İthal İkamesi, Üretkenlik ve Rekabet Edebilirlik: Türkiye ve Kore İmalat Sanayiinden Kanıtlar

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 0 - 0, 10.07.2016

Yılmaz Kılıçaslan , İlhom Temurov

https://doi.org/10.17541/optimum.256390

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu makale ithal ikamesi, emek verimliliği ve endüstriyel rekabet edebilirlik arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektedir. Analizlerde, 1981-2001 dönemlerini kapsayan UNIDO Industrial Demand Supply (2013) ve UNIDO Industrial Statistics (2013) verileri kullanılmıştır. Bulgularımız, 1980 sonrası Türkiye imalat sanayiinde ithal ikamesinin gerçekten terkedildiğini göstermektedir. Fakat Kore’de, özellikle 1990’lı yıllarda profesyonel ve bilimsel ekipmanlar, ulaşım araçları, elektrikli makinalar, endüstriyel kimyasallar, petrol rafinerileri ve petrol ürünleri endüstrilerinde ithal ikamesinin önemli bir paya sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Dengesiz dinamik panel data tahminlerine dayanan bulgularımız, ithal ikamesinin hem Kore hem de Türkiye imalat sanayilerinde emek verimliliğine önemli bir katkısının olmadığını göstermektedir. Fakat, hem Kore’de hem de Türkiye’de ithal ikamesinin endüstriyel rekabet edebilirliği olumlu olarak etkilediğini bulduk. Son olarak, bu çalışmada Kore imalat sanayii rekabet edebilirliğinin verimlilikle yakından ilişkili olduğunu, fakat Türkiye imalat sanayiinin rekabet edebilirliğinin emek verimliliğinden ziyade döviz kurları, ücret farklılıkları gibi faktörler bağlı olduğunu bulduk.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üretkenlik, Rekabet Edebilirlik; İthal İkamesi; İmalat Sanayii; Türkiye; Kore

Import Substitution, Productivity and Competitiveness: Evidence from Korean and Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Öz

This paper examines the relation between import substitution, labour productivity and industrial competitiveness. The data used in the analysis are obtained from UNIDO Industrial Demand Supply (2013) and UNIDO Industrial Statistics (2013) databases and cover the period of 1981-2001. Our results show that Turkish economy has really left import substitution after 1980. However, we found significant share of import substitution in total production in professional and scientific equipment, transportation equipment, electrical machinery, miscellaneous petroleum products, industrial chemicals industries and petroleum refineries in Korea especially in the 1990s. Our findings based on unbalanced dynamic panel data estimations showed that import substitution did not enhance labour productivity in manufacturing industry of both Korea and Turkey. However, we found that import substitution affects industrial competitiveness positively in both Korea and Turkey. Finally, we found in this study that while Korean manufacturing industry competitiveness is closely associated with labour productivity, competitiveness of Turkish manufacturing industry depends on the factors such as exchange rates, wage differentials rather than labour productivity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Productivity, Competitiveness; Import Substitution; Manufacturing; Turkey; Korea

Kaynakça

• Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58: 277-297.
• Balassa, B. (1971). Industrial policies in Taiwan and Korea. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 106(1), 55-77.
• Bruton, H. J. (1985). Import substitution. Williams College, Handbook of Development Economics, 121, 1601-1644.
• Bruton, H. J. (1998). A Reconsideration of Import Substitution, Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (2), 903-936
• Celasun, M., and D. Rodrik. (1989). “Debt, Adjustment and Growth: Turkey, Book IV.” In Developing Country Debt and Economic Performance: Country Studies, vol. 3, ed. J. Sachs and S. Collins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Chenery, H. B. (1960). Patterns of industrial growth. The American Economic Review, 50(4), 624-654.
• Desai, P. (1969). Alternative measures of import substitution. Oxford Economic Papers, 21(3), 312-324
• Diaz-Alejandro, C. F. (1975). Trade policies and economic development. International trade and finance: Fron-tiers for research, 93-150, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Dornbusch, R., and Y.C. Park. 1987. “Korean Growth Policy.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 389–444.
• Johnson, H. G. (1964). Tariffs and economic development: Some theoretical issues 1. The Journal of Develop-ment Studies, 1(1), 3-30.
• Krueger, A.O. (1987). The Importance of Economic Policy in Development: Contrasts Between Korea and Turkey, NBER Working Paper No. 2195, Cambridge, MA.
• Krueger, A.O. and O.H. Aktan. (1992). Swimming Against Tide: Turkish Trade Reform in the 1980s. Interna-tional Center for Economic Growth Publications. San Francisco: ICS Press.
• Lee, C.H. (1994). The Economic Transformation of South Korea, Development Center Studies, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris.
• Lewis, S. R. and Soligo, R. (1965). Growth and structural change in Pakistan manufacturing industry, 1954 -1964. The Pakistan Development Review, 5(1), 94-139.
• Önis, Y.Z., and R. James. (1993). Economic Crises and Long Term Economic Growth in Turkey, Comparative Macroeconomic Studies, World Bank, Washington, DC.
• Teitel, S. and Thoumi, F. E. (1986). From import substitution to exports: the manufacturing exports experience of Argentina and Brazil. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 34(3), 455-490
• UNIDO (2013). Industrial Demand Supply Balance Database. UNIDO, Vienna.
• UNIDO (2013). Industrial Statistics Database. UNIDO, Vienna.
• Yılmaz, B. (2002). The Role of Trade Strategies for Economic Development: A Comparison of Foreign Trade Between Turkey and South Korea, Russian and East European Finance and Trade, 38 (2), 59–78.