Küresel şehirlerin dış ticareti ve kentsel büyüme ilişkisi: Panel nedensellik analizi ekseninde incelenmesi

Yıl 2021, , 1062 - 1070, 31.07.2021

İbrahim Özaytürk , Gürçem Özaytürk

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.843052

Öz

Dış ticaret bölgesel, ulusal ve uluslararası ekonomilerin gelişmesine katkı sağlayan bir unsur olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Ekonomik çarkların dönmesini kolaylaştırmasının yanı sıra, refah seviyesinde de artış sağlamaktadır. Dünya ile daha entegre hale gelmeyi kolaylaştıran dış ticaret, küreselleşme ile birlikte boyutlarını arttırmış ve büyümenin lokomotifi haline gelmiştir. Bu dönüşümün en belirgin yaşandığı mekanlar olan küresel şehirler ise bu gelişimden payını almıştır. Nitekim kentsel büyüme üzerine dış etkiler de, kendini yine küreselleşme aracılığı ile göstermektedir. Ancak küreselleşmenin en yoğun yaşandığı bu şehirlerde, mekânsal dönüşüm sonrası büyümenin lokomotifi olarak değerlendirilen dış ticaretten, farklı dinamiklere kayma gerçekleşmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı da küresel şehirlerde dış ticaret ile kentsel büyüme arasındaki ilişki üzerine bir inceleme yapılmasıdır. Bu nedenle çalışma kapsamında verilerine ulaşılabilen yedi küresel şehir için 2005-2019 yılları arasında kentsel büyüme ve küresel şehirlerin dış ticareti arasındaki ilişkinin yönü Pairwise Granger panel nedensellik testi ile belirlenmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda, küresel şehirlerin dış ticaretinin kentsel büyüme üzerinde etkisine rastlanmamış, ancak kentsel büyümenin küresel şehirlerin dış ticareti üzerinde etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uluslararası Ticaret,, Küresel kent, küreselleşme

The relationship of global cities' foreign trade and urban growth: Investigation on the axis of the panel causes analysis

Öz

Foreign trade is considered a factor that contributes to the development of regional, national and international economies. In addition to make it easier for the economic wheels to turn, it also increases the level of welfare. Foreign trade, which facilitates integration with the world, has increased in size with globalization and has become the locomotive of growth. Global cities, which are the places where this transformation is most evident, have taken their share from this development. As a matter of fact, external effects on urban growth also show themselves through globalization. However, in these cities where globalization is experienced most intensely, there is a shift from foreign trade, which is considered the locomotive of growth after spatial transformation, to different dynamics. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between foreign trade and urban growth in global cities. For this reason, the direction of the relationship between urban growth and foreign trade of global cities with 2005-2019 annual data for seven global cities whose data can be accessed was determined by Pairwise Granger panel causality test. As a result of the analysis, the effect of foreign trade of global cities on urban growth was not found, but it was determined that urban growth had an effect on foreign trade of global cities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

international trade, Global City, Globalization

Kaynakça

• Awokuse, Titus O. (2007), “Causality between Exports, Imports, and Economic Growth: Evidence From Transition Economies”, Economics Letters, 94.
• Brahmbhatt, M. and Dadush, U. (1996), “Disparities in Global Integration”, Finance and Development, 33-3, ss.47-50.
• Brazzel, J. M., & Hicks, W. W. (1968). Exports and regional economic growth: An evaluation of the economic base and staple models. Land Economics, 44(4), 503-509.
• Dollar, D. (1992), “Outward-oriented Developing Economies Really Do Growth More Rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-1985”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 40:3, ss.523-544.
• Edwards, S. (1997), “Openness, Productivity and Growth: What Do We Really Know?”, NBER Working Papers, No:5978.
• Eusufzai, Z., (1996) “Openness, Economic Growth, and Development: Some Further Results” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 44(2), ss. 333-338.
• Frankel, J. A. and Romer, D. (1996), “Trade and Growth: An Empirical Investigation”, NBER Working Papers, No:5476, http://papers.nber.org/papers/w5476, 12.06.2007.
• Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1994). Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 23-44.
• Güngör, B., & Kurt, S. (2007). DIŞA AÇIKLIK VE KALKINMA İLİŞKİSİ (1968-2003): TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 197-210.
• Harrison, A. (1995), “Openness and Growth: A Time-Series, Cross-Country Analysis for Developing Countries”, NBER Working Paper Series, No:5221.
• Keohane, R. O., & Nye Jr, J. S. (2000). Globalization: What's new? What's not? (And so what?). Foreign policy, 104-119.
• Korkmaz, S, Aydın, A. (2015). Türkiye’de Dış Ticaret - Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Nedensellik Analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (3) , 47-76. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/oguiibf/issue/56480/785213
• Nourzad, F. and Powell, J. J., (2003) “Openness, and Development: Evidence from a Panel of Developing Countries”, Scientific Journal of Administrative Development, 1(1), ss. 72-93.
• Panas, E. and Vamvoukas, G. (2002). Further Evidence on the Export – Led Growth Hypothesis. Applied Economics Letters, Vol.9, pp.731-5.
• Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture, London: Sage Publications.
• Robins, K. (2005). Tradition and translation: National culture in its global context. In Enterprise and heritage (29-52). London: Routledge.
• Sachs, J. D. and Warner, A. (1995), “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, ss.1-118.
• Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: A very short introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tupy, M. L. (2005), “Trade Liberalization and Poverty Reduction in Sub-Sahara Africa”, Policy Analysis, No:557, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa557.pdf, 18.07.2007.
• Villaverde, J. and Maza, A.; (2011). “Globalization, Growth and Convergence”, World Economy,34(6), pp. 952–971.