SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Esenyurt Üniversitesi İşletme ve Yönetim Bilimleri Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1

TRADE FACILITATION AND EXPORT PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FOR TURKEY

TİCARETİN KOLAYLAŞTIRILMASI VE İHRACAT PERFORMANSI: TÜRKİYE İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ÇALIŞMA

Elif Nur Eken(İstanbul Esenyurt Üniversitesi)0000-0003-4319-4055
Hasan Karaduman(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3629-3047
Pages
49–63
Publication Date
2026-06-09
🏛️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 AEO status has a statistically significant and positive effect on export performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the impact of the Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) scheme, implemented as a trade facilitation policy, on export performance is examined using monthly export data for Turkey’s exports to European Union member states over the period 2013:09-2024:12.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study based on the traditional Goldstein-Khan export demand model; foreign demand conditions are represented by the industrial production index of the importing country, while price competitiveness is captured by the bilateral real exchange rate.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that AEO status has a statistically significant and positive effect on export performance.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ticaretin Kolaylaştırılması · Yetkilendirilmiş Yükümlü Statüsü · İhracat Talep Modeli

Abstract

In this study, the impact of the Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) scheme, implemented as a trade facilitation policy, on export performance is examined using monthly export data for Turkey’s exports to European Union member states over the period 2013:09-2024:12. The study based on the traditional Goldstein-Khan export demand model; foreign demand conditions are represented by the industrial production index of the importing country, while price competitiveness is captured by the bilateral real exchange rate. The models are estimated using both OLS and Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML) methods. The findings indicate that AEO status has a statistically significant and positive effect on export performance. In this context, the study examines trade facilitation policies at the macro level within the export demand framework, highlighting the importance of institutional and administrative mechanisms in enhancing Turkey’s exports and deriving implications for policy design.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, ticaretin kolaylaştırılması politikası olarak Yetkilendirilmiş Yükümlü Statüsü’nün (YYS) ihracat performansı üzerindeki etkisi, Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkelere yönelik 2013:9-2024:12 dönemine ait aylık ihracat verileri ile incelenmektedir. Çalışma, Goldstein-Khan geleneksel ihracat talep modeline dayanmakta; dış talep koşulları ithalatçı ülkenin sanayi üretim endeksi ile, fiyat rekabeti ise ikili reel döviz kuru ile temsil edilmektedir. Modeller hem OLS hem de Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML) yöntemleri ile tahmin edilmiştir. Bulgular, YYS sahipliğinin ihracat performansı üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif etkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu kapsamda çalışma, ticaretin kolaylaştırılması politikalarını makro düzlemde ihracat talebi çerçevesinde ele alarak Türkiye’nin ihracatını artırmaya yönelik kurumsal ve idari mekanizmanın önemine işaret ederek politika tasarımı için çıkarımlar üretmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eken, E. N., Karaduman, H. (2026). TRADE FACILITATION AND EXPORT PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FOR TURKEY. İstanbul Esenyurt Üniversitesi İşletme ve Yönetim Bilimleri Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.61349/iesbad.1945878

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Akpilic, F., & Yurdakul, F. (2022). Reel Döviz Kurunun Türkiye İmalat Sanayi İhracatı Üzerine Etkisi: Doğrusal Olmayan Panel ARDL Yaklaşımı. Maliye Dergisi, 0(182), 1-29.
  2. Arize, A. C. (2001). Traditional export demand relation and parameter instability: An empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Studies, 28(6), 378-398. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443580110400414
  3. Aslan, C., & Parmaksız, S. (2025). Do export responses to exchange rate movements differ in micro export flows? The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 34(4), 913-924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2024.2345902
  4. Aydın, M. F., Çıplak, U., & Yücel, M. E. (2004). Export Supply and Import Demand Models for the Turkish Economy (04/09). Research and Monetary Policy Department, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.
  5. Barro, R. J. (2003). Determinants of economic growth in a panel of countries. Annals of economics and finance, 4, 231-274.
  6. Chang-Bong, K., Chun, H.-U., & Kwon, S.-H. (2016). Impact of application factors of the AEO program on its performance. Journal of Korea Trade, 20(4), 332-348. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKT-12-2016-018
  7. Cruz, M. (2014). Do Export Promotion Agencies Promote New Exporters? Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0011636
  8. Dincer, N. N., & Tekin-Koru, A. (2019). Do Aeo Programs Facilitate Trade? An Empirical Assessment Of The Oic Member States (Working Papers 1347).
  9. Dollar, D. (1992). Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-1985. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 40(3), 523-544. https://doi.org/10.1086/451959
  10. Goldstein, M., & Khan, M. S. (1978). The Supply and Demand for Exports: A Simultaneous Approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60(2), 275. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924981
  11. Goldstein, M., & Khan, M. S. (1985). Income and Price Effects in Foreign Trade. İçinde Handbook of International Economics (C. 2).
  12. Houé, T., & Murphy, E. (2018). The AEO status as a source of competitive advantage. European Business Review, 30(5), 591-606. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-06-2017-0127
  13. Hu, Y., Jiang, M., Sun, S., & Dai, Y. (2022). Does Trade Facilitation Promote Export Technological Sophistication? Evidence From the European Transition Countries. Sage Open, 12(2), 21582440221106675. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221106675
  14. Li, C., & Shen, H. (2025). Does trade facilitation contribute to export product quality upgrading in China? The World Economy, 48(3), 460-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13649
  15. Martinez-Zarzoso, I., & Márquez-Ramos, L. (2008). The Effect of Trade Facilitation on Sectoral Trade. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1927
  16. Moïsé, E., Orliac, T., & Minor, P. (2011). Trade Facilitation Indicators: The Impact on Trade Costs (OECD Trade Policy Papers 118; OECD Trade Policy Papers, C. 118). https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg6nk654hmr-en
  17. Nkhahle, O., & Baldavoo, K. (2026). Evaluating AEO in facilitating trade and improving compliance. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), 14(9), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v14i9.4573
  18. Okoboi, G., & Kyanzi, M. (2018). The Impact of Authorized Economic Operator Accreditation on Trade Facilitation: The case of Uganda. Key Issues.
  19. Persson, M. (2013). Trade facilitation and the extensive margin. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 22(5), 658-693. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2011.587019
  20. Porto, P. C. de S., Canuto, O., & Morini, C. (2015). The impacts of trade facilitation measures on international trade flows (Policy Research Working Paper Series 7367). The World Bank.
  21. Sakyi, D., Villaverde, J., Maza, A., & Bonuedi, I. (2017). The Effects of Trade and Trade Facilitation on Economic Growth in Africa. African Development Review, 29(2), 350-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8268.12261
  22. Schramm, H.-J. (2015). Who Benefits Most from AEO Certification? An Austrian Perspective. World Customs Journal, 9(1).
  23. Shepherd, B., & Wilson, J. S. (2009). Trade facilitation in ASEAN member countries: Measuring progress and assessing priorities. Journal of Asian Economics, 20(4), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2009.03.001
  24. Silva, J. M. C. S., & 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
  25. T.C.Gümrük ve Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2017). Ticaretin Kolaylaştırılması Türkiye Stratejisi ve Beş Yıllık Eylem Planı 2018-2022. T.C. Gümrük ve Ticaret Bakanlığı.
  26. Ticaretin Kolaylaştırılması Anlaşması, 6662 sayılı Kanun, 2016/8570 2016/8570 sayılı Bakanlar Kurulu Kararı (2016).
  27. Wilson, J., Mann, C., & Otsuki, T. (2003). Trade Facilitation and Economic Development: Measuring the Impact. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2988
  28. WTO. (2015). World Trade Report 2015 Speeding up trade: Benefits and challenges of implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, World Trade Organization. World Trade Organization, WTO.
  29. Xu, Y., Li, N., & Zhao, Y. (2024). Navigating Trade Facilitation: A Catalyst for Export Technological Complexity of Chinese Manufacturing Firms. Modern Economy, 15(11), 1073-1101. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2024.1511056
  30. Zhang, C. (2022). Research on the Impact of Trade Facilitation on the Export of High-tech Products. Frontiers in Economics and Management, 3(10). https://doi.org/10.6981/FEM.202210_3(10).0034
  31. Ticaretin Kolaylaştırılması Anlaşması, 6662 sayılı Kanun, 2016/8570 2016/8570 sayılı Bakanlar Kurulu Kararı (2016).