SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2018 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3

The Relationship between Turkish Outward Foreign Direct Investment and Exports

Türkiye’den Çıkan Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımları ile İhracat Arasındaki İlişki

Huriye ALKIN
Kemal TÜRKCAN
Pages
457–468
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

The causality results show that there is a two-way causality between FDI and export.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study is to analyze the relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) and export with the context of substitution and complementarity .
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this aim, Turkey’s export data set composing HS-6 digit product level statics for period 2001 to 2012 with 82 countries has been decomposed into intermediate goods and final goods export by using the method developed by Kimura and Obashi (2010) and Obashi (2010).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The causality results show that there is a two-way causality between FDI and export.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of the study is to analyze the relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) and export with the context of substitution and complementarity . For this aim, Turkey’s export data set composing HS-6 digit product level statics for period 2001 to 2012 with 82 countries has been decomposed into intermediate goods and final goods export by using the method developed by Kimura and Obashi (2010) and Obashi (2010). Then, the relationship between country - level outward FDI and export is analyzed with the gravity model. All analyzes have been performed for the exports of the total goods as well as the exports of final and intermediate goods. The empirical results for the gravity model show that there is a complementary relationship between FDI and final goods export as well as total goods export. There is no statistically significant relationship between FDI and intermediate goods export. In the second part of empirical analysis, causality test is performed. The causality results show that there is a two-way causality between FDI and export.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, doğrudan yabancı sermayeyatırımları (DYSY) ile ihracat arasındaki ilişkininikame ve tamamlayıcılık bağlamında analizedilmesidir. Bu amaç çerçevesinde, Türkiye’nin2001-2012 döneminde 82 ülkeye ilişkin altı fasıllıürün kategorilerine ait ihracatı Kimura ve Obashi(2010) ve Obashi (2010) tarafından geliştirilenyöntem ile ara mal ve nihai mal olarak ayrıştırılmıştır.Ardından, DYSY ile ihracat arasındaki ilişki çekimmodeli ile tespit edilmiştir. Bütün analizlertoplam mal ihracatının yanı sıra nihai mal ve aramal ihracatı için de yapılmıştır. Çekim modelineilişkin ampirik sonuçlar, DYSY ile nihai mal iletoplam mal ihracatı arasında tamamlayıcı bir ilişkiolduğunu göstermektedir. DYSY ile ara mal ihracatıarasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki tespitedilememiştir. Ampirik çalışmanın ikinci bölümündenedensellik analizi yapılmıştır. Nedensellik analizineilişkin sonuçlar DYSY ile ihracat arasında çift yönlünedensellik olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALKIN, H., TÜRKCAN, K. (2022). The Relationship between Turkish Outward Foreign Direct Investment and Exports. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3, 457–468. https://ajindex.com/articles/495202

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Albulescu, C. T., & Goyeau, D. (2016) “The interaction between trade and FDI: the CEE countries experience” hal.archives, 01361954.
  2. Alıcı, A. A. ve Ucal, M. Ş. (2003) “Foreign direct investment, exports and output growth of Turkey: Causality analysis” In European Trade Study Group (ETSG) fifth annual conference, Madrid, September: 11-13.
  3. Armutlulu, I.,Canel, C., Porterfield, R. (2011) “The determinants of Turkish outward foreign direct investment” Modern Economy, 2(05), 717. Bajo-Rubio, O. ve Montero-Muñoz, M. (2001) “Foreign direct investment and trade: a causality analysis” Open economies review, 12(3):305-323.
  4. Bhasin, N. ve Paul, J. (2016) “Exports and outward FDI: are they complements or substitutes? Evidence from Asia” Multinational Business Review, 24(1): 62-78.
  5. Bilgili, F.,Tülüce, N. S. H. ve Doğan, İ. (2012) “The determinants of FDI in Turkey: A Markov regime-switching approach” Economic Modelling, 29(4): 1161-1169.
  6. Blonigen, B. A. (2001) “In search of substitution between foreign production and exports” Journal of international economics, 53(1), 81-104.
  7. Bozdağlıoğlu, E. Y. ve Özpınar, Ö. (2011)”Türkiye’ye gelen doğrudan yabancı yatırımların Türkiye’nin ihracat performansına etkilerinin var yöntemi ile tahmini” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(3): 39-63.
  8. Brainard, S. L. 1997 “An Empirical Assessment of the ProximityConcentration Trade-off between Multinational Sales and Trade”American Economic Review, 87: 520-44.
  9. Buckley, P. ve Casson, M. (1976)”Thefuture of themultinational corporation” London, Macmillan. Carr, D. L.,Markusen, J. R. ve Maskus, K. E. (2001) “Estimating the knowledge-capital model of the multinational enterprise” The American Economic Review, 91(3): 693-708.
  10. Chiappini, R. (2011)”FDI and trade: A Granger causality analysis in a heterogeneous panel” Economics Bulletin, 31(4): 2975- 2985. Chiappini, R. (2016) “Do Overseas investments create or replace trade? New insights from a macro-sectoral study on Japan” The Journal of International Trade&Economic Development, 25(3): 403-425.
  11. Clausing, K. A. (2000) “Does multinational activity displace trade?” Economic Inquiry, 38(2):190-205.
  12. Dunning, J. H. (1980) “ Towards an Eclectic Theory of International Production: Some Empirical Tests “ Journal of International Business Studies 11 (1): 9–31.
  13. Egger, P. ve Pfaffermayr, M. (2004) “The impact of bilateral investment treaties on foreign direct investment” Journal of comparative economics, 32(4):788-804.
  14. Erdogan, M.