R&D and Productivity in Turkey's Electrical Machinery Competitiveness: RCA and Panel Gravity Model

Öz

Electrical machine products play a significant role in the economic development of nations. These products have contributed to countries' exports and economic efficiency, especially since the industrialization of the 18th century. This study analyzes Turkey's revealed comparative advantage (RCA) in electric machinery against selected OECD countries for the period 2004-2018 using the panel gravity model. In particular, examining the differences in R&D and productivity between countries in high value-added product groups is of great importance. The findings from the RCA index indicate that Turkey has a comparative disadvantage in electrical machine products compared to OECD countries. According to the results of the panel gravity model applied using the PPML method, both Turkey's and OECD countries' GDP have a positive effect on the RCA index, while gaps in GDP per capita, R&D, and labor productivity between the countries, as well as distance, have a negative impact. In this context, Turkey needs to reduce the gap in R&D and labor productivity compared to other countries in order to enhance its competitiveness in high-tech sectors. To achieve this goal, the government should strengthen technical education infrastructure and programs at universities and technology centers and increase financial resources allocated to R&D to boost competitive advantage in technology. Keywords: Turkey, Electrical Machines, Competition, R&D and Productivity, Panel Gravity Model JEL Classification: B22, C23, F18, O32

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Electrical Machines
• R&D and Productivity
• Competition
• Panel Gravity Model
• Turkey

Türkiye'nin Elektrikli Makine Rekabetinde Ar-Ge ve Verimlilik: AKÜ ve Panel Çekim Modeli

Öz

Elektrikli makine ürünleri ulusların ekonomik kalkınmasında önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu ürünler özellikle 18. yy sanayileşmenin gelişmesiyle birlikte ülkelerin ihracatına ve ekonomik verimliliğine katkı sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışma, 2004-2018 döneminde Türkiye'nin seçili OECD ülkelerine yönelik elektrikli makinelerdeki açıklanmış karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğünü (AKÜ) ve bunun belirleyicilerini panel çekim modeliyle analiz etmektedir. Özellikle katma değere sahip ürün gruplarında ülkeler arasındaki Ar-Ge ve verimlilik farklarının ele alınması büyük önem taşımaktadır. AKÜ endeksinden elde edilen bulgular, Türkiye'nin OECD ülkelerine karşı elektrikli makine ürünlerinde karşılaştırmalı dezavantaja sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. PPML yöntemi ile uygulanan panel çekim modeli bulgularına göre AKÜ endeksi üzerinde Türkiye ve OECD ülkelerinin GSYH'si pozitif; ülkeler arasındaki kişi başına GSYH, Ar-Ge ve işgücü verimliliği farkları ile mesafenin negatif bir etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda Türkiye'nin yüksek teknoloji rekabetinde diğer ülkelerle olan Ar-Ge ve işgücü verimliliği farkını azaltması gerekmektedir. Bu hedefe ulaşmak için hükümetin üniversiteler ve teknoloji merkezlerinde teknik eğitim altyapı ve programlarını güçlendirmesi, Ar-Ge harcamalarına daha fazla mali kaynak ayırarak teknolojide rekabet avantajını artırması gerekmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Türkiye, Elektrikli Makineler, Rekabet, Ar-Ge ve Verimlilik, Panel Çekim Modeli JEL Sınıflandırması: B22, C23, F18, O32

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Elektrikli Makineler
• Ar-Ge ve Verimlilik
• Rekabet
• Panel Çekim Modeli
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Abbas, S. and Waheed, A. (2017). Trade Competitiveness of Pakistan: Evidence from The Revealed Comparative Advantage Approach. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 27, Iss. 5, 462-475. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-12-2015-0092
2. Akça, E. E. (2021). Determinants of Export Flows from Turkey to BRICS Countries: The Findings from the Augmented-Gravity Model Approach. Ekonomik Yaklasim, Vol. 32, Iss. 118. https://doi.org/10.5455/ey.17502
3. Akça, E. E. (2024). Economic, Geographical, Institutional, and Political Determinants of Bilateral Manufacturing Exports: A Structural Gravity Model Approach for Türkiye. Panoeconomicus, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN210719004A
4. Aktaş, A. R., Kaplan, F. and Koluman, A. (2023). Determinants of Dried Fruit Products Sector Export: A Gravity Model for Türkiye. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 36, Iss. 2, 77-81. https://doi.org/10.29136/mediterranean.1273190
5. Altay, B. ve Gürpınar, K. (2008). Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler ve Bazı Rekabet Gücü Endeksleri: Türk Mobilya Sektörü Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakülltesi Dergisi, Cilt 10, Sayı 1, 257-274. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/19006
6. Ata, S. (2012). Türkiye’nin İhracat Potansiyeli: Çekim Modeli Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme. International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Vol. 13, 276-282.
7. Athanasoglou, P. P. and Bardaka, I. C. (2010). New Trade Theory, Non-Price Competitiveness and Export Performance. Economic Model, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 217-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2009.09.002
8. Avcı, M. A. (2023). Uluslararası Rekabet Gücünü Etkileyen Makroekonomik Faktörler: Türkiye Savunma Sanayi Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, Cilt 23, Sayı 2, 261-272. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.1351380

9. Balassa, B. (1965). Trade Liberalization and ‘Revealed’ Comparative Advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 33, 99-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
10. Baltagi, B. H., Egger, P. H. and Pfaffermayr, M. (2014). Panel Data Gravity Models of International Trade. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2398292
11. Barselona Avrupa Konseyi (2002). Presidency Conclusions, Barcelona European Council: Barselona, 15-16 Mart 2022. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/69871.pdf
12. Bekele, W. T. and Mersha, F. G. (2019). A Dynamic Panel Gravity Model Application on the Determinant Factors of Ethiopia’s Coffee Export Performance. Annals of Data Science, Vol. 6, 787-806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-019-00198-4
13. Breuss, F. and P. Egger (1999). How Reliable Are Estimations of East-West Trade Potentials Based on Cross-section Gravity Analyses?. Empirica, Vol. 26, Iss. 2, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007011329676
14. Brown, M. B. and Forsythe, A. B. (1974). Robust Tests for The Equality of Variances. Journal of The American Statistical Association, Vol. 69, Iss. 346, 364-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10482955
15. Carley, R. F. (2019). Autonomy, Refusal, and the Black Bloc: Positioning Class Analysis in Critical and Radical Theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
16. Cvetković, M. and Petrović-Ranđelović, M. (2017). The Analysis of Agricultural Products Export Competitiveness of the Republic of Serbia based on the RCA Index. Economic Themes, Vol. 55, Iss. 3, 399-420. https://doi.org/10.1515/ethemes-2017-0022
17. Çelik, H. (2021). İleri Teknoloji Mal İhracatı ve Ar-Ge Harcamaları İlişkisi: Türkiye için Yapısal Kırılmalı Bir Uygulama. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 14, Sayı 4, 1352-1363. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.871754
18. Çınar, S. ve Özçalık, M. (2013). İmalat Sanayi Sektörünün Rekabetçilik Analizi: Türkiye ve G-8 Ülkeleri Panel Veri Analizi. EconAnadolu 2013.
19. Deardorff, A. V. (1995). Determinants of Bilateral Trade.
20. Drine, I. (2012). Institutions, Governance and Technology Catch-up in North Africa. Economic Model, Vol. 29, Iss. 6, 2155-2162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.05.038
21. Dube, A. K., Ozkan, B. and Govindasamy, R. (2018). Analyzing The Export Performance of The Horticultural Sub-Sector in Ethiopia: ARDL Bound Test Cointegration Analysis. Horticulturae, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae4040034
22. Egger, P. (2000). A Note on the Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Equation. Economics Letters, Vol. 66, 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00183-4
23. Elsalih, O., Sertoglu, K. and Besim, M. (2021). Determinants of Comparative Advantage of Crude Oil Production: Evidence from OPEC and Non‐OPEC Countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics, Vol. 26, Iss. 3, 3972-3983. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.1999
24. Erdem, E. ve Köseoğlu, A. (2014). Teknolojik Değişim ve Rekabet Gücü İlişkisi: Türkiye Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetim Dergisi, Cilt 9, Sayı 1, 51-68. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/beyder/issue/3470/47201
25. Erkan, B. (2012). Ülkelerin Karşılaştırmalı İhracat Performanslarının Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlük Katsayılarıyla Belirlenmesi: Türkiye-Suriye Örneği. Uluslararası Yönetim iktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Vol. 8, Iss. 15, 195-218. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijmeb/issue/54849/751081
26. Gemici, E. and Gemici, Z. (2021). A Comparative Study on Turkey’s Science and Technology (S&T) Indicators. Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews, Vol. 4, Iss. 3, 125-143. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3905484
27. Goldin, I. (1990). Comparative Advantage: Theory and Application to Developing Country Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1787/312277858021
28. Gómez-Herrera, E. (2013). Comparing Alternative Methods to Estimate Gravity Models of Bilateral Trade. Empirical Economics, Vol. 44, 1087-1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-012-0576-2
29. Gündüz, F. F., Özlem, A., Gündüz, S. and Dölekoğlu, C. Ö. (2020). Determination of The Factors Affecting Cotton Export of Turkey: A Panel Gravity Model Approach. Akademik Hassasiyetler, Vol. 7, Iss. 13, 547-564. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/akademik-hassasiyetler/issue/54659/685222
30. Hardi, I., Dawood, T. C., and Syathi, P. B. (2021). Determinants Comparative Advantage of Non-Oil Export 34 Provinces in Indonesia. International Journal of Business, Economics, and Social Development, Vol. 2, Iss. 3, 98-106. https://doi.org/10.46336/ijbesd.v2i3.137
31. Harrigan, J. (2003). Specialization and The Volume of Trade: Do The Data Obey The Laws?. Handbook of International Trade, 85-118. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756461
32. Hassan, M. U. and Ahmad, H. K. (2018). An Estimation of Normalized Revealed Comparative Advantage and Its Determinants in Pakistan. Pakistan Vision, Vol. 19, Iss. 1, 231-257.
33. Helpman, E. (1987). Imperfect Competition and International Trade: Evidence from Fourteen Industrial Countries. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Vol. 1, Iss. 1, 62-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-1583(87)90027-X
34. Hoan, P. T. and My, D. T. D. (2022). The Determinants of Vietnam’s Information and Communication Technologies Exports to the European Union. Foreign Trade Review, Vol. 57, Iss. 2, 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/00157325211057977
35. Hummels, D. and Levinsohn, J. (1993). Product Differentiation as a Source of Comparative Advantage?. The American Economic Review, Vol. 83, Iss. 2, 445-449. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117706
36. Hussain, M. (2017). Globalization and Gravity Model of Trade of Pakistan: A PPML-Estimator Analysis. Management and Administrative Sciences Review, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, 15-27.
37. Irshad, M. S., Xin, Q. and Arshad, H. (2018). Competitiveness of Pakistani Rice in International Market and Export Potential with Global World: A Panel Gravity Approach. Cogent Economics & Finance, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, 1486690. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2018.1486690
38. İlkay, S. Ç. ve Atik, H. (2019). Beşeri Sermaye ile Makro Ekonomik ve Teknolojik Unsurların Uluslararası Rekabet Gücüne Etkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 54, 253-271. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.526820
39. Kabaklarlı, E., Duran, M. S. and Üçler, Y. T. (2018). High-Technology Exports and Economic Growth: Panel Data Analysis for Selected OECD Countries. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, 47-60. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=678658
40. Kaya, A. A. (1997). Kalkınmada Teknoloji Geliştirmenin Önemi ve Türkiye'nin Ar-Ge Politikası. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 13, Sayı 1, 381-392. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/830269
41. Kiani, A., Ijaz, F. and Siddique, H. M. A. (2018). Determinants of Agricultural Exports of Pakistan: An Application of Gravity Model. Dialogue (Pakistan), Vol. 13, Iss. 4, 467-478.
42. Krugman, P. (1983). New Theories of Trade Among Industrial Countries. The American Economic Review, Vol. 73, Iss. 2, 343-347. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1816867
43. Kurniawati, R., Nawiyah, N. and Sutjiatmo, B. P. (2023). Indonesia's Electronic Export Potential in The Global Market with Gravity Panel Model Approach. West Science Journal Economic and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, Iss. 11, 389-397. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsjee.v1i11.397
44. Laursen, K. (2015). Revealed Comparative Advantage and The Alternatives as Measures of International Specialization. Eurasian Business Review, Vol. 5, 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-015-0017-1
45. Lee, S. M. (2020). Revealed Comparative Advantage of Selected ASEAN Countries’ Crustacean Export to Japan. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 414, No. 1, 012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/414/1/012010
46. Levene, H. (1960). Robust Tests for Equality of Variances. Contributions to Probability and Statistics, 278-292. Łukiewska, K. (2022). Impact of Labor Productivity on The Export Performance of The Food Industry in EU Member States. European Research Studies Journal, Vol. 25, Iss. 3, 74-83.
47. Martínez-Zarzoso, I. (2011). The Log of Gravity Revisited. Applied Economics, Vol. 45, Iss. 3, 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.599786
48. Maryam, J. and Mittal, A. (2019). An Empirical Analysis of India’s Trade in Goods With BRICS. International Review of Economics, Vol. 66, 399-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-019-00328-7
49. Matyas, L. (1997). Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model. The World Economy, Vol. 20, Iss. 3, 363-368.
50. Montobbio, F. and Sterzi, V. (2013). The Globalization of Technology in Emerging Markets: A Gravity Model on The Determinants of International Patent Collaborations. World Development, Vol. 44, 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.017
51. Muryani, M., Sari, D. R. and Landiyanto, E. A. (2019). Competitiveness Analysis and Factors That Influence The Export of Indonesian Shrimp Commodities. Opción: Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Vol. 22, 1417-1432. https://repository.unair.ac.id/95360/
52. Nadiri, M. I. and Prucha, I. R. (1991). Comparison and Analysis of Productivity Growth and R&D Investment in The Electrical Machinery Industries of the United States and Japan, Productivity Growth in Japan and the United States. University of Chicago Press. 109-133. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226360607-007
53. Noor, F., Bhutta, A. N. and Farooq, I. (2023). The Determinants of Leather Exports of Pakistan: A Gravity Panel Approach. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, 47-66.
54. Obermayer, N. (2023). Examining Digital Readiness in the Era Of Industry 4.0 in Tunisia. In European Conference on Knowledge Management, Vol. 24, Iss. 2, 1579-1585. https://doi.org/10.34190/eckm.24.2.1474
55. Our World in Data (2024), https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-pennworldtable?tab=table&time=2004..2018, Erişim Tarihi (02.02.2024).
56. Pöyhönen, P. (1963). A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade Between Countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 90, 23-40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40436776
57. Proença, I. and Faustino, H. C. (2015). Modelling Bilateral Intra-Industry Trade Indexes with Panel Data: A Semiparametric Approach. Computational Statistics, Vol. 30, 865-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-015-0556-z
58. Putra, I. and Nasrudin, N. (2023). Analysis of Indonesian Tuna Fish Export to Twelve Main Destination Countries: A Panel Gravity Model. Asian Journal of Business Environment, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, 31-41. https://doi.org/10.13106/ajbe.2023.vol13.no1.31
59. Rahman, M. M. (2007). The Causative Factors of Bangladesh's Exports: Evidence from The Gravity Model Analysis. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Conference of the New Zealand Association of Economists.
60. Ramli, F. A., Handoyo, R. D., Ridzuan, A. R. and Razak, M. I. M. (2020). Analysis of Comparative Advantages and Export Determinants of Indonesian Tuna Fish. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 10, Iss. 5, 361-371. https://repository.unair.ac.id/117652/
61. Rosyadi, F. H., Mulyo, J. H., Perwitasari, H. and Darwanto, D. H. (2021). Export Intensity and Competitiveness of Indonesia's Crude Palm Oil to Main Destination Countries. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic), Vol. 67, Iss. 5, 189-199. https://doi.org/10.17221/371/2020-AGRICECON
62. Sahu, P. K. and Heng, S. Y. (2017). India's Competitive Advantage and Export Performance: A Gravity Model Approach. Arthshastra Indian Journal of Economics & Research, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, 23-37.
63. Santos Silva, J. M. C. and Tenreyro, S. (2006). The Log of Gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 641–658. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40043025
64. Saray, M. O. ve Hark, R. (2015). OECD Ülkelerinin İleri-Teknoloji Ürünlerindeki Rekabet Güçlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 5, Sayı 1, 347-372. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ckuiibfd/issue/32904/365556
65. Sawyer, W. C., Tochkov, K. and Yu, W. (2017). Regional and Sectoral Patterns and Determinants of Comparative Advantage in China. Frontiers of Economics in China, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, 7-36. https://doi.org/10.3868/s060-006-017-0002-6
66. Tapşın, G. (2016). The Relationship Between Foreign Direct Investment, Export and Economic Growth in Turkey. Journal of Business Management and Economics, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.15520/jbme.2016.vol4.iss5.186.pp01-06
67. Temiz, D. and Gökmen, A. (2011). Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Export Relation in Turkey: 1991–2010. Journal of Transnational Management, Vol. 16, Iss. 3, 157-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475778.2011.596779
68. Time and Date (2024), https://www.timeanddate.com/, Erişim Tarihi (02.02.2024).
69. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy.
70. Topuz, H. ve Coşkun, A. (2018). Ricardo'nun Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler Teorisi: Türkiye, Kolombiya ve Güney Kore Üçlüsünün Sektörel Bazda Uygulamalı Bir Analizi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt 10, Sayı 25, 672-685. https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.460115
71. Torok, A. and Jambor, A. (2016). Determinants of The Revealed Comparative Advantages: The Case of The European Ham Trade. Agricultural Economics/Zemědělská Ekonomika, Vol. 62, Iss. 10. https://doi.org/10.17221/177/2015-AGRICECON
72. TÜBİTAK (1993). Türk Bilim ve Teknoloji Politikası 1993-2003, Ankara: TÜBİTAK Yayınları
73. Uğur, A. (2008). Import and Economic Growth in Turkey: Evidence from Multivariate VAR Analysis. Journal of economics and Business, Vol. 11, Iss. 1-2, 54-75. https://www.u-picardie.fr/eastwest/fichiers/art68.pdf
74. Wang, J. P. (2016). Revealed Comparative Advantage of Capital-Intensive Industry in China. In International Conference on Computational Modeling. Simulation and Applied Mathematics, China.
75. WITS (2013). Online Trade Outcomes Indicators. https://wits.worldbank.org/WITS/docs/TradeOutcomes-UserManual.pdf, Erişim Tarihi (18.12.2023).
76. WITS (2024). https://wits.worldbank.org/, Erişim Tarihi (02.02.2024).
77. Wiranthi, P. E., Aminudin, I. and Dewi, E. R. (2019). A Gravity mModel for Indonesian Canned Tuna Exports to The European Union Market: An Application of PPML Estimator, Sriwijaya International Journal of Dynamic Economics and Business, 31-52. https://doi.org/10.29259/sijdeb.v3i1.31-52
78. World Bank (2024). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS, Erişim Tarihi (02.02.2024).
79. World Bank (2024). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD, Erişim Tarihi (02.02.2024).
80. World Bank (2024). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD, Erişim Tarihi (02.02.2024).
81. Yanar, R. ve Çelik, H. (2020). Sermaye-Yoğun Mal İhracatında Rekabet Gücünün Belirleyicileri: Türkiye için Yapısal Kırılmalı Bir Analiz. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), Cilt 12, Sayı 22, 127-138. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.705593
82. Yapraklı, S. (2011). Uluslararası Rekabet Gücünü Etkileyen Makroekonomik Faktörler: Türk İmalat Sanayi Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt 11, Sayı 22, 373-402. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/susead/issue/28413/302361
83. Yilmaz, N. D. and Karaalp-Orhan, H. S. (2015). Comparative Advantage of Textiles and Clothing: Evidence for Top Exporters in Eastern Europe. Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe, Vol. 6, Iss. 114, 8-13.