SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

POLAND AND TURKEY AS THE SUCCESSFUL CATCHING-UP COUNTRIES AND THEIR BILATERAL TRADE IN 2000–2015

YAKALAMADA BAŞARILI OLAN İKİ ÜLKE OLARAK POLONYA VE TÜRKİYE’ VE 2000-2015 DÖNEMİNDE KARŞILIKLI TİCARETLERİ

Bogumiła Mucha-leszko(Maria Curie-Sklodowska University)
Tomasz Białowąs(Maria Curie-Sklodowska University)
Pages
23–49
Publication Date
2017-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

An important  conclusion of this part of the analysis is pointing out the role of domestic demand in maintaining  economic growth of both Poland and Turkey in 2008–2015.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The subject of the paper is comparative macroeconomic analysis of GDP growth and stability in  the economies of Poland and Turkey in 2000–2015 as well as their bilateral trade.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Authors focus  on the process of catching up and evaluate effects of economic convergence of Poland and  Turkey to average macroeconomic indicators for EU-28 and in particular two reference countries  – Germany and Spain.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:An important  conclusion of this part of the analysis is pointing out the role of domestic demand in maintaining  economic growth of both Poland and Turkey in 2008–2015.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2000–2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkiye · Polonya · başarıyı yakalamak

Abstract

The subject of the paper is comparative macroeconomic analysis of GDP growth and stability in  the economies of Poland and Turkey in 2000–2015 as well as their bilateral trade. Authors focus  on the process of catching up and evaluate effects of economic convergence of Poland and  Turkey to average macroeconomic indicators for EU-28 and in particular two reference countries  – Germany and Spain. Results of the analysis confirm the thesis well acknowledged in economic  literature that regional economic integration enables speeding-up of the process of convergence  with more developed countries. Poland and Turkey are successful catching-up countries. The  assumption that the source of their economic success lies in systemic reforms and integration  with the EU (Poland’s membership and Turkish customs agreement) was confirmed. An important  conclusion of this part of the analysis is pointing out the role of domestic demand in maintaining  economic growth of both Poland and Turkey in 2008–2015.

Özet

Makalenin konusu, Polonya ve Türkiye’nin karşılıklı ikili ticaretlerini de kapsayacak şekilde GSYİH  büyümesinin ve istikrarının 2000-2015 yılları arasındaki karşılaştırmalı bir makroekonomik  analizidir. Yazarlar, Polonya ve Türkiye’nin ekonomik performanslarını AB-28 makroekonomik  göstergelerini, özellikle de Almanya ve İspanya gibi iki referans ülkeyi dikkate alarak yakalama  sürecine odaklanmakta ve değerlendirmektedirler. Analiz sonuçları, ekonomik literatürde iyi bilinen,  bölgesel ekonomik entegrasyonun daha gelişmiş ülkelerle yakınsama sürecinin hızlandırılmasını  sağladığını teyit etmektedir. Polonya ve Türkiye yakalama konusunda başarılı olmuş ülkelerdir.  Ekonomik başarılarının kaynağının sistemik reformlara ve AB ile entegrasyona (Polonya’nın  üyeliği ve Türk gümrük anlaşması) bağlı olduğu varsayımı doğrulandı. Analizin bu bölümünün  önemli bir sonucu, gerek Polonya gerekse Türkiye’nin ekonomik büyümesinin sürdürülmesinde  2008-2015 döneminde iç talebin önemli rol oynadığına işaret ediyor.

🔖

Cite This Article

Mucha-leszko, B., Białowąs, T. (2017). POLAND AND TURKEY AS THE SUCCESSFUL CATCHING-UP COUNTRIES AND THEIR BILATERAL TRADE IN 2000–2015. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.331161

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Barro, Robert & Sala-i-Martin, Xavier (1990), “Economic Growth and Convergence across United States”, NBER Working Paper 3419: 1–61.
  2. Barro, Robert & Sala-i-Martin, Xavier (1991), “Convergence across States and Regions”, Brookings Papers and Economic Activity 1: 107–182.
  3. Barro, Robert & Sala-i-Martin, Xavier (1992), “Convergence”, Journal of Political Economy 100/2: 223–251.
  4. Ben-David, Dan & Loewy, Michael (2003), “Trade and Neoclassical Growth model”, Journal of Economic Integration 18/1: 1–16.
  5. Białowolski, Piotr (2005), „Produkt potencjalny w Polsce w latach 1993–2004 na podstawie funkcji produkcji”, Gospodarka Narodowa 5-6: 37–49.
  6. Bukowski, Maciej, Magda, Iga, Marć, Łukasz & Zawistowski, Julian (2006), Źródła i perspektywy wzrostu produktywności w Polsce, Instytut Badań Strukturalnych, Warszawa.
  7. Eurostat (2016), Statistical Database, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.
  8. Grossman, Gene & Helpman Elhanan (1991), Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
  9. IMF (2016), World Economic Outlook Database, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ weo/2016/01/weodata/index.aspx.
  10. Knap, Renata (2015), “The competitiveness and trade potential of Poland in the merchandise trade with Turkey”, Trends in the World Economy 7: 69–88.
  11. Lucas Jr., Robert (1988), “On the Mechanics of Economic Development”, Journal of Monetary Economics 22/1: 3-42.
  12. Mucha-Leszko, Bogumiła (2014), „Wzrost gospodarczy i proces konwergencji oraz średnio i długoterminowe perspektywy zmniejszania luki rozwojowej” Pozycja gospodarcza Polski w Unii Europejskiej, Ed. Bogumiła Mucha-Leszko, Wyd. UMCS, Lublin, 15–44.
  13. OECD (2016a), OECD Economic Surveys: Poland.
  14. OECD (2016b), OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey.
  15. OECD (2016c), OECD.Stat, http://stats.oecd.org.
  16. OECD-WTO (2016), Statistics on Trade in Value Added (database), http://stats.oecd.org.
  17. Próchniak, Mariusz & Witkowski, Bartosz (2012), „Konwergencja gospodarcza typu beta w świetle bayesowskiego uśredniania oszacowań”, Bank i Kredyt 43/2: 25–58.
  18. Raiser, Martin, Wes, Marina & Yilmaz, Ayberk (2016), “Beyond convergence: Poland and Turkey en route to high income”, Central Bank Review 16/1: 7–17.
  19. Roaf, James, Atoyan, Ruben, Joshi, Bikas, Krogulski, Krzysztof & IMF Staff Team (2014), “25 Years of Transition Post-Communist Europe and IMF”, IMF Regional Economic Issues Special Report, International Monetary Fund.
  20. Romer, Paul (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy 98/5: S71–S102.
  21. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier (1996), “Classical Approach to Convergence Analysis”, Economic Journal, 106/437: 1019–1036.
  22. Siwiński, Włodzimierz (2005), „Międzynarodowe zróżnicowanie rozwoju gospodarczego: fakty i teoria”, Ekonomista 6: 723–747.
  23. The Conference Board (2016), The Conference Board Total Economy Database, http://www. conference-board.org/data/economydatabase.
  24. UNCTAD (2016), UNCTADStat, http://unctadstat.unctad.org.
  25. Wojtas, Monika (2014), „Innowacyjność gospodarki” Pozycja gospodarcza Polski w Unii Europejskiej, Ed. Bogumiła Mucha-Leszko, Wyd. UMCS, Lublin, 123–149.
  26. World Bank (2014), Evaluation of the EU - Turkey Customs Union.
  27. WTO (2016), Statistics database, http://stat.wto.org/Home/WSDBHome.aspx?Language=E.
  28. UNCTAD (2016), UNCTADStat, http://unctadstat.unctad.org.