SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alanya Akademik Bakış / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

The J-Curve Hypothesis in Türkiye’s Bilateral Trade: Does Technology Intensity Matter?

Bestehan Ergül(ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2556-4502
Sinem Pınar Gürel(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5088-4575
Pages
587–599
Publication Date
2026-05-30
🏛️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 empirical findings reveal substantial heterogeneity in trade responsiveness across sectors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the impact of real exchange rate movements on Türkiye’s bilateral trade balance across manufacturing industries with different levels of technological intensity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using quarterly data from 2003Q1 to 2020Q4, the analysis focuses on four technology-based export categories and employs both linear (ARDL) and nonlinear (NARDL) bounds testing approaches to assess the validity of the J-curve hypothesis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The empirical findings reveal substantial heterogeneity in trade responsiveness across sectors.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:J-Curve Hipotezi · Ticaret Dengesi · Teknoloji Yoğunluğu

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of real exchange rate movements on Türkiye’s bilateral trade balance across manufacturing industries with different levels of technological intensity. Using quarterly data from 2003Q1 to 2020Q4, the analysis focuses on four technology-based export categories and employs both linear (ARDL) and nonlinear (NARDL) bounds testing approaches to assess the validity of the J-curve hypothesis. The empirical findings reveal substantial heterogeneity in trade responsiveness across sectors. While a traditional J-curve pattern is supported for medium-low and medium-high technology categories, no clear evidence of such an adjustment is found for low- and high-technology categories. Specifically, for high-technology and low-technology categories, exchange rate depreciation leads to short-run deterioration without a subsequent long-run recovery, likely due to the sectors’ heavy dependence on imported intermediate inputs. Overall, the findings suggest that exchange rate depreciation may not be a uniformly effective policy instrument for improving Türkiye’s trade balance and that sector-specific technological and structural characteristics play a crucial role in shaping exchange rate–trade balance dynamics.

Özet

Bu çalışma, reel döviz kuru hareketlerinin Türkiye’nin ikili ticaret dengesi üzerindeki etkilerini, imalat sanayi sektörlerini teknoloji yoğunluklarına göre ayrıştırarak analiz etmektedir. 2003Ç1–2020Ç4 dönemine ait üç aylık veriler kullanılarak yürütülen analizde, teknoloji düzeyine göre sınıflandırılmış dört ihracat kategorisi ele alınmakta ve J-eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği doğrusal (ARDL) ve doğrusal olmayan (NARDL) sınır testleriyle değerlendirilmektedir. Ampirik bulgular, döviz kuru değişimlerine verilen ticaret tepkilerinin sektörler arasında belirgin bir heterojenlik sergilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Orta-düşük ve orta-yüksek teknoloji yoğunluğuna sahip sektörlerde geleneksel J-eğrisi dinamikleri doğrulanırken, düşük ve yüksek teknoloji yoğunluğuna sahip sektörler için bu hipotezi destekleyen istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir kanıta ulaşılamamıştır. Özellikle düşük ve yüksek teknoloji gruplarında döviz kurundaki değer kaybının kısa dönemde ticaret dengesinde bozulmaya yol açtığı, ancak uzun dönemde telafi edici bir iyileşmenin gerçekleşmediği tespit edilmiştir. Bu bulgunun, söz konusu sektörlerin üretim süreçlerinde ithal ara malı girdilerine yüksek derecede bağımlı olmalarıyla ilişkili olabileceği değerlendirilmektedir. Genel olarak elde edilen sonuçlar, döviz kuru değer kaybının Türkiye’nin ticaret dengesini iyileştirmede her sektör için aynı derecede etkili bir politika aracı olmadığını ve sektörlere özgü teknolojik ve yapısal özelliklerin döviz kuru–ticaret dengesi ilişkisini belirlemede kritik bir rol oynadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ergül, B., Gürel, S. P. (2026). The J-Curve Hypothesis in Türkiye’s Bilateral Trade: Does Technology Intensity Matter?. Alanya Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 587–599. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1885823

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Ari, A., Cergibozan, R., & Cevik, E. (2017). J-curve in Turkish bilateral trade: A nonlinear approach. The International Trade Journal, 33(1), 31–53.
  2. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. (1985). Devaluation and the J-curve: Some evidence from LDCs. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 500–504.
  3. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. (1989). Devaluation and the J-curve: Some evidence from LDCs (errata). The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 553–554.
  4. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. (1991). Is there a long-run relation between the trade balance and the real effective exchange rate of LDCs? Economics Letters, 36, 403–407.
  5. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Kantipong, T. (2001). Bilateral J-curve between Thailand and her trading partners. Journal of Economic Development, 26(2), 107–117.
  6. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Ratha, A. (2004). The J-curve: A literature review. Applied Economics, 36(13), 1377–1398.
  7. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Aftab, M. (2019). On the asymmetric effects of exchange rate volatility on trade flows: New evidence from US–Malaysia trade at the industry level. Economic Modelling, 63, 86–103.
  8. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Arize, A. C. (2019). The sensitivity of US inpayments and outpayments to real exchange rate changes: Asymmetric evidence from Africa. International Economic Journal, 33(3), 455–472.
  9. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Arize, A. C., & Kalu, E. U. (2022). On the asymmetric effects of exchange rate volatility on US bilateral trade with its 12 South American partners. Economic Change and Restructuring, 1–32.
  10. Bai, J., & Perron, P. (2003). Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 1–22.
  11. Bal, H., & Demiral, M. (2012). Real exchange rate and trade balance: The case of Turkey’s trade with Germany (2002.01–2012.09). Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 16(2), 45–64.
  12. Bolkan, E., & Kaplan, F. (2020). Teknoloji yoğun malların sektörel ihracatı: Türkiye örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 34(3), 1001–1020. https://doi.org/10.16951/atauniiibd.713014
  13. Bottega, A., & Romero, J. P. (2021). Innovation, export performance and trade elasticities across different sectors. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 58, 174–184.
  14. Büyükdeniz, A. (2018). Teknoloji yoğunluğuna göre dış ticaret ve kur ilişkisi: Panel veri analizi (Yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi).
  15. Carbaugh, R. (2019). International economics. Cengage Learning.
  16. Cooper, R. N. (1972). Trade policy is foreign policy. Foreign Policy, 9, 18–36.
  17. Demirden, T., & Pastine, I. (1995). Flexible exchange rates and the J-curve: An alternative approach. Economics Letters, 48, 373–377.
  18. Demirtaş, G. (2014). Türkiye ve Almanya arasındaki dış ticaret dengesinin sınır testi yaklaşımıyla incelenmesi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 43, 83–106.
  19. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427–431.
  20. Durusoy, Ö. T., & Tokatlıoğlu, İ. (1997). Devalüasyon ve J eğrisi. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 8(24–25), 65–79.
  21. Gomes, F. A. R., & Paz, L. S. (2005). Can real exchange rate devaluation improve the trade balance? The 1980–1998 Brazilian case. Applied Economics Letters, 12(9), 525–528.
  22. Hacker, R. S., & Hatemi-J, A. (2003). Is the J-curve effect observable for small North European economies? Open Economies Review, 14, 119–134.
  23. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2007). The bilateral J-curve: Turkey versus her 13 trading partners. MPRA Paper No. 3564.
  24. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2008). The J-curve dynamics of Turkey: An application of ARDL model. Applied Economics, 40, 2423–2439.
  25. Hepaktan, C. E. (2016). Yapısal kırılmalar altında Türkiye’de J eğrisinin analizi. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(4), 75–102.
  26. Hooy, C. W., Law, S. H., & Chan, T. H. (2015). The impact of the renminbi real exchange rate on ASEAN disaggregated exports to China. Economic Modelling, 47, 253–259.
  27. Hussain, M. E., & Haque, M. (2014). Is the J-curve a reality in developing countries? Journal of Economics and Political Economy, 1(2), 231–240.
  28. Junz, H. B., & Rhomberg, R. R. (1973). Price competitiveness in export trade among industrial countries. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 412–418.
  29. Kale, P. (2001). Turkey's trade balance in the short and the long run: Error correction modeling and cointegration. The International Trade Journal, 15(1), 27–56.
  30. Kanca, O.C. (2025). J eğrisi hipotezi üzerine bir uygulama. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 103-122.
  31. Karagöz, K., & Deniz, N. (2014). Devalüasyonların kısa ve uzun dönemli etkinliği: Türkiye için ampirik bir analiz. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 1–12.
  32. Karamelikli, H. (2016). Türkiye’nin dış ticaret dengesinde J-eğrisi etkisi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 389–402.
  33. Kimbugwe, H. (2006). The bilateral J-curve hypothesis between Turkey and her 9 trading partners. MPRA Paper No. 4254.
  34. Kösekahyaoğlu, L., & Kemeç, A. (2015). J eğrisi analizi ve Türkiye üzerine bir uygulama. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 1–29.
  35. Krugman, P. R., & Obstfeld, M. (2000). International economics: Theory and policy. Addison Wesley.
  36. Lal, A. K., & Lowinger, T. C. (2002). Nominal effective exchange rate and trade balance adjustment in South Asia countries. Journal of Asian Economics, 13(3), 371–383.
  37. Lerner, A. P. (1944). The economics of control: Principles of welfare economics. Macmillan.
  38. Magee, S. P. (1973). Currency contracts, pass-through, and devaluation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1973(1), 303–325.
  39. Marshall, A. (1923). Money, credit & commerce. Macmillan.
  40. Marwah, K., & Klein, L. (1996). What are some prospects for India's joining the Asian growth process? Carleton University, Department of Economics.
  41. Miles, M. A. (1979). The effects of devaluation on the trade balance and the balance of payments: Some new results. Journal of Political Economy, 87, 600–620.
  42. Moffett, M. H. (1989). The J-curve revisited: An empirical examination for the United States. Journal of International Money and Finance, 8(3), 425–444.
  43. Noland, M. (1989). Japanese trade elasticities and the J-curve. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/1928067
  44. Nusair, S. A. (2017). The J-curve phenomenon in European transition economies: A nonlinear ARDL approach. International Review of Applied Economics, 31(1), 1–27.
  45. OECD. (2011). ISIC Rev.3 technology intensity definition. OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.
  46. Özmen, E. (2014). Reel döviz kuru ve Türkiye dış ticaret dinamikleri. Economic Research Center Working Papers in Economics, 14(12), 1–138.
  47. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. (2001). Bound testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(1), 289–326.
  48. Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for unit roots in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.
  49. Rose, A. K., & Yellen, J. L. (1989). Is there a J-curve? Journal of Monetary Economics, 24, 53–68. Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt (pp. 281–314). Springer.
  50. Uslu, H. (2018). Marshall-Lerner koşulu ve J eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği: Farklı gelir grubu ülkeleri için karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Uluslararası Akademik Değer Dergisi Çalışmaları, 4(20), 550–561.
  51. Yamak, R., & Korkmaz, A. (2005). Reel döviz kuru ve dış ticaret dengesi ilişkisi. Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, 2,11-29.
  52. Yazıcı, M., & Islam, M. Q. (2011). Impact of exchange rate and customs union on trade balance of Turkey with EU (15). International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9), 250–253.