Journals / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4

THE TRADE WAR BETWEEN USA AND CHINA: AN EVALATION IN COMPETITION POWER AND THE REAL EXCHANGE RATE

ABD VE ÇİN ARASINDAKİ TİCARET SAVAŞI: REKABET GÜCÜ VE REEL KUR AÇISINDAN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Pages
781–805
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️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)

According to the results of the analysis, China has the highest competitiveness in the foreign trade in the various manufactured goods (SITC-8) group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The phenomenon of trade war between China and the United States is called by neo-mercantilism in its historical origin.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the phenomenon of the exchange rate-based competition, which is the argument of the USA, and the cost-based competition, which is the argument of China are subjected to econometric analyzes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the analysis, China has the highest competitiveness in the foreign trade in the various manufactured goods (SITC-8) group.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The phenomenon of trade war between China and the United States is called by neo-mercantilism in its historical origin. The US aims to protect its economy through the implementation of mercantilist policy. The United States’ thesis is that China has created an unfavorable structure for unfair competition and foreign trade. On the other hand, China stresses that the US is trying to protect itself by kicking away the ladder. In this study, the phenomenon of the exchange rate-based competition, which is the argument of the USA, and the cost-based competition, which is the argument of China are subjected to econometric analyzes. According to the results of the analysis, China has the highest competitiveness in the foreign trade in the various manufactured goods (SITC-8) group. This is followed by processed goods (SITC-6), machinery and vehicles (SITC-7), which are divided into major classes, respectively. The findings show that China is not only a competitive power based on exchange rate, but also that improvements in capital accumulation and competitiveness play an important role in increasing exports.

Özet

Çin ile ABD arasında ortaya çıkan ticaret savaşı olgusu, tarihsel köken itibarıylaneo-merkantilizm olarak adlandırılmaktadır. ABD uyguladığı merkantilist politikauygulamaları ile ekonomisini koruma amacı gütmektedir. ABD’nin iddiası, Çin’inhaksız rekabet unsurları ile dış ticarette aleyhte bir yapı ortaya çıkardığıyönündedir. Çin ise ABD’nin merdiveni itme güdüsü ile kendini korumayaçalıştığını vurgulamaktadır. Çalışmada ABD’nin argümanı olan kura dayalırekabet olgusu ile Çin’in maliyete dayalı rekabet konusu ekonometrik analizleretabi tutulmuştur. Elde edilen analiz sonuçlarına göre Çin’in ABD ile olan dışticaretinde çeşitli mamul eşya (SITC-8) grubunda en yüksek rekabet gücünesahiptir. Bunu sırasıyla, başlıca sınıflara ayrılan işlenmiş mallar (SITC-6), makineve taşıt araçları (SITC-7) mal grupları takip etmektedir. Elde edilen bulgulardaÇin’in sadece döviz kuruna dayalı bir rekabet gücü olmadığı; sermaye birikimi verekabet gücündeki iyileşmelerin ihracatını artırmada önemli rol oynadığı sonucunaulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YURTTANÇIKMAZ, Z. Ç., EMSEN, Ö. S. (2022). THE TRADE WAR BETWEEN USA AND CHINA: AN EVALATION IN COMPETITION POWER AND THE REAL EXCHANGE RATE. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4, 781–805. https://ajindex.com/articles/426654

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Abiad, A., Baris, K. Bernabe, J.A., Bertulfo, R., Paul Neilmer Feliciano, Mahinthan J. and Mercer-Blackman V. (2018), The Impact of Trade Conflict on Developing Asia, ADB Economic Working Paper Series, s.1-44.
  2. Acemoğlu, D. ve Robinson,J.A. (2014), Ulusların Düşüşü: Güç, Zenginlik ve Yoksulluğun Kökenleri, (Çev. F. R. Velioğlu), İstanbul,
  3. Doğan Kitap. Aizuddin, M., Seong, L.B., Yong D., Wen Huei C., Naga R., Kiesha and Kho C. (2018), Escalating Trade Tensions and Potential Spillovers to Malaysia, Bank Negara Malaysia Quarterly Bulletin, s.19-25.
  4. Aksu, H., Aydemir, A.F., Karaköy, Ç. Yurttançıkmaz, Z.Ç. ve Emsen, Ö.S. (2018), Çin Ekonomisinde Büyümenin Sürdürülebilirliği: Yüksek Teknolojik Mal İhracatının Belirleyicileri, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 19(2), s. 214-225.
  5. Altıntaş, N. ve Akpolat A.G. (2013), Tekstil Sektöründe Avrupa Birliği ile Türkiye Arasındaki Rekabet Analizi, Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(6), s. 33-42.
  6. Amiti, M., Redding S.J. ve Weinstein D. (2019), The Impact of the 2018
  7. Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare, NBER Working Paper, No: 25672, s. 1-39.
  8. Balassa, B. (1965), Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage, Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33, s.99-123.
  9. Bekkers, E., Francosi J., Nelson D. (2019), Trade Wars and Trade Disputes: the Role of Equity and Political Support, World Trade Institute, s.1-70.
  10. Bollen, J. and Rojan-Romagosa H. (2018), Trade Wars: Economic Impacts of US Tariff İncreases and Retaliations: An International Perspective, CPB Background Document, CPB Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis, s.1-44.
  11. Cali, M. (2018). The Impact of the US-China Trade War on East Asia, VOX CEPR Policy Portal, (Erişim: 25.11.2019; https://voxeu.org/article/impact-us-china-trade-war-east-asia).
  12. Caliendo, L. ve Parro, F. (2015) Estimates of the trade and welfare effects of NAFTA. Review of Economic Studies, 82(1), s. 1-44.
  13. Chang, H.J. (2004), Kalkınma Reçetelerinin Gerçek Yüzü, (Çev. T. A. Onmuş), İstanbul,
  14. İletişim Yayınları.
  15. Chang, H.J. (2015), Sanayileşmenin Gizli Tarihi, (Çev. E. Akçaoğlu), Ankara,
  16. Elif Yayınevi.
  17. Charbonneau, K. B. and Anthony Landry (2018),
  18. The Trade War in Numbers, Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, (57), s.1-40.
  19. Chipman, J. (1969), Factor Price Equalization and the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem, International Economic Review, (10), s. 399-406.
  20. Chong, T.T.L. ve Li, X. (2019), Understanding China-US Trade War: Causes, Economic Impact, and the Worst-Case Sc