KUTUPLAŞMA HİPOTEZİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE NAFTA ENTEGRASYONUNUN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 20 Sayı: ICMEB'24 Özel Sayı, 350 - 361, 30.10.2024

Aykut Şarkgüneşi , İrem Binici Ertan

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1504220

Öz

Kutuplaşma hipotezi, farklı gelişmişlik düzeyindeki ülkelerin oluşturduğu ekonomik entegrasyonların, üye
ülkelerdeki gelişmişlik farklarını arttıracağını ileri sürer. Hipotezin temel varsayımı entegrasyondan sonra
kümülatif nedensellik mekanizmaları ile faktör hareketliliğinin çevreden merkeze doğru olacağıdır. Diğer
yandan faktör hareketliliğinin merkezden çevreye doğru olacağını ileri süren görüşler de bulunmaktadır.
Literatürde bu iki hipotezi sınayan çalışmalar çoğunlukla Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkeleri konu almaktadır. Bu
çalışmada kutuplaşma teorisi, Kuzey Amerika Serbest Ticaret Anlaşması (NAFTA-North American Free Trade
Agreement) özelinde incelenmiş, söz konusu entegrasyonun kurulmasıyla üye ülkeler arasındaki gelişmişlik farkı
açığının artıp artmadığı istatistiksel yöntemler ile test edilmiştir. Çalışmada, 1970-2020 yıllarını ve 3 ülkeyi
kapsayan kutuplaşma düzeyi, dışa açıklık, üyeler arasındaki ticaret hacmi ve yabancı sermaye yatırımları
değişkenlerine ait veri seti panel veri analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Kutuplaşma düzeyi, her bir ülke için tüm
GSYH’lerin ortalamasından ilgili ülkenin GSYH’sinin farkının karesi alınarak hesaplanmıştır. Analiz
sonucunda dışa açıklık ve yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının ülkeler arasındaki kutuplaşmayı azalttığı ancak
üyelerin kendi aralarında gerçekleştirdikleri ticaretin kutuplaşmayı artırdığı tespit edilmiştir. Analiz
sonuçlarından yola çıkarak gelişmekte olan ülkelere yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kutuplaşma Hipotezi, Ekonomik Entegrasyon, NAFTA

EVALUATION OF NAFTA INTEGRATION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF POLARIZATION HYPOTHESIS: PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

Öz

The polarization hypothesis suggests that economic integration of countries at different development
levels will increase the development gap between member countries. The basic assumption of the hypothesis is
that after integration, factor mobility will occur from the periphery to the center with cumulative causality
mechanisms. On the other hand, there are also views that suggest that factor mobility will be from the center to
the periphery. Studies testing these two hypotheses in the literature mostly focus on European Union countries.
In this study, polarization theory was examined specifically in the context of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), and it was tested with statistical methods whether the development gap between member
countries increased with the establishment of the said integration. In the study, the data set of the variables of
polarization level, openness, trade volume between members and foreign capital investments, covering the years
1991-2019 and 3 countries, was subjected to panel data analysis. The polarization level was calculated for each
country by squaring the difference of the relevant country's GDP from the average of all GDPs. As a result of
the analysis, it has been determined that openness and foreign capital investments reduce polarization between
countries, but trade between members increases polarization. Based on the analysis results, recommendations
were made for developing countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Polarization Hypothesis, Economic Integration, NAFTA

Kaynakça

• Balassa, B. (1961). The theory of economic integration. Homewood IL: R. D. Irwin.
• Balassa, B. (1976). Types of economic integration. İçinde F. Machlup (Ed.), Economic integration worldwide, regional, sectoral (s. 17-40). Londra: Pelgrave Macmillan.
• Balassa, B. (1991). Economic integration. İçinde J. Eatwell, M. Milgate & P. Newman (Ed.), The world of economics (s. 176-186). Londra: Pelgrave Macmillan.
• Blecker, R. A. (2003). The North American economies after NAFTA: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Political Economy, 33(3), 5-27.
• Blecker, R. A. (2014). The Mexican and U.S. economies after twenty years of NAFTA. International Journal of Political Economy, 43(2), 5-26.
• Boris, D., & Hirschkorn, K. (1996). The north American free trade agreement (NAFTA): The consequences of neoliberal market strategies for Mexico and Canada. Arbeitspapiere der Forschungsgruppe Europäische Gemeinschaften (FEG): Nr. 16.
• Burfisher, M. E., Lambert, F., & Matheson T. (2019). NAFTA to USMCA: What is gained?. IMF Working Paper: WP/19/73.
• Campos-Vázquez, R. (2013). Why did wage inequality decrease in Mexico after NAFTA?. Economía Mexicana NUEVA ÉPOCA, XXII(2), 245-278.
• Dünya Bankası (tarihsiz). https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 18.04.2024.
• Fujita, N. (2004). Gunnar Myrdal’s theory of cumulative causation revisited. Economic Research Center Discussion Paper: No. 147.
• Fujita, N. (2007). Myrdal’s theory of cumulative causation. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 3(2), 275-283.
• Haberler, G. (1964). Integration and growth of the world economy in historical perspective. The American Economic Review, 54(2), 1-22.
• Hanson, G. H. (2003). What has happened to wages in Mexico since NAFTA: Implications for hemispheric free trade. NBER Working Paper Series: No. 9563.
• International Trade Administration (tarihsiz). https://www.trade.gov/usmca sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: Mart 2024.
• Krueger, A. O. (1999). Trade creation and trade diversion under NAFTA. NBER Working Paper Series: No. 7429.
• Krugman, P. (1991). The move toward free trade zones. Economic Review, 76(6), 7-41.
• Krugman, P. (1993). The uncomfortable truth about NAFTA: It's foreign policy, stupid. Foreign Affairs, 72(5), 13-19.
• Kühn, M. (2015). Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 367-378.
• Lizano, E. (1976). Integration of less developed areas and of areas on different levels of development. İçinde F. Machlup (Ed.), Economic integration: Worldwide, regional, sectoral (s. 175-304).
• Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. Londra: Gerald Duckworth.
• Ohr, R. (1995). Divergence or convergence as a consequence of regional integration? - NAFTA's impacts on Mexico. İçinde F. P. Lang, R. Ohr (Ed.), International economic integration (s. 245-263). Germany: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.
• Persyn, D., & Westerlund, J. (2008). Error-correction-based cointegration tests for panel data. The Stata Journal, 8(2), 232-241.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
• Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2008), 50-93.
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Sánchez-Reaza, J. (2003). Economic polarization through trade: Trade liberalization and regional growth in Mexico. WIDER Discussion Paper: No. 2003/60.
• Sai-wing Ho, P. (2004). Myrdal’s backwash and spread effects in Classical Economics: Implications for multilateral trade negotiations. Journal of Economic Issues, 38(2), 537-544.
• Salvatore, D. (2007). Economic effects of NAFTA on Mexico. Global Economy Journal, 7(1), 1-15.
• Sheppard, E. (2017). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. Regional Studies, 51(6), 972-973.
• Villarreal, M. A., & Fergusson, I. F. (2017). The north American free trade agreement (NAFTA). Congressional Research Service Report.
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.