Avrupa Bütünleşmesi: Ticari Başarım Açısından Bir İrdeleme

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 27, 88 - 100, 01.02.2012

Burak Beyhan Fikret Zorlu

Öz

Avrupa Birliği’nin AB en önemli hedeflerinden birisi olan bütünleşme değişik yön ve boyutlarıyla tanımlanabilir ve ölçülebilir. Bu bakımdan, ilgilenilen konuya bağlıolarak, bütünleşme siyasal, toplumsal, kültürel ve iktisadi boyutlarıyla ayrıayrıirdelenebilir. Bu çalışma, AB içerisindeki bütünleşmenin düzeyini ölçmek için üye ülkelerin ticari başarımlarına odaklanmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçlarıAvrupa içerisindeki ticaret hacminin 1995-2006 yıllarıarasında AB’nin genişleme süreci boyunca arttığınıgöstermektedir. Buna ilaveten, Avrupa içindeki ticaretin toplam ticaretten aldığıpay da artmıştır ki, bu durum iktisadi anlamda birlik içinde belli düzeyde bir bütünleşmenin olduğunu açığa vurmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, önemli iktisadi bloklar üye ülkelerin uzmanlaştıklarısektörlere göre irdelendiğinde AB dahil hiç bir küresel bloğun kendi içerisinde sektörel çeşitlilik bakımından yeterli çeşitliliğe sahip olmadığıtespit edilmiştir. Araştırmada ülkeler arasındaki etkileşimlerin haritalanmasında etkin bir biçimde Toplumsal AğyapıÇözümlemesi TAÇ araçlarıkullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın önemli bir diğer özelliği, hem AB’ye üye ülkeler arasında hem de AB üyesi ülkeler ile diğer ülkeler arasındaki uluslararasıticaret örüntüsünün, TAÇ’daki araçlar zenginleştirilerek ve ülkelere göre hakim sektörler belirginleştirilerek çözümlenmesidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Avrupa bütünleşmesi, ticari başarım, toplumsal ağyapıçözümlemesi

European Integration: An Examination in Terms of Trade Performances

Öz

Integration, one of the major objectives of European Union EU , can be described and measured through various aspects and dimensions. In this respect, depending on the subject of interest, integration may be evaluated according to political, social, cultural and economic dimensions. This paper focuses on the trade performances of member countries in order to measure the level of integration within the EU. Research findings show that intra-European trade volume has increased during the expansion process of the EU between 1995 and 2006. In addition, share of intra-trade in total has also increased, which reveals a certain level of integration in economic terms. The export volumes among countries revealed that the member states of the European Union constitute a strong economic block with respect to the export-import relationships among themselves. In this study, tools of social network analysis SNA are actively employed in order to map the interactions between corresponding countries. For this purpose, a certain level of minimum value is defined for the volume of trade occurring between countries in order to identify quasi-components, i.e. bi-components or blocks . Furthermore, the reciprocity analysis is also employed in order to observe the mutual integration of countries. In this respect, what is evident from the mapping of import and export relationship between countries is that European Union, South East Asian, Latin American, and East and Central European countries have distinct cluster formations, albeit with some exceptions. The United States, Germany and Japan also appear to be the major trade partners between the blocks. In terms of reciprocity between countries, it is remarkable that the pattern of international trade among the countries who are member of EU seem to be slightly more reciprocal than other regional blocks. This particular situation partly reflects the fact that compared to other blocks the EU is an intensely integrated economic block. Nevertheless, this integration appears to be partial. Indeed, although trade flows among central countries of the EU network Germany, Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy, and Belgium are reciprocal, most of flows between the central countries and the rest of EU are not reciprocal. Another distinctive characteristic of this study is the analysis of the pattern of international trade occurring both between the countries that are members of the EU and between the EU member countries and others by enriching the tools available in SNA for the illustration of the dominant sectors according to the countries. For this purpose, firstly localization indexes are used to reveal the specialization of the countries in economic sectors. Although two methods of localization indices Location Quotient Index and Contingency Index CI are reviewed, only one of them CI is employed in this study. Sectoral specialization of each country is defined according to the sector for which CI value is calculated to be maximum. In this respect what is further evident from this study is that when sector-based specialization of countries are taken into account major economic blocks are found to be not self-sufficient in terms of involvement of a spectrum of member states meeting the demand of the block in some specific sectors. Overall, this study reveals the fact that SNA has a high capacity in terms of exploration and representation of interactions between countries, and also explaining the rational behind particular groupings of countries, which otherwise are invisible to the observer without a proper representation of the data. Research data employed in this study is obtained from EUROSTAT, ITC and Correlates of War Project. Future studies may be devoted to the identification of sources and specific dimensions of lack of integration between central countries and more peripheral parts of the EU in a more detailed context. Further SNA based studies focusing on specific sectors and country profiles may also have sound contribution to the international trade theory and the issue of integration

Anahtar Kelimeler

European integration, trade performances, social network analysis

Kaynakça

• Anderson, J.E. and van Wincoop, E. (2004). “Trade Costs”, Journal of Economic Literature, (42): 691-751.
• Aynagöz Çakmak, Ö. (2005) “Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler ve Rekabet Gücü: Türkiye Tekstil ve Hazır Giyim Endüstrisi Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, Ege Akademik Bakış, (5): 65-76.
• Barbieri, K., Keshk, O. and Pollins, B. (2010) Correlates of War Project Trade Data Set Codebook, Version 2.0. Online: http://correlatesofwar.org.
• Beyhan, B. (2011). “Inter-Firm Social Networks Created by Mobile Laborers: A Case Study on Siteler in Ankara”, The Journal of Social Structure, (12): 1-33.
• Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
• Brasili, A., Epifani, P. and Helg, R. (2000). “On the dynamics of trade patterns”, De Economist, (148): 233–57.
• Burange, L.G. (2003) Performance of Maharashtra's Manufacturing Sector, Working Paper No. UDE(CAS)5(5) /2003, Department of Economics, University of Mumbai, Mumbai.
• Coe, N.M. and Hess, M. (2005). “The internationalization of retailing: implications for supply network restructuring in East Asia and Eastern Europe”, Journal of Economic Geography, (5): 449–74.
• Dalum, B., Laursen, K. And Villumsen, G. (1998). “Structural change in OECD export specialisation patterns: De-specialisation and ‘stickiness’”, International Review of Applied Economics, (12): 423–43.
• Eaton, J. and Kortum, S. (2002). “Technology, Geography and Trade”, Econometrica, (70): 1741- 1779.
• EUROSTAT (2007). Panorama of European Union Trade, Data 1999-2006.
• EUROSTAT (2008). External and intra-European Union trade, Statistical yearbook, Data 1958- 2006.
• Everett, M.G. and Borgatti, S.P. (1998). “Analyzing Clique Overlap”, Connections, (21): 49-61.
• Fligstein, N. and Merand, F. (2002). “Globalization or Europeanization? Evidence on the European Economy Since 1980”, Acta Sociologica, (45): 7-22.
• Florence, P.S. (1939) Report on the Location of Industry, Political and Economic Planning, London, U.K.
• Florence, P.S. (1948) Investment, Size and Location of the Plant, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Guimarães, P., Figueiredo, O. and Woodward, D. (2009) “Dartboard tests for the location quotient”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, (39): 360–364.
• Henderson, J., Dicken, P., Hess, M., Coe, N.M. and Yeung, H.W.-C. (2002). “Global production networks and the analysis of economic development”, Review of International Political Economy, (9): 436–64.
• Hettne, B (2002). The Europeanization of Europe: endogenous and exogenous dimensions, Journal of European Integration, (24): 325–340
• Hoen, A.R. and Oosterhaven, J. (2004). On the Measurement of Comparatıve Advantage, available at http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/reports/themeC/2004/04C11/ (SOM - reports University of Groningen). ITC (International Trade Center) (2008). International Trade Statistics, 2001-2005, www.intracen.org/ statistics , (accessed April 2010).
• Krempel1, L. and Plümper, T. (2003). “Exploring the Dynamics of International Trade by Combining the Comparative Advantages of Multivariate Statistics and Network Visualizations”, The Journal of Social Structure, (4): 1-22.
• McCaffrey, D.P. and Smith, A.E. (2007). “The Interaction of Formal and Informal Mechanisms in Shared Regulation”, Draft Working Paper for 9th Public Management Research Conference University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, October 25-27, 2007.
• Mei, Q., Cai, D., Zhang, D. and Zhai, D. (2008). “Topic Modeling with Network Regularization”, WWW 2008, April 21–25, 2008, Beijing, China
• Moody, J. (2000). SPAN: SAS Programs for Analyzing Networks – User’s Manual. http://www.soc. duke.edu/~jmoody77/span/span.zip (last accessed at 18.08.2006)
• Payne, A (2005) The Global Politics of Unequal Development. Palgrave, New York.
• Proudman, J., and S. Redding (2000). “Evolving patterns of international trade”, Review of International Economics, (8): 373–96.
• Pianta, M. and Archibugi, D. (1992) “Specialization and size of technological activities in industrial countries: the analysis of patent data”, Research Policy, (21): 79-93.
• Serin, V. and Civan, A. (2008) “Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: A Case Study for Turkey towards the EU”, Journal of Economic and Social Research, (10): 25-41.
• Spiegelman, R.G. (1964) “A Method for Analyzing the Location Characteristics of Footloose Industries: A Case Study ofthe Precision Instrument Industry”, Land Economics, (40): 79-86.
• UN (2004). “Development and Globalization: Facts and Figures, 2004”, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
• UN (2006). “Trade and Development Report, 2006” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
• Verspagen, B. and Werker, C. (2003). “The Invisible College of The Economics of Innovation and Technological Change”, MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum series, (http://meritbbs.unimaas.nl)
• Yentürk, N. and Başlevent, C. (2007) Türkiye’de Genç İşsizliği, Gençlik Çalışmaları Birimi Araştırma Raporu, (http://www.setav.org/ups/dosya/10409.pdf).
• Zaghini, A. (2005), “Evolution of trade patterns in the new EU member states”, Economics of Transition, (13): 629–58.