SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Politik Ekonomik Kuram / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

The Economic Impact of Digital Branding Components in Agriculture on Agricultural Exports: A Comparative Panel Data Analysis of the EU and Turkey

Tarımda Dijital Marka Bileşenlerinin Tarımsal Ürün İhracatı Üzerine Ekonomik Etkisi: AB ve Türkiye Karşılaştırmalı Panel Veri Analizi

Mehmet Emin Keke(İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5638-673X
Pages
701–730
Publication Date
2026-06-25
🏛️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 findings indicate that the GI presence has a positive and statistically significant effect on agricultural exports, while the sectoral trademark indicator provides a positive but limited effect in the baseline model.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study comparatively examines the effects of digital brand value on agricultural export performance across European Union (EU) countries and Türkiye.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A balanced panel dataset covering the period 2011–2024 is modeled through indicators including the agriculture- and food-related trademark application class count, the number of geographical indications (GIs), and the E-Government Development Index (EGDI).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the GI presence has a positive and statistically significant effect on agricultural exports, while the sectoral trademark indicator provides a positive but limited effect in the baseline model.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2011–2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Tarımsal ihracat · Dijital marka bileşenleri · Marka

Abstract

This study comparatively examines the effects of digital brand value on agricultural export performance across European Union (EU) countries and Türkiye. A balanced panel dataset covering the period 2011–2024 is modeled through indicators including the agriculture- and food-related trademark application class count, the number of geographical indications (GIs), and the E-Government Development Index (EGDI). Econometric analyses are conducted based on a random effects (RE) model estimated with Driscoll–Kraay robust standard errors; the contextual effects of digitalization are tested through trademark × EGDI and trademark × Türkiye interaction terms. The findings indicate that the GI presence has a positive and statistically significant effect on agricultural exports, while the sectoral trademark indicator provides a positive but limited effect in the baseline model. The PPML, NBML, and comparative model results based on the total trademark application class count suggest that the effect of branding may become more pronounced through broader national branding capacity. Increases in the EGDI may strengthen the branding effect, particularly in the context of general branding capacity, and digital infrastructure is considered a complementary factor conditioning this relationship. In addition, trademark elasticity for Türkiye may be lower than that of EU countries, particularly as indicated by the comparative and robustness models. The results suggest that branding and geographical indication policies supported by digital infrastructure may play an important role in enhancing agricultural export competitiveness. By examining the simultaneous effects of digitalization, branding, and geographical indications through a comparative panel data analysis, this study provides original contributions to the literature on agricultural economics and international trade.

Özet

Bu çalışma, dijital marka değerinin tarımsal ihracat performansı üzerindeki etkilerini Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkeleri ve Türkiye örnekleminde karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. 2011–2024 dönemine ait dengeli panel veri seti; tarım ve gıda ilişkili marka başvuru sınıf sayısı, coğrafi işaret (GI) sayısı ve E-Government Development Index (EGDI) göstergeleri üzerinden modellenmiştir. Ekonometrik analizler, Driscoll–Kraay sağlam standart hataları ile tahmin edilen rassal etkiler (RE) modeli temelinde yürütülmüş; marka × EGDI ve marka × Türkiye etkileşim terimleri aracılığıyla dijitalleşmenin bağlamsal etkileri test edilmiştir. Bulgular, coğrafi işaret sayısının tarımsal ihracat üzerinde pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisinin bulunduğuna; sektörel marka göstergesine ait katsayının ise temel modelde pozitif yönlü olmakla birlikte istatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyine ulaşmadığına işaret etmektedir. PPML, NBML ve toplam marka başvuru sınıf sayısına dayalı karşılaştırmalı model sonuçları, markalaşma etkisinin daha geniş ulusal marka kapasitesi üzerinden daha belirgin hâle gelebileceğine işaret etmektedir. EGDI düzeyindeki artışın, özellikle genel markalaşma kapasitesi bağlamında marka etkisini güçlendirebileceği ve dijital altyapının bu ilişkiyi koşullandıran tamamlayıcı bir unsur olduğu düşünülmektedir. Ayrıca Türkiye’de marka elastisitesinin AB ülkelerine kıyasla daha düşük olabileceği, özellikle karşılaştırmalı ve sağlamlık modellerinde belirginleşmektedir. Sonuçlar, dijital altyapı ile desteklenen markalaşma ve coğrafi işaret politikalarının birlikte ele alınmasının tarımsal ihracat rekabet gücünü artırmada önemli olabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, dijitalleşme, marka ve coğrafi işaretlerin eş zamanlı etkilerini karşılaştırmalı panel veri analiziyle inceleyerek tarım ekonomisi ve uluslararası ticaret literatürüne özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Keke, M. E. (2026). The Economic Impact of Digital Branding Components in Agriculture on Agricultural Exports: A Comparative Panel Data Analysis of the EU and Turkey. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 701–730. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1784486

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (85)

  1. Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California management review, 38(3), 102-120.
  2. Agostino, M., & Trivieri, F. (2014). Geographical indication and wine exports. An empirical investigation, 46, 22-36.
  3. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Unbalanced panel data models. In Econometric analysis of panel data (pp. 229–257). Springer.
  4. Barjolle, D., Paus, M., & Perret, A. (2021). Geographical indications and value creation in agricultural Markets. FAO.
  5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.
  6. Başaran, D. (2016). Kırsal kalkınmada coğrafi işaretlerin etkisi: Gaziantep ve Siirt illeri örneği [Yüksek lisans tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi].
  7. Belletti, G., & Marescotti, A. (2011). Origin products, geographical indications and rural development. In E. Barham & B. Sylvander (Eds.), Labels of origin for food: Local development, global recognition (pp. 75–91). CAB International.
  8. Belletti, G., Marescotti, A., & Touzard, J. M. (2017). Geographical indications, public goods, and sustainable development: The roles of actors’ strategies and public policies. World development, 98, 45-57.
  9. Bondesson, N. (2012). Brand image antecedents of loyalty and price premium in business markets. Business and Management Research, 1(1), 32-47.
  10. Bowen, S., & Zapata, A. V. (2009). Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: The case of tequila. Journal of rural studies, 25(1), 108-119.
  11. Brambor T, Clark WR, Golder M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political analysis, 14(1), 63-82.
  12. Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). Robust tests for the equality of variances. Journal of the American statistical association, 69(346), 364-367.
  13. Burger, M. J., Van Oort, F.G. & Linders, G. J. M. (2009). On the specification of the gravity model of trade: zeros, excess zeros and zero-inflated estimation. Spatial economic analysis, 4(2), 167-190.
  14. Çakaloğlu, M., & Çağatay, S. (2017). Coğrafi işaretler ve marka değerine sahip ürünlere yönelik tüketici algısı: Finike Portakalı ve Antalya Tavşan Yüreği Zeytini örnekleri. Tarım ekonomisi araştırmaları dergisi, 3(1), 52-65.
  15. Cameron, A. C., Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station, TX: Stata press.
  16. Carpenter, M., & Larceneux, F. (2008). Label equity and the effectiveness of values‐based labels: an experiment with two French Protected Geographic Indication labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 499-507.
  17. Christodoulides, G. (2009). Branding in the post-internet era. Marketing theory, 9(1), 141-144.
  18. Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J. (2012). Memo to marketers: Quantitative evidence for change: How user-generated content really affects brands. Journal of advertising research, 52(1), 53-64.
  19. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
  20. Demir, İ. (2020). Coğrafi işaretlerin sosyoekonomik etkileri. Yayımlanmamış uzmanlık tezi, Türk Patent ve Marka Kurumu Coğrafi İşaretler Dairesi Başkanlığı, Ankara.
  21. Deselnicu, O. C., Costanigro, M., Souza-Monteiro, D. M., & McFadden, D. T. (2013). A meta-analysis of geographical indication food valuation studies: what drives the premium for origin-based labels? Journal of agricultural and resource economics, 38(2), 204-219.
  22. Doğan, B. (2015). Coğrafi işaret korumasının gelişmekte olan ülkeler için önemi. Social sciences, 10(2), 58-75.
  23. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of economics and statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
  24. Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J.,. & Wang, Y. (2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International journal of information management, 59, 102168.
  25. Emlinger, C., & Latouche, K. (2024). Protection of geographical indications in trade agreements: Is it worth it? CEPII Working Paper No. 2024-05). CEPII.
  26. European Commission. (2020). Farm to fork strategy: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en
  27. European Commission. (2025). eAmbrosia: The EU geographical indications register. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture /eambrosia/geographical-indications-register/
  28. European Union Intellectual Property Office. (2025). EUIPO, https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en
  29. Fetscherin, M., & Toncar, M. (2010). The effects of the country of brand and the country of manufacturing of automobiles: An experimental study of consumers' brand personality perceptions. International marketing review, 27(2), 164-178.
  30. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). FAOSTAT statistical database. https://www.fao.org/faostat/
  31. Freund, C. L., & Weinhold, D. (2004). The effect of the Internet on international trade. Journal of international economics, 62(1), 171-189.
  32. Gerz, A., & Dupont, F. (2006). Comté cheese in France: Impact of a geographical indication on rural development. Origin-based products: Lessons for pro-poor market development, 372, 75-86.
  33. Gökkür, S. ve Çelik, Z. (2016). Meyve ve sebze ürünlerinde küresel değer zinciri. Meyve bilimi, 1, 50-55.
  34. Greenhalgh, C., & Rogers, M. (2012). Trade marks and performance in services and manufacturing firms: Evidence of Schumpeterian competition through innovation. Australian economic review, 45(1), 50-76.
  35. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  36. Gülhan, D. (2016). Sürdürülebilir turizm kapsamında tarim endüstrisi ve zeytinyağı turizminin birgi yerleşiminde olabilirliği üzerine bir değerlendirme. Social sciences, 11(2), 116-132.
  37. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 46(6), 1251-1271.
  38. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The stata journal, 7(3), 281-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700301
  39. Höllinger, F., & Sener, B. S. (2025). Digital technologies for agriculture in Türkiye: A review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd3185en
  40. Irek, J. (2024). Price premiums for single‐name and compound‐name geographical indications in Swiss cheese trade. Agribusiness. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21994
  41. Kantaroğlu, M., & Demirbaş, N. (2018). Türkiye’de coğrafi işaretli gıda ürünleri üretim potansiyelinin değerlendirilmesi. IBANESS, 21(22), 514-520.
  42. Kapferer, J. N. (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic thinking. Kogan page publishers.
  43. Karakuş, M. (2015). Farklı ambalajlarda depolanan zeytinyağlarının uçucu aroma bileşenleri ile bazı kalite özelliklerindeki değişimin belirlenmesi [Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi].
  44. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
  45. Keller, K. L. (2013). Keller: Strategic brand management. Pearson
  46. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management. Pearson Prentice Hall.
  47. Keller, K. L., & Swaminathan, V. (2020). Strategic brand management. Pearson.
  48. Lendle, A., Olarreaga, M., Schropp, S., & Vézina, P. L. (2016). There goes gravity: eBay and the death of distance. The Economic journal, 126(591), 406-441.
  49. Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of experimental social psychology, 49(4), 764-766.
  50. Marrone, T., & Testa, P. (2022). Brand algorithms and social engagement in digital era. The human side of service engineering, 62(62), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002562.
  51. Menapace, L., & Moschini, G. (2012). Quality certification by geographical indications, trademarks and firm reputation. European review of agricultural economics, 39(4), 539-566.
  52. Neilson, J., Wright, J., & Aklimawati, L. (2018). Geographical indications and value capture in the Indonesia coffee sector. Journal of rural studies, 59, 35-48.
  53. Nwakuya, M., & Ijomah, M. (2017). Fixed effect versus random effects modeling in a panel data analysis; a consideration of economic and political indicators in six African countries. International journal of statistics and applications, 7, 275-279.
  54. Oduro, S., & De Nisco, A. (2024). From Industry 4.0 adoption to innovation ambidexterity to firm performance: a MASEM analysis. European journal of innovation management, 27(8), 3060-3082.
  55. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Innovation, agricultural productivity and sustainability in Turkey. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/innovation-agricultural-productivity-and-sustainability-in-turkey_9789264261198-en.html
  56. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Türkiye and the OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/countries/turkiye.html
  57. Samardžić, S., Berjan, S., El Bilali, H., & Bajramović, S. (2013). Quantitative and qualitative effects of protecting traditional agro-food products by geographical indications. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium “Agrosym 2013”, 1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.7251/AGSY13031117S.
  58. Santos Silva, J. S., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and statistics, 88(4), 641-658.
  59. Semenova, S., Shpyrko, O., Androsenko, O., Afanasieva, I., Kolumbet, O., & Vorchakova, I. (2024). The essence of Goodwill in disclosing the intangible value of business in the context of digital transformation. Financial and credit activity problems of theory and practice, 4(57), 98-113.
  60. Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011). Innovations in retail business models. Journal of retailing, 87, 3-16.
  61. Spence, M. (1978). Job market signaling. In P. Diamond & M. Rothschild (Eds.), Uncertainty in economics (pp. 281–306). Academic Press.
  62. Stranieri, S., Orsi, L., Zilia, F., De Noni, I., & Olper, A. (2024). Terroir takes on technology: Geographical indications, agri-food innovation, and regional competitiveness in Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 110, 103368.
  63. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2023). 2023 İhracat strateji belgesi. https://ticaret.gov.tr
  64. Teuber, R. (2011). Protecting geographical indications: Lessons learned from the economic literature. Paper presented at the EAAE 2011 Congress, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.116081
  65. Toklu, İ. T., Ustaahmetoğlu, E., & Öztürk Küçük, H. (2016). Tüketicilerin coğrafi işaretli ürün algısı ve daha fazla fiyat ödeme isteği: Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi yaklaşımı. Yönetim ve ekonomi dergisi, 23(1), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.18657/yecbu.06210
  66. Tregear, A., Kuznesof, S., & Moxey, A. (1998). Policy initiatives for regional foods: some insights from consumer research. Food policy, 23(5), 383-394.
  67. Tsai, J., & Lu, T. (2023). Is brand reputation a banner for social marketing? A social enterprise product consumption perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 40(10), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21870.
  68. Türk Patent ve Marka Kurumu. (2025). Coğrafi işaretler (GI). https://ci.turkpatent.gov.tr/
  69. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). United Nations e-government survey 2022. https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2022-09/Web%20version%20E-Government%202022.pdf
  70. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2025). E-Government Development Index. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/-E-Government-Development-Index
  71. Vahdanjoo, M., Sørensen, C. G., & Nørremark, M. (2025). Digital transformation of the agri-food system. Current opinion in food science, 63, 1-10.
  72. Vandecandelaere, E., Teyssier, C., Barjolle, D., Jeanneaux, P., Fournier, S., & Beucherie, O. (2018). Strengthening sustainable food systems through geographical indications: An analysis of economic impacts. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
  73. Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European review of agricultural economics, 32(3), 347-368.
  74. Visconti, R. (2020). The valuation of trademarks and digital branding. In M. G. Colombo & A. Rossi (Eds.), The valuation of digital intangibles: Technology, marketing and internet (pp. 237–266). Springer.
  75. Wang, W., Wang, J., & Wu, H. (2024). Assessing the impact of new digital infrastructure on enterprise green transformation from a triple performance perspective. Journal of the knowledge economy. 16, 5594–5633.
  76. Wells, J., Valacich, J., & Hess, T. (2011). What signals are you sending? How website quality influences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions. MIS Q, 35, 373-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044048.
  77. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.
  78. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press.
  79. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2023). WIPO IP facts and figures 2023. https://www.wipo.int
  80. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024a). Nice classification: International classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of marks. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/classification-nice
  81. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024b). World intellectual property indicators 2024. https://www.wipo.int
  82. World Trade Organization. (2023). International trade statistics: Harmonized System (HS) classification. World Trade Organization. https://www.wto.org
  83. Zaremba, A. (2016). Country Value Premiums and Financial Crises. International Journal of finance & Banking studies, 3, 12-50. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2374926.
  84. Zhang, S., Sun, Y., Yu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Geographical indication, agricultural products export and urban–rural income gap. Agriculture, 13(2), 378.
  85. Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J.,. & Wang, Y. (2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International journal of information management, 59, 102168.