Mode of transport structure in automotive exports by product type and market accessibility: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and Türkiye

Öz

This study comparatively examines the mode of transport structure in automotive exports from Germany, Spain, and Türkiye under HS 8703 and HS 8708. The main objective of the study is to investigate whether exports of final vehicles and parts and components have the same mode of transport distribution and how market accessibility is reflected in this distribution. For this purpose, export value and net weight data for 2015 and 2024 were used; partner countries were classified as European, non-European markets with uninterrupted land connections, and non-European markets without land connections. The findings revealed that the mode of transport structure in automotive exports varies according to product group and partner market characteristics. While sea transport is particularly strong in non-European markets in HS 8703 exports, road transport is more prominent in the European market in HS 8708 exports. The fact that sea transport maintains a high share in Türkiye's final vehicle exports to Europe shows that proximity and land connections alone do not explain the mode of transport preference. This result suggests that distance and land connections are important but insufficient for explaining the mode of transport distribution; product characteristics, infrastructure conditions, and established logistics networks should also be considered.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Automotive exports
• mode of transport
• market accessibility
• Ro-Ro transportation

Otomotiv ihracatında ürün niteliği ve pazar erişilebilirliğine göre taşıma modu yapısı: Almanya, İspanya ve Türkiye karşılaştırması

Öz

Bu çalışmayla Almanya, İspanya ve Türkiye’nin HS 8703 ve HS 8708 kapsamındaki otomotiv ihracatında taşıma modu yapısı karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın temel amacı, nihai araçlar ile parça ve aksam ihracatının aynı taşıma modu dağılımına sahip olup olmadığını ve pazar erişilebilirliğinin bu dağılıma nasıl yansıdığını incelemektir. Bu amaçla 2015 ve 2024 yıllarına ait ihracat değeri ve net ağırlık verileri kullanılmış; partner ülkeler Avrupa, Avrupa dışı kesintisiz kara bağlantılı ve Avrupa dışı kara bağlantısız pazarlar olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Bulgular, otomotiv ihracatında taşıma modu yapısının ürün grubu ve partner pazar özelliklerine göre değiştiğini ortaya koymuştur. HS 8703 ihracatında denizyolu özellikle Avrupa dışı pazarlarda güçlü konumdayken, HS 8708 ihracatında Avrupa pazarında karayolu daha belirgin bir konumdadır. Türkiye’nin Avrupa’ya yönelik nihai araç ihracatında denizyolunun yüksek payını koruması, yakınlık ve kara bağlantısının taşıma modu tercihini tek başına açıklamadığını göstermektedir. Bu sonuç, mesafe ve kara bağlantısının taşıma modu dağılımını açıklamada önemli olmakla birlikte yeterli olmadığını; ürün niteliği, altyapı imkânları ve yerleşik lojistik ağlarla birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Otomotiv ihracatı
• taşıma modu
• pazar erişilebilirliği
• Ro-Ro taşımacılığı

Kaynakça

1. ACEA. (2024). Pocket guide 2024/2025. European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. Erişim: 03 Mart 2026 Erişim https://www.acea.auto/publication/the-automobile-industry-pocket-guide-2024-2025
2. ANFAC. (2025). Informe anual 2024. Erişim: 10 Mart 2026 https://anfac.com/publicaciones/informe-anual-2024/
3. Arencibia, A. I., Feo-Valero, M., García-Menéndez, L., & Román, C. (2015). Modelling mode choice for freight transport using advanced choice experiments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 75, 252-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.03.027
4. Brooks, M. R., Puckett, S. M., Hensher, D. A., & Sammons, A. (2012). Understanding mode choice decisions: A study of Australian freight shippers. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 14(3), 274-299. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2012.8
5. Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen. (2024). Railway market analysis 2024: Germany. Bundesnetzagentur. Erişim: 10 Mart 2026 https://data.bundesnetzagentur.de/Bundesnetzagentur/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Areas/Rail/Downloads/MarketAnalysisRailway_2024_EN.pdf
6. Carboni, A., & Dalla Chiara, B. (2018). Range of technical-economic competitiveness of rail-road combined transport. European Transport Research Review, 10, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-018-0319-3
7. Chandra, S., Ghosh, D., & Srivastava, S. K. (2016). Outbound logistics management practices in the automotive industry: An emerging economy perspective. Decision, 43(2), 145-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-015-0122-0
8. Cullinane, K., & Toy, N. (2000). Identifying influential attributes in freight route/mode choice decisions: A content analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 36(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(99)00016-2

9. Dias, J. C. Q., Calado, J. M. F., & Mendonça, M. C. (2010). The role of European “ro-ro” port terminals in the automotive supply chain management. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.10.009
10. ECG (Business Intelligence). (2025). Top automotive RoRo ports in Europe 2024: EU - UK - Türkiye, FY 2024. Erişim: 12 Mart 2026 https://www.ecgassociation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Port-Report_FY-2024-Update_FINAL-2.pdf
11. Eskigun, E., Uzsoy, R., Preckel, P. V., Beaujon, G., Krishnan, S., & Tew, J. D. (2005). Outbound supply chain network design with mode selection, lead times and capacitated vehicle distribution centers. European Journal of Operational Research, 165(1), 182-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.11.029
12. Eurostat. (2025a). Freight transport statistics: Modal split. Erişim: 15 Mart 2026 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Freight_transport_statistics_-_modal_split
13. Eurostat. (2025b). Key figures on European transport: 2024 edition. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2785/9777356
14. Flodén, J., Bärthel, F., & Sorkina, E. (2017). Transport buyers choice of transport service: A literature review of empirical results. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 23, 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.02.001
15. Gohari, A., Ahmad, A. B., Balasbaneh, A. T., Gohari, A., Hasan, R., & Sholagberu, A. T. (2022). Significance of intermodal freight modal choice criteria. Transport Policy, 121, 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.03.015
16. Harrigan, J. (2010). Airplanes and comparative advantage. Journal of International Economics, 82(2), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2010.07.002
17. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In G. Gopinath, E. Helpman, & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook of International Economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131-195). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-54314-1.00003-3
18. Hoffmeister, O., & Dalheimer, B. (2024). A linear model to estimate modal split in international freight transport, based on revealed preferences about cost and time saving. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 9, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-024-00181-0
19. Holguín-Veras, J., Kalahasthi, L., Campbell, S., González-Calderón, C. A., & Wang, X. (2021). Freight mode choice: Results from a nationwide qualitative and quantitative research effort. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 143, 78-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.11.016
20. Huang, S., Sun, T., Shi, J., Gong, P., Yang, X., Zheng, J., Zhuang, H., & Ouyang, Q. (2024). Trading community analysis of countries’ roll-on/roll-off shipping networks using fine-grained vessel trajectory data. Sensors, 24(22), 7226. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24227226
21. Hummels, D. (2007). Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.3.131
22. Hummels, D. L., & Schaur, G. (2013). Time as a trade barrier. American Economic Review, 103(7), 2935-2959. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.7.2935
23. Hwang, T., & Ouyang, Y. (2014). Freight shipment modal split and its environmental impacts: An exploratory study. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 64(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2013.831799
24. IEA. (2023). Transport. Erişim: 1 Mart 2026 https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport
25. ITC. (2025). Trade Map: Trade statistics for international business development. https://www.trademap.org
26. ITF. (2022). Mode choice in freight transport. OECD Publishing. Erişim: 21 Mart 2026 https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/mode-choice-in-freight-transport_3e69ebc4-en.html
27. İMEAK. (2025). Denizcilik sektör raporu 2024. İMEAK Deniz Ticaret Odası. Erişim: 03 Nisan 2026 https://www.denizticaretodasi.org.tr/media/SharedDocuments/sektorraporu/2025/Denizcilik%20Sekt%C3%B6r%20Raporu_web2_2.pdf
28. Jeffs, V. P. & Hills, P. J. (1990). Determinants of modal choice in freight transport. Transportation, 17(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02125502
29. Larranaga, A. M., Arellana, J., & Senna, L. A. (2017). Encouraging intermodality: A stated preference analysis of freight mode choice in Rio Grande do Sul. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 102, 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.028
30. Mayer, T., & Zignago, S. (2011). Notes on CEPII’s distances measures: The GeoDist database. CEPII Working Paper 2011-25. Erişim: 15 Şubat 2026 https://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2011/wp2011-25.pdf
31. Nam, K.-C. (1997). A study on the estimation and aggregation of disaggregate models of mode choice for freight transport. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 33(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(97)00011-2
32. Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830500139885
33. OECD. (2020). OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Egypt 2020. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9f9c589a-en
34. OECD. (2024). Risks and resilience in global trade. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1c66c439-en
35. OTLE. (2025). Informe anual 2024. Ministerio de Transportes y Movilidad Sostenible. Erişim: 1 Nisan 2026 https://otle.transportes.gob.es/informes-anuales-monograficos/informes-anuales/informe-anual-otle-2024
36. Paixão Casaca, A. C., & Marlow, P. B. (2005). The competitiveness of short sea shipping in multimodal logistics supply chains: Service attributes. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(4), 363-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830500301469
37. Rich, J., Holmblad, P. M., & Hansen, C. O. (2009). A weighted logit freight mode-choice model. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(6), 1006–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.02.001
38. Türkcan, K., & Saygılı, H. (2021). Transportation mode choice and international fragmentation of production: Evidence from a developing country. International Economic Journal, 35(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168737.2020.1870522
39. United Nations Statistics Division. (2025). UN Comtrade Database. United Nations. Erişim: 8 Şubat 2026 https://comtrade.un.org/
40. UNCTAD. (2024). Review of maritime transport 2024: Overview. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Erişim: 7 Mart 2026 https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2024
41. UNCTAD. (2025). The trade-and-transport dataset: Technical documentation. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Erişim: 7 Mart 2026 https://unctad.org/publication/trade-and-transport-dataset
42. Zgonc, B., Tekavčič, M., & Jakšič, M. (2019). The impact of distance on mode choice in freight transport. European Transport Research Review, 11(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0346-8