Determinants of Labor Productivity of Turkish Manufacturing Sectors: The Role of Global Value Chain Participation

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 58 Sayı: 2, 155 - 170, 30.04.2024

Pınar Tat , Abdullah Altun , Halit Yanıkkaya

https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1321289

Öz

Purpose: This paper investigates the determinants of labor productivity of Turkish manufacturing sectors by taking into account both the global value chain (GVC) participation and the research and development (R&D) expenditure for the period of 1995-2018.
Methodology: To analyze the determinants of labor productivity in Turkish manufacturing sectors, we specify the labor productivity model and estimate this empirical model by the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) methods.
Findings: Our estimation results indicate that while simple forward GVC participation enhances the labor productivity of Turkish high-tech manufacturing sectors if they trade with developing countries, complex forward GVC participation increases productivity regardless of trading partners. For low-tech sectors, there is no significant impact of GVCs or R&D on productivity. There is no significant impact of backward GVC participation and sectoral R&D intensity on labor productivity. These significant results provide strong evidence for the importance of deeper involvement of high-tech sectors in GVCs for higher sectoral productivity. Given the strong heterogeneity in terms of sectors and trading partners, specific policies should be targeted to benefit from the productivity gains of the global value chains.
Originality: This study contributes to the current studies by focusing on disaggregated measures of GVC participation indices and enlarges the empirical analysis by considering the heterogeneity in trading partners (developed and developing trading partners).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Labor Productivity, Simple/Complex GVC Participation, R&D Expenditure, The Turkish Manufacturing Sector

Türk İmalat Sektörlerinin İş Gücü Verimliliğinin Belirleyicileri: Küresel Değer Zincirine Katılımın Rolü

Öz

Amaç: Bu makale, 1995-2018 dönemi için hem küresel değer zinciri (KDZ) katılımı hem de araştırma ve geliştirme (Ar-Ge) harcamalarını dikkate alarak Türk imalat sektörlerinin işgücü verimliliğinin belirleyicilerini incelemektedir.
Yöntem: Türk imalat sektörlerinde işgücü verimliliğinin belirleyicilerini analiz etmek için, işgücü verimliliği modelini belirlemekte ve bu ampirik modeli Sıradan En Küçük Kareler (OLS) ve İki Aşamalı En Küçük Kareler (2SLS) yöntemleri ile tahmin etmekteyiz.
Bulgular: Tahmin sonuçlarımız, gelişmekte olan ülkelerle ticaret yapmaları durumunda basit ileriye dönük KDZ katılımının, Türk ileri teknoloji imalat sektörlerinin işgücü verimliliğini artırırken, karmaşık ileri KDZ katılımının ticari ortaklardan bağımsız olarak üretkenliği artırdığını göstermektedir. Düşük teknolojili sektörler için KDZ’lerin veya Ar-Ge’nin üretkenlik üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi yoktur. Geriye dönük KDZ katılımının ve sektörel Ar-Ge yoğunluğunun işgücü verimliliği üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi yoktur. Bu önemli sonuçlar, daha yüksek sektörel üretkenlik için yüksek teknoloji sektörlerinin KDZ’lere daha derin bir şekilde dahil edilmesinin önemine dair güçlü kanıtlar sunmaktadır. Sektörler ve ticaret partnerleri açısından güçlü heterojenlik göz önüne alındığında, küresel değer zincirlerinin üretkenlik kazanımlarından yararlanmak için belirli politikalar hedeflenmelidir.
Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, KDZ katılım endekslerinin ayrıştırılmış ölçütlerine odaklanarak mevcut çalışmalara katkıda bulunmakta ve ticaret partnerlerindeki (gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ticaret partnerleri) heterojenliği dikkate alarak ampirik analizi genişletmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İş Gücü Verimliliği, Basit/Kompleks KDZ Katılımı, Ar-Ge Harcamaları, Türk İmalat Sektörü

Kaynakça

• Altun, A., Turan, T. and Yanikkaya, H. (2023). “Do Turkish Firms Benefit from GVC Participation?”, International Journal of Emerging Markets. DOI: 10.1108/IJOEM-02-2022-0334
• Amiti, M. and Konings, J. (2007). “Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia”, American Economic Review, 97(5), 1611-1638.
• Antrás, P., De Gortari, A. and Itskhoki, O. (2017). “Globalization, Inequality and Welfare”, Journal of International Economics, 108, 387-412.
• Autor, D.H., Dorn, D. and Hanson, G.H. (2013). “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States”, American Economic Review, 103(6), 2121-2168.
• Baldwin, J. and Gu, W. (2003). “Export Market Participation and Productivity Performance in Canadian Manufacturing”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 36, 634-657.
• Constantinescu, C., Mattoo, A. and Ruta, M. (2019). “Does Vertical Specialisation Increase Productivity?”, The World Economy, 42(8), 2385-2402.
• Criscuolo, C. and Timmis, J. (2017). “The Relationship between Global Value Chains and Productivity”, International Productivity Monitor, 32, 61-83.
• Dalgıç, B., Fazlıoğlu, B. and Karaoğlan, D. (2015). “Entry to Foreign Markets and Productivity: Evidence from a Matched Sample of Turkish Manufacturing Firms”, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 24(5), 638-659.
• De Marchi, V., Giuliani, E. and Rabellotti, R. (2018). “Do Global Value Chains Offer Developing Countries Learning and Innovation Opportunities?”, The European Journal of Development Research, 30(3), 389-407.
• Filiztekin, A. (2000). “Openness and Productivity Growth in Turkish Manufacturing”, Ekonomi-tek, 8(2), 1-23.
• Formai, S. and Caffarelli, F.V. (2015). “Quantifying the Productivity Effects of Global Value Chains” (No. 1564). Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
• Galindo-Rueda, F. and Verger, F. (2016). “OECD Taxonomy of Economic Activities Based on R&D Intensity”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2016/04.
• Grossman, G.M. and Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2008). “Trading Tasks: A Simple Theory of Offshoring”, American Economic Review, 98(5), 1978-1997.
• Halpern, L., Koren, M. and Szeidl, A. (2015). “Imported Inputs and Productivity”, American Economic Review, 105(12), 3660-3703.
• Jangam, B.P. (2021). “Global Value Chain Embeddedness, Labour Productivity and Employment in the Asia-Pacific Countries”, Studies in Economics and Finance, 38(2), 339-360.
• Jona-Lasinio, C. and Meliciani, V. (2019). “Global Value Chains and Productivity Growth in Advanced Economies: Does Intangible Capital Matter?”, International Productivity Monitor, 36, 53-78.
• Kılıçaslan, Y., Aytun, U. and Meçik, O. (2021). “Global Value Chain Integration and Productivity: The Case of Turkish Manufacturing Firms”, Middle East Development Journal, 13(1), 150-171.
• Koopman, R., Wang, Z. and Wei, S.J. (2014). “Tracing Value-Added and Double Counting in Gross Exports”, American Economic Review, 104(2), 459-94.
• Kummritz, V. (2016). “Do Global Value Chains Cause Industrial Development?”, The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Centre for Trade and Economic Integration.
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021a). “OECD Inter-Country Input-Output Database”, http://oe.cd/icio, (Accessed: 15.03.2023).
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021b). “Analytical Business Enterprise Research and Development (ANBERD) Database”, http://oe.cd/anberd, (Accessed: 15.03.2023).
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021c). “Trade in Employment Database”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TIM_2019_MAIN, (Accessed: 10.05.2023).
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021d). “Guide to OECD’s Trade in Value-added Indicators”, 2021 Edition, https://www.oecd.org/publications/guide-to-oecd-tiva-indicators-2021-edition-58aa22b1-en.htm, (Accessed: 10.05.2023).
• Ozler, S. and Yilmaz, K. (2009). “Productivity Response to Reduction in Trade Barriers: Evidence from Turkish Manufacturing Plants”, Review of World Economics, 145, 339-360.
• Pahl, S. and Timmer, M.P. (2020). “Do Global Value Chains Enhance Economic Upgrading? A Long View”, The Journal of Development Studies, 56(9), 1683-1705.
• Taglioni, D. and Winkler, D. (2016). “Making Global Value Chains Work for Development”, The World Bank.
• Taymaz, E. and Yilmaz, K. (2006). “Productivity and Trade Orientation: Turkish Manufacturing Industry Before and After the Customs Union”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
• University of International Business and Economics (UIBE) GVC Index Team. (2017). “Data Files Structure of the UIBE GVC Index System”, http://139.129.209.66:8000/d/daedafb854/, (Accessed: 15.03.2023).
• University of International Business and Economics (UIBE). (2017a). “Data Files Structure of the UIBE GVC Index System”, https://v2.fangcloud.com/share/a26979974d538c7e5aeb24b55a?folder_id=63000172546&lang=en, (Accessed: 15.03.2023).
• University of International Business and Economics (UIBE). (2017b). “UIBE Global Value Chain Indexes System – Concept Note”, https://v2.fangcloud.com/share/a26979974d538c7e5aeb24b55a?folder_id=63000172546&lang=en, (Accessed: 15.03.2023).
• Veeramani, C. and Dhir, G. (2022). “Do Developing Countries Gain by Participating in Global Value Chains? Evidence from India”, Review of World Economics, 158(4), 1011-1042.
• Wang, Z., Wei, S. J., Yu, X. and Zhu, K. (2017). “Measures of Participation in Global Value Chains and Global Business Cycles” (No. w23222), National Bureau of Economic Research.
• World Bank. (2020). “World Bank Country and Lending Groups”, https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending- groups (Accessed: 15.03.2023).