TÜRKİYE’DE BÖLGESEL KALKINMA VE DIŞ TİCARETİN NEDENSELLİK İLİŞKİSİ: DÜZEY-2 BÖLGELERİ ÜZERİNE BİR ANALİZ

Yıl 2025, Sayı: Sayı:71 (EYS'25 Özel Sayısı), 227 - 239, 29.12.2025

Emine Alpaslan

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1796572

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, dış ticaretin bölgesel kalkınma üzerindeki etkilerini Türkiye örneğinde kısa ve uzun dönemli ilişkiler çerçevesinde incelemektir. Çalışmada, 2008–2023 dönemini kapsayan dengeli panel veri seti kullanılarak Türkiye’nin 26 Düzey-2 bölgesi analiz edilmiştir. Bölgesel kalkınma, gelir, sağlık ve eğitim göstergelerinden oluşturulan bileşik bir kalkınma endeksi ile temsil edilmiştir. İhracat, ithalat, toplam dış ticaret hacmi ve ticaret açıklığı değişkenleri için ayrı modeller kurulmuş; yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve heterojenlik dikkate alınarak FMOLS, DOLS, MG ve PMG tahmincileri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, uzun dönemde ihracatın bölgesel kalkınma üzerinde pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. İthalatın etkisi bölgeler arasında farklılaşırken, ticaret açıklığı için yöntemler arasında tutarlı ve istikrarlı bir uzun dönem ilişki tespit edilememiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, bölgesel kalkınma politikalarında ihracat odaklı, yerel potansiyellere dayalı ve seçici politika araçlarının önemine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bölgesel Kalkınma , Dış ticaret , İhracat , İthalat , Panel veri analizi

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN TRADE CAUSALITY IN TURKIYE: AN ANALYSIS OF NUTS-2 REGIONS

Öz

This study aims to examine the effects of foreign trade on regional development in Turkiye within the framework of short- and long-run relationships. Using a balanced panel dataset covering the period 2008–2023, the analysis focuses on Turkiye’s 26 NUTS-2 regions. Regional development is represented by a composite development index constructed from income, health, and education indicators. Separate models are estimated for exports, imports, total foreign trade volume, and trade openness. To account for cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity, FMOLS, DOLS, MG, and PMG estimators are employed. The findings indicate that exports have a positive and statistically significant effect on regional development in the long run. While the impact of imports varies across regions, no consistent and robust long-run relationship is identified for trade openness across estimation methods. The results highlight the importance of export-oriented, selective, and region-specific policy instruments based on local potentials in regional development strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Regional development , Foreign trade , Exports , Imports , Panel data analysis

Kaynakça

• Abedinr, N. Z., & Maamor, S. (2015). “Cointegration & Granger causality test among trade openness and economic growth in Malaysia”. 1st International Conference on Business & Tourism, 6–12. Langkawi, Malaysia.
• Balassa, B. (1978). “Exports and economic growth: Further evidence”. Journal of Development Economics, 5(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(78)90006-8
• Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling.
• Değer, M. K., & Recepoğlu, M. (2016). “Bölgesel ekonomik büyüme üzerinde dış ticaretin etkileri: Türkiye'de Düzey-2 bölgeleri üzerine panel veri analizleri (2004–2011)”. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 7(16), 12–29.
• Djamal, D., & Laila, O. B. (2023). “Effect of trade openness on economic growth within BRICS countries: An ARDL panel approach”. The Annals of the Faculty of Economics in Subotica, 1–16.
• Domar, E. D. (1946). Capital expansion, rate of growth, and employment. Econometrica, 14(2), 137–147.
• Erdoğan, S. (2006). “Türkiye'nin ihracat yapısındaki değişme ve büyüme ilişkisi: Koentegrasyon ve nedensellik testi uygulaması”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Karaman İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 11(9), 30–39.
• Esfahani, H. S. (1991). “Exports, imports, and economic growth in semi-industrialized countries”. Journal of Development Economics, 35(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(91)90068-7
• Ghazouani, T., Boukhatem, J., & Sam, C. Y. (2020). “Causal interactions between trade openness, renewable electricity consumption, and economic growth in Asia-Pacific countries: Fresh evidence from a bootstrap ARDL approach”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133, 110087.
• Gül, E., & Kamacı, A. (2012). “Dış ticaretin büyüme üzerine etkileri: Bir panel veri analizi”. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 81–91.
• Harrod, R. F. (1939). An essay in dynamic theory. The Economic Journal, 49(193), 14–33.
• Hausmann, R., Hwang, J., & Rodrik, D. (2007). “What you export matters”. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-006-9009-4
• Kao, C., & Chiang, M. H. (2000). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 179–222.
• Krugman, P. (1979). Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. Journal of International Economics, 9(4), 469–479.
• Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.
• Krugman, P. (1999). The role of geography in development. International Regional Science Review, 22(2), 142–161.
• Lall, S. (2000). “The technological structure and performance of developing country manufactured exports, 1985–98”. Oxford Development Studies, 28(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/713688318
• Lee, J.-W. (1995). “Capital goods imports and long-run growth”. Journal of Development Economics, 48(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(95)00015-1
• Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42.
• McCann, P. (2013). Modern Urban and Regional Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ohlin, B. (1933). Interregional and International Trade. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Pedroni, P. (2000). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 93–130.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634.
• Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of Local and Regional Development. New York: Routledge.
• Ricardo, D. (1817). On the principles of political economy and taxation. London: John Murray.
• Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.
• Sam, C. Y., & Chang, T. (2018). “Revisit financial development, trade openness and economic growth nexus in China using a new developed bootstrap ARDL test”. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 52(4), 131–144.
• Selamcı, F., & Çetin, G. (2020). “Türkiye'de bölgesel dış ticaret ile ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Marmara Bölgesi üzerine bir araştırma”. Ekonomi, İşletme ve Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 130–145.
• Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
• Shayanewako, V. B. (2018). “The relationship between trade openness and economic growth: The case of BRICS countries”. Journal of Global Economics, 6(3), 1–5.
• Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
• Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.
• Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), 334–361.
• TÜİK. (2024). Bölgesel göstergeler veri tabanı. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://data.tuik.gov.tr
• UNCTAD. (2019). Trade and development report 2019: Financing a global green new deal. Geneva: United Nations.
• UNCTAD. (2024). Trade and development report 2024. Geneva: United Nations.
• UNDP. (1990). Human development report 1990: Concept and measurement of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
• UNDP. (2022). Human development report 2021/2022: Uncertain times, unsettled lives: Shaping our future in a transforming world. New York: UNDP.
• Zafar, K. M. (2020). “The impact of trade openness on economic growth in Pakistan: ARDL bounds testing approach to co-integration”. Iranian Economic Review, 24(3), 675–705.
• Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297–316.
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics.