MACROECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPORT IN TURKEY

UOT 330.44

MACROECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPORT IN TURKEY Mustafa ÖZTÜRK Fatih University Istanbul / TURKEY [email protected]

ABSTRACT In this study tried to determine the macro economic factors affecting the import for the period between 1998 and 2012 in Turkey, and to develop policy proposal for the future. Export, Gross Domestic Product and the Reel Effective Exchange Rate were independent variables of the model. And tried to determine the effects of these variables on Turkey’s import. Engle-Granger Two Steps Forecast Method was used in estimation of the model. Key Words: Foreign Trade, Import, Determinants of Import, Co-integration. TÜRKİYEDE İTHALA ETKİLEYEN MAKROEKONOMİK FAKTÖRLER ÖZET Bu çalışmada 1998-2012 dönemi için Türkiye’de ithalatı etkileyen makro ekonomik faktörler belirlenmeye ve gelecek için politika önerisi geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. İhracat, Gayrı Safi Yurt İçi Hasıla ve Reel Efektif Döviz Kurları model için açıklayıcı değişkenlerdir. Çalışmada bu değişkenlerin Türkiye’nin ithalatı üzerindeki etkileri tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Modelin tahmini için ise Engle-Granger İki Aşamalı Metodu kullanılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Ticaret, İthalat, İthalatın Belirleyicileri, Eşbütünleşme. TÜRKİYƏDƏ İDXALA TƏSİR GÖSTƏRƏN MAKROİQTİSADİ FAKTORLAR XÜLASƏ Bu işdə 1998-2012 illər üçün Türkiyədə idxalatı təsir edən makro iqtisadi faktorlar təyin olunmağa və gələcək üçün siyasət təklifi inkişaf etdirilməyə çalışılmışdır. İxracat, Qeyri Safı Ümumdaxili Məhsul və Real Effektiv Kurs modeli üçün açıqlayıcı dəyişənlərdir. Bu dəyişənlərin Türkiyənin idxalatı üzərindəki təsirləri ölçülməyə çalışılmışdır. Model üçün isə Engle-Granger İki Mərhələli Metodu istifadə edilmişdir. Açar sozlər: Ticarət, İdxalat, İxracat, Eyni inteqraedici.

1. Introduction Macroeconomic factors that affect Turkey's foreign trade have been subject to debate recent years. To resolve the problem of the current account deficit is said to be increasing exports. The high rate contribution of the import to the export products leads to an increase in import. The import of certain products such as oil and gas leads to the idea of impossibility of decreasing import. Kinds of macroeconomic factors affecting the Turkey's economy and the existence of a long run relationship between the factors were analyzed in this study. Number 34, 2012

2. Macroeconomic Factors and Import in Turkey The period after 1980, removing restrictions on foreign exchange Turkey has embarked open economy model. By adopting the strategy of export-led growth, it has liberalized trade in goods and services. Signing customs union agreement with the EU, Turkey completely lifted trade restrictions with the EU since 1996. Turkey's foreign trade grew rapidly. That the import volume exceeded the export volume has caused trade or current account deficit in Turkey. External factors increased vulnerability to external deficits. In these cir39

Mustafa Öztürk

The exchange rate fluctuates slightly above and slightly below the 1.8 TL. Thus, it is strived to prevent the overvaluation of the exchange rate as well as to protect price stability According to Central Bank data, the value of the real exchange rate is 116.7 for the year 2012. It seems to be overvalued by 16.7 percent (TCMB).

cumstances, as a precaution against the crisis, economic management began intervention in the exchange rate and domestic demand, and to use other policy instruments. Recently Central bank with its interventions did not allow large scale fluctuations of the exchange rate. It allows reel exchange rate to fluctuate within the range 120 to 125 (Özatay, 2012).

Table: 2.1. Reel Effective Exchange Rate CPI-Based (2003=100) 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

100,05

103,90

114,29

112,90

122,15

123,18

114,63

126,96

112,23

116,71

Source: TCMB

In theory, the appreciation of the exchange rate leads to loss of competitiveness in international trade. Exporters are drifting in a difficulty

to price competition in international markets. At the same time import pressure are increasing because the prices of imported goods fell.

Table: 2.2. Turkey’s Foreign Trade in Devaluation Years (Milyon $) Export ( f.o.b.) Import (f.o.b.) Trade Balance

1994 18.106 -22.273 -4.167

1995 21.636 -34.788 -13.152

2000 30.825 -52.882 -22.057

2001 34.729 -38.092 -3.363

2002 40.719 -47.109 -6.390

2003 52.394 -65.883 -13.489

Source: TCMB

When we looked at the foreign trade data of Turkey in the devaluation years we have seen that the effects of devaluation on exports and imports was very short-term and limited. Expected results from the devaluation could not be obtained [Altınok, Çetinkaya: 61]. The import haven't decreased after the devalue-

tion year 1994 and, it also increased by 56 percent in 1995. Import volume decreased by 29 percent in 2001 compared to 2000. The decrease in imports recovered in 2002, and it exceeded its level of 2000 in 2003. In general, both imports and exports have been maintained their upward trend up to now.

Table: 2.3. The Change in GDP and Import GDP (% Change) Import (% Change)

2011Q1 12.08 1.96

2011Q2 9.1 13.55

2011Q3 8.44 -2.7

2011Q4 5.03 -4.49

2012Q1 3.37 -5.46

2012Q2 3.01 9.89

2012Q3 1.63 -3.05

Source: TCMB, http://evds.tcmb.gov.tr

Turkey is a country imports raw materials, intermediate goods and capital goods required for their growth. Import of the Consumer goods are around 15 percent of the total import, and the remaining 85 percent is consisted of intermediate goods and investment goods. For this reason, there is a strong correlation between economic growth and import [Eğilmez, 2012]. Management of economy in Turkey, in order to resolve the problem 40

JOURNAL OF QAFQAZ UNIVERSITY

of high current account deficit tried to cut import through cutting the domestic demand. As parallel with the economic recession, the declines in imports have started since the third quarter of 2011. Though an increase in imports by 10 percent in the second quarter of 2012, then the import again entered a period of decline. After the contraction in domestic demand, imports decreased by %1.6 ($ 3.5 billion) in Economics and Administration

Macroeconomic factors affecting the import in Turkey

the period from January to November 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. At the same period the export in the conditions of the global recession increased by %14.3. While the ratio of exports to imports was %55.6in the period from January to November of 2011, it increased to %64.5 in the period from January to November of 2012 Table: 2.4. Turkey’s Foreign Trade in 2011 and 2012 January-November Period 2011 2012 Change % Export (FOB) (million $) Import (CIF) (million $) Foreign Trade Volume (million $) Foreign Trade Deficit (million $)

122,429 139,983

14.3

220,248 216,750

-1.6

342,677 356,335

4

97,818

76,767

-21.5

Source: TUIK

These developments show that the attempt to reduce the current account deficit through cuts in domestic demand cannot give the desired results and also they distort the country's macro-economic appearance reflecting to economic growth negatively [Karagöl, Mihçiokur, Bingöl, 2012:6].

3. Literature Review Determinants of foreign trade are subject to studies for a long time. Some of the studies in the literature are listed as follows: Goldstein et al (1980) modified the general import demand function. The function formulated as imports are determined by income, prices of imports, non-tradable and tradable. Depending on the Feder’s (1982) methodology Gerni, Emsen and Deger (2008) analyzed the relationship between exports and economic growth of Turkey. According to the estimation results of growth equation, while the exports have significant and positive effects on economic growth, the effect of exports is found statistically insignificant when the import growth is included in the model. Number 34, 2012

Moran (1989) developed two types of import demand models. The first model considers real income, relative prices, foreign exchange receipts and international reserves as determinants of imports. The model follows both the traditional and Hemphill models. In the second model, both import volume and relative prices were endogenously determined. According to the model real income and relative prices are important in the determination of total imports. But the effects of foreign exchange constraints are very strong on import behavior in developing countries. Tuncer (2002) investigated the linkages amongst GDP, export, import and investments in Turkey. The analysis showed that GDP has a one way affect on to export and investments. Export has no affect on GDP and the causality from investments to GDP is fragile. GDP mutually affect each other. Altıntaş and Öz (1998-2008) examined the long run and causal relationship between export, reel exchange rate variability, foreign income, relative export price and foreign direct investment inflows by using multivariate Johansen Cointegration technique and error correction model. According to results the exchange rate variability and relative export price exert negative impacts on Turkish export in the long-run. There is a positive and significant relationship between FDI and export. Bayraktutan and Bıdırdı (2010) have sought to identify the key determinants of imports in Turkey. By the use of Engle-Granger Two Step Forecast Method, they forecasted the long-term demand for import. The analysis shows that Turkish import is more sensitive to economic growth than the real exchange rate. Yıldız and Ay (2011) investigated the sustainability of the import-led growth in Turkey. Their test results showed causality runs from import, imports of capital goods and imports of intermediate goods to GDP. 41

Mustafa Öztürk

4. Data Set and Method In this study the years between 1998 and 2012 have been analyzed in three-month segments and cointegration between Import, Export, Gross Domestic Product and Reel Effective Exchange Rate have been analyzed. Analyses Eviews 6.0 packet program and Engle-Granger Cointegration two step models were used for that. The series in the model have been selected as quarter periods from Turkish Central Bank data warehouse and they include the periods between the first quarter of 1998 (1998 Q1) and the third quarter of 2012 (2012Q3). All series that are subject to analyze have been composed of precise periodic values. Table: 4.1. Variables Used in the Model Variables Import Gross Domestic Product Export Reel Effective Exchange Rate

Code of Variable IMP GDP EXP REX

5. Model Determination and Analysis 5.1. Engle Granger Co-integration Model The regression of a non stationary time series on another nonstationary time series may produce a spurious regression and the results are not reliable. Series subject to analyze should be stationary. The process of differentiation in order to ensure stationarity leads to loss of data. Cointegration method is used in order to provide reliable results without losing data. Cointegration analysis of Engle-Granger approach (1987) is widely used and it based on cointegration between the two variables which are stationary at the same level. Cointegration relationship is mentioned if there is a linear combination of two non-stationary time series. Cointegration analysis

of nonstationary time series is intended to predict the long-term relationship. If both series are nonstationary I(1), and if the OLS regression produces an I(0) error term, the equation is said to be cointegrated. The time series (X and Y) individually have a unit root and they both are I(1); that is, they. We regress Y on X as follows: Yt = β1 + β2Xt + ut ut = Yt − β1 − β2Xt We now looked unit root analysis of ut and find that it is stationary; that is, it is I(0). The linear combination cancels out the stochastic trends in the two series. In this case we say that the two variables are cointegrated (Gujarati, 2004:821-823) 5.2. Stationarity of the Variables Stationarity is a variable’s average, variance and otocovariance’s being stationary in time (Bozkurt,2007). Serie’s stationarity is important in time series which follows a stochastic period. In stationary series, possible fluctuations will be temporary. The impact of fluctuations will decrease gradually and series will be back to long term average level (Sevuktekin, 2010). In nonstationary series, there will be no long term average that the series can go back after the fluctuations. Series’ stationarity is determined by unit root test. Expanded Dickey Fuller (ADF) tests are used for this (Dickey and Fuller, 1979: 427-431, Dickey and Fuller, 1981: 1057-1072). According to the results of ADF unit root test, series are analyzed to see if they have unit root and this is done looking at %1, %5 and %10 significance levels. Once the unit root is found, difference is taken and evaluated out of the unit root.

Table: 5.1. Stationarity of the Variables Variables IMP GDP EXP REX

42

τ -6.683 -6.797 -6.246

Without Trend %1 %5 -3.589 -2.930 -3.589 -2.930 -3.592 -2.931


%10 -2.603 -2.603 -2.604

τ -7.003 -6.873 -6.245

With Trend %1 %5 -4.181 -3.516 -4.181 -3.516 -4.186 -3.518

%10 -3.188 -3.188 -3.190

Economics and Administration


5.3. Engle-Granger Test for Cointegration In the two-step estimation procedure, we fit a regression line of nonstationary variables

taking each variable, one at a time, to be the dependent variable and the rest as independent variables.

Table: 5.2. Regression Results for Long Run Relationship Dependent Variable: IMPLOG Method: Least Squares Sample: 1998Q1 2012Q3 Included observations: 59 Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic EXPLOG 0.671696 0.061187 10.97783 GDPLOG 0.752471 0.143784 5.233353 REXLOG 0.663867 0.168185 3.947236 C -5.428164 0.900782 -6.026059 R-squared 0.978447 Mean dependent var Adjusted R-squared 0.977271 S.D. dependent var S.E. of regression 0.042700 Akaike info criterion Sum squared resid 0.100282 Schwarz criterion Log likelihood 104.4130 Hannan-Quinn criter. F-statistic 832.2641 Durbin-Watson stat Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Regression result shows that coefficients and probability values of the variables are statistically significant and the variables have long run relationship. 5.4. Stationarity of The Error Term Non-stationarity in the estimated residuals of the regression line is tested for using the Dickey Fuller and Augmented Dickey-Fuller test as follows; Table: 5.3. ADF Test Results for the Error Term Null Hypothesis: EPSILON has a unit root Exogenous: None Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=10) t-Statistic Prob.* Augmented DickeyFuller test statistic -4.275443 0.0001 Test critical values: 1% level -2.605442 5% level -1.946549 10% level -1.613181 *MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.

The table shows that the residuals of long-run relationship are stationary. We then say that the variables are cointegrated. In the next step, we estimate the error-correction model. 5.5. Error Correction Model (Short Run Relationship) Long-term cointegration relation was found at the first stage of the Engle-Granger coinNumber 34, 2012

Prob. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 4.374089 0.283230 -3.403831 -3.262981 -3.348849 0.872119

tegration. In the second stage, short-term behavior of the variables will be examined within the framework of the error correction model. If there is cointegration between the variables, the error terms of cointegration equation can be used in estimation of the error correction model. Error correction model denotes that, the change in the dependent variable is a function of stationary states of the explanatory variables and lagged value of the error terms series which was stemmed from the cointegration equation. ΔYt = α0 + α1ΔXt + α2µt−1 + εt Δ = symbol of the first difference εt = random error term ut−1 = Yt−1 −β1−β2Xt−1 (ut−1 is one-period lagged value of the error term obtained from the cointegrating regression.) If the coefficient of the residual in the estimation results is negative and statistically significant the model has a tendency to the long term average value (Engle-Granger, 1987). 



One percentage point increase in export causes 0.76 percentage point increase in import. One percentage point increase in GDP causes 0.57 percentage point increase in import. 43

Mustafa Öztürk



One percentage point increase in reel effective exchange rate causes 0.30 percentage point increase in import.

Coefficient of the residual is statistically significant according to the estimation results.

For the variables, error correction mechanism between short and long term is operative. The imbalance between short-and long-term will be reduced by %41.4 after a period.

Table: 5.4. Regression Results for Error Correction Model Dependent Variable: D(IMPLOG) Method: Least Squares Sample (adjusted): 1998Q2 2012Q3 Included observations: 58 after adjustments Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. D(EXPLOG) 0.764091 0.121902 6.268067 0.0000 D(GDPLOG) 0.575820 0.090125 6.389152 0.0000 D(REXLOG) 0.302505 0.142300 2.125822 0.0382 EPSILON(-1) -0.413752 0.109155 -3.790493 0.0004 C -0.000742 0.004512 -0.164495 0.8700 R-squared 0.693259 Mean dependent var 0.012457 Adjusted R-squared 0.670109 S.D. dependent var 0.056559 S.E. of regression 0.032485 Akaike info criterion -3.933813 Sum squared resid 0.055930 Schwarz criterion -3.756188 Log likelihood 119.0806 Hannan-Quinn criter. -3.864624 F-statistic 29.94611 Durbin-Watson stat 1.860388 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

Conclusion The most important cause of the current account deficit in Turkey is foreign trade deficits. Despite intensive efforts to increase exports, the import volume exceeds the export volume. Cut down on imports in order to reduce the trade deficit, might seem an attractive idea. However, some parts of Turkey’s requirement of energy and machinery equipment and intermediate goods have been imported. In addition, imported inputs rates of export products are high. In these circumstances, reduction of imports will be able by the suppression of domestic demand and reduction of some inputs used in manufacturing the export products. This will result in a slowdown in economic growth and contraction in exports. Increases in real exchange rates reduce the prices of imported goods relative to prices of the domestic goods so it increases the import. Used as a tool for suppression of inflation in Turkey, foreign exchange rates has been overvalued in real terms and it has supported high levels of imports. 44


According to the analysis results export GDP and the reel effective exchange rate have positive effect on the import. Without producing imported inputs of exports energy and technology used in industry and without turning domestic demand to the domestic products this relationships cannot be eliminated. The period in which the trade deficit or the current account deficit had been reduced through devaluations was over. From now on Turkey is at the end of the period in which the import has been reduced by shrinking the domestic demand. While difficulty in reducing the import and increasing the export are obvious, it is necessary to invest on high value added products we can be competitive with. APPENDIX obs 1998Q1 1998Q2 1998Q3 1998Q4 1999Q1 1999Q2 1999Q3 1999Q4 2000Q1

IMPLOG 4.038382 4.066400 4.058692 4.031651 3.887054 3.995504 4.000608 4.048481 4.046183

EXPLOG 3.897737 3.884059 3.877544 3.883037 3.844166 3.830011 3.854670 3.910037 3.867055

GDPLOG 7.183716 7.217084 7.308492 7.257824 7.159451 7.209995 7.286945 7.251024 7.182355

REXLOG 2.065206 2.062582 2.083144 2.082426 2.085647 2.084576 2.093772 2.104828 2.121888

EPSILON 0.071890 0.085730 -3.53E-05 0.007838 -0.038765 0.041870 -0.033597 -0.003224 0.063695



2000Q2 2000Q3 2000Q4 2001Q1 2001Q2 2001Q3 2001Q4 2002Q1 2002Q2 2002Q3 2002Q4 2003Q1 2003Q2 2003Q3 2003Q4 2004Q1 2004Q2 2004Q3 2004Q4 2005Q1 2005Q2 2005Q3 2005Q4 2006Q1 2006Q2 2006Q3 2006Q4 2007Q1 2007Q2 2007Q3 2007Q4 2008Q1 2008Q2 2008Q3 2008Q4 2009Q1 2009Q2 2009Q3 2009Q4 2010Q1 2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3 2011Q4 2012Q1 2012Q2 2012Q3

4.132964 4.141356 4.156276 4.004235 3.956120 3.977769 3.975616 3.977312 4.058008 4.093527 4.139438 4.135355 4.192093 4.242243 4.283188 4.293119 4.356752 4.368398 4.407187 4.386481 4.446615 4.460357 4.480969 4.455956 4.551438 4.545530 4.548746 4.529931 4.604226 4.624767 4.662635 4.675045 4.735743 4.741711 4.567168 4.437465 4.506113 4.563955 4.584376 4.564867 4.630245 4.655954 4.721506 4.730201 4.789975 4.778506 4.756278 4.734896 4.774772 4.760912

3.889414 3.878177 3.911477 3.909823 3.948266 3.930694 3.963882 3.950365 3.981229 4.023664 4.066773 4.054077 4.097812 4.132035 4.175773 4.167110 4.230423 4.239325 4.289856 4.262142 4.289210 4.285692 4.328563 4.299747 4.364194 4.379541 4.424522 4.396600 4.457958 4.456776 4.519907 4.546333 4.576007 4.590953 4.461739 4.417090 4.402468 4.435127 4.491684 4.444997 4.484912 4.456852 4.529764 4.521164 4.552924 4.565470 4.576399 4.573498 4.617598 4.615961

7.237271 7.322622 7.277148 7.188082 7.208795 7.293378 7.232121 7.189490 7.235893 7.319662 7.277809 7.223152 7.252817 7.337953 7.299904 7.264351 7.301797 7.371587 7.333284 7.299884 7.334002 7.403525 7.373855 7.324967 7.374348 7.430017 7.398122 7.358776 7.390600 7.443610 7.415928 7.388199 7.401855 7.447308 7.384535 7.318956 7.366745 7.435096 7.409257 7.370464 7.409802 7.457422 7.448033 7.419980 7.447634 7.492595 7.469365 7.434366 7.460505 7.499602

2.121560 2.143015 2.169086 2.054996 2.048442 1.993436 2.065580 2.141136 2.075182 2.061452 2.098298 2.100162 2.136488 2.176879 2.155074 2.180295 2.156339 2.147965 2.154135 2.186889 2.188902 2.205409 2.222226 2.229259 2.187267 2.173322 2.191666 2.206389 2.223677 2.229543 2.258530 2.249825 2.223510 2.251963 2.208135 2.192225 2.200856 2.205266 2.210940 2.234539 2.249845 2.247738 2.254673 2.215340 2.208596 2.167826 2.180320 2.200598 2.209649 2.214377

0.094353 0.031825 0.041288 0.033118 -0.052053 -0.045732 -0.071977 -0.079282 -0.010449 -0.057353 -0.033365 0.010971 -0.008106 -0.071820 -0.017148 0.008611 0.017443 -0.023845 0.005728 0.007026 0.021969 -0.025199 -0.022221 0.004239 0.047151 -0.001696 -0.016872 0.002900 0.000558 -0.021890 -0.024840 -0.003537 0.044423 -0.012739 -0.024158 -0.063962 -0.027182 -0.045637 -0.047529 -0.022154 -0.023349 -0.013225 0.005812 0.067504 0.089615 0.062952 0.042569 0.036009 0.020586 -0.024732

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.

2.

Altınok, S.Çetinkaya M. “Devalüasyon ve Türkiye’de Devalüasyon Uygulamaları ve Sonuçları”, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, http://www.sosyalbil.selcuk.edu.tr/sos_mak/makaleler/Serdar% 20ALTINOK%20-%20Murat%20%C3%87ET%C4 %B0NKAYA/47-64.pdf [08.01.2013] Altıntaş, H. Öz, B. Econometric Analysis of Relationship Between Exchange Rate Variability and Export in Turkey: 1989-2008, http://web.inonu. edu.tr/~ozal.congress/pdf/119.pdf [08.01.2013]

Number 34, 2012

3.

Bayraktutan, Y.Bıdırdı, H. (2010) The Basic Determinants of Turkish Import (1989-2004), Ege Academic Review, 10 (1), pp.351-369.

4.

Bozkurt, H. (2007). Zaman Serileri Analizi, İstanbul: Ekin Kitabevi

5.

Dickey, D. A., and FULLER, W. A. (1979): “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of American Statistical Association, 74, pp.427-431.

6.

Dickey, D. A., and FULLER, W. A. (1981): “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49, pp.10571072.

7.

Engle, R.F., And Granger, C.W. J. (1987): “Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing”, Econometrica, 55, pp.251276.

8.

Eğilmez M. (2012). Maliye Politikası Devreye Giriyor, Kendime Yazılar, http://www.mahfiegilmez. com/2012/09/maliye-politikas-devreye-giriyor.ht ml [02.12.2012]

9.

Gerni, C.Emsen S.Deger K.(2008) “İthalata Dayalı İhracat ve Ekonomik Büyüme: 1980-2006 Türkiye Deneyimi”,2.Ulusal İktisat Kongresi/20-22 Şubat 2008 / DEÜ İİBF İktisat Bölümü / İzmir -Türkiye http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/iibf_kongre/dos yalar/deger.pdf [11.12.2012]

10. Goldstein, M. and Khan, M.S. and L.H. Officer, “Prices of Tradable and Nontradable Goods in the Demand for Total Imports”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.62, 1980. http://www.jstor.org/ discover/10.2307/1924744?uid=2&uid=4&sid=211 01507498013 [02.01.2013] 11. Gujarati (2004). Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition, The McGraw−Hill Companies. 12. Moran, C. (1989). “Imports Under A Foreign Exchange Constraint”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol.3,No.2,pp.279–295. http://wber.oxford journals.org/content/3/2/279.full.pdf+html [23.12. 2012] 13. Özatay, F. (2012). “Merkez Bankası Reel Kur Hakkında Konuşarak Risk mi Alıyor?”, Dünya Gazetesi, http://www.dunya.com/merkez-bankasi-reelkur-hakkinda-konusarak-risk-mi-aliyor-150142yy. htm [18.12.2012] 14. Karagöl, E.T., Mihçiokur Ü.İ., Bingöl A. S. (2012), 2012’de Ekonomi, SETA Analiz, Sayı 59, http:// file.setav.org/Files/Pdf/20130104130708_seta_ana liz_ekonomi.pdf [03.01.2013] 15. Sevüktekin M.Nargeleçekenler M.(2010). Ekonometrik Zaman Serileri Analizi, Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. 16. Ssekuma, R. (2011). A Study Of Cointegration Models With Applications, http://uir.unisa.ac.za/

45

Mustafa Öztürk

bitstream/handle/10500/4821/thesis_ssekuma_r. pdf?sequence=1 [22.12.2012] 17. Tuncer, İ. (2002). “Türkiye’de İhracat, İthalat ve Büyüme: Toda-Yamamoto Yöntemiyle Granger Nedensellik Analizleri (1980-2000)”, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Enstitü Dergisi, 9 (9), pp.90-106. http://sosyalbilimler.cu kurova.edu.tr/dergi/dosyalar/2002.9.9.56.pdf [07. 01.2013] 18. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankası (TCMB), Elektronik Veri Dağıtım Sistemi, http://evds.tcmb.gov.tr/cbt.html [01.12.2012] 19. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUIK), Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/AltKategori.do?ust_id=4 [01.12.2012] 20. Yıldız, E. B., Berber M. (2011). “Sustainability The Import-Led Growth: The Case Of Turkey (1989–2007)”, İİBF Dergisi, Cilt.25, Sempozyum Özel Sayısı, pp.165-181.

46

