SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 2

The Trap of Structural Transformation: The Asymmetric Effects of Deindustrialization on Economic Growth

Yapısal Dönüşüm Tuzağı: Sanayisizleşmenin Büyüme Üzerindeki Asimetrik Etkisi

Gazi Polat(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9797-4017
Pages
835–854
Publication Date
2025-12-29
🏛️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)

Consequently, the negative consequences of deindustrialization on economic growth outweigh the benefits associated with industrialization.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Deindustrialization is conceptualized as a structural transformation process characterized by a reduction in the employment share and value-added contribution of the manufacturing sector.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Hence, analyzing the country-specific interactions between deindustrialization, structural transformation, and economic growth can yield significant policy implications.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Consequently, the negative consequences of deindustrialization on economic growth outweigh the benefits associated with industrialization.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekonomik Büyüme · Sanayisizleşme · Asimetri

Abstract

Deindustrialization is conceptualized as a structural transformation process characterized by a reduction in the employment share and value-added contribution of the manufacturing sector. Throughout the globalization process, deindustrialization has followed distinct transformation patterns, initially in developed economies and subsequently in developing countries. Hence, analyzing the country-specific interactions between deindustrialization, structural transformation, and economic growth can yield significant policy implications. Within this framework, the present study aims to investigate the long-term effects of deindustrialization on economic growth in Türkiye. The relationship between deindustrialization and economic growth is examined using economic growth as the dependent variable, while manufacturing industry value-added share and employment share serve as explanatory variables. Additionally, human capital index, urbanization, globalization, trade, financial development index, and total factor productivity are included as control variables for the 1980–2020 period. To estimate these relationships, the study employs a non-linear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) model. The results reveal a long-term asymmetric relationship between deindustrialization and economic growth in Turkey. Specifically, the adverse effects of contractions in the manufacturing industry’s employment and value-added shares on economic growth surpass the positive effects of expansions. Consequently, the negative consequences of deindustrialization on economic growth outweigh the benefits associated with industrialization.

Özet

Sanayisizleşme, imalat sektörünün istihdam payı ve katma değer katkısının azalmasıyla karakterize edilen yapısal bir dönüşüm süreci olarak kavramsallaştırılmaktadır. Küreselleşme süreci boyunca sanayisizleşme, başlangıçta gelişmiş ekonomilerde ve sonrasında gelişmekte olan ülkelerde belirgin dönüşüm süreçleri izlemiştir. Dolayısıyla, sanayisizleşme, yapısal dönüşüm ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ülkeye özgü etkileşimlerin analiz edilmesi önemli politika çıkarımları sağlayabilir. Bu çerçevede, çalışma, sanayisizleşmenin Türkiye'de ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki uzun vadeli etkilerini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Sanayisizleşme ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki, bağımlı değişken olarak ekonomik büyüme kullanılarak incelenirken, imalat endüstrisi katma değer payı ve istihdam payı açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak incelenmektedir. Ayrıca, beşerî sermaye endeksi, kentleşme, küreselleşme, ticaret, finansal gelişme endeksi ve toplam faktör verimliliği, 1980-2020 dönemi için kontrol değişkenler olarak modele dahil edilmiştir. Bu ilişkileri tahmin etmek için, çalışmada doğrusal olmayan gecikmesi dağıtılmış otoregresif (NARDL) bir model kullanılmaktadır. Sonuçlar, Türkiye'de sanayisizleşme ile ekonomik büyüme arasında uzun vadeli asimetrik bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle, imalat sanayi istihdam ve katma değer paylarındaki daralmaların ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki olumsuz etkileri, genişlemelerin olumlu etkilerini aşmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, sanayisizleşmenin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki olumsuz sonuçları, sanayileşmeyle ilişkili olumlu sonuçlardan daha ağır basmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Polat, G. (2025). The Trap of Structural Transformation: The Asymmetric Effects of Deindustrialization on Economic Growth. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 2, 835–854. https://doi.org/10.21180/iibfdkastamonu.1742992

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Atiyas, İ. & Bakış, O. (2023). 1980 Sonrası Türkiye Ekonomisinde Verimlilik, Kaynak Tahsisi ve Yapısal Değişim. İçinde: A. S. Akat & S. Gürsel (Ed.), Çıkmaz Yol Dünden Yarına Türkiye Ekonomisi (ss. 71-98). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  2. Altay, N. & Ramirez, A. (2010). Impact of Disasters on Firms in Different Sectors: Implications for Supply Chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(4), 59-80.
  3. Anderson, K. & Ponnusamy, S. (2019). Structural Transformation to Manufacturing and Services: What Role for Trade? Asian Development Review, 36(2), 32-71.
  4. Araujo, E., Peres, S. C. & Punzo, L. F. (2021). An Investigation Into Shapes and Determinants of Deindustrialization Processes: Theory and Evidence for Developed and Developing Countries (1970-2017). EconomiA, 22(2), 129-143.
  5. Banerjee, A. V. & Newman, A. F. (1998). Information, the Dual Economy, and Development. The Review of Economic Studies, 65(4), 631-653.
  6. Bayar, A. A., Günçavdı, Ö. & Levent, H. (2023). Evaluating the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Unemployment, Income Distribution and Poverty in Turkey. Economic Systems, 47(1), 1-21.
  7. Dasgupta, S. & Singh, A. (2006). Manufacturing, Services and Premature Deindustrialization in Developing Countries: A Kaldorian Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230801462_23
  8. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, Reindustrialization and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from Ecological Footprint of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126612.
  9. Destek, M. A., Hossain, M. R. & Khan, Z. (2024). Premature Deindustrialization and Environmental Degradation. Gondwana Research, 127, 199-210.
  10. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
  11. Doğruel, A. S. & Doğruel, F. (2018). Two Phases of Deindustrialization Policies in İstanbul. Journal of Research in Economics, 2(2), 186-207.
  12. Epstein, G. (2019). Financialization, Rentier Interests, and Central Bank Policy. İçinde: G. Epstein (Ed.). The Political Economy of Central Banking (ss. 380-406). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  13. Ersungur, Ş. & Kızıltan, A. (2011). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sektörlerin İstihdama Etkileri: Girdi-Çıktı Yaklaşımıyla Bir Uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25, 155-163.
  14. Feng, Y. & Wang, Y. (2021). The Impact of Deindustrialization on Economic Growth Evidence From China. International Business Research, 14(5), 1-18.
  15. Gür, B. (2022). The Effects of Economic Policy Choices on Industrialization in Turkiye. Industrial Policy, 2(2), 55-62.
  16. Haverkamp, K. & Clara, M. (2019). Four Shades of Deindustrialization, Department of Policy (United Nations Industrial Development Organization Research and Statistics Working Paper No. 2).
  17. Kaldor, N. (1966). Marginal Productivity and the Macro-Economic Theories of Distribution: Comment on Samuelson and Modigliani. The Review of Economic Studies, 33(4), 309-319.
  18. Karahasan, B. C. (2020). Regional Deindustrialization in Turkey. Topics in Middle Eastern North African Economies, 22(1), 129-141.
  19. Kayıran, A. (2022). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sanayisizleşme Olgusu (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana.
  20. Kohpaiboon, A. (2009). International Labour Migration and Competitiveness: Evidence of Thai Clothing Industry at the Border (Economic Research and Training Center Discussion Paper Series No. 18).
  21. Korkmaz, İ., Çınar, İ. T. & Baycan, T. (2024). Economic Complexity and Regional Growth in Turkey: Implications for East-West Disparity. Eastern European Economics, 63(4), 610-636.
  22. Kotenko, S., Shvindina, H. & Heiets, I. (2021). The Impact of Migration on the Competitiveness of the Region and Industry Development. E3S Web of Conferences 2021, EDP Sciences, 1-16.
  23. Köse, Z. & Dineri, E. (2020). Sanayisizleşmeyi Etkileyen Faktörler Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Türkiye Örneği. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(20), 579-597.
  24. Liu, L. & An, S. (2023). Deindustrialization and the Incidence of Poverty: Empirical Evidence From Developing Countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 18(7), 2-15.
  25. Meçik, O. & Aytun, U. (2018). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Erken Sanayisizleşmeye Bölgesel Bir Yaklaşım. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 45(1), 59-81.
  26. Mert, F. (2013), Sanayisizleşme ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler Açısından Durum Analizi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Hitit Üniversitesi, Çorum.
  27. Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R. W. (1989). Building Blocks of Market Clearing Business Cycle Models. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 4, 247-287.
  28. Nawaz, S., Iqbal, N. & Khan, M. A. (2014). The Impact of Institutional Quality on Economic Growth: Panel Evidence. The Pakistan Development Review, 53(1), 15-31.
  29. Neus, W. (2018). Einführung in die Betriebswirtschaftslehre aus institution enökonomischer Sicht. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck.
  30. Olcay, H. (2021). Gelişen Ekonomilerde Yapısal Dönüşüm: Prematüre Sanayisizleşme Üzerine Ampirik Bir İnceleme (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep.
  31. Palley, T. I. (2013). Financialization: What It Is and Why It Matters. İçinde: T. I. Palley (Ed.). Financialization: The Economics of Finance Capital Domination (ss. 17-40). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137265821_2
  32. Palma, G. (2005). Four Sources of De-Industrialisation and A New Concept of the Dutch Disease. Beyond Reforms: Structural Dynamics and Macroeconomic Vulnerability, 3(5), 71-116.
  33. Palma, J. G. (2014). Deindustrialisation, Prematüre De-Industrialisation and the Dutch-Disease. Revista NECAT-Revista do Núcleo de Estudos de Economia Catarinense, 3(5), 7-23.
  34. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
  35. Phillips, P. C. B. & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
  36. Porter, M., Sachs, J. & McArthur, J. (2002). Executive Summary: Competitiveness and Stages of Economic Development. İçinde: M. Porter (Eds.), The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002 (ss. 16-26). New York: Oxford University Press.
  37. Raquedan, A. & Raquedan, J. (2023). The Effect of Employment Stability to Service Quality of a Manufacturing Company. Available at SSRN 4561736. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4561736
  38. Ravindran, R. & Babu, M. S. (2023). Premature Deindustrialisation and Income Inequality Dynamics: Evidence from Middle-Income Economies. The Journal of Development Studies, 59(12), 1885-1904.
  39. Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature Deindustrialisation, Journal of Economic Growth, 21, 1-33.
  40. Rosenstein Rodan, P. N. (1943). Problems of Industrialisation of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. The Economic Journal, 53(210), 202-211.
  41. Rowthorn, R. & Ramaswamy, R. (1997). Deindustrialization: Causes and Implications (IMF Working Paper, WP/97/42).
  42. Rowthorn, R. & Wells, J. (1987). De-Industrialization and Foreign Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Shin, Y., Yu, B. & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling Asymmetric Cointegration and Dynamic Multipliers in a Nonlinear ARDL Framework. İçinde: R. C. Sickles, W. C. Horrace (Eds), Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications (ss. 281-314). Springer.
  44. Siddiqui, K. (2017). Financialisation and Economic Policy: The Issue of Capital Control in the Developing Countries. World Review of Political Economy, 8(4), 564-589.
  45. Singh, A. (1977). UK Industry and the World Economy: A Case of De-Industrialisation?. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1(2), 113-136.
  46. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (2023). Onikinci Kalkınma Planı: 2024-2028. Ankara: T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı Yayını. Erişim Tarihi: 15.01.2024. Erişim Adresi: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/On-Ikinci-Kalkinma-Plani_2024-2028_11122023.pdf
  47. Terzi, H. & Oltulular, S. (2004). Türkiye’de Sanayileşme ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensel İlişki. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(2), 219-226.
  48. Timmer, M. P. & De Vries, G. J. (2009). Structural Change and Growth Accelerations in Asia and Latin America: A New Sectoral Data Set. Cliometrica, 3, 165-190.
  49. Tregenna, F. (2009). Characterising Deindustrialisation: An Analysis of Changes in Manufacturing Employment and Output Internationally. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(3), 433-466.
  50. Tregenna, F. (2015). Deindustrialisation, Structural Change and Sustainable Economic Growth (United Nations University Working Papers 32).
  51. Ulga, E. (2022). Türkiye'de Ekonomik Büyümenin Yapısı ve İstihdam Etkileri (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.
  52. Vu, K. M. (2017). Structural Change and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence and Policy Insights From Asian Economies. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 41, 64-77.
  53. Yeldan, E. (2017). The Economics of Climate Change Action in Turkey: A Commentary. New Perspectives on Turkey, 56, 139-145.