Journals / Fiscaoeconomia / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 2

Modeling Asymmetric Dependencies in Turkish Agricultural Markets: A Time-Varying Copula Approach

Türk Tarım Piyasalarında Asimetrik Bağımlılıkların Modellenmesi: Zamanla Değişen Bir Kapula Yaklaşımı

Çiğdem Yerli(BARTIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, BARTIN MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, MUHASEBE VE VERGİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-7629-7064
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-04-29
🏛️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 reveal that dependence strengthens with longer return horizons, highlighting the growing impact of financial variables on commodity prices over time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the dependence structure between Turkish agricultural commodity prices (barley, corn, grain, and wheat) and key financial variables: global crude oil prices (WTI/USD), the USD/TRY exchange rate, and local crude oil prices (WTI/TRY).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose is to evaluate how these relationships evolve over time and to identify the most significant financial drivers of agricultural price dynamics in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that dependence strengthens with longer return horizons, highlighting the growing impact of financial variables on commodity prices over time.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Copula Models · Agricultural Commodity Prices · Non-Linear Dependence

Abstract

This study investigates the dependence structure between Turkish agricultural commodity prices (barley, corn, grain, and wheat) and key financial variables: global crude oil prices (WTI/USD), the USD/TRY exchange rate, and local crude oil prices (WTI/TRY). The purpose is to evaluate how these relationships evolve over time and to identify the most significant financial drivers of agricultural price dynamics in Turkey. The analysis is based on daily data from August 1, 2019, to January 1, 2025. Using five copula models (Clayton, Frank, Gumbel, Gaussian, and Student’s t) and three correlation measures (Pearson, Spearman, Kendall), the study captures both linear and nonlinear dependencies across different time horizons by aggregating returns from 1 to 45 days. This multi-scale approach enables the assessment of short- and medium-term co-movements and tail dependencies. The findings reveal that dependence strengthens with longer return horizons, highlighting the growing impact of financial variables on commodity prices over time. Among the variables, WTI/TRY exhibits the strongest and most consistent dependence, especially with wheat and grain, reflecting the critical role of local energy costs in agricultural production. WTI/USD shows moderate global-level influence, while USD/TRY demonstrates weaker short-term dependence but becomes relevant in the tails over longer horizons. The t copula proves to be the most suitable model, effectively capturing both upper- and lower-tail dependence. These results have important implications for risk management, agricultural pricing, and policy decisions in energy-dependent economies.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki tarımsal emtia fiyatları (arpa, mısır, hububat ve buğday) ile temel finansal değişkenler olan küresel ham petrol fiyatları (WTI/USD), USD/TRY döviz kuru ve yerel ham petrol fiyatları (WTI/TRY) arasındaki bağımlılık yapısını incelemektedir. Amacı, bu ilişkilerin zaman içinde nasıl değiştiğini değerlendirmek ve Türkiye’deki tarımsal fiyat dinamiklerinin en önemli finansal belirleyicilerini tespit etmektir. Analiz, 1 Ağustos 2019 ile 1 Ocak 2025 tarihleri arasındaki günlük verilere dayanmaktadır. Çalışmada beş kopula modeli (Clayton, Frank, Gumbel, Gaussian, ve Student’s t,) ve üç korelasyon ölçütü (Pearson, Spearman, Kendall) kullanılarak farklı zaman ufuklarında 1 ila 45 günlük getiri toplulaştırmalarıyla hem doğrusal hem de doğrusal olmayan bağımlılıklar yakalanmıştır. Bu çok ölçekli yaklaşım, kısa ve orta vadeli birlikte hareketleri ve kuyruk bağımlılıklarını değerlendirmeye olanak tanımaktadır. Bulgular, daha uzun getiri ufuklarında bağımlılığın güçlendiğini ortaya koymakta; bu da zaman içinde finansal değişkenlerin emtia fiyatları üzerindeki etkisinin arttığını göstermektedir. Değişkenler arasında, WTI/TRY en güçlü ve tutarlı bağımlılığı sergilemekte, özellikle buğday ve hububat ile olan ilişkisi dikkat çekmektedir. Bu durum, yerel enerji maliyetlerinin tarımsal üretimdeki kritik rolünü yansıtmaktadır. WTI/USD daha ılımlı bir küresel etki gösterirken, USD/TRY kısa vadede zayıf bir bağımlılık sergilese de uzun vadeli ufuklarda kuyruklarda anlamlı hale gelmektedir. Student’s t kopula modeli hem üst hem alt kuyruk bağımlılıklarını etkili şekilde yakaladığı için en uygun model olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu sonuçlar, enerjiye bağımlı ekonomilerde risk yönetimi, tarımsal fiyatlandırma ve politika kararları açısından önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yerli, Ç. (2026). Modeling Asymmetric Dependencies in Turkish Agricultural Markets: A Time-Varying Copula Approach. Fiscaoeconomia, Volume: 10 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1715402

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Abbott, P.C., Hurt, C., & Tyner, W.E. (2008). What’s driving food prices?. Farm Foundation Issue Report, July 2008.
  2. Adam, P., Rianse, U., Harafah, Ĺ. M., Cahyono, E., & Rafiy, M. (2016). A model of the dynamics of the effect of world crude oil price and world rice price on Indonesia’s inflation rate. Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 8(1), 3-12.
  3. Adam, P., Saidi, L. O., Tondi, L., & Sani, L. O. A. (2018). The causal relationship between crude oil price, exchange rate and rice price. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 90-94.
  4. Bowden, N., & Payne, J. E. (2008). Short term forecasting of electricity prices for MISO hubs: Evidence from ARIMA-EGARCH models. Energy Economics, 30(6), 3186-3197.
  5. Cabrera, B. L., & Schulz, F. (2016). Volatility linkages between energy and agricultural commodity prices. Energy Economics, 54, 190-203.
  6. Campiche, J. L., Bryant, H. L., Richardson, J. W., & Outlaw, J. L. (2007). Examining the evolving correspondence between petroleum prices and agricultural commodity prices.
  7. Chen, Z., Yan, B., & Kang, H. (2022). Dynamic correlation between crude oil and agricultural futures markets. Review of Development Economics, 26(3), 1798-1849.
  8. Çınar, G. (2023). Effect of monetary indicators on agricultural prices: Evidence from Turkiye. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 247-254.
  9. Embrechts, P., Lindskog, F., & McNeil, A. (2003). Modelling dependence with copulas and applications to risk management. Handbook of heavy tailed distributions in finance, 8(1), 329-384.
  10. Gokmenoglu, K. K., Güngör, H., & Bekun, F. V. (2021). Revisiting the linkage between oil and agricultural commodity prices: Panel evidence from an Agrarian state. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(4), 5610-5620.
  11. Hanson, K., Robinson, S., & Schluter, G. (1993). Sectoral effects of a world oil price shock: economywide linkages to the agricultural sector. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 96-116.
  12. Hatzenbuehler, P. L., Abbott, P. C., & Foster, K. A. (2016). Agricultural commodity prices and exchange rates under structural change. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 204-224.
  13. Harri, A., Nalley, L., & Hudson, D. (2009). The relationship between oil, exchange rates, and commodity prices. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(2), 501-510.
  14. Kisswani, K. M., Lahiani, A., & Fikru, M. G. (2025). Exploring dynamic extreme dependence of oil and agricultural markets. International Review of Economics & Finance, 99, 104032.
  15. Liu, J., & Serletis, A. (2025). Volatility and dependence in crude oil and agricultural commodity markets. Applied Economics, 57(12), 1314-1325.
  16. Ma, Z., Xu, R., & Dong, X. (2015). World oil prices and agricultural commodity prices: The evidence from China. Agricultural Economics, 61(12), 564.
  17. Mensi, W., Hammoudeh, S., Nguyen, D. K., & Yoon, S. M. (2014). Dynamic spillovers among major energy and cereal commodity prices. Energy Economics, 43, 225-243.
  18. Nazlioglu, S., & Soytas, U. (2011). World oil prices and agricultural commodity prices: Evidence from an emerging market. Energy Economics, 33(3), 488-496.
  19. Nazlioglu, S., & Soytas, U. (2012). Oil price, agricultural commodity prices, and the dollar: A panel cointegration and causality analysis. Energy Economics, 34(4), 1098-1104.
  20. Reboredo, J. C. (2012). Do food and oil prices co-move?. Energy Policy, 49, 456-467.
  21. Rezitis, A. (2015). Empirical analysis of agricultural commodity prices, crude oil prices and US dollar exchange rates using panel data econometric methods. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(3), 851-868.
  22. Roache, S. K. (2010). What explains the rise in food price volatility?. IMF Working Paper, 10/129.
  23. Yurttancikmaz, Z. Ç., Ahmid, A. F., Öndeş, T. & Karcioğlu, R. (2020). The impact of oil price and exchange rate on agricultural commodity prices: evidence from Turkey. GSI Journals Serie B: Advancements in Business and Economics, 3(1), 1-15. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4030139
  24. Zakoian, J. M. (1994). Threshold heteroskedastic models. Journal of Economic Dynamics and control, 18(5), 931-955.
  25. Zhang, W., Wu, J., Wang, S., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Examining dynamics: Unraveling the impact of oil price fluctuations on forecasting agricultural futures prices. International Review of Financial Analysis, 97, 103770.