Öz
Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin pamuk ithalatı talebinin Armington esnekliği Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı (ARDL) kullanılarak tahmin
edilmiştir. Uzun dönem talep esnekliği pamuk fiyatlarına yönelik politikaların Türkiye’nin üretim ve ticareti üzerinde önemli ekonomik
etkileri olacağını göstermektedir. Çalışma bulguları, yerli/ithal fiyat oranını yüzde 1 oranında düşüren bir destek politikasının bütçeye
yaklaşık 240 bin ABD dolarlık ek bir maliyete neden olurken, aynı zamanda Türkiye’nin pamuk ithalatını neredeyse 24 milyon ABD
doları azaltacağını göstermektedir. Bununla beraber, yerli/ithal pamuk fiyat oranında aynı seviyede düşüşe sebep olacak bir gümrük
vergisinin ithalatı aynı miktarda azaltacağı, diğer yandan 12 milyon ABD dolarlık vergi geliri sağlayacağı beklenmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Armington esnekliği pamuk ithalat talebi tarımsal ticaret ARDL yöntemi
Kaynakça
- 1. The Official Gazette, 2012, “Girdi Tedarik Stratejisi (GİTES) ve Eylem Planı 2013-2015”, September 3, 2015, <http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr /eskiler/ 2012/ 12/20121225-28-1.pdf>.
- 2. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J., 2001, “Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol.16 (3), pp. 289-326.
- 3. Armington, P. S. (1969, March). “A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production”, Staff Papers, Vol.16 (1), pp. 159-178.
- 4. Babula, R, 1987, “An Armington Model of U.S. Cotton Exports”, Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, Vol.39 (4), pp. 12-22.
- 5. Piermartini, R. and Teh, R., 2005, “Demystifying Modelling Methods for Trade Policy”, WTO Discussion Papers, No.10.
- 6. McDaniel, C. A. and Balistreri, E. J., 2003, “A Review of Armington Trade Substitution Elasticities”, Integration and Trade Journal, Vol.7 (18), pp. 161-173.
- 7. Kreinin, M. E. and Plummer, M. G., 2012, “Theory and Economic Modeling of Preferential Trading Arrangements”, M. E. Kreinin and M. G. Plummer (Eds.),
- The Oxford Handbook of International Commercial Policy, Oxford University Press, pp. 123-156.
- 8. Amjadi, A., 2011, WITS-World Integrated Trade Solution: User's Manual, World Bank and UNCTAD.
- 9. Gallaway, M. P., McDaniel, C. A. and Rivera, S. A., 2003, “Short-run and long-run industry-level estimates of U.S. Armington elasticities”, North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.14, pp. 49-68.
- 10. Ertugrul, H. M. and Mangir, F., 2015, “The tourism-led growth hypothesis: empirical evidence from Turkey”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol.18 (7), pp. 633-646.
- 11. Dickey, D. and Fuller, W., 1979, “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.74 (366), pp. 427-431.
- 12. Phillips, P. C. and Perron, P., 1988, “Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression”, Biometrika, Vol.75 (2), pp. 335-346.
- 13. Ng, S. and Perron, P., 2001, “LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit”, Econometrica, Vol.69 (6), pp. 1519-1554.
Öz
method. The estimated long-run elasticity of demand shows that policies on cotton prices might have important economic impacts on domestic production and trade in Turkey. According to the results and based on 2014/15 season figures, a subsidy which decreases the ratio of domestic prices to import prices of cottons by 1 per cent would cost an additional 240 thousand US dollars for the budget and lead some 24 million US dollars decline in the value of imported cotton. On the other hand, an import tax which increases import prices at the same level would have the same effect on imports, while raising an amount of 12 million US dollars tariff revenue
Anahtar Kelimeler
Armington elasticity cotton import demand agricultural trade ARDL method
Kaynakça
- 1. The Official Gazette, 2012, “Girdi Tedarik Stratejisi (GİTES) ve Eylem Planı 2013-2015”, September 3, 2015, <http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr /eskiler/ 2012/ 12/20121225-28-1.pdf>.
- 2. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J., 2001, “Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol.16 (3), pp. 289-326.
- 3. Armington, P. S. (1969, March). “A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production”, Staff Papers, Vol.16 (1), pp. 159-178.
- 4. Babula, R, 1987, “An Armington Model of U.S. Cotton Exports”, Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, Vol.39 (4), pp. 12-22.
- 5. Piermartini, R. and Teh, R., 2005, “Demystifying Modelling Methods for Trade Policy”, WTO Discussion Papers, No.10.
- 6. McDaniel, C. A. and Balistreri, E. J., 2003, “A Review of Armington Trade Substitution Elasticities”, Integration and Trade Journal, Vol.7 (18), pp. 161-173.
- 7. Kreinin, M. E. and Plummer, M. G., 2012, “Theory and Economic Modeling of Preferential Trading Arrangements”, M. E. Kreinin and M. G. Plummer (Eds.),
- The Oxford Handbook of International Commercial Policy, Oxford University Press, pp. 123-156.
- 8. Amjadi, A., 2011, WITS-World Integrated Trade Solution: User's Manual, World Bank and UNCTAD.
- 9. Gallaway, M. P., McDaniel, C. A. and Rivera, S. A., 2003, “Short-run and long-run industry-level estimates of U.S. Armington elasticities”, North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.14, pp. 49-68.
- 10. Ertugrul, H. M. and Mangir, F., 2015, “The tourism-led growth hypothesis: empirical evidence from Turkey”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol.18 (7), pp. 633-646.
- 11. Dickey, D. and Fuller, W., 1979, “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol.74 (366), pp. 427-431.
- 12. Phillips, P. C. and Perron, P., 1988, “Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression”, Biometrika, Vol.75 (2), pp. 335-346.
- 13. Ng, S. and Perron, P., 2001, “LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit”, Econometrica, Vol.69 (6), pp. 1519-1554.
Ayrıntılar
| Diğer ID | JA89DM45RF |
|---|---|
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 1 Aralık 2015 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 1 Aralık 2015 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2015 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4 |