The Role of Institutional Quality and Institutional Distance on Türkiye’s Trade with the Organization of Turkic States Countries

Öz

The aim of this study is to investigate Türkiye’s trade with the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) countries by focusing on the role of institutional quality. Türkiye’s trade with member and observer states of the organization is analyzed by augmented panel gravity model for the period 1996–2023. According to panel ordinary least squares (OLS) and Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood (PPML) without fixed effects results, trade between Türkiye and the OTS countries is positively influenced by economic size and negatively affected by geographic distance. Membership in the organization has a positive effect on trade. However, institutional quality and institutional distance is found to have a negative effect on trade. PPML results with fixed effects indicate that importing country institutions and institutional distance increase trade. The results show that institutional quality is an important factor in Türkiye's trade with TDT countries. The differing results obtained by taking fixed effects into account in the analysis reveal that the impact of institutional quality on trade may be sensitive to methodological choices. The findings indicate that the role of institutions should not be ignored in trade relations between Türkiye and the OTS countries. It is anticipated that discussing policies prioritizing institutional quality within the organization will strengthen trade between member states.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Organization of Turkic States
• Gravity Model
• Institutional Quality
• Panel Data Analysis

Türkiye'nin Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı Ülkeleri ile Dış Ticaretinde Kurumsal Kalite ve Kurumsal Mesafenin Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye ile Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (TDT) ülkeleri arasındaki ticareti kurumsal kalitenin rolünü dikkate alacak şekilde araştırmaktır. Türkiye’nin teşkilata üye ve gözlemci ülkelerle ticareti 1996–2023 dönemi için genişletilmiş panel çekim modeli ile analiz edilmiştir. Panel en küçük kareler (EKK) ve sabit etkilerin dâhil edilmediği Poisson pseudo maksimum olabilirlik (PPML) sonuçlarına göre, Türkiye ile TDT ülkeleri arasındaki ticaret ülkelerin ekonomik büyüklüklerinden olumlu ve coğrafi mesafeden olumsuz etkilenmektedir. Teşkilata üyelik ise ticareti artırıcı etkide bulunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, kurumsal kalitenin ve kurumsal mesafenin ticareti azaltıcı yönde etki gösterdiği görülmüştür. Sabit etkili PPML sonuçlarına göre ithalatçı ülke kurumlarının ve kurumsal mesafenin ticareti artırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Sonuçlar, kurumsal kalitenin Türkiye’nin TDT ülkeleriyle ticaretinde önemli bir faktör olduğunu göstermektedir. Sabit etkilerin analizde dikkate alınmasıyla farklılaşan sonuçlar, kurumsal kalitenin ticaret üzerindeki etkisinin yöntemsel tercihlere duyarlı olabileceğini ortaya koymuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, Türkiye ve TDT ülkeleri arasındaki ticari ilişkilerde kurumların rolünün göz ardı edilmemesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. Teşkilat bünyesinde kurumsal kaliteyi önceleyen politikaların tartışılmasının ticareti güçlendireceği öngörülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı
• Çekim Modeli
• Kurumsal Kalite
• Panel Veri Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., Antràs, P., & Helpman, E. (2007). Contracts and technology adoption. American Economic Review, 97(3), 916–943. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.3.916.
2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369.
3. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. & Robinson, J.A. (2005). Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. In P. Aghion, & S.N. Durlauf (Eds.). Handbook of economic growth, Vol.1A. (pp. 386-472). North-Holland.
4. Akça, E. (2025). Economic, geographical, institutional, and political determinants of bilateral manufacturing exports: A structural gravity model approach for Türkiye. Panoeconomicus, 72(4), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.2298/pan210719004a.
5. Akça, E. E., & Bal, H. (2020). Türkiye’nin ihracatında Linder Hipotezi’nin geçerliliği üzerine ampirik bir inceleme: Genişletilmiş çekim modeli’nden bulgular. Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 29-49.
6. Akgül, M. S. (2013). Çekim modeli bulguları ışığında Türkiye’nin İslam İşbirliği Teşkilatı ile ilişkileri ve ticari potansiyeli. Adam Academy Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 83-110.
7. Álvarez, I. C., Barbero, J., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Zofío, J. L. (2017). Does institutional quality matter for trade? Institutional conditions in a sectoral trade framework. World Development, 103, 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.010.
8. Anderson, J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1), 106-116.

9. Anderson, J. E., & Marcouiller, D. (2002). Insecurity and the pattern of trade: An empirical investigation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302317411587.
10. Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455214.
11. Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. NBER Working Paper 12516. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12516.
12. Berkowitz, D., Moenius, J., & Pistor, K. (2006). Trade, law, and product complexity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.2.363.
13. Bhat, J. A., Equbal, M. S., & Nengroo, T. A. (2025). Institutional quality, institutional distance and international trade: Evidence from 33 trading partners of India using PPML, Heckman selection, and GMM methods. Journal of Economic Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/jes-02-2025-0101.
14. Bilgin, M. H., Gozgor, G., & Demir, E. (2018). The determinants of Turkey’s exports to Islamic countries: The impact of political risks. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 27(5), 486–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2017.1396489.
15. Carballo, J., Graziano, A. G., Schaur, G., & Martincus, C. V. (2022). The effects of transit systems on international trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(4), 1083–1098. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01189.
16. Chan, K. S. (2002). Trade and bureaucratic efficiency. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 50(3), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1086/342248.
17. Çetinkaya, A. F., & Demirel, N. (2023). Analyzing the impact of the organization of Turkic states on the foreign trade of member countries. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2288370.
18. Çınar, Y., & Uzun, Y. U. (2023). Köklü geçmişten güçlü geleceğe Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı: Küresel ekonomik-siyasal potansiyeli ve teşkilatın geleceğine dair öngörüler. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(Özel Sayı), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1296831.
19. Çoban, B., & Akkoç, U. (2023). Politik risk ile genişletilmiş çekim modeli: Türkiye’nin ikili ticareti için bir uygulama. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(4), 749–771. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1327115.
20. D’Ingiullo, D., Di Berardino, C., Odoardi, I., & Quaglione, D. (2023). Rule of law as a determinant of the export performance of Italian provinces. Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(4), 548–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137422000480.
21. De Groot, H. L., Linders, G., Rietveld, P., & Subramanian, U. (2004). The institutional determinants of bilateral trade patterns. Kyklos, 57(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-5962.2004.00245.x.
22. De Jong, E., & Bogmans, C. (2010). Does corruption discourage international trade? European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.11.005.
23. Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade, and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 133–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3932(02)00206-4.
24. Dünya Bankası (2025a). World development indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD.
25. Dünya Bankası (2025b). Worldwide governance indicators. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators.
26. Filip, M., Momferatou, D. & Parraga Rodriguez, S. (2025). European competitiveness: The role of institutions and the case for structural reforms. European Central Bank Economic Bulletin, Issue 1.
27. Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399555954.
28. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2013). Gravity equations: workhorse, toolkit and cookbook. CEPR Discussion Papers, No. 9322. Centre for Economic Policy Research.
29. Irwin, D. A. (2024). Does trade reform promote economic growth? A review of recent evidence. The World Bank Research Observer, 40(1), 147-184. https://doi.org/10.1596/42732.
30. Iwanow, T., & Kirkpatrick, C. (2009). Trade facilitation and manufactured exports: Is Africa different? World Development, 37(6), 1039–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.09.014.
31. Karacan, S., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2021). Turkish exports before and after the 2001 financial crisis: A panel gravity model. Foreign Trade Review, 57(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/00157325211047001.
32. Kazancı, B. A. (2025). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatının Türkiye ihracatına etkisinin çekim modeli ile analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 56, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1534304.
33. Keşap, D., Yapar, M. & Sandalcılar, A. R. (2025). Investigating the link between trade openness and environmental degradation: The case of the Organization of Turkic States. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 12(2), 385-401. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1706447.
34. Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1995). Institutions and economic performance: Cross‐country tests using alternative institutional measures. Economics and Politics, 7(3), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.1995.tb00111.x.
35. Levchenko, A. A. (2007). Institutional quality and international trade. The Review of Economic Studies, 74(3), 791–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937x.2007.00435.x.
36. Lewer, J. J., & Van Den Berg, H. (2003). How large is international trade’s effect on economic growth? Journal of Economic Surveys, 17(3), 363–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00198.
37. Lin, J. Y., & Nugent, J. B. (1995). Institutions and economic development. In H. Chenery, & T.N. Srinivasan (Eds.). Handbook of Development Economics, Vol.3, (pp. 2301-2370). North-Holland.
38. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696.
39. Méon, P., & Sekkat, K. (2007). Institutional quality and trade: Which institutions? which trade? Economic Inquiry, 46(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00064.x.
40. Mere, M. (2024). Türkiye’nin Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı ülkeleriyle arasındaki dış ticaretinin panel çekim modeli yaklaşımıyla analizi. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 9(2), 262-275.
41. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97.
42. Nunn, N. (2007). Relationship-specificity, incomplete contracts, and the pattern of trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 569–600. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.2.569.
43. Nunn, N., & Trefler, D. (2014). Domestic institutions as a source of comparative advantage. In G. Gopinath, E. Helpman, & K. Rogoff (Eds.). Handbook of International Economics, Vol 4. (pp.263-315). North-Holland.
44. Pöyhönen, P. (1963). A tentative model for the volume of trade between countries. Weltwirtschaftliches archiv, 93-100.
45. Qin, S., Deng, H., & Hu, S. (2025). Digital development and China–BRICS trade: Role of institutional distance. Finance Research Letters, 73, 106636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106636.
46. Rodrik, D. (2000). Institutions for high-quality growth: What they are and how to acquire them. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35(3), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02699764.
47. Sandalcılar, A. R., & Ayran Cihan, K. (2023). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı üye ülkeleri arasında Türkiye’nin rekabet gücü. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 7(1), 132-151. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1153508.
48. Silva, J. M. C. S., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641.
49. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. The Twentieth Century Fund. New York.
50. Tufekci, O., & Bayrak, M. (2025). Reinforcing the ties with the Turkic States: Looking beyond the Turkish foreign policy through trade. Journal of Asian and African Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096251346762.
51. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (2023). On ikinci kalkınma planı (2024-2028).
52. T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı (2025). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (TDT). https://www.mfa.gov.tr/turk-devletleri-teskilati.tr.mfa.
53. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı (2025a). Serbest ticaret anlaşmaları. https://ticaret.gov.tr/dis-iliskiler/serbest-ticaret-anlasmalari.
54. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı (2025b). Orta Asya. https://ticaret.gov.tr/yurtdisi-teskilati/orta-asya.
55. Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı. (2025a). İşbirliği alanları. https://www.turkicstates.org/tr/isbirligi-alanlari-detay.
56. Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (2025b). Bildiriler/Kurucu belgeler. https://www.turkicstates.org/tr/bildiriler-kurucu-belgeler.
57. Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (2025c). İşbirliği alanları. https://www.turkicstates.org/tr/isbirligi-alanlari.
58. Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (2025d). Türk işbirliği kuruluşları. https://www.turkicstates.org/tr/iliskili-kurumlar.
59. UN Comtrade (2025). UN comtrade database. https://comtradeplus.un.org/.
60. USITC (2025). Dynamic gravity dataset (DGD). https://www.usitc.gov/data/gravity/dgd.htm.
61. Yotov, Y. V. (2024). The evolution of structural gravity: The workhorse model of trade. Contemporary Economic Policy, 42(4), 578–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12666.
62. Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111(470), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00609