SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2012 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3

DYY’nin “nicelik” ve “nitelik” açısından karşılaştırmalı bir analizi: Türkiye örneği

A comparative analysis of FDI in terms of “quantity” and “quality”: Turkish case

Ayça SARIALİOĞLU HAYALİ
Pages
285–300
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 study uses UNCTAD (2010)’snew database on cross-border Merger&Acquisitions (M&As)and obtain greenfield investment data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Developing countries offer incentives, such as “financial andtax incentives”, to encourage Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)in any case by focusing on the “quantity” of FDI rather thanits “quality”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:When it is looked at the year basedata this finding seems consistent with the mass privatisationera of Turkey started in 2004.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study uses UNCTAD (2010)’snew database on cross-border Merger&Acquisitions (M&As)and obtain greenfield investment data.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Developing countries offer incentives, such as “financial andtax incentives”, to encourage Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)in any case by focusing on the “quantity” of FDI rather thanits “quality”. The study maintains that Turkey constitutes atypical developing country in terms of both her relativelyliberalized policies aiming at attracting FDI in quantity andher failure about not attracting sufficient FDI compared tothe other countries, both developed and developing. On theother hand, the study argues that it is not a typical developingcountry in terms of attracting “the right quality of FDI”, which istackled here in terms of “the entry mode of FDI”. The aim of thisstudy is to investigate these arguments through comparisonsof FDI inflows to Turkey with the others in terms of both its“quantity” and “quality”. According to this, while the “greenfieldinvestments” as an entry mode of FDI dominates the FDI inflowsto developing countries, “brownfield investments” take thedominance in Turkish case. When it is looked at the year basedata this finding seems consistent with the mass privatisationera of Turkey started in 2004. The study uses UNCTAD (2010)’snew database on cross-border Merger&Acquisitions (M&As)and obtain greenfield investment data.

Özet

Gelişmekte olan ülkeler her koşulda DYY (Doğrudan YabancıYatırım)’yi teşvik etmek için DYY’ nin “niteliği”nden çok“niceliği”ne odaklanarak “finansal ve vergi teşvikleri” gibiteşvikler önermektedir. Çalışma, Türkiye’nin hem DYY’yiniceliksel olarak çekmeyi amaçlayan göreceli olarak liberalpolitikaları hem de diğer ülkelere (hem gelişmiş hemde gelişmekte olan) kıyasla yeteri kadar DYY çekmemekonusundaki başarısızlığı açısından tipik bir gelişmekte olanülke olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Diğer taraftan, çalışma burada“DYY’nin Giriş Şekli” açısından ele alınan “DYY’nin iyi kalitelisi”niçekme açısından Türkiye’nin tipik bir gelişmekte olan ülkeolmadığını savunmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı bu argümanları,Türkiye’ye gelen DYY ile diğerlerini hem “nicelik” hem de“nitelik” açısından karşılaştırarak araştırmaktır. Buna göre,DYY’nin bir giriş şekli olarak “yeşilalan yatırımları” gelişmekteolan ülkelere giden DYY’ye hakimken, Türkiye örneğinde“kahverengialan yatırımları” hakimiyeti ele almaktadır. Yıl bazlıveriye baktığımızda bu bulgu 2004 yılında Türkiye’de başlayanyoğun özelleştirme dönemiyle tutarlı gözükmektedir. ÇalışmaUNCTAD (2010)’un sınır ötesi Birleşme ve Satın Almalar (B&SA)konusundaki yeni veri tabanını kullanmakta ve yeşilalanyatırımları verisini elde etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

HAYALİ, A. S. (2022). DYY’nin “nicelik” ve “nitelik” açısından karşılaştırmalı bir analizi: Türkiye örneği. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 3, 285–300. https://ajindex.com/articles/495426

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Agosin, M. R. ve Ricardo, M. (2000) “Foreign Investment in Developing Countries: Does It Crowd in Domestic Investment”, UNCTAD Discussion Paper, No: 146. Akpolat, A. G. ve Inancli, S. (2011) “Does Foreign Direct Investment Matter?: The Case of Turkey?” International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 7:56-66.
  2. Balasubramanyam, V.N., Salisu, M. ve Sapsford, D. (1996) “Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries”, The Economic Journal, 106(434):92- 105. Bhagwati, J. N. (1978) “Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Rate Regimes” Studies in International Economic Relations, 1(10). Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J. D. ve Lee, J.W. (1998) “How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth” Journal of International Economics, 45:115- 135. Calderón, C., Loayza, N. ve Servén, L. (2002) “Greenfield FDI vs. Mergers and Acquisitions: Does the Distinction Matter” Central Bank of Chile Working Papers, No: 173 Carkovic, M. V. and Levine, R. (2005) “Does Foreign Direct Investment Accelerate Economic Growth?”, Theodore et al(eds.) Does Foreign Direct Investment Promote Development?, Institute for International Economics and Centre for Global Development, Washington DC, USA. Chudnovsky, D. ve Lopez, A. (1999) “Globalisation And Developing Countries: FDI And Growth And SHD”, http://www.ictsd.org/html/Chudnovsky.rtf, (23.09.2008).
  3. Dunning, J. (1994) “Re-evaluating the Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment” Transnational Corporations, 3(1):23-52.
  4. Dunning, J. (1997) “A Business Analytic Approach to Governments and Globalization”, Dunning (eds.) Governments, Globalization and International Business, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  5. Findlay, R. (1978) “Relative Backwardness, Direct Foreign Investment and the Transfer of Technology, A Simple Dynamic Model” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92:1-16.
  6. Freeman, C. ve Hagedoorn, J. (1989) “New Technology and Catching Up” European Journal of Development Research, 1(1):53-67.
  7. Globerman, S. ve Shapiro, D. (2004) “Assessing International Mergers And Acquisitions As A Mode Of Foreign Direct Investment” The Conference on Multinationals, Growth and Governance, in Honor of A. Edward Safarian, April 24-25,
  8. Toronto, Ontario. Hermes, N. ve Lensink, R. (2003) “Foreign Direct Investment, Financial Development and Economic Growth” The Journal of Development Studies, 40(1):142- 163. Hisarciklilar, M., Gultekin-Karakas, D. ve Asici, A.A. (2010) “Can FDI Be A Panacea For Unemployment?: The Turkish Case”, http://www.esam.itu.edu.