Journals / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2019 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2

Openness and Deindustrialization: A Turkish Case

Açıklık ve Sanayisizleşme: Türkiye Örneği

Pages
140–164
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)

Overall, Turkey should design and pursue proactive trade and financial policies to effectively integrate with the global economy and benefit from it.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Since the 1980s, a decreasing trend in employment and real value added shares in the manufacturing sector in some developing countries including Turkey is considered a sign of premature deindustrialization (Rodrik, 2016).
📊
Key Findings & Data:We examine this argument and the effects of trade shares and policies on the industrialization process by utilizing different openness measures for the periods 1995-2009 and 2005-2014 for more than twenty manufacturing andservice sectors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, Turkey should design and pursue proactive trade and financial policies to effectively integrate with the global economy and benefit from it.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Since the 1980s, a decreasing trend in employment and real value added shares in the manufacturing sector in some developing countries including Turkey is considered a sign of premature deindustrialization (Rodrik, 2016). We examine this argument and the effects of trade shares and policies on the industrialization process by utilizing different openness measures for the periods 1995-2009 and 2005-2014 for more than twenty manufacturing andservice sectors. The estimations show that the value added shares of net exporter manufacturing sectors increase significantly and the employment shares decrease significantly, which may suggest employment deindustrialization in Turkey. However, this negative effect is not validfor all manufacturing sectors. Hence, we conclude that Turkey has not been on the deindustrialization track during the period considered. Estimates for the relationship between openness and deindustrialization suggest that trade, FDI inflows, and backward participation have negative impacts on the share of employment and value added of manufacturing sectors. Overall, Turkey should design and pursue proactive trade and financial policies to effectively integrate with the global economy and benefit from it.

Özet

1980’lerden bu yana, Türkiye dahil olmak üzere bazı gelişmekte olan ülkelerde imalatsanayinde istihdam ve reel katma değer paylarındaki düşüş eğilimi, erken sanayisizleşmeninbir işareti olarak görülmektedir (Rodrik, 2016). Bu argümanı ve ticaret payları vepolitikalarının sanayileşme sürecine etkilerini farklı açıklık değişkenleri kullanarak 1995-2009ve 2005-2014 dönemleri için yirmiden fazla sanayi ve hizmet sektörü için incelemekteyiz.Sonuçlar, net ihracatçı imalat sanayi sektörlerinin katma değer paylarının önemli ölçüdearttığını ve istihdam paylarının ise önemli ölçüde azaldığını göstermektedir. Bu durum zayıfda olsa Türkiye’de istihdam sanayisizleşmesine işaret etmektedir. Ancak, bu olumsuz etki tümsanayi sektörleri için geçerli değildir. Dolayısıyla, Türkiye’nin, incelenen dönemdesanayisizleşme yolunda olmadığı sonucuna varmaktayız. Açıklık ve sanayisizleşme ilişkisiniinceleyen tahminler; ticaret, DYY girişleri ve geriye dönük katılımın, sanayi sektörlerininistihdam payı ve katma değeri üzerinde olumsuz etkileri olduğunu göstermektedir. Genelolarak, Türkiye küresel ekonomiyle etkin bir şekilde bütünleşmek ve bundan faydalanmak içinproaktif ticaret ve finansal politikalar tasarlamalı ve izlemelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YANIKKAYA, H., ALTUN, A., TAT, P. (2022). Openness and Deindustrialization: A Turkish Case. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2, 140–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/467335

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abel, A., Bernanke, B., & Croushore, D. (2008). Macroeconomics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, Addison-Wesley. Ahsan, R. N., & Mitra, D. (2014). Trade liberalization and labor's slice of the pie: Evidence from Indian firms. Journal of Development Economics, 108, 1-16.
  2. Bamber, P., & Gereffi, G. (2013). Costa Rica in the medical devices global value chain. Durham: Duke University, Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness, 1-63.
  3. Banga, K. (2016). Impact of global value chains on employment in India. Journal of Economic Integration, 31(3), 631-673.
  4. Bogliaccini, J. A. (2013). Trade liberalization, deindustrialization, and inequality: evidence from middle-income Latin American countries. Latin American Research Review, 79- 105. Boratav, K. (2016). The Turkish bourgeoisie under neoliberalism. Research and Policy on Turkey, 1(1), 1-10.
  5. Castillo, M., & Martins, A. (2016). Premature deindustrialization in Latin America. Production Development Series, ISSN 1020-5179, 1-29.
  6. CBRT. (2019). International Investment Position Statistics. https://evds2.tcmb.gov.tr/index.php?/evds/serieMarket/collapse_18/5003/DataGroup/e nglish/bie_uypucay/ Dincer, N., & Tekin-Koru, A. (2019). The Effect of Border Barriers to Services Trade on Goods Trade, The World Economy, 1-26.
  7. Dine, M. N. (2019). Impact of Global Value Chains' Participation on Employment in Turkey and Spillovers Effects. Journal of Economic Integration, 34(2), 308-326.
  8. Ekinci, A. (2011). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların ekonomik büyüme ve istihdama etkisi: Türkiye uygulaması (1980‐2010). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 71-96.
  9. Erumban, A.A., Gouma, R., de Vries, G., de Vries, K., Timmer, M. (2012). “WIOD SocioEconomic Accounts (SEA): Sources and Methods”, http://www.wiod.org/publications/source_docs/SEA_Sources.pdf (accessed on 20.07.2019).
  10. Fernandes, A. (2003). Trade policy, trade volumes, and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries: The World Bank, 1-43.
  11. Ferreira, P. C., & Rossi, J. L. (2003). New evidence from Brazil on trade liberalization and productivity growth. International Economic Review, 44(4), 1383-1405.
  12. Firpo, S. P., & Pieri, R. G. d. (2013). Structural change, productivity growth and trade policy in Brazil. Sao Paulo School of Economics Working Paper Series, 337, 1-32.
  13. Gordon, R. J. (1995). Is there a tradeoff between unemployment and productivity growth? (No. w5081). National Bureau of Economic Research. Gouma, R., Timmer, M., de