The Growth Model of the Automotive Industry in Türkiye: An Input-Output Analysis via the Hypothetical Extraction Method

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 58 Sayı: 4, 539 - 554, 31.10.2024

Emre Ünal , Ali Yavuz Polat , Nezir Köse

https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1494479

Öz

Purpose: The objective of this research was to ascertain if the portion of the automotive industry that engages in non-tradable goods or export goods is the principal driving force behind the industry's expansion. The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap by focusing on the automotive industry as its principal area of investigation.
Methodology: Productivity growth in the automotive industry was estimated utilizing an innovative hypothetical extraction method (HEM) for both the non-tradable goods sector and the export goods sector. Following that, the weighted multipliers approach is employed to allocate the productivity across the non-tradable goods and export goods of the automotive industry.
Findings: The findings indicate that the automotive industry maintains a strategy of development driven by exports. Production targeted for the domestic market is subject to significant limitations. Multinational automobile corporations tend to employ the strategy of exporting. The growth model of the automotive industry is significantly influenced by various institutional elements, including the Customs Union, taxes, and vertical integration.
Originality: Although the automotive industry is an essential industry for exports, its growth model has not been comprehensively scrutinized. This study primarily focuses on investigating the growth model of the Turkish automotive industry and the institutional factors that influenced its strategic decisions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Automotive Industry, Export-Led Growth, HEM, Institutional Economics, Productivity

Türkiye'de Otomotiv Endüstrisinin Büyüme Modeli: Varsayımsal Çıkarım Yöntemiyle Girdi-Çıktı Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, otomotiv endüstrisinin ticarete konu olmayan mallar veya ihracat malları üreten kısmının, endüstrinin genişlemesinin arkasındaki temel itici güç olup olmadığını tespit etmektir. Bu makalenin hedefi, temel inceleme alanı olarak otomotiv endüstrisine odaklanıp araştırma alanı içerisindeki bu boşluğu doldurmaktır.
Yöntem: Otomotiv endüstrisindeki verimlilik artışı, hem ticarete konu olmayan mallar sektörü hem de ihracat malları sektörü için yenilikçi bir varsayımsal çıkarım yöntemi kullanılarak tahmin edilmiştir. Bunu takiben, verimliliği otomotiv endüstrisinin ticarete konu olmayan malları ve ihracat malları arasında dağıtmak için ağırlıklı çarpanlar yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Bu çalışmada elde edilen bulgular, otomotiv endüstrisinin ihracata dayalı bir gelişme stratejisi sürdürdüğünü göstermektedir. İç pazara yönelik üretim önemli kısıtlamalara tabidir. Çok uluslu otomobil şirketleri ihracat stratejisini kullanma eğilimindedir. Otomotiv endüstrisinin büyüme modeli, Gümrük Birliği, vergiler ve dikey entegrasyon dahil olmak üzere çeşitli kurumsal unsurlardan önemli ölçüde etkilenmektedir.
Özgünlük: Otomotiv endüstrisi ihracat için önemli bir endüstri olmasına rağmen, büyüme modeli kapsamlı bir şekilde incelenmemiştir. Bu çalışma öncelikle Türk otomotiv endüstrisinin büyüme modelini ve stratejik kararlarını etkileyen kurumsal faktörleri araştırmaya odaklanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Otomotive Endüstrisi, İhracata Dayalı Büyüme Modeli, Varsayımsal Çıkarım Yöntemi, Kurumsal Ekonomi, Verimlilik

Kaynakça

• Arto, I., Andreoni, V. and Cantuche, J.M.R. (2015). “Global Impacts of the Automotive Supply Chain Disruption Following the Japanese Earthquake of 2011”, Economic Systems Research, 27(3), 306-323.
• Balassa, B. (1964). “The Purchasing-Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal”, Journal of Political Economy, 72(6), 584−596.
• Bekmez, S., and Komut, M. (2006). “Competitiveness of Turkish Automotive Industry: A Comparison with European Union Countries", Papers of the Annual IUE-SUNY Cortland Conference in Economics, Proceedings of the Conference on Human and Economic Resources, Izmir University of Economics, 180-192.
• Berzin, C.J. (2010). “Turkey's Automotive Industry: Driven to Grow”, Perspectives on Business and Economics, 28, 13-21.
• Boyer, R. (1990). “The Regulation School: A Critical Introduction”, Columbia University Press, New York.
• Boyer, R. (2005). “Coherence, Diversity, and the Evolution of Capitalism-The Institutional Complementarity Hypothesis”, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 2(1), 43-80.
• Boyer, R. and Hollingsworth, J.R. (1997). “The Variety of Institutional Arrangements and Their Complementarity in Modern Economies”, Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions, (Editors: Boyer, R. and Hollingsworth, J.R.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 49-54.
• Boyer, R. and Saillard, Y. (2002). “A Summary of Regulation Theory”, Regulation Theory: The State of the Art, (Editors: Boyer, R. and Saillard, Y.), Routledge, London, 36-44.
• Boyer, R. and Yamada, T. (2000). “Introduction: A Puzzle for Economic Theories”, Japanese Capitalism in Crisis: A Regulationist Interpretation, (Editors: Boyer, R. and Yamada, T.), Routledge, London, 1-16.
• Chenery H.B. and Watanabe, T. (1958). “Aggregate Fluctuations and the Network Structure of Intersectoral Trade”, Econometrica, 26(4), 487-521.
• Commons, J.R. (1934). “Institutional Economics, the Macmillan Company”, New York.
• Darby, J. (2009). “Liberalisation and Regional Market Integration: Turkish and Australian Automotive Sector Experience Compared”, World Economy, 32(3), 460-478.
• Dietzenbacher, E. and Lahr, B. (2013). “Expanding Extractions, Economic Systems Research”, 25(3), 341-360.
• Dietzenbacher, E. and van der Linden, J.A. (1997). “Sectoral and Spatial Linkages in the EC Production Structure”, Journal of Regional Science, 37(2), 235-257.
• Dietzenbacher, E. Hoen, A.R. and Los, B. (2002). “Labor Productivity in Western Europe 1975–1985: An Inter-Country, Interindustry Analysis”, Journal of Regional Science, 40, 425-452.
• Erbektas, S., and Werner, J. (2016). "Economic Effects of the Automotive Industry in Turkey”, Logistik & Supply Chain Management, 13, 78-82.
• Goldstein, M. and Officer, L.H. (1979). “New Measures of Prices and Productivity for Tradable and Nontradable Goods”, The Review of Income and Wealth, 25(4), 413-427.
• Hicks, J.R. (1963). “The Theory of Wages”, Palgrave Macmillan, Toronto.
• Hirschman A.O. (1958). “Strategy of Economic Development”, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA.
• Köse, N., Ünal, E. and Gayaker, S. (2024). “Time-Varying Effects of the Gold Price and the Oil Price on Imports in Turkey”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/16081625.2023.2298928
• Leontief, W.W. (1936). “Quantitative Input-Output Relations in the Economic System of the United States”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 18(3), 105-125.
• Leontief, W.W. (1949). “Structural Matrices of National Economies”, Econometrica, 17, 273-282.
• Onaran, Ö. and Stockhammer, E. (2005). “Two Different Export-Oriented Growth Strategies: Accumulation and Distribution in Turkey and South Korea”, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 41(1), 65-89.
• Özatağan, G. (2011). “Dynamics of Value Chain Governance: Increasing Supplier Competence and Changing Power Relations in the Periphery of Automotive Production-Evidence from Bursa, Turkey”, European Planning Studies, 19(1), 77-95.
• Ozturk, I. and Acaravci, A. (2010). “Testing the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence from Turkey”, The Journal of Developing Areas, 44(1), 245-254.
• Pasinetti, L.L. (1973). “The Notion of Vertical Integration in Economic Analysis”, Metroeconomica, 25, 1–29.
• Rasmussen, N. (1956). “Studies in Intersectoral Relations”, North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.
• Samuelson, P. (1964). “Theoretical Notes on Trade Problems”, Review of Economics and Statistics 46(2), 145−154.
• Taymaz, E. and Yilmaz, K. (2008). “Integration with the Global Economy: The case of Turkish Automobile and Consumer Electronics Industries”, Available at SSRN 1274804.
• Taymaz, E. and Yilmaz, K. (2017). “Political Economy of Industrial Policy in Turkey: The Case of the Automotive Industry”, ESID Working Paper No. 90, Manchester, UK.
• Uni, H. (2007). “Export-Biased Productivity Increase and Exchange Rate Regime in East Asia and Europe”, Kyoto Economic Review, 76(1), 117-138.
• Uni, H. (2012). “Comparative Analysis of Conditions for Monetary Integration: Europe and Asia”, Diversity and Transformations of Asian Capitalism, (Editors: Boyer, R., Uemura, H. and Isogai, A.), Routledge, New York, 287-305.
• Uni, H. (2018). “Comparative Analysis of Regional Trade Imbalances in East Asia and the Eurozone”, Evolving Diversity and Interdependence of Capitalisms, (Editors: Boyer, R., Uemura, H., Yamada, T. and Song, L.), Evolutionary Economics and Social Complexity Science, 11, Springer, 93-122.
• Ülengin, F., Önsel, Ş., Aktas, E., Kabak, Ö. and Özaydın, Ö. (2014). “A Decision Support Methodology to Enhance the Competitiveness of the Turkish Automotive Industry”, European Journal of Operational Research, 234(3), 789-801.
• Ünal, E. (2016). “A Comparative Analysis of Export Growth in Turkey and China through Macroeconomic and Institutional Factors”, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 13(1), 57-91.
• Ünal, E. (2017). “Turkey’s Current Account Deficit Problem and Integration into the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union”, Kyoto Economic Review, 86(1-2), 1-49.
• Ünal, E. (2018). “An Institutional Approach and Input-Output Analysis for Explaining the Transformation of Turkish Economy”, Journal of Economic Structures, 7(3), 1-38.
• Ünal, E. (2020). “Import Dependency on Intermediate Goods in Turkey: An Input-Output Analysis”, Verimlilik Dergisi, 4, 203-221.
• Ünal, E. (2021). “Industrial Growth Models by Input–Output Analysis and an Institutional Approach to the Automotive Industry in China and Turkey”, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 18, 175-203.
• Ünal, E., Lin, B. and Managi, S. (2023). “CO2 Emissions Embodied in Bilateral Trade in China: An Input-Output Analysis”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 103, 107218.
• Viner, J. (1950). “The Customs Union Issue”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York.
• Wasti, S. N., Kozan, M.K. and Kuman, A. (2006). “Buyer-Supplier Relationships in the Turkish Automotive Industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(9), 947-970.