İlişkili – İlişkisiz Çeşitlilik ve Gelir Dağılımı: Türkiye’de Düzey-2 Bölgeleri için Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de 26 Düzey-2 bölgesi bazında ilişkili ve ilişkisiz ihracat çeşitliliği ile gelir dağılımı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesidir. Bu amaçla, Türkiye için şimdiye kadar ex-ante ölçütler üzerinden yapılan hesaplamalardan farklı olarak ex-post bir yaklaşım kullanılarak 2014-2020 yılları arasını kapsayan dönem için yıllar itibarıyla ilişkili ve ilişkisiz çeşitlilik değerleri hesaplanmıştır. Analiz bulgularına göre Türkiye'de ilişkili çeşitlilik ve gelir dağılımı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki yokken, Türkiye’nin nispeten gelişmiş batı bölgelerinde ilişkisiz çeşitliliğin artması portföy etkisi üzerinden gelir dağılımını olumlu yönde etkilemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İlişkili çeşitlilik
• İlişkisiz çeşitlilik
• Gelir dağılımı
• Gini katsayısı
• İBBS-2
• Türkiye

Related – Unrelated Variety and Income Distribution: An Analysis of NUTS-2 Regions in Turkey

Öz

This study aims to examine the relationship between related and unrelated export variety and income distribution for 26 NUTS-2 regions in Turkey. Unlike the ex-ante measures of previous studies for Turkey, related and unrelated export variety calculations have been carried out by an ex-post measure for the 2014-2020 period. According to the findings, while there is no significant relationship between related variety and income distribution in Turkey, the increase in unrelated variety in the relatively developed western regions positively affects income distribution through the portfolio effect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Related variety
• Unrelated variety
• Income distribution
• Gini coefficient
• NUTS-2
• Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (2002). The political economy of the Kuznets Curve. Review of Development Economics, 6(2), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9361.00149
2. Ak, M. Z. ve Altıntaş, N. (2016). Kuznets’in ters u eğrisi bağlamında Türkiye’de gelir eşitsizliği ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: 1986-2012. Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 93-102. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/finance/
3. Akalin, G., Özbek, R. İ. ve Çifçi, İ. (2018). Türkiye’de gelir dağılımı ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(4), 59-76. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iibfdkastamonu
4. Akgüngör, S., Kuştepeli, Y. ve Gülcan, Y. (2013). An overview on industry clusters and the impact of related variety on regional performance in Turkey. European Review of Industrial Economics and Policy, 5, Erişim adresi: http://revel.unice.fr/eriep/index.html?id=3533
5. Balassa, B. (1965). Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
6. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Sixth edition, Switzerland: Springer Texts in Business and Economics.
7. Boschma, R. ve Iammarino, S. (2009). Related Variety, Trade Linkages, and Regional Growth in Italy. Economic Geography, 85, 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01034.x
8. Boschma, R., Minondo, A. ve Navarro, M. (2012). Related variety and regional growth in Spain. Papers in Regional Science, 91(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00387.x

9. Boschma, R., Minondo, A. ve Navarro, M. (2013). The Emergence of New Industries at the Regional Level in Spain: A Proximity Approach Based on Product Relatedness. Economic Geography, 89(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01170.x
10. Bishop, P. ve Gripaios, P. (2010). Spatial externalities, Relatedness and Sector Employment Growth in Great Britain. Regional Studies, 44(4), 443-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400802508810
11. Caragliu, A., de Dominicis, L. ve de Groot H. L. F. (2016). Both Marshall and Jacobs were Right!. Economic Geography. 92(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2015.1094371
12. Castaldi, C., Frenken, K. ve Los B. (2015). Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Technological Breakthroughs: An analysis of US State-Level Patenting. Regional Studies, 49(5), 767-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.940305
13. Celebioglu, F. ve Dall’Erba, S. (2010). Spatial disparities across the regions of Turkey: an exploratory spatial data analysis. Annals of Regional Science, 45, 379–400
14. Content, J. ve Frenken, K. (2016). Related variety and economic development: a literature review. European Planning Studies, 24, 2097–2112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1246517.
15. Çınar, İ. T., Korkmaz, İ. ve Baycan, T. (2022). Regions’ economic fitness and sectoral labor productivity: Evidence from Turkey. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12529.
16. Çınar, İ. T., Korkmaz, İ. ve Şişman, M. Y. (2022). Green Complexity, Economic Fitness, and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from U.S. State-Level Data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19859-8
17. Dawson, P. J. (1997). On testing Kuznets’ economic growth hypothesis. Applied Economics Letters, 4(7), 409-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048597355159
18. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecological economics, 49(4), 431-455.
19. Dişbudak, C. ve Süslü, B. (2007). Türkiye’de gelir dağılımını etkileyen makroekonomik faktörler. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 18(65), 1-23. Erişim adresi: http://acikerisim.mu.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12809/7766/di%20budak.pdf?sequence=1
20. Dulupçu, M. A. (2005). Regionalization for Turkey: An Illusion or a Cure?. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(2), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776405048496
21. Eser, U. ve Köse, S. (2005). Endüstriyel Yerelleşme ve Yoğunlaşma Açısından Türkiye Sanayii: İl İmalat Sanayiilerinin Analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60(2), 97-139.
22. Falcıoğlu, P. (2011). Location and Determinants of Productivity: The Case of the Manufacturing Industry in Turkey. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 47, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.2753/REE1540-496X4706S506
23. Filiztekin, A. ve Çelik, M. A. (2010). Türkiye'de Bölgesel Gelir Eşitisizliği. Megaron, 5(3), 116-127.
24. Frenken, K., van Oort, F. ve Verburg, T. (2007). Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Regional Economic Growth. Regional Studies, 41, 85–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400601120296
25. Fritsch, M. ve Kublina, S. (2018). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional growth: the role of absorptive capacity and entrepreneurship. Regional Studies, 52(10), 1360-1371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1388914
26. Gezici, F. ve Hewings, G. J. (2004). Regional convergence and the economic performance of peripheral areas in Turkey. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 16(2), 113–132.
27. Göcen, S. (2021). Ekonomik Büyüme ve Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi: Türkiye için Bölgesel Bazda Bir İnceleme. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6, 247-265.
28. Haq, I. U. ve Zhu, S. (2019). Does export variety determine economic growth in Pakistan?. Applied Economics Letters. 26(7), 533-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1488036
29. Hartmann, D. (2014). Economic complexity and human development: How economic diversification and social networks affect human agency and welfare. New York: Routledge
30. Hidalgo, C. A. (2021). Economic complexity theory and applications. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(2), 92-113.
31. Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabási, A-L. ve Hausmann, R. (2007). The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science, 317, 482–487. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144581
32. Ikemoto, Y. ve Uehara, M. (2000). Income inequality and Kuznets' Hypothesis in Thailand. Asian Economic Journal, 14(4), 421-443.
33. Karahasan, B. C., Dogruel, F. ve Dogruel, A. S. (2016). Can Market Potential Explain Regional Disparities in Developing Countries? Evidence from Turkey. The Developing Economies, 54(2), 162-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/deve.12105
34. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581?seq=1
35. Lee, J.E. (2006). Inequality and globalization in Europe. Journal of Policy Modeling, 28(7), 791-796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2006.04.013
36. Minami, R. (1998). Economic development and income distribution in Japan: an assessment of the Kuznets hypothesis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22, 39-58.
37. Nielsen, F. ve Alderson, A. S. (1997). The Kuznets Curve and the Great U-Turn: Income Inequality in U.S. Counties, 1970 to 1990. American Sociological Review, 62 (1), 12-33. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2657450
38. Özyıldırım, S. ve Önder, Z. (2008). Banking Activities and Local Output Growth: Does Distance from Centre Matter?. Regional Studies, 42(2), 229-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400601142829
39. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. World Employment Programme Research Working Paper. No: 992927783402676. International Labour Organization. Cenevre.
40. Pinheiro, F. L., Balland, P-A., Boschma, R. ve Hartmann, D. (2022). The Dark Side of the Geography of Innovation. Relatedness, Complexity, and Regional Inequality in Europe. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 22.02. Erişim adresi: http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg2202.pdf
41. Porter, M. (2003). The Economic Performance of Regions. Regional Studies, 37, 549–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108688
42. Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: The Penguin Press.
43. Saviotti, P. P. ve Frenken, K. (2008). Export variety and the economic performance of countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(2), 201-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-007-0081-5
44. Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Tiwari, A. K. ve Sherafatian-Jahromi, R. (2015). Financial Development and Income Inequality: Is There Any Financial Kuznets Curve in Iran?. Social Indicators Research, 124(2), 357-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0801-9
45. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. K. ve Fitoussi, J.P. (2009). The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited: reflections and overview. Erişim adresi: https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/ hal-01069384/document.
46. Thornton, J. (2001). The Kuznets inverted-U hypothesis: panel data evidence from 96 countries. Applied Economics Letters, 8(1), 15-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048501750041213
47. Tokatlıoğlu, İ. ve Atan, M. (2007). Türkiye’de bölgeler arası gelişmişlik düzeyi ve gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği: Kuznets Eğrisi geçerli mi?. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 18(65), 25-58. https://doi.org/10.5455/ey.10642
48. Tomasz, M. ve Paweł, D. (2021). Related and unrelated variety vs. basic labour market variables-regional analysis for Poland. European Planning Studies, 29(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1728520
49. Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı. (2016). Bölgesel Rekabet Gündemlerinin Tasarımı için Araç Seti. Erişim adresi: https://www.tepav.org.tr/upload/files/ 1475761557-1.Bolgesel_Rekabet_Gundemlerinin_Tasarimi_Icin_Arac_Seti.pdf
50. Younsi, M. ve Bechtini, M. (2020). Economic growth, financial development, and income-inequality in BRICS countries: Does Kuznets’ inverted U-shaped curve exist?. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 721-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0569-2.