ASYMMETRIC EFFECTS OF THE EU’S FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS AND TURKEY / AB’nin Serbest Ticaret Anlaşmalarının Asimetrik Etkisi Ve Türkiye

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 117 - 140, 30.04.2020

Gökhan Aktaş , Zeynep Kaplan

https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.646314

Cited By: 1

Öz

The Customs Union, signed between Turkey and the European
Union, has an important role in Turkey’s integration with the European and global
markets. However, recent changes in European Union’s trade policy demonstrated
the necessity for the modernization of the Customs Union. In this framework, the
study aims to investigate the asymmetric effects of the European Union’s free
trade agreements concluded with third countries on Turkey’s foreign trade. The
study investigate trade deviation of top five product group categories imported
from South Africa and Mexico for the period 2000-2017. The study measures and
compares the degree of trade deviation by considering the imports coming directly
from South Africa and Mexico and imports coming from these countries via the European
Union market. The study concludes that the trade deviation was low on the goods
subject to low or zero tariff rates, while trade deviation was high with the
goods subject to higher tariff rates or non-tariff barriers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Trade Deviation, Economic Integration, Customs Union, Free Trade Agreement

AB’NİN SERBEST TİCARET ANLAŞMALARININ ASİMETRİK ETKİSİ VE TÜRKİYE / Asymmetric Effects Of The EU’s Free Trade Agreements And Turkey

Öz

Türkiye ile AB arasında imzalanan
Gümrük Birliği, Türkiye’nin hem Avrupa hem de küresel pazarlara entegrasyonunu
sağlayan önemli bir işleve sahip olmuştur. Ancak, Avrupa Birliği’nin ticaret
politikasında son yıllarda meydana gelen gelişmeler Gümrük Birliği’nin
güncellemesini gerekli hale getirmiştir. Bu çerçevede, çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa
Birliği’nin üçüncü ülkelerle imzaladığı serbest ticaret anlaşmalarının
Türkiye’nin dış ticaretinde yol açtığı asimetrik etkiyi incelemektir. Bu
çerçevede, 2000-2017 yılları arasında Türkiye’ye ithal edilen Güney Afrika ve
Meksika menşeli beş ürün grubunda ticaret sapmasının varlığı incelenmiştir.
Çalışmada Güney Afrika ve Meksika’dan Türkiye’ye doğrudan yapılan ithalat ile
AB pazarı üzerinden yapılan ithalat ölçülmüş ve karşılaştırılmıştır. Türkiye’nin
ithalatta düşük veya sıfır vergi oranı uyguladığı mal gruplarında ticaret
sapması olmadığı veya düşük düzeylerde kaldığı, ithalat vergilerinin yüksek
olduğu veya tarife dışı engellerle ithalatın zorlaştırıldığı mal gruplarında
ise ticaret sapmasının yüksek olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ticaret sapması, İktisadi Entegrasyon, Gümrük Birliği, Serbest Ticaret Anlaşması, Avrupa Birliği

Kaynakça

• Aichele, R., Felbermayr, G. ve Heiland, I. (2016). Going Deep: The Trade and Welfare Effects of TTIP Revised. CESifo Working Paper, No. 219.
• Akman, M. S. (2010). The European Union’s Trade Strategy and its reflections on Turkey: An Evaluation from the Perspective of Free Trade Agreements. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(2), 17-45.
• Akman, M.S. (2014). AB-ABD Transatlantik Ticaret ve Yatırım Ortaklığı: Türkiye Açısından Bir Değerlendirme. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 1-29.
• Alkan, U. (2017). The Modernization of Turkey’s Customs Union with the European Union: Reasons and Possible Outcomes. EU Diplomacy Paper, 09/2017.
• Balkır, C. (2010). Uluslararası Ekonomik Bütünleşme Kuram, Politika ve Uygulama AB ve Dünya Örnekleri. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Barnes, J. ve Morris, M. (2008). Staying Alive in the Global Automotive Industry: What can Developing Economies Learn from South Africa about Linking into Global Automotive Value Chains?. European Journal of Development Research, 20(1), 31–55.
• Catalano, A. (2011). The Political Economy of Turkey-EU Customs Union after the Treaty of Lisbon: A Reappraisal. Political Studies, 1(0), 31–48.
• Dawar, K., Berceo, I. G., Togan, S. ve Yapıcı, M. (2016). Bringing EU-Turkey Trade and Investment Relations Up to Date?, Workshop European Parliament DG for External Policies, PE. 535.014, May 2016, Brussels, 1-47.
• Dawar, K., Hartwell, C. ve Togan, S. (2018). Reforming and Renegotiating the EU-Turkey Customs Union. Turkish Political Quarterly, 17 (1), 129-138.
• DEİK (2015). Meksika-Türkiye İş Forumu Meksika’da Gerçekleştirildi. DEİK Bilgi Merkezi, Basın Açıklamaları. Erişim adresi: https://www.deik.org.tr/basin-aciklamalari-meksika-turkiye-is-forumu-meksika-da-gerceklestirildi_s13
• Erzan, R. (2018). Customs Union between EU and Turkey: A Success Story to be Nurtured. Working Papers 2018/03, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
• European Commission (1996b). EU-Turkey Association Council, Decision 1/95 of 22 December 1995 on Implementing the Final Phase of the Customs Union, (96/142/EC) Official Journal of the European Union, L 035, 13 February, Brussels.
• European Commission (2006). Global Europe: Competing in the World: A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy, COM(2006) 567 Final, 4 October, Brussels.
• European Commission (2016a). Strategic Plan 2016-2020: Trade, DG Trade, 19 July. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/trade_sp_2016_ 2020_revised_en.pdf
• European Commission (2016b). Impact Assessment Accompanying the Document Recommendation for a Council Decision Authorizing the Opening of Negotiations with Turkey on an Agreement on the Extension of the Scope of the Bilateral Preferential Trade Relationship and on the Modernization of the Customs Union. Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2016) 475 Final, Brussels.
• European Commission (2017). TARIC Database, Taxation and Customs Union. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/what-is-common-customs-tariff/taric_en
• Felbermayr, G., Aichele, R. ve Yalcin, E. (2016). EU-Turkish Customs Union: How to Proceed. VOX CEPR Policy Portal. Erişim adresi: https://voxeu.org/article/eu-turkish-customs-union-how-proceed
• Krueger A. O. ve Krishna, K. (1995). Implementing Free Trade Agreements: Rules of Origin and Hidden Protection. Deardorff et al. (Ed.), New Directions in Trade Theory içinde. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
• Nas, Ç. (2017). Economic Specialists - Expert Interview. S. Akman ve Vesterbye, D.S. (Ed.), A Modernized EU-Turkey Customs Union: Expert Interviews and Analysis. ENC Perspectives, April.
• OECD (2017). Trade in Raw Materials: How Exports of Mineral Commodities Contribute to Economy-wide Growth, Trade Topics, Erişim adresi: http://www.oecd.org/tad/benefitlib/export-restrictions-raw-materials.htm
• PAGEV (2018). Türkiye Plastik Sektörü İzleme Raporu, 2018/6. İstanbul. Erişim adresi: https://www.pagev.org/upload/files/Hammadde%20Yeni%20Tebli% C4%9F%20Bilg.%203/turkiye%20plastik%20sektor%20TR%202018-6.pdf
• T.C. Meksika Büyükelçiliği Ticaret Müşavirliği (2014). Meksika Ülke Raporu 2013, Ekim, Meksika.
• Titievskaia, J. (2019) EU Trade Policy, EPRS - European Parliamentary Research Service In-Depth Analysis, Brussels: European Parliament.
• Togan, S. (2015). The EU-Turkey Customs Union: A Model for Future Euro-Med Integration. Ayadi et al. (Ed.), Economic and Social Development of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Countries içinde. Switzerland: Springer.
• TÜİK (2019). Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri. Erişim adresi:www.tuik.gov.tr
• USGS (2017). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2017, US Geological Survey, Washington: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
• Villarreal, M. A. (2009). Mexico’s Free Trade Agreements. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, No. R40784, April 25.
• Watkins, R. (2013). Meeting the China Challenge to Manufacturing in Mexico. D.E. Peters, Hearnd A.D. ve Shaiken, H. (Ed.), China and the New Triangular Relationships in the Americas: China and the Future of US-Mexico Relations içinde. Mexico-USA: Center for Latin American Studies.
• World Bank (2014). Evaluation of the EU-Turkey Customs Union, World Bank Report, No. 85830-TR.