COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE ANALYSIS FOR TURKISH GRAPE AND CHERRIES EXPORT MARKET

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 75 - 86, 08.12.2018

Rahmiye Figen Ceylan , Cengiz Sayın , Burhan Ozkan , Metin Göksel Akpınar , Eda İlbasmış

Öz

Fresh fruits and vegetables production and
exports is important for national income composition in Turkey. Turkey, while
being a net exporter, faces increasing competition from emerging markets as
well as the existing competitors. Despite the Mediterranean supremacy in the
fresh vegetables market, fruits market faces overseas competition. While, Chile
and the USA rank as the first and the second for grape market, Turkey ranks as
the eight. In addition, following the USA, Chile and Hong Kong, Turkey is in the
fourth rank for cherries. With this point of view, it was considered as a
necessity to overview the changing position of Turkish exports according to
main export competitors. Accordingly, it was aimed to measure competitiveness
of cherries and grapes (raisins included). Revealed competitiveness of Turkish
grape market indicated that, Turkey was more advantageous than its competitors
when imports were considered as well as exports, leaving Egypt and Greece
behind. Yet, this RC index was estimated against exchange rates for 9 competing
countries between 2008 and 2016. The results revealed that, cross sectional
differences were visible in estimation of RC of Turkey and devaluation or
valuation of currencies affect export performance as expected. When the same
measurement was made for cherries market, Turkey again appeared as competitive.
Only Poland was superior to Turkey in some specific years. However, estimation
of revealed competitiveness of Turkey did not yield an interpretable result due
to repetitive structure of competing country exchange rates, which are
completely EU members. Consequently, the findings indicated that Turkey has
advantages in grape and cherries markets. Yet, the share of these products in
overall fruit exports and potential market lines should be extended. This is
also necessary to cope with the exchange rate risks as well.

Anahtar Kelimeler

export competition, indices, grape, cherries, Turkey

Kaynakça

• Miran, B., Atış, E., Kenanoğlu Bektaş, Z., Cankurt, M., Bayaner, A., Karabat, S. 2015. Uluslararası kuru üzüm piyasasında rekabet edebilirlik üzerine bir araştırma. Tarım Ekonomisi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1): 40-47. (A research on competitiveness in international raisins market, Journal of Agricultural Research)Duran, M. 2003. Üzüm etüdü. İstanbul Ticaret Odası Dış Ticaret Araştırma Servisi. Mart 2003, 1-41. (Grape research. Foreign Trade Research Unit of Istanbul Chamber of Commerce)
• FAO, 2012. FAOSTAT Statistical database. (http://www.fao.org). Accessed: 25.09.2014.
• Cebeci, E. and Akin, A. 2012. Mersin ili üzüm ihracatının Türkiye ekonomisi içindeki yeri ve öneminin değerlendirilmesi. COMU J Agric. Fac. 2014: 2 (2): 119–129. (Assessment of place and importance of grape exports of Mersin province in Turkish economy)
• FAO, 2016. FAOSTAT Statistical Database. (http://www.fao.org). (accessed: 07.08.2018).
• Müller, C., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Glasbergen, P. 2009. Perceptions on the demand side and realities on the supply side: A Study of the South African table grape export industry. Sustainable Development Sust. Dev. 17, 295–310.
• Gul, M., Kart, M.C.O., Yilmaz, S.G., 2016. Uzunkaya, K. Opportunities and constraints for cherry exporters in Turkey.
• Cercinli Oz, F. and Bal, T. 2016. İhracatçı açısından Isparta ili kiraz ihracatının analizi. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Mustafa Kemal University. 21(1):71-82. (Analysis of cherries exports of Isparta province from exporters’ view)
• Anonymous. 2015. Trademap, 2015, Trade Statistics for International Business Development, http://www.trademap.org (accessed: 20.01.2016)
• UN Comtrade, 2018, data withdrawn from: https://comtrade.un.org/ (accessed: 07.2018).
• Balassa, B. 1965. Trade liberalisation and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 33(1)99-123.
• French, S. 2017. Revealed comparative advantage: What is it good for? Journal of International Economics 106 (2017) 83–103.
• Jaimovich, E. and Merella V. 2015. Love for quality, comparative advantage, and trade. Journal of International Economics 97 (2015) 376–391.
• Vollrath, L. T. 1987. Revealed competitive advantage for wheat. Economic Research Service Staff Report No: AGES861030, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.
• Vollrath, L. T. 1989. Competitiveness and protection in world agriculture. Agricultural Information Bulletin No: 567, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.
• Vollrath, L. T. 1991. A theoretical evaluation of alternative trade intensity measures of revealed comparative advantage. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 127 (2): 263-280.
• Vollrath, L. T. and De Huu Vo 1990. Agricultural competitiveness in an independent world. In: ‘Agriculture and Governments in an Independent World’. International Association of Agricultural Economists Occasional Paper No: 5 (Aldershot: Gower)
• Ferto, Imre and Hubbard, L. J. 2003. Revealed Comparative advantage and competitiveness in Hungarian agri-food sectors. The World Economy 26(2): 247-259.Serin, Vildan; and Civan, A. 2008. Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness: A case study for Turkey towards the EU. Journal of Economic and Social Research 10(2): 25-41.
• Anonymous. 2018a. Official exchange rates from Central Bank of Turkey, (http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/kurlar/kurlar_tr.html (accessed: 05.08.2018)
• Anonymous. 2018b. Official exchange rates from Central Bank of Egypt, http://www.cbe.org.eg/en/EconomicResearch/Statistics/Pages/OfficialRatesHistorical.aspx (accessed: 05.08.2018)
• Arellano, M. 2003. Panel data econometrics. Oxford University Press, New York, 231 pp.
• Levin A., Lin, C.F. and Chu, C. J. 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 108 (revise version of 1992’s work):1-24.
• Levin, A. and Lin, C.F. 1992. Unit root test in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Discussion paper: 92-93, Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego (PDF) Panel unit root tests: A review. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252756953_Panel_Unit_Root_Tests_A_Review [accessed Aug 14 2018].
• Levin, A. and Lin, C.F. 1993. Unit root test in panel data: new results. Discussion paper, 93-56, Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego. (PDF) Panel Unit Root Tests: A Review. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252756953_Panel_Unit_Root_Tests_A_Review [accessed Aug 14 2018].
• Pedroni, P. 1999. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Special Issue (1999): 0305-9049.
• Breusch, T and Pagan, A. 1979. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5): 1287-94.
• Godfrey, L. 1978. Testing against general autoregressive and moving average error models when the regressors include lagged dependent variables. Econometrica, 1978, vol. 46, issue 6, 1293-1301.
• Baltagi, Badi H. 2005. Econometric analysis of panel data /ISBN 0-470-01456-3
• Deardorff, A.V. 2013. Growth or decline of comparative advantage. Journal of Macroeconomics 38(2013): 12–18.
• Eaton, J., Kortum, S., 2002. Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70(5): 1741–1779.Utkulu, U. and Seymen, E., 2004. Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness: evidence for Turkey vis-à-vis the EU/15. Presented at the European Trade Study Group 6th Annual Conference, ETSG 2004, Nottingham, September 2004.
• Sahinli, M., 2014. Revealed Comparative advantage and competitiveness: Turkey agriculture sector. YYU J AGR SCI, 2014, 24(3): 210-217.
• Gujarati, D. N., 2003. Basic Econometrics. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.