Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:46:51.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Turkish economy and the challenge of technology: a trade perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2017

Aylin Ege  and
A. Yavuz Ege
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of Turkish trade deficits from the perspective of technology, with particular focus on the period that began with the new millennium. It draws special attention to the technological structure of Turkish exports vis-à-vis Turkey’s major trade partners and illustrates how Turkish trade deficits are primarily structural in nature and essentially caused by weak technology as compared with Turkey’s partners. Turkish products lack competitiveness, particularly in the case of relatively higher technology goods. The future prospects for Turkey are discussed in relation to the present level of the country’s technology infrastructure, and it is emphasized that, if Turkey is to achieve a better trade balance and a prominent share of world exports in the future, merely increasing its business sector’s weak R&D expenditures will not be sufficient, as the country needs also to provide a sufficient number of researchers in order to increase its technological capacity. Moreover, in the case of both R&D expenditures and researchers, quality as well as quantity is required, with the number and quality of the latter in particular being crucial both for innovating and for absorbing foreign technology.

Keywords

Turkish exportstrade deficitstechnologycompetitivenessresearch and development.
Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 57 , November 2017 , pp. 31 - 60
Copyright
© New Perspectives on Turkey and Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Aylin Ege, Department of Economics, Middle East Technical University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected].

A. Yavuz Ege, Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade (ret.), 2039. Sok. No. 1, Çankaya, 06810, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected].

References

Acemoglu, Daron and Zilibotti, Fabrizio. “Was Prometheus Unbound by Chance? Risk, Diversification, and Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 105 (1997): 709–751.Google Scholar
Acharya, Ram C. and Keller, Wolfgang. “Technology Transfer Through Imports”. Working Paper No. 13086. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2007. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13086.Google Scholar
Aiginger, Karl. Europe’s Position in Quality Competition. Working Paper No. 4. Brussels: European Commission, 2000.Google Scholar
Al-Marhubi, Fahim. “Export Diversification and Growth: An Empirical Investigation.” Applied Economics Letters 7 (2000): 559–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aylık Ekonomik Göstergeler [multiple issues]. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Hazine Müsteşarlığı.Google Scholar
Brenton, Paul and Newfarmer, Richard. Watching More Than the Discovery Channel: Export Cycles and Diversification in Development. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4302. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007.Google Scholar
Cadot, Olivier, Carrère, Céline, and Strauss-Kahn, Vanessa. “Trade Diversification, Income, and Growth: What Do We Know?” Development Policies Working Paper No. 33. Clermont-Ferrand: Fondation pour les Etudes et Recherches sur le Développement International, 2011.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis, Robinson, Sherman, and Syrquin, Moshe. Industrialization and Growth: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Cornell University, Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD), and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva: WIPO, 2016.Google Scholar
Ege, Aylin and Ege, A. Yavuz. “The World into the 21st Century: Globalization, Market Capitalism and Sustainability.” METU Studies in Development 43 (2016): 129–156.Google Scholar
European Commission. Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/.Google Scholar
European Commission. European Innovation Scoreboard 2016. Belgium: European Commission, 2016.Google Scholar
Fagerberg, Jan. “Technology and Competitiveness.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 12 (1996): 39–51.Google Scholar
Gereffi, Gary. “Global Value Chains in a Post-Washington Consensus World.” Review of International Political Economy 21 (2014): 9–37.Google Scholar
Gereffi, Gary and Fernandez-Stark, Karina. “The Offshore Services Value-Chain: Developing Countries and the Crisis.” In Global Value Chains in a Post-crisis World: A Development Perspective. Edited by Olivier Cattaneo, Gary Gereffi, and Comelia Staritz. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2010. 335–372.Google Scholar
Gereffi, Gary, Humphrey, John, Kaplinsky, Raphael, and Sturgeon, Timothy J.. “Introduction: Globalization, Value Chains and Development.” IDS Bulletin 32 (2001): 1–8.Google Scholar
Gore, Charles. “The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries.” World Development 28 (2000): 789–804.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez de, Piñeres, Amin, Sheila, and Ferrantino, Michael. “Export Diversification and Structural Dynamics in the Growth Process: The Case of Chile.” Journal of Development Economics 52 (1997): 375–391.Google Scholar
Henn, Christian, Papageorgiou, Chris and Spatafora, Nikola. Export Quality in Developing Countries. Working Paper 13/108 Washington, DC International Monetary Fund 2013.Google Scholar
Imbs, Jean and Wacziarg, Romain. “Stages of Diversification.” American Economic Review 93 (2003): 63–86.Google Scholar
International Trade Centre (ITC). “Trade Competitiveness Map.” http://tradecompetitivenessmap.intracen.org/.Google Scholar
Kaulich, Florian. Diversification vs. Specialization as Alternative Strategies for Economic Development: Can We Settle a Debate by Looking at the Empirical Evidence? ISID Working Paper 03/2012. Vienna: UNIDO, 2012. http://epub.wu.ac.at/5232/1/WP032012_Ebook.pdf.Google Scholar
Keller, Wolfgang. “International Technology Diffusion.” Journal of Economic Literature 42 (2004): 752–782.Google Scholar
Krugman, Paul R. “Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade.” Journal of International Economics 9 (1979): 469–479.Google Scholar
Levinsohn, James. “Testing the Imports-as-market-discipline Hypothesis.” Journal of International Economics 35 (1993): 1–22.Google Scholar
Melitz, Marc J. “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica 71 (2003): 1695–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Kevin M. and Shleifer, Andrei. “Quality and Trade.” Journal of Development Economics 53 (1997): 1–15.Google Scholar
Neto, Nelson Camanho da Costa, and Romeu, Rafael. “Did Export Diversification Soften the Impact of the Global Financial Crisis?” Working Paper 11/99. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, 2011. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1199.pdf.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds Know and What They Can Do with What They Know. Paris: OECD, 2014.Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. The Global Governance of Trade as if Development Really Mattered. Geneva: UNDP, 2001.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Charlton, Andrew. The Right to Trade: A Report for the Commonwealth Secretariat on Aid for Trade. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 2012.Google Scholar
Şenses, Fikret. “Turkey’s Experience with Neoliberal Policies since 1980 in Retrospect and Prospect.” New Perspectives on Turkey 47 (October 2012): 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taymaz, Erol and Voyvoda, Ebru. “Marching to the Beat of a Late Drummer: Turkey’s Experience of Neoliberal Industrialization since 1980.” New Perspectives on Turkey 47 (October 2012): 83–113.Google Scholar
Taymaz, Erol and Yılmaz, Kamil. Political Economy of Industrial Policy in Turkey: The Case of Automotive Industry. Working Paper 2016-1. Istanbul: Sabancı University-TÜSIAD Competitiveness Forum, 2016. http://ref.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/ref.sabanciuniv.edu /files/e_taymazk_yilmaz_wp_v1.pdf.Google Scholar
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) www.tuik.gov.tr.Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Trade and Development Report. New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2002.Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTADSTAT). “Reports.” http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Human Development Report 2015. New York: UNDP, 2015.Google Scholar
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). “UNIDO Statistics Data Portal.” https://stat.unido.org/.Google Scholar
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Industrial Development Report 2016: The Role of Technology and Innovation in Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development. Vienna: UNIDO, 2015.Google Scholar
Ülkü, Hülya and Pamukçu, M. Teoman. “The Impact of R&D and Knowledge Diffusion on the Productivity of Manufacturing Firms in Turkey.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 44 (2015): 79–95.Google Scholar
World Bank. “World Development Indicators.” http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.1.Google Scholar
World Bank. Trading up to High Income: Turkey Country Economic Memorandum. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2014.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum and Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD). The Global Information Technology Report. Geneva: World Economic Forum and INSEAD, 2015.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO). International Trade Statistics [multiple issues]. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO). World Trade Statistical Review 2016. Geneva: WTO, 2016.Google Scholar
Yılmaz, Kamil and Özler, Şule. “Productivity Response to Reduction in Trade Barriers: Evidence from Turkish Manufacturing Plants.” Review of World Economics 145 (2009): 349–355.Google Scholar