Türkiye’de İmalat Sanayi Coğrafi Yoğunlaşması ve Değişimi

Öz

Sanayi coğrafyası, bölgesel ekonomilerin işleyiş ve içeriklerini anlamada ve özellikle son dönemde sürdürülebilir kalkınma politikaları oluşturmada önemli bir role sahiptir. 2000 sonrası gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde sanayinin yer seçiminde görülen değişimler konuya olan ilgiyi artırmaktadır. Özellikle Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde 2008 krizi sonrasında sanayisizleşmenin etkilerinin azaldığı ve bazı bölgelerde yeniden sanayileşmenin görüldüğü belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’deki imalat sanayinin dağılımı ve bu dağılım son yıllardaki değişimini ele almaktadır. Bu çalışmada 2014-2022 yılları arasında SGK ve TÜİK’den elde edilen imalat sanayi istihdamı ve imalat sanayinin GSYİH içindeki payı verileri kullanılmıştır. İlk aşamada Location Quotient (LQ) analizi kullanılarak imalat sanayinin genel durumu ve dağılımı tespit edilmiş böylece kazanan/kaybeden, güçlenen/zayıflayan bölgeler belirlenmiştir. Ardından Shift-Share analizi uygulanarak bölgelerdeki rekabet gücü ve dağılımı (Bölgesel Değişim) incelenmiştir. Son aşamada ise mekansal otokorelasyonun varlığı düşünülerek mekansal istatistik yöntemleri tercih edilmiştir. Moran’s I ve LISA kümelenme haritaları ile sanayi kümeleri ortaya konmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlar ile Türkiye sanayi coğrafyasında yapısal bir dönüşüm gerçekleşip gerçekleşmediği ve bunun bölgesel etkilerinin neler olduğunun ortaya çıkması hedeflenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bölgesel İstihdam
• Teknoloji düzeyi
• LQ
• Shift Share Analizi

Geographic Concentration and Change of Manufacturing Industry in Türkiye

Öz

Industrial geography has an important role in understanding the functioning and content of regional economies and, especially recently, in creating sustainable development policies. Changes in industrial location selection in developed and developing countries after 2000 have increased interest in the subject. It has been determined that, especially in the European Union countries, the effects of deindustrialization have decreased after the 2008 crisis and re-industrialization has been observed in some regions. This study discusses the distribution of the manufacturing industry in Türkiye and its change in recent years. In this study, data on manufacturing industry employment and the share of the manufacturing industry in GDP obtained from Social Security Institution (SSI) and TurkStat between 2014 and 2022 were used. In the first stage, the general situation and distribution of the manufacturing industry was determined by using Location Quotient (LQ) analysis, thus the winner/loser, strengthening/weakening regions were determined. Then, by applying Shift-Share analysis, regional competitiveness (Regional Shift-RS) were examined. In the last stage, spatial statistical methods were preferred considering the existence of spatial autocorrelation. Industrial clusters were revealed with Moran's I and LISA cluster maps. The aim of this study is to reveal whether a structural transformation has occurred in Türkiye's industrial geography and what its regional effects are.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Regional employment
• Technology level
• Location Quotient
• Shift-Share analysis

Kaynakça

1. Aiginger, K. ve Rodrik, D. (2020). Rebirth of industrial policy and an agenda for the twenty-first century. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20, 189-207.
2. Akgüngör, S. (2006). Geographic concentrations in Turkey's manufacturing industry: Identifying regional highpoint clusters. European Planning Studies, 14(2), 169-197.
3. Akgüngör, S., Kumral, N. ve Lenger, A. (2003). National industry clusters and regional specializations in Turkey. European Planning Studies, 11, 647e670.
4. Algan, N., İşcan, E., ve Oktay, D. S. (2020). Deindustrialization and turkish economy: a detailed analysis. Theoretical and Applied Studies on Turkish Economy, I, 175.
5. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Studies in Operational Regional Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6. Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical analysis, 27(2), 93-115.
7. Arauzo-Carod, J. M., ve Viladecans-Marsal, E. (2009). Industrial location at the intra-metropolitan level: The role of agglomeration economies. Regional Studies, 43, pp. 545–558.
8. Bayar, A., ve Günçavdı, Ö. (2018). Türkiye’de sanayisizleşme ve yoksulluk. Efil Journal, 1 (4), 36-71.

9. Capello, R., ve Cerisola, S. (2023). Regional reindustrialization patterns and productivity growth in Europe. Regional Studies, 57(1), 1-12.
10. Çelik, E., ve Sandal, E. (2022). Türkiye imalat sanayii ve alt sektörlerinin bölgesel yoğunlaşma yapısı: 2011-2020 yılı karşılaştırmalı yerelleşme katsayısı analizi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(3), 1452-1468.
11. Dasgupta, S. ve Singh, A. (2006). Manufacturing, services and premature deindustrialization in developing countries. United Nation University-WIDER (Research Paper No. 2006/49).
12. Dinç, M., ve Haynes, K. E. (1998). International trade and shift-share analysis: A specification note. Economic Development Quarterly, 12(4), 337–343.
13. Doğruel, A. S. (2020). Sanayisizleşmeyi yeniden düşünmek: alternatif bir gösterge olarak kişi başına imalat katma değeri. Ekonomi-tek, 9(3), 187-205.
14. Doğruel, A. S., & Doğruel, F. (2018). Two phases of deindustrialization policies in İstanbul. Journal of Research in Economics, 2(2), 186-207.
15. Doğruel, F. (2013). Deindustrialization of old industrial regions in Turkey, Rives Méditerranéennes, 46: 93-108.
16. Doğruel, F., ve Doğruel, A. S. (2011). Privatization and regional distribution of manufacturing in Turkey, Turkish Economic Association, Discussion Paper 2011/4.
17. Dunn, E. S. (1960). A statistical and analytical technique for regional analysis. Papers in Regional Science, 6(1), 97–112.
18. Dünya Bankası (2024). World Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators, Access Date: 19.05.2024.
19. Elburz, Z. (2012). Türkiye’de bölgelerin ekonomik performans ölçümü: Shift-share analizi (1992-2008). [Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
20. Eraydın, A. (2002). Yeni sanayi odakları: Yerel kalkınmanın yeniden kavramlaştırılması. Ankara: ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi.
21. European Commission. (2010). An integrated industrial policy for the globalisation era – Putting competitiveness and sustainability at centre stage (COM(2010) 614 final).
22. European Commission. (2012). A stronger European industry for growth and economic recovery (COM(2012) 582 final).
23. European Commission. (2014). For a European industrial renaissance (SWD(2014) 14 final).
24. Eurostat. (2024). Eurostat indicators on high-tech industry and knowledge – intensive services. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/htec_esms.htm Access Date: 15.03.2024.
25. Fakıoğlu, P. A. (2022). Bölgesel ekonomik dayanıklılık çerçevesinde türkiye ibbs düzey-2 bölgelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Kent Akademisi, 15(2), 861-878.
26. Flores, M., Medellín, S., ve Villarreal, A. (2018). Global markets and the role of geographical proximity in Mexico's employment growth. Growth and Change, 49(3), 548-568.
27. Kaldor, N. (1967). Strategic Factors in Economic Development, New York State School of Industrial and Labour Relations, Cornell University: Ithaca NY.
28. Kaygalak, I., ve Reid, N. (2016). The geographical evolution of manufacturing and industrial policies in Turkey. Applied Geography, 70, 37-48.
29. Kazancık, B. L. (2007). Bölgesel gelişme ve sektör-bölge yığınlaşmaları. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı. TEPAV, İzmir.
30. Kim, A., Lim, J., ve Colletta, A. (2023). How regional economic structure matters in the era of COVID-19: resilience capacity of US states. The Annals of Regional Science, 70(1), 159-185.
31. Kuznets, S. (1973). Modern Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections. Nobel Memorial Lecture. American Economic Review, 63, 247-258.
32. Kuznets, S. (1996). Modern Economic Growth, Rate, Structure and Spread. New Haven, Yale University Press: New Haven CT.
33. Li, X. X. (2017). Measure Spatial Effects of Regional Economy Based on Spatial Shift-Share Model. [Konferans sunumu] 3rd Annual International Conference on Management, Economics and Social Development (ICMESD 17) (pp. 74-79). Atlantis Press.
34. Matlaba, V. J., Holmes, M., McCann, P., ve Poot, J. (2013). Classic and spatial shift-share analysis of state-level employment change in Brazil. In Applied Regional Growth And Innovation Models (pp. 139-172). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
35. Melachroinos, K. A. (2002). European integration and the spatial dynamics of manufacturing-employment change. Environment and Planning A, 34(11), 2017-2036.
36. Melchor-Ferrer, E. (2020). Determinants of labour productivity growth in Spanish and Portuguese regions: A spatial shift-share approach. The Annals of Regional Science, 65(1), 45-65.
37. Mo, S. W., Lee, K. B., Lee, Y. J., ve Park, H. G. (2020). Analysis of import changes through shift-share, location quotient and BCG techniques: Gwangyang Port in Asia. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 36(3), 145-156.
38. Montanía, C. V., Márquez, M. A., Fernández-Núñez, T., ve Hewings, G. J. D. (2024). Toward a more comprehensive shift-share analysis: An illustration usingregional data. Growth and Change, e12693
39. Moran, P. A. P. (1948). The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 10(2), 243–251.
40. Nazara, S., ve Hewings, G. J. D. (2004). Spatial structure and taxonomy of decomposition in shift-share analysis. Growth and Change, 35(4), 476–490.
41. Özaslan, M. (2006). Spatial development tendencies and emergence of new industrial districts in turkey in the post-1980 era, [Konferans Sunumu] 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association (ERSA), 30 Ağustos-1 Eylül, Volos, Greece.
42. Özdemir, S. (2023). Sanayisizleşme: Türkiye ve doğu asya ülkeleri. Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(28), 207-228.
43. Pirciog, S. C., Grigorescu, A., Lincaru, C., Popa, F. M., Lazarczyk Carlson, E., ve Sigurdarson, H. T. (2023). Mapping european high-digital intensive sectors—regional growth accelerator for the circular economy. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1061128.
44. Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21, 1-33.
45. Rosenthal, S.S., ve Strange, W.C. (2006). Themicro-empirics of agglomeration economies. In: Arnott R, McMillen DP (Ed.), A companion of urban economics. Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, pp 7–23
46. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Rowthorn, R., ve R. Ramaswamy (1997). Deindustrialization: Causes and implications (April 1997). IMF Working Paper No. 97/42.
48. SGK (2024). İstatistik Yıllıkları. Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2024.
49. Škuflić, L., ve Družić, M. (2016). Deindustrialisation and productivity in the EU. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 29(1), 991-1002.
50. Sunley, P., Evenhuis, E., Harris, J., Harris, R., Martin, R., ve Pike, A. (2023). Renewing industrial regions? Advanced manufacturing and industrial policy in Britain. Regional Studies, 57(6), 1126-1140.
51. Şıklar, I., ve Tonus, O. (2007). Is it possible to deindustrialize before industrialization? The Turkish case. Ekonomický časopis (Journal of Economics), 6(55), 594-611.
52. Tregenna, F. (2016). Deindustrialization and premature deindustrialization. In: Erik S. Reinert & Jayati Ghosh & Rainer Kattel (Eds.). Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Development, Chapter 38, pages 710-728, Edward Elgar Publishing.
53. TÜİK. (2024). İl bazında gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla, iktisadi faaliyet kollarına (A10) göre, cari fiyatlarla, 2004-2022. Erişim Tarihi 02.05.2024
54. UNIDO. (2013). Industrial Development Report: Sustaining Employment Growth: The Role of Manufacturing and Structural Change. Vienna.
55. UNIDO. (2022). Industrial Development Report: The Future of IndustriIalization in a Post-Pandemic World. Vienna.
56. Yeldan, E., ve Yıldırım, D. (2015). Küreselleşme ve sanayisizleşme bağlamında türkiye’de ve dünyada demokrasi açığı. Çalışma ve Toplum, 45(2), 65-88.