İHRACAT VE KÜLTÜREL YAKINLIK İLİŞKİSİ: RUSYA ÖRNEĞİ (2001-2018)

Yıl 2020, , 700 - 709, 30.09.2020

Levent Şahin

https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.713310

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Rusya'nın Litvanya, Letonya, Estonya, Gürcistan ve Ukrayna'ya ihracatını kültürel yakınlık bağlamında incelemektir. Litvanya, Letonya, Estonya, Ukrayna ve Gürcistan eski SSCB (Sovyet Sosyalist Cumhuriyetler Birliği) ülkeleridir. Ayrıca, nüfusun dörtte biri Letonya ve Estonya'da Rus kökenlidir. Bu oran Litvanya'da yüzde 6, Gürcistan'da yüzde 1,5’tur. Bu nedenle Litvanya, Letonya, Estonya, Gürcistan ve Ukrayna ile Rusya arasında kültürel ilişki bulunmaktadır. Çalışmada panel veri analizi yöntemi ve panel yerçekimi modeli uygulanmıştır. Bu analiz 2001'den 2018'e kadar olan yılları kapsamaktadır. Sonuç olarak, Litvanya, Letonya, Estonya, Ukrayna ve Gürcistan’ın nüfusları ve GSYH’leri arttıkça, Rusya ile ticaret yapmamayı tercih ettikleri belirlenmiştir. Başka bir ifadeyle, Litvanya, Letonya, Estonya, Ukrayna ve Gürcistan'ın Rusya ile olan kültürel ve tarihi ilişkileri ticari ilişkileri olumlu etkilememektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rusya, İhracat, SSCB, Panel Data Analizi, Panel Çekim Modeli

EXPORT AND CULTURAL AFFINITY RELATIONSHIP: THE EXAMPLE OF RUSSIA (2001-2018)

Öz

The aim of the study is to investigate the export of Russia to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine in the context of cultural affinity. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Georgia are the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) countries. Besides, a quarter of the population is Russian origin in Latvia and Estonia, this rate is 6% in Lithuania, and 1.5% in Georgia. Therefore, there is a cultural affinity among Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Russia. In the study, the panel data analysis method and panel gravity model are applied. This analysis involves the years from 2001 to 2018. As a result, it is determined that if the populations and GDPs of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Georgia increase, they prefer not to trade with Russia. In other words, the cultural and historical relationships of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Georgia with Russia does not affect commercial relations positively. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Russia, Export, USSR, Panel Data Analysis, Panel Gravity Model

Kaynakça

• Aghion, P., Bergeaud, A., Lequien, M. and Melitz, M. (2017). The impact of exports on innovation: Theory and evidence. Banque de France Working Paper No: 678.
• Alagöz M., Yapar, S. and Uçtu, R. (2004). Türk cumhuriyetleri̇ ile ı̇lı̇şkı̇lerı̇mı̇ze ekonomik açıdan bir yaklaşım. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12, 45-57.
• Anderson, J. E. (2010). The gravity model(Working Paper No. 16576), Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Arslan, Ü. (2014). Uluslararası ticaret ve kültürel yakınlık: Asya örneği. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, XXXVI(I), 89-101. doi:10.14780/iibdergi.201417538.
• Ata, S. (2012). Türkiye’nin ihracat potansiyeli: Çekim modeli çerçevesinde bir inceleme, International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Eurasian Economists Association, 11-13 Kasım 2012, Almatı, 276-282.
• Bakari, S. and Mabrouki, M. (2017). Impact of exports and imports on economic growth: New evidence from PANAMA. Journal of Smart Economic Growth, 1(2), 67-79.
• Baltagi, B. H. (1995). Econometric analysis of panel data. USA: John Wiley & Sons. Ltd.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2001). Econometric analysis of panel data. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data, UK: John Wiley&Sons Ltd.
• Bardakçı, H. (2014). Uluslararası pazarlamada kültürel unsurların önemi ve Azerbaycan araştırması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Binh, D. T. T., Duong, N. V. and Cuong, H. M. (2011). Applying gravity model to analyze trade activities of Vietnam. Access address: http://www.freit.org/WorkingPapers/Papers/TradePatterns/FREIT639.pdf, (26 February 2019).
• Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process, Chicago: Univesity of Chicago Press.
• Choi, I. (2001). Unit root test for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272.
• Combes, P. P., Lafourcade, M. and Mayer, T. (2004). The trade-creating effects of business and social networks: Evidence from France, Journal of International Economics, 66, 1-29.
• Eğilmez, M. (2013). Türkiye’nin dış ticareti. Access address: http://www.mahfiegilmez.com/2013/12/turkiyenin-dsticareti.html, (2 December 2019).
• Elshehawy, M. A., Shen, H. and Ahmed, R. A. (2014). The factors affecting Egypt’s exports: Evidence from the gravity model analysis. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2(11), 138-148.
• Felbermayr, G. J. and Toubal, F. (2010). Cultural proximity and trade, European Economic Review, 54(2), 279-293.
• Frankel, J., Stein, E., Wei, S. J. (1997). Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System, Washington DC: Institute for International Economics Press.
• Gujarati, D. N. (1999). Temel ekonometri, Ü. Şenesen and G. Şenesen (Ed.), İstanbul:
Literatür Yayıncılık.
• Henrich, J. (2000). Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the machiguenga of the peruvian amazon, American Economic Review, 90(4), 973-979.
• Herzer, D., Danzinger, F. N. and Siliverstovs, B. (2006). Export-led growth in Chile: Assessing the role of export composition in productivity growth. Access address: https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/19813/ 1/Herzer. pdf, (29 May 2020).
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work - related values, The USA: Sage Publications.
• Hou, L. (2010). Explaining trade flows and determinants of bilaterial trade, Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
• Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data. The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
• Hsiao, C. (2007). Panel data analysis-advantages and challenges. Access address: https://www.uio.no/studier /emner/sv/oekonomi/ECON5103/v10/undervisningsmateriale/PDAp pl_14.pdf, (8 December 2019).
• ITA (International Trade Administration). (2020). Export pricing strategy. Access address: https://www.trade.gov/ pricing-strategy, (1 June 2020).
• ITC (International Trade Centre). (2020). Trade of Russia. Access address: https://www.trademap.org/ Bilateral_TS.aspx?nvpm=1%7c643%7c%7c428%7c%7cTOTAL%7c%7c%7c2%7c1%7c1%7c2%7c2%7c1%7c1%7c1%7c1, (18 December 2019).
• Josheski, D. and Apostolov, M. (2013). Macedonia’s exports and the gravity model. Access address: https://mpra .ub.unimuenchen.de/48180/1/MPRa_paper_ 48180.pdf, (12.01.2020).
• Kasahara, H. and Lapham, B. (2008). Productivity and the decision to import and export: Theory and evidence. Access address: https://www.freit.org/WorkingPapers/Papers/FirmLevelTrade/FREIT009.pdf, (28 May 2020).
• Kutlar, A. (2000). Ekonometrik zaman serileri. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
• Levin, A., Lin, C. and Chu, C. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
• Linder, S. B. (1961). An essay on trade and transformation, New York: John Wiley& Sons.
• Maddala, G. S. and Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(1), 631-652.
• Manova, K. (2020). Product quality and export success. Access address:https://www.theigc.org/project/product-quality-and-export-success/,(01.06.2020).
• Matyas, L. P. (1996). The econometrics of panel data: A handbook of the theory with applications. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Medina-Smith, E. J. (2001). Is the export-led growth hypothesis valid for developing countries? A case study of Costa Rica, UNCTAD-Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series No: 7.
• Metin, M. and İspiroğlu, F. (2017). Türkiye’nin MENA ülkeleri ile dış ticareti: Bir makroekonomik değerlendirme. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 23-38.
• Özsoy, C. E. (2018). Uluslararası ticarette kültür farklılıkları. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 37-50.
• Pindyck, R. S. and Rubinfel, D. (1998). Econometric models and economic forecasts. The United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
• Prasai, P. L. (2014). Foreign trade pattern of Nepal: Gravity model approach. Access address: http://www.nrb. org.np/ecorev/pdffiles/ nrbwp201421.pdf, (1 March 2020).
• Şahin, L. (2016). Tercihlerde benzerlik teorisinin sınanması: Fildişi Sahili Cumhuriyeti’nin WAEMU’ya ihracatının panel çekim modeliyle analizi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1), 335-348.
• Şahin, L. (2017). Azerbaycan’ın BDT’ye i̇hracatının panel çekim modeliyle analizi: Tercihlerde benzerlik teorisinin test edilmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Özel Sayı.
• Sultanuzzaman, M. R., Fan, H., Abdulahi E. M., Hossain, M.I. and Islam, M. A. (2019). Effects of export and technology on economic growth: Selected emerging Asian economies, Economic Research, 32(1), 2515-2531.
• Suresh, K. G. and Aswal, N. (2014). Determinants of India’s manufactured exports to south and north: A gravity model analysis. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 4(1), 144-151.
• Tarı, R. (2010). Ekonometri, Kocaeli: Umuttepe Kitabevi.
• Tatlıcı, Ö. and Kızıltan, A. (2011). Çekim modeli: Türkiye’nin ihracatı üzerine bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Özel Sayı.
• Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.
• Uncu, F. (2009). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlarla ilgili panel veri araştırması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İnönü Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Malatya.
• Waheed, A. and Abbas, S. (2015). Potential export markets for Bahrain: A panel data analysis. International Journal of Trade Economics and Finance, 6(3), 165-169.
• Wang, X. and Badman, R. P. (2016). A multifaceted panel data gravity model analysis of Peru’s foreign trade. Turkish Economic Review, 3(4), 562-577.
• Wolff, E. N. (2014). Productivity convergence theory and evidence. The United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
• Xie, M. (2018). Can cultural affinity promote trade? HSK test data from the belt and road countries. China and World Economy, 26(3), 109-126.