SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2024 / Sayı: 69

FOREIGN TRADE IMPACT OF A POTENTIAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF TURKIC STATES

TÜRK DEVLETLERİ TEŞKİLATINA ÜYE ÜLKELER ARASINDAKİ MUHTEMEL BİR SERBEST TİCARET ANLAŞMASININ DIŞ TİCARET ETKİLERİ

Ömer Tarık Gençosmanoğlu(TÜRKİYE CUMHURİYETİ TİCARET BAKANLIĞI)0000-0003-3979-6387
Pages
205–215
Publication Date
2024-12-30
🏛️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)

The removal of non-tariff measures yields bigger commercial benefits for the member countries than tariffs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Organization of Turkic States has established its new vision as a consequence of long-term cooperative efforts, which include the advancement of economic and commercial integration.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on the estimated findings, liberalization is anticipated to benefit all members and increase their trade volume by almost three billion dollars per year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The removal of non-tariff measures yields bigger commercial benefits for the member countries than tariffs.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı · bölgesel ticaret anlaşmaları · kısmi denge analizi

Abstract

The Organization of Turkic States has established its new vision as a consequence of long-term cooperative efforts, which include the advancement of economic and commercial integration. In this context, as an integration model, the effects of a plurilateral free trade agreement that eliminates tariffs and non-tariff measures on the foreign trade of the States are explored by using partial equilibrium analysis and multi-dimensional panel data model. Based on the estimated findings, liberalization is anticipated to benefit all members and increase their trade volume by almost three billion dollars per year. The removal of non-tariff measures yields bigger commercial benefits for the member countries than tariffs.

Özet

Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı uzun süren işbirliği çalışmaları sonucunda, ekonomik ve ticari entegrasyonun geliştirilmesi konusunu da içeren yeni vizyonunu belirlemiştir. Bu çerçevede, bir entegrasyon modeli olarak, tarife ve tarife-dışı önlemlerin kaldırıldığı çoklu bir serbest ticaret anlaşmasının, organizasyonun tarafı olan ülkelerin dış ticareti üzerine etkileri kısmi denge analizi ve çok boyutlu panel veri modeli kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Tahmin sonuçlarına göre, serbestleşmeden tüm ülkelerin faydalanması ve ticaret hacminin yıllık yaklaşık üç milyar dolar artış göstermesi beklenmektedir. Tarife-dışı önlemlerin kaldırılması, tarifelere nazaran üye ülkeler açısından daha büyük ticari kazanç sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gençosmanoğlu, Ö. T. (2024). FOREIGN TRADE IMPACT OF A POTENTIAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF TURKIC STATES. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 69, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1463896

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Ageliki, A. ve Ioannis, P. (2016). Eurasian orientation and global trade integration: The case of Turkey, Eurasian Economic Review, 6, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-015-0038-1
  2. Alekseev, A., Sokolov, D., Tourdyeva, N., ve Yudaeva, K. (2004). Estimating the effects of EU enlargement, WTO accession and formation of FTA with EU or CIS on Russian economy. Conference papers 331218, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project, Purdue University.
  3. Allayarov, P., Mehmed, B., Arefin, S., ve Nurmatov, N. (2018). The factors affecting Kyrgyzstan's bilateral trade: A gravity-model approach. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5 (4), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no4.95
  4. Amjadi, A., Schuler, P., Kuwahara, H., ve Quadros, S. (2011). WITS-World Integrated Trade Solution: User’s Manual. Version 2.01. World Bank Publications. https://wits.worldbank.org/data/public/WITS_User_Manual.pdf
  5. Baghirov, O. (2022). The organization of Turkic States’ economic potential and cooperation prospects among its members”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), 53-73.
  6. Balazsi, L. Matyas L., ve Wansbeek, T. (2018). The estimation of multidimensional fixed effects panel data models, Econometric Reviews, 37(3), 212-227, https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2015.1032164
  7. Constantine, M. ve Tarr, D. (1997). The economics of customs unions in the Commonwealth of Independent States, Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 38(3), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10889388.1997.10641040
  8. Demirci, B. ve Sevüktekin, M. (2022). The evaluation of Turkey's foreign trade with different country groups within the framework of the gravity model, Journal of Applied Microeconometrics, 2(2), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.53753/jame.2.2.02
  9. Ekanayake, E. M., Mukherjee, A., ve Veeramacheneni, B. (2010). Trade blocks and the gravity model: A study of economic ıntegration among Asian Developing Countries, Journal of Economic Integration, 25(4), 627–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23000952.
  10. Eromenko, I. (2002). EU Enlargement to the east and its impact on non-accessing countries, applied general equilibrium analysis, Journal of European Economy, 1(3), 279-296. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/67534
  11. Fock, A., Weingarten, P., Wahl, O., ve Prokopiev, M. (2000). Russia’s bilateral agricultural trade: First results of a partial equilibrium analysis. P. Wehrheim, K. Frohberg, E. Serova ve J. von Braun (Eds), Russia’s Agro-Food Sector içinde (271-297). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4531-6_12
  12. Francois, J. F. ve Manchin, M. (2009). Economic impact of a potential free trade agreement (FTA) between the European Union and the Commonwealth of the Independent States. CASE Network Reports 84, 2009. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1393697
  13. Freinkman, L. M., Polyakov, E., ve Revenco, C. (2004). Trade performance and regional integration of the CIS countries. No.38. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5896-0
  14. Genç, M., Artan, S., ve Berber, M. (2011). Karadeniz Ekonomik İşbirliği Bölgesinde ticaret akımlarının belirleyicileri: Çekim modeli yaklaşımı, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(2), 207-224.
  15. Gencer, A. H. (2012). Gravity modeling of Turkey’s international trade under globalization. International Conference on Eurasian Economies içinde (ss.31-34). http://dx.doi.org/10.36880/C03.00425
  16. Gharleghi, B. ve Popov, V. (2018). Changes in the geographical structure of trade in Central Asia: Real flows in the 1989-2016 period versus gravity model predictions. MPRA Paper 89041. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3250746
  17. Golovko, A. ve Sahin, H. (2021). Analysis of international trade integration of Eurasian countries: Gravity model approach, Eurasian Economic Review, 11(3), 519-548. 10.1007/s40822-021-00168-3
  18. Gündüz, F. F., Akay, Ö., Gündüz, S., ve Dölekoğlu, C. Ö. (2020). Determination of the factors affecting cotton export of Turkey: A panel gravity model approach”, Akademik Hassasiyetler, 7(13), 547-564.
  19. Gunning, J. W. ve Keyzer, M. A. (1995). Chapter 35 Applied General Equilibrium Models for Policy Analysis. Jere Behrman and T.N. Srinivasan (Eds.). Handbook of Development Economics içinde, Volume III, Part A, (ss. 2025-2107). Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4471(05)80007-5
  20. Hassan, A. D. (2019). Examining determinants of Turkey export to OIC member countries, International Journal of Scientific and Technological Research, 5(2), 146-156. https://doi.org/10.7176/JSTR/5-2-18
  21. Hertel, T. W. (1992). Partial vs. general equilibrium analysis of trade policy reform, The Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 44(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.137995
  22. Huseynov, R. (2023). The Factors Affecting Turkic States’ Multilateral Trade Flow: A Gravity Model Approach. Vusal Gasimli (Ed.). Turkic States Economy içinde (ss. 23-32). Ankara: Nobel.
  23. Johnson, H. G. (1998). The Economic Theory of Customs Union. Miroslav Jovanovic (E.). International Economic Integration: Theory and Measurement, içinde (ss. 184-199). London&New York: Routledge.
  24. Khakimov, P., Schmitz, P. M., ve Pawlowski, I. (2014) The effects of Tajikistan's accession of the Common Economic Space of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia on its agricultural sector under official and depreciated exchange rates, Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(2), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v7n2p133
  25. Kucharčuková, O.B., Babecký, J., ve Raiser, M. (2010). Gravity approach for modelling international trade in South-Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States: The role of geography, policy and şnstitutions, Open Economies Review, 23, 277–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-010-9187-8
  26. Kurmanalieva, E. ve Parpiev, Z. (2008). Geography and trade in Central Asia, Available at SSRN 1824933. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1824933
  27. Kurmanalieva, E., ve Vinokurov, E. (2011). Holding together or falling apart: Results of gravity equation of the CIS trade. MPRA Paper 32003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  28. Lipsey, R. G. (1957). The theory of customs unions: Trade diversion and welfare, Economica, 24(93), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2551626
  29. McMillan, J. ve McCann, E. (1981). Welfare effects in customs unions, The Economic Journal, 91(363), 1981, 697-703. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232833
  30. Nugumanova, L. (2017). Analysis of macroeconomic policies in Kazakhstan: A general equilibrium approach. Doktora Tezi. Justus-Liebig Universität.
  31. Öncel, B. D. ve Tekçe, M. (2014). Modelling trade flows between Turkey and former Soviet Union countries: A gravity analysis, Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 36(1), 391-408.
  32. Shepotylo, O. (2009). Gravity with Zeros: Estimating Trade Potential of CIS Countries. 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1347997
  33. Silva, J.M.C.S. ve Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity, The review of economics and statistics, 88(4), 641-658. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641
  34. Widgrén, M. ve Sulamaa, P. (2003). EU enlargement and beyond: A simulation study on EU and CIS integration. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3768.
  35. Süleyman, S. (2023). Kuşak ve Yol Projesinin çekim modeli kapsamında Türkiye dış ticaretine olası etkileri: Ulaşım modları yaklaşımı, İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 73(1), 83-105.
  36. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2016). Panel veri ekonometrisi. Beta Basım Yayın.
  37. Taran, S. (2008). Non-tariff barriers in selected CIS countries. CASE Network Studies and Analyses 371, Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE), Warsaw. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/128170
  38. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy. Twentieth Century Fund, New York.
  39. Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (TDT). (2021). Türk Dünyası 2040 Vizyonu. Erişim adresi https://www.turkicstates.org/tr
  40. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) ve World Trade Organization (WTO). (2012). A practical guide to trade policy analysis: Chapter 4 Partial-equilibrium trade-policy simulation, Erişim adresi https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/gds2012d2_ch4_en.pdf
  41. Viner, J. (1950). The customs union ıssue. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  42. Vladimirovna, S. A. (2020). Trade in goods between the EAEU and Turkey: Prospects for liberalisation (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Saint Petersburg State University.
  43. Yılmaz, A. (2022). Turkish economy in the Belt Road Initiative: A gravity model for international trade, Journal of Management and Economics Research, 20(4), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1147336