179700000012
42. Wagner, J. (2002). The causal effect of exports on firm size and labor productivity: First evidence from a matching approach. Economics Letters, 77(2), 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781786349699_0005
43. Wakelin, K. (1998a). The role of innovation in bilateral OECD trade performance. Applied Economics, 30(10), 1335-1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368498324959
44. Wakelin, K. (1998b). Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level. Research Policy, 26(7–8), 829-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00051-6
45. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x