Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2011 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4

Strategic importance analysis of Turkish manufacturing industry

Türk imalat sanayi sektörlerinin stratejik önem analizi

Pages
525–535
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 sectors which have strong forward linkage are non metallic mineral products and basic metal industry.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, strategic sectors of Turkish Manufacturing Industry has been analaysed according to 2002 input-output tables by using Chenery-Watanabe, Rasmussen-Ghosh, Dietzenbacher and Laumas coefficient models.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although strategic importance have been defined acording to linkage coefficient in the all models, there has been some differences between calculation of coefficients in each model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The sectors which have strong forward linkage are non metallic mineral products and basic metal industry.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, strategic sectors of Turkish Manufacturing Industry has been analaysed according to 2002 input-output tables by using Chenery-Watanabe, Rasmussen-Ghosh, Dietzenbacher and Laumas coefficient models. Although strategic importance have been defined acording to linkage coefficient in the all models, there has been some differences between calculation of coefficients in each model. Chenery-Watanabe, Rasmussen-Ghosh, Dietzenbacher methods take into account sectoral linkages while Laumas method focuses on final demand and value added effects. Therefore some differencess has been observed between emprical finding of methods about strategic importance. According to the empirical findings of the study; textile sector have been found strategic in all methods through strong sectoral linkages, huge final demand and value added effects. With regard to Laumas method which gives comprehensive framework to evaluation of strategic importance, 5 sector have been found strategic while 2 of 17 manufacturing industry have been found strong according to forward linkages. Strategic sectors are; food-beverage, textile, garment, chemical products and machinery products. The sectors which have strong forward linkage are non metallic mineral products and basic metal industry.

Özet

Çalışmada en son yayınlanmış olan 2002 yılı girdi-çıktı tabloları kullanılarak, Türk imalat sanayi stratejik önem yönünden Chenery- Watanabe, Rasmussen-Ghosh, Dietzenbacher ve Laumas katsayı yöntemlerine göre incelenmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan tüm modeller stratejik önemi bağlantı katsayılarına göre tanımlamakla birlikte, katsayıların hesaplanması konusunda yöntemler arasında farklılıklar bulunmaktadır. Chenery-Watanabe, Rasmussen-Ghosh, Dietzenbacher yöntemlerinde sektörel bağlantılar, Laumas yönteminde ise sektörel bağlantılarla birlikte sektörlerin nihai talep ve katma değer içindeki payı dikkate alınmakta, sonuç olarak ta modellerin amprik bulguları arasında farklılıklar görülmektedir. Tekstil ürünleri, hem güçlü sektörel bağlantıları hem de nihai talep ve katma değer içindeki yüksek payından dolayı tüm katsayı modellerinde stratejik çıkmıştır. Sektörel bağlantı ve ekonomi içindeki payını dikkate alarak oldukça kapsamlı bir stratejik önem analizine olanak sağlayan Laumas yöntemine göre; 17 imalat sektörünün 5 tanesinin stratejik, 2 tanesinin ileri bağlantılarının güçlü olduğu ampirik sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Stratejik sektörler; gıda, tekstil, hazır giyim, kimyasal madde ve makine eşya sanayidir. İleri bağlantıları güçlü sektörler ise metalik olmayan diğer mineral ürünler ve ana metal sanayidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYAŞ, N. (2022). Strategic importance analysis of Turkish manufacturing industry. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4, 525–535. https://ajindex.com/articles/495516

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Andreosso-O’Callaghan, B. ve Yue, G. (2000) “Intersectoral Linkages and Key Sectors in China, 1987–1997. An Application of Input-output Linkage Analysis” Papers of the 13th International Conference on Input-Output Techniques, Ağustos 21-25,
  2. İtalya. Augustinovics, M. (1970) “Methods of International and Intertemporal Comparisons of Structures” in Carter, A.B. and Brody, A. (eds.), Contributions to Input-output Analysis, Amsterdam, North-Holland P.C. Aydın, H. (2007) “An Analysis of the Input-Output Interindustry Linkages in the Turkish Economy” Paper of the 16th International Conference on Input-Output Techniques, Temmuz 2-7,
  3. İstanbul,
  4. Turkey. Aydoğuş, O. (1999) “Girdi Çıktı Modellerine Giriş”, Ankara,
  5. Gazi Yayınevi.
  6. Beyers, W. B. (1976) “Empirical Identification of Key Sectors: Some Further Evidence” Environment and Planning A, 8: 231- 236. Chenery, H. B. and Watanabe, T. (1958) “International Comparison of Production, Econometrica” 26(4):487-521.
  7. Demir, N. ve Kula, M. (2008) “Türkiye Ekonomisinin Sektörler Arası Bağlantılarında İhracat-İthalat İlişkileri” Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Dış Ticaret Politikaları, 3(1-2):85–116.
  8. Dietzenbacher, E. (1992) “The Measurement of Inter- industry Linkages, Key Sectors in the Netherlands” Economic Modelling, 9(4):419–437.
  9. Dietzenbacher, E. ve B. Los, (2000) “Externalities Of R&D Expenditures” Economic Systems Research, 14(4):407-425.
  10. Ghosh, A. (1958) “Input-Output Approach to an Allocative System” Economica, 25(1):58–64.
  11. Groenewold, N., Hagger, A. and Madden, J.R. (1993) “Measuring Industry Importance an Australian Application” The Annals Regional Science, 27:175–182.
  12. Han, E., Tosunoğlu, T. ve Özsoy, C. (2011) “Türk İmalat Sanayinde Geri ve İleri Bağlantılar: Girdi-Çıktı Tablosuna Dayalı Yapısal Bir Çözümleme” TİSK Akademi, 6(11):104-129.
  13. Hirschman, A.O. (1958)
  14. The Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven, Yale University Press.
  15. Jones, L.P. (1976) “The Measurement of Hirschmanian Linkages” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(2):323-333.
  16. Kogelschatz, H. (1988) “On the Identification of Key Sectors: Critical Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Key Sector Indices” Eichhorn et al.(eds.) Measurement in Economics, Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag. Kula, M. (2008) “Supply - Use And Input-Output Tables, Backward And Forward Lınkages of The Turkısh Economy” The 16th Inforum World Conference, September 01–05.
  17. Northern Cyprus. Laumas, P.S. (1975) “ Key Sectors in Some Underdeveloped Countries” Kyklos 28(1):62–79.
  18. Leontief, W. (1966) Inp