Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster
Yıl 2017, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 129 - 133, 30.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Balassa, B. (1965). “Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage”. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies. 33(2). May 1965. pp:99-123.
  • Bojnec, Š. and Ferto, I. (2006). “Does Comparative Advantages in Agri-Food Trade Matter for Multifunctional Rural Development: The Case of Hungary and Slovenia”. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 7(3). pp:583-586.
  • Buturac, G., Lovrincevik, Z. and Teodorovic, I. (2005). “Comparison of the Structure and Development of International Trade within the Framework of EU Enlargement: The Case of Croatia”. Proceedings: 65th Anniversary Conference of the Institute of Economics. Zagreb; November 18 – 19. 2004. ISBN 9536030292-2005. p: 315-342.
  • Erkan, B. (2011). “SITC Teknoloji Sınıflandırmasına İlişkin Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlüklerin Belirlenmesi: Türkiye ve Diğer N-11 Ülkelerinin Karşılaştırılması”. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar. 48(558). pp: 35-48.
  • Erkan, B. (2012). “BRIC Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’nin İhracat Uzmanlaşma ve Rekabet Düzeylerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi”. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 8(1). Bahar-2012. pp:101-131.
  • Erlat, G. and Erlart, H. (2005). “Do Turkish Exports Have Comparatıve Advantage with Respect to The European Union Market, 1990-2000”. Topics in Middle Eastern and North African Economies. Vol:7. September 2005. pp: 1-17.
  • Hinloopen, J. and Marrewijk, C. V. (2001). “On the empirical distribution of the Balassa index” Review of World Economics / Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 137: s:1-35.
  • Haufbauer C.G. and Chilas J.C. (1974). “Specialisation by Industrial Countries: Extent and consequences, in the International Division of Labour: Problems and Perspectives”. Edited by H. Giersch. Institut für Weltwirtschaft. Tübingen: Mohr, 1974.
  • Khatibi, A. (2008). “Kazakhstan’s Revealed Comparative Advantage Vis-À-Vis the EU-27”, European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE). Working Paper, No: 03/2008, pp:1-12.
  • Nesterenko, O. (2006). “Competitiveness of Ukrainian Products”. Master of Arts in Economics. National University “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy” Economics Education and Research Consortium Master’s Program in Economics. pp:1-49.
  • Sener, S. (2013). “The Competitiveness of Turkish Economy Within the Scope of WEF Global Competitiveness Index”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 75, pp:453-464. Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.049.
  • Şimşek, N., Seymen, D. and Utkulu, U. (2007). “Turkey’s Competitiveness in the EU Market: A Comparison of Different Trade Measures”. In European Trade Study Group (ETSG) 9th Annual Conference 2007. pp: 1-44.
  • Utkulu, U. and Seymen, D. (2004). “Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: Evidence for Turkey vis-à-vis the EU/15”. In European Trade Study Group 6th Annual Conference. ETSG. September 2004. pp:1-26.
  • Yilmaz, 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). March–April 2002. pp. 59–78.
  • Yilmaz, B. (2003). “Turkey’s Competitiveness in The European Union: A Comparison with Five Candidate Countries – Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania – and The EU15”. The East Enlargement of the Eurozone. Ezonplus. Working Paper, No:12. February 2003.

AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 129 - 133, 30.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527

Öz

The main
purpose of this paper is to determine Turkey’s export competitiveness in
respect of SITC Technology Classification. The classification has five
different categories of goods, namely, raw-material-intense, labour-intense,
capital-intense, easy-to-imitate and hard-to-imitate. For analysis, Turkey’s
export data (US dollars) between 1996 and 2015 is used. Revealed Comparative
Advantage (RCA) formula by Bela Balassa (1965) is taken as methodology to
analyse. In compliance with Turkey’s RCAs of the period, it is found out that
Turkey has competitiveness (comparative advantages) on the export of labour
intensive and capital intensive goods while it has competitiveness disadvantage
on the raw-material intense, easy-to-imitate and hard-to-imitate goods which
are research-based goods. It means the goods exported by Turkey is mostly
production of labour intense technology, thus it demonstrates that the labour
factor is the most significant production factors for Turkey. However, Turkey
has disadvantage on easy-to-imitate and hard-to-imitate
researchdevelopment-based goods strengthen by innovation and high value added
products, which are commonly accepted as development indicators for countries. 

Kaynakça

  • Balassa, B. (1965). “Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage”. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies. 33(2). May 1965. pp:99-123.
  • Bojnec, Š. and Ferto, I. (2006). “Does Comparative Advantages in Agri-Food Trade Matter for Multifunctional Rural Development: The Case of Hungary and Slovenia”. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 7(3). pp:583-586.
  • Buturac, G., Lovrincevik, Z. and Teodorovic, I. (2005). “Comparison of the Structure and Development of International Trade within the Framework of EU Enlargement: The Case of Croatia”. Proceedings: 65th Anniversary Conference of the Institute of Economics. Zagreb; November 18 – 19. 2004. ISBN 9536030292-2005. p: 315-342.
  • Erkan, B. (2011). “SITC Teknoloji Sınıflandırmasına İlişkin Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlüklerin Belirlenmesi: Türkiye ve Diğer N-11 Ülkelerinin Karşılaştırılması”. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar. 48(558). pp: 35-48.
  • Erkan, B. (2012). “BRIC Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’nin İhracat Uzmanlaşma ve Rekabet Düzeylerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi”. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 8(1). Bahar-2012. pp:101-131.
  • Erlat, G. and Erlart, H. (2005). “Do Turkish Exports Have Comparatıve Advantage with Respect to The European Union Market, 1990-2000”. Topics in Middle Eastern and North African Economies. Vol:7. September 2005. pp: 1-17.
  • Hinloopen, J. and Marrewijk, C. V. (2001). “On the empirical distribution of the Balassa index” Review of World Economics / Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 137: s:1-35.
  • Haufbauer C.G. and Chilas J.C. (1974). “Specialisation by Industrial Countries: Extent and consequences, in the International Division of Labour: Problems and Perspectives”. Edited by H. Giersch. Institut für Weltwirtschaft. Tübingen: Mohr, 1974.
  • Khatibi, A. (2008). “Kazakhstan’s Revealed Comparative Advantage Vis-À-Vis the EU-27”, European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE). Working Paper, No: 03/2008, pp:1-12.
  • Nesterenko, O. (2006). “Competitiveness of Ukrainian Products”. Master of Arts in Economics. National University “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy” Economics Education and Research Consortium Master’s Program in Economics. pp:1-49.
  • Sener, S. (2013). “The Competitiveness of Turkish Economy Within the Scope of WEF Global Competitiveness Index”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 75, pp:453-464. Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.049.
  • Şimşek, N., Seymen, D. and Utkulu, U. (2007). “Turkey’s Competitiveness in the EU Market: A Comparison of Different Trade Measures”. In European Trade Study Group (ETSG) 9th Annual Conference 2007. pp: 1-44.
  • Utkulu, U. and Seymen, D. (2004). “Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: Evidence for Turkey vis-à-vis the EU/15”. In European Trade Study Group 6th Annual Conference. ETSG. September 2004. pp:1-26.
  • Yilmaz, 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). March–April 2002. pp. 59–78.
  • Yilmaz, B. (2003). “Turkey’s Competitiveness in The European Union: A Comparison with Five Candidate Countries – Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania – and The EU15”. The East Enlargement of the Eurozone. Ezonplus. Working Paper, No:12. February 2003.
Toplam 15 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Kazim Saricoban

Elif Kaya

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Haziran 2017
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Saricoban, K., & Kaya, E. (2017). AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION. PressAcademia Procedia, 4(1), 129-133. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527
AMA Saricoban K, Kaya E. AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION. PAP. Haziran 2017;4(1):129-133. doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527
Chicago Saricoban, Kazim, ve Elif Kaya. “AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION”. PressAcademia Procedia 4, sy. 1 (Haziran 2017): 129-33. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527.
EndNote Saricoban K, Kaya E (01 Haziran 2017) AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION. PressAcademia Procedia 4 1 129–133.
IEEE K. Saricoban ve E. Kaya, “AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION”, PAP, c. 4, sy. 1, ss. 129–133, 2017, doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527.
ISNAD Saricoban, Kazim - Kaya, Elif. “AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION”. PressAcademia Procedia 4/1 (Haziran 2017), 129-133. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527.
JAMA Saricoban K, Kaya E. AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION. PAP. 2017;4:129–133.
MLA Saricoban, Kazim ve Elif Kaya. “AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION”. PressAcademia Procedia, c. 4, sy. 1, 2017, ss. 129-33, doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.527.
Vancouver Saricoban K, Kaya E. AN ANALYSIS OF TURKEY’S EXPORT COMPETETIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE SITC TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION. PAP. 2017;4(1):129-33.

PressAcademia Procedia (PAP) publishes proceedings of conferences, seminars and symposiums. PressAcademia Procedia aims to provide a source for academic researchers, practitioners and policy makers in the area of social and behavioral sciences, and engineering.

PressAcademia Procedia invites academic conferences for publishing their proceedings with a review of editorial board. Since PressAcademia Procedia is an double blind peer-reviewed open-access book, the manuscripts presented in the conferences can easily be reached by numerous researchers. Hence, PressAcademia Procedia increases the value of your conference for your participants. 

PressAcademia Procedia provides an ISBN for each Conference Proceeding Book and a DOI number for each manuscript published in this book.

PressAcademia Procedia is currently indexed by DRJI, J-Gate, International Scientific Indexing, ISRA, Root Indexing, SOBIAD, Scope, EuroPub, Journal Factor Indexing and InfoBase Indexing. 

Please contact to procedia@pressacademia.org for your conference proceedings.