There are two kinds of effects of customs unions, static and dynamic. The static effects relate to ... also faces import tariffs of CU) to the member countries whose.
1
THE DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE COMPETITIVE POWER OF TURKEY AND EU-8 (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia)
Özge AYNAGÖZ ÇAKMAK** Gazi University and Şiir YILMAZ* Gazi University
April, 2008
** *
Asist. Prof. Dr., Gazi University, Department of Economics. Prof. Dr., Gazi University, Department of Economics.
2
THE DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE COMPETITIVE POWER OF TURKEY AND EU-8 (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) Customs Union is the major method to achieve a regional economic integration. The most important characteristic of a customs union is the complete elimination of tariffs between member countries. Although this provides a movement towards a free trade, it does not provide a global free trade. In the customs union, there is the implementation of a common external tariff and common trade policies against the third countries (Harrop, 2000). There are two kinds of effects of customs unions, static and dynamic. The static effects relate to the impact of the establishment of the customs union on welfare. Trade effects involve static effects, namely trade creation and trade diversion effects. Trade creation effect can be defined as the replacement of expensive domestic production by cheaper imports from a partner and trade diversion is the replacement of cheaper initial imports from the outside world by more expensive imports from a partner. Customs union has effects on trade, welfare, balance of payments and growth. Effects other than trade effects are mainly dynamic effects which can be summarized as competitiveness, technological development, scale economies, resource allocation and investment. (El Agraa, 2004). Static effects of customs union Viner (1950) differentiates between two main (static) effects of trade integration – trade creation and trade diversion. In a customs union (CU), trade creation occurs when one product, which had previously been produced in each of the countries, is now produced in one of the CU
3
members which achieves the highest efficiency. Trade creation influences, thus, allocation efficiency in each of the member countries and encourages specialization according to comparative advantage. Trade diversion results from tariff discrimination of the countries which do not participate in CU. This effect results from the redirection of imports from the third, non-member country (which has lower production costs, but also faces import tariffs of CU) to the member countries whose ‘competitiveness’ results only from the 0% tariff rather than from better allocation efficiency. Due to the allocation of resources which does not fully comply with the principle of comparative advantage, trade diversion is negative for both the importing and producing country. Therefore, the neteffect of CU on the general welfare cannot be unanimously or à priori conferred as it largely depends upon the degree of trade creation and trade diversion (Derado, 2008; 38-39). Dynamic effects of customs union Besides these static welfare effects, there are several important dynamic effects that customs union offers to member countries. These are due to increased competition, economies of scale, stimulus to investment, and better utilization of economic resources. The main reason for that are the long-term effects which result from the possibility of a preferential access to larger market of the union and increasing export possibilities. Market enlargement and stronger competition force producers to reduce production costs and offer them at the same time the opportunity to enjoy the advantages of economies of scale. Thanks to the economies of scale and lower unit costs trade suppression effect occurs. By improving the competitiveness of producers within the union this effect contributes to further reduction in trade with the countries remaining outside the integration (Viner, 1950, pp. 45).
4
In this paper, it is assumed that dynamic welfare effects will raise the welfare of full member countries than any other candidate country of a customs union. European Union Relations: EU- 8 and Turkey A fundamental step in this process was Turkey’s application for full membership to the EEC in 1959. The Ankara Association Agreement, between Turkey and the EEC, came into force in December 1, 1964, constituting the legal basis of the relations after this date. With this agreement began the long, hard process towards the establishment of a CU between Turkey and the EEC. According to the CU, established in January 1, 1996, customs duties, quantitative restrictions and measures of equivalent effect on trade of industrial goods, including processed agricultural products were eliminated and Turkey adopted EEC's Common External Tariff in its trade with third countries. The Community had already abolished all tariff restrictions (other than the exceptions stated in the protocol) when the Interim Agreement which allowed the commercial provisions of the Additional Protocol to be implemented in advance had entered into force on September 1st 1971 (Karaman, 2006; 1). The CU Agreement, which went into force on 1 January 1996, has already resulted in Turkey’s adoption of the Community's Common Customs Tariff (CCT) for imports of industrial products from the third countries. Turkey has also taken up the EU rules of origin and EU customs procedures (customs valuations, customs declaration, release for free circulation and duty-suspension arrangements). The Agreement has also triggered reforms of
technical
standards
regime
infrastructure.(Kaminski, Ng, 2006;3).
and
competition
policy
5
It is well known that the customs union with the EU will imply that Turkey will eliminate its tariffs and levies on imports of manufacturing products originating from the EU. In addition, Turkey will apply the "Common External Tariff" (CET) of the EU on imports from third countries. It may be less understood that application of the CET for most products will also involve a substantial reduction of tariffs against imports from third countries. In part this is true because the "most favored nation" (MFN) tariff of the EU is only about 7-8 percent on average. But equally important, application of the EU's CET implies that Turkey will be obligated to provide preferential access to its markets to all countries to whom the EU grants preferential access.' (Harrison, Rutherford, Tarr, 1996;2-3). This well-known opinion of the EU was underlined again by the summit meeting in Copenhagen on 12-13 December 2002. “Presidency conclusion” states that”… The Union encourages Turkey to pursue energetically its reform process. If the European Council in December 2004, on the basis of report and a recommendation from the commission, decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the European Union will open accession negotiations with Turkey without delay.” Meanwhile, ten candidate countries –Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia- will be full member of the EU from 1 May 2004. (Yılmaz, 2003;4). In April 2003, in Athens, the Treaty of Accession was signed by the present 15 European Union (EU) member states and by the 10 acceding countries (Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Cyprus, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta) and it entered into force on 1 May 2004. Having spent four decades in the EU's waiting room, on 6 October 2004, in Commission regular progress report for Turkey, it is said that “... considers that Turkey sufficiently fulfils the political criteria and recommends
6
accession negotiations be opened.” After the European Parliament approved this decision on 17 December 2004, Turkey and the EU reached agreement for Turkey to begin negotiations on accession to the European Union on October 3, 2005. After the date when negotiations had opened for full membership, the CEECs
gained extra advantages against Turkey and dynamic welfare
effects of the customs union started working in favour of these countries. Table 1. Foreign Direct Investments: EU-8 and Turkey 1992-2003 Countries
19921997
19982003
2000
2003
19921997
19982003
2000
2003
19921997
19982003
2000
2003
Millions of US$
POLAND
% of gross capital Net inflows as % of GDP formation 3.5 5.6 2.0 2,889 6,174 9,341 4,225 12.2 15.9 23.8 11.1 2.3 1,304 5,238 4,984 2,583 9.5
31.0
32.7 11.6 2.2
8.2
9.0
2.8
HUNGARY
2,924 3,192 2,764 2,470 33.0
25.4
24.5 13.5 5.6
4.1
3.6
3.0
SLOVAKIA
235
1,556 1,925 571
4.6
24.6
36.6 6.8
1.2
6.7
9.5
1.8
166 180 229 108 750
436 498 337 524 1,264
4.9 23.3 27.8 5.2 1.7
8.7 29.6 17.1 20.1 3.9
2.8 29.6 21.6 17.7 2.2
1.0 4.2 4.1 1.2 0.5
2.3 7.7 3.8 4.3 0.8
0.7 7.1 5.3 3.3 0.5
1.2 9.8 2.7 1.0 0.6
CZECH REP.
SLOVENIA ESTONIA LATVIA LITHUANIA TURKEY
137 387 411 379 982
181 891 360 179 575
2.8 35.2 13.7 4.7 1.6
Source: Selin Sayek, “FDI IN TURKEY: THE INVESTMENT CLIMATE AND EU EFFECTS, The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 1 (2), Fall 2007: 105-138.
7
Table 2. GNI (Gross National Income) per capita, PPP (current international $) and openness (imp+exp./ GDP) in EU-8 and Turkey Countries
GNI per capita (1998)
GNI per capita (2003)
GNI per capita (2006)
OPENNESS (2003)
POLAND
8950
11500
14250
0.7137
CZECH REP.
13380
16500
20920
1.2828
HUNGARY
9920
13920
16970
1.2809
SLOVAKIA
10660
13380
17060
1.56
SLOVENIA
14990
19470
23970
1.13
ESTONIA
8370
12230
18090
1.59
LATVIA
6560
10240
14840
0.9751
LITHUANIA
7060
10430
14550
1.11
TURKEY
5970 6350 8410 0.5994 Source: World Bank, http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ /member.do?method=getMembers and IMF International Financial Statistics.
Foreign Trade of EU-15 with Turkey and EU-8 From 1980 onwards, Turkey has changed its economic development policy from “import substitution” to “export-led growth” strategy. As a result of this policy change the share of the foreign trade in the whole economy has risen steadily starting from 1980’s. The volume of foreign trade consisted of 8.6 percent of the GNP in 1970 while this share rose to 15.7 and 23.4 percent in 1980 and 1990, respectively. In 2000 foreign trade volume rose to 82.3 billion USD while the export/import ratio was 51 percent. The share of foreign trade volume in GNP was 40.8 percent. In 2006 it’s expected that foreign trade consists roughly 56.7 percent of GNP, while export/import ratio is 63.7 percent. Also the share of industrial products in total exports reached to 81.9 percent in 2005 while it was 67.7 percent in 1990. Western Europe is the most important market for Turkish exports. In particular, European Union
8
(EU) members are a country group that has a major share in it. The share of EU-15 in total exports has always been above 50 percent. During the period 1990-1995 exports to EU increased by 10.9 percent annually, for the recent years the annual increase is around 32 %. European countries have an important share in Turkey’s imports as well because of their geographical proximity and their level of economic development. Among the European countries EU members are in the first rank. EU is followed by Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) because of the imports of crude oil and natural gas from that region (Aynagöz, Yılmaz, 2004; 10-11). Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, most CEECs embarked on a process of establishing democratic governments and market-driven economies. In part to promote political and economic stability in the region, the European Council agreed in 1993 that the CEECs with an established association with the EU could become members of the European Union. Accession of new members was to occur as the candidates demonstrated their ability to assume the political and economic obligations of membership (Fular,2000; 2-3). Table 3. Foreign Trade of EU-15 with Turkey and EU-8 EXPORTS TO EU-15
Million $ IMPORTS FROM EU-15 COUNTRIES 1997 2001 2003
COUNTRIES
1997
2001
2003
2006
POLAND
16553
24994
36569
69678
POLAND
26995
30866
41199
68469
CZECH REP.
13634
23018
34021
62485
CZECH REP.
16710
22546
30358
52207
HUNGARY
13341
22352
31603
45422
HUNGARY
13256
19464
26195
43892
SLOVAKIA
4538
7585
13327
24099
SLOVAKIA
5135
7352
11611
17613
SLOVENIA
5319
5757
7457
12349
SLOVENIA
6310
6841
9287
16393
ESTONIA
1424
2405
3275
4576
ESTONIA
2625
2710
4134
6752
LATVIA
816
1225
1788
2545
LATVIA
1445
1841
2672
5136
LITHUANIA
1255
2188
3012
5370
LITHUANIA
2624
2794
4365
8169
TURKEY
12247
16117
24487
40941
TURKEY
24869
18279
31685
50425
Source: UNITED NATIONS, Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE)
2006
9
After the establishment of CU between EU and Turkey, Turkey’s foreign trade with the EU-15 has remarkably increased, also after the accession of CEECs, Turkey’s trade volume with these countries has almost doubled. The most important partners among the new members are Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. (Aynagöz, 2006: 85-86)
Competitive Powers of Turkey and EU-8 Countries in Manufacturing Industries 1.
Aim and Scope of the Study 1. 1. The study will compare the competitive powers of Turkey and EU-8: Baltic Countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) and former East European Countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia for the years 1997 and 2006. 1997 is chosen for the representative date of the beginning of the full membership process for the EU-8 countries; it also represents the accomplishment of customs union between Turkey and EU (It has actually begun in 1996). 1.2 . For the manufacturing industry, SITC Rev. 3 classification will be used and the study will focus upon SITC 5 (Chemical and Related Products, n.e.s.), SITC 6 (Manufactured Goods Classified Chiefly by Materials), SITC 7 (Machinery and Transport Equipment), SITC 8 (Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles). All the required data are derived from United Nations’ ‘’Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE)”. 1.3. The competitive power of countries used to be estimated by either Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) Index or Comparative Export Performance (CEP) Index. Here, in this study Principle Component Analysis is applied as an alternative for RCA Index to estimate the competitive powers of Turkey and EU-8 countries in
10
respect to their manufacturing industries in the European market. The Principal Component Analysis is available to handle complex phenomena like competitive power that is subject to numerous variables. 1.4. Principal component analysis (PCA) is a statistical procedure that transforms a number of correlated variables into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables called principal components. The objective of principal component analysis is to reduce the dimensionality (number of variables) of the dataset but retain most of the original variability in the data. Because of this, PCA has been widely used in social sicences. According to PCA, four variables listed on Table 4 below are used to determine the competitive power of the countries in 1997 and 2006 for the above mentioned manufactured products.
Tablo 4. Variables and its Definitions Variables
Name
X1
EFFECTIVE
X2
EXPERT
X3
DEPENDENT
X4
LEADER
Definition Turkish Export to EU in the related category / Turkish Import from EU in the related category (Turkish Export to EU in the related category) / (Turkish Total Export to EU) x 100 (Turkish Export to EU in the related category) / (Turkish Export to World in the related category) x 100 (EU Import from Turkey in the related category) / (EU Import from World in the related category) ) x 100
1. Variable EFFICIENT; is the export/import ratio for the products in question which implies the efficiency of the country for the products in question. 2. Variable EXPERT; indicates countries’ specialization in the related products.
11
3. Variable DEPENDANCY ; shows the country’s dependancy as an exporter to the EU market , which weakens the bargaining power of the country. 4. Variable LEADER ; implies EU’s dependancy to the exporter country for the product in question, which makes the exporter country act as a price leader. These four variables cited above are closely related to the competitive power of the countries. These four variables have been estimated for each SITC 5-8 category and for each country, for the years 1997 and 2006. SPSS is used for the estimations. As a result of our calculations with SPSS, four variables were combined into a single component. We called this component ‘’competitive power factor” (Kılıçkaplan,1998). This factor or principal component explains most of the total variance. Hence, the first principal component is adequate to serve as the competitive power factor representing the combined variance of different aspects of competitiveness captured by the four variables. For two years and in each country, Total Variance Explained by “competitive power factor” are given in Appendix Table 1. 2. Results and Evaluations Table 5 shows countries’ rank on the basis of their respective competitive power factor scores.
12
Table 5. The rank position of manufacturing industry according to competitive power factor values in each country Manufactures (SITC REV. 3) SITC 6 SITC 7 1997 2006 1997 Rank Rank Rank position position position 2 2 3
TURKEY
SITC 5 1997 2006 Rank Rank position position 4 4
POLAND
4
4
2
3
3
1
1
2
CZECH REP.
4
4
1
3
3
1
2
2
ESTONIA
4
4
2
3
3
2
1
1
LATVIA
4
4
2
1
3
3
1
2
LITHUANIA
2
3
3
2
4
4
1
1
SLOVAKIA
4
4
2
2
3
1
2
3
SLOVENIA
4
4
2
2
3
1
1
3
HUNGARY
4
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
COUNTRIES
2006 Rank position 3
SITC 8 1997 Rank position 1
2006 Rank position 1
Source: Computed from United Nations COMTRADE Database.
Table 5 shows whether the countries’ competitiveness in their manufacturing industry has changed from 1997 to 2006 in respect to the commodity groups, SITC 5 to SITC 8.
Commodity groups, in each country,
rank according to their competitive power, beginning by 1 which is the strongest one,
ending up with 4, the weakest one. Table 5 shows that
Turkey and Hungary’s competitiveness rank position for the commodity groups in question have not changed during 1997-2006. On the other hand, in case of Poland, Czech Rep., Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia the strongest competitiveness has moved
from SITC 8 to SITC 7, as for Latvia and
Lithuania, from SITC 8 to SITC6. Table 6, 7, 8 and 9 rank the countries according to their competitive power factor value for each commodity group. The comments about Table 5 should be made by taking into account countries’ factor values as well. Countries which have positive factor values are considered as strongly competitive.
13
Table 6. Competitive Factor Values of Countries in SITC 5 Rank No
1997
COUNTRIES
Scores
COUNTRIES
2006 Scores
1
LITHUANIA
-0,923
LITHUANIA
-0,580
2
LATVIA
-0,934
HUNGARY
-1,053
3
TURKEY
-0,996
LATVIA
-1,062
4
HUNGARY
-1,216
TURKEY
-1,091
5
POLAND
-1,323
SLOVAKIA
-1,265
6
ESTONIA
-1,337
CZECH REP.
-1,299
7
SLOVAKIA
-1,437
ESTONIA
-1,375
8
CZECH REP.
-1,461
POLAND
-1,464
9
SLOVENIA
-1,466
SLOVENIA
-1,487
Source: Computed from United Nations COMTRADE Database
In case of SITC 5 group (Chemicals and Related Products, n.e.s.), all countries have negative factor values which imply poor competitive power. Turkey’s competitive factor value is negative, Lithuania and Hungary are the promising countries in this group. Table 7. Competitive Factor Values of Countries in SITC 6 Rank No.
1997
COUNTRIES
Scores
COUNTRIES
2006 Scores
1
SLOVAKIA
0,704
LATVIA
1,027
2
CZECH REP.
0,700
SLOVENIA
0,551
3
POLAND
0,408
POLAND
0,206
4
LATVIA
0,392
SLOVAKIA
0,059
5
SLOVENIA
0,345
ESTONIA
0,036
6
ESTONIA
0,325
CZECH REP.
0,008
7
TURKEY
0,007
TURKEY
-0,104
8
LITHUANIA
-0,279
LITHUANIA
-0,251
9
HUNGARY
-0,384
HUNGARY
-0,522
Source: Computed from United Nations COMTRADE Database
In SITC 6 group of commodities (manufactured goods classified chiefly by material) Turkey’s competitive factor value has turned into negative that means competitive power of Turkey is weakening in this group while that of Latvia and Slovenia is strenghtening.
14
Table 8. Competitive Factor Values of Countries in SITC 7 Rank No
COUNTRIES
1997 Scores
COUNTRIES
2006 Scores
1
HUNGARY
1,017
HUNGARY
1,223
2
SLOVENIA
0,335
SLOVAKIA
1,182
3
CZECH REP.
0,174
CZECH REP.
1,135
4
SLOVAKIA
0,073
POLAND
0,739
5
ESTONIA
-0,039
SLOVENIA
0,620
6
POLAND
-0,119
ESTONIA
0,343
7
TURKEY
-0,377
TURKEY
-0,139
8
LATVIA
-0,685
LATVIA
-0,621
9
LITHUANIA
-0,923
LITHUANIA
-0,647
Source: Computed from United Nations COMTRADE Database
The group SITC 7 (machinery and transport equipment) is group which has escalated to the first rank in the manufacturing industries of the new member states (see Table 5). With the negative factor values Turkey has a weak competitive power in this group. The promising countries are Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Poland. Table 9. Competitive Factor Values of Countries in SITC 8 1997 Rank no.
COUNTRIES
Scores
2006 COUNTRIES
Scores
1
LITHUANIA
1,422
LITHUANIA
1,477
2
TURKEY
1,366
TURKEY
1,344
3
LATVIA
1,227
ESTONIA
0,995
4
ESTONIA
1,052
LATVIA
0,656
5
POLAND
1,034
POLAND
0,519
6
SLOVENIA
0,787
HUNGARY
0,351
7
SLOVAKIA
0,660
SLOVENIA
0,316
8
CZECH REP.
0,587
CZECH REP.
0,156
9
HUNGARY
0,583
SLOVAKIA
0,024
Source: Computed from United Nations COMTRADE Database
15
The SITC 8 group (miscellaneous manufactured articles) is the group where Turkey has the strongest competitive power in respect to her manufacturing industry. In this group only Lithuania has a stronger competitive factor value than Turkey. Since it is the most promising field for Turkey, a more detailed study has been done. Table 10. Sub-groups of SITC 8 SITC 8. Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles SITC 81 Prefabricated Buildings; Sanitary, Plumbing, Heating And Lighting Fixtures And Fittings, n.e.s SITC 82 Furniture, Bedding, Etc. SITC 83 Travel Goods, Handbags And Similar Containers SITC 84 Clothing And Accessories SITC 85 Footwear SITC 87 Scientific Equipment n.e.s SITC 88 Photo.Apparat.nes;Clocks SITC 89 Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles, n.e.s
16
Table 11. Rank Position of the Countries in SITC 81-89
Countries Turkey Poland Czech Rep Estonia Latvia Lithuania Slovakia Slovenia Hungary
SITC 81 1997 2006 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 3 6 4 4 2 5 5
Countries Turkey Poland Czech Rep Estonia Latvia Lithuania Slovakia Slovenia Hungary
SITC 85 1997 2006 8 7 7 8 6 8 5 6 4 6 3 7 3 1 3 7 2 4
Commodity Group (SITC REV. 3) SITC 82 SITC 83 SITC 84 1997 2006 1997 2006 1997 2006 4 3 3 4 1 1 2 1 3 7 1 2 1 1 3 7 2 3 2 1 4 7 1 2 2 1 3 8 1 2 2 1 7 6 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 1 5 8 2 5 3 2 4 7 1 3
SITC 87 1997 2006 5 5 8 5 8 6 8 4 7 7 6 5 8 8 6 3 7 1
SITC 88 1997 2006 7 8 6 6 7 5 7 8 8 5 8 8 5 7 8 4 8 8
SITC 89 1997 2006 6 6 5 3 5 2 6 5 6 3 5 4 7 6 7 6 6 6
Source: Computed from United Nations COMTRADE Database
Among the sub sectors, SITC 84 (Clothing and Accessories) and SITC 81 (prefabricated buildings, sanitary, plumbing, heating and lighting fixtures and fittings, n.e.s) are the sectors where Turkey is mostly competitive. Especially SITC 84 is still Turkey’s the strongest competitive sub sector, for the other countries SITC 84 is no longer the most competitive one. It was the number one subsector for Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and Slovakia in 1997,
17
As for the category SITC 81, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia are at higher rank positions in 2006 but among these four countries only Slovenia seems to be a serious rival for Turkey.
CONCLUSIONS The eight new member states gained the full membership in May, 2004, time is not long enough to compare the dynamic effects of customs union on full member states and an associate member state such as Turkey, to overcome this defect we have assumed that preparatory stage for the full membership may also provide dynamic advantages for the EU-8. Thus the estimation results may not give true picture, still there are some important developments to underline. 1. It has been noticed that in the new member states, except Hungary, competitve advantages in their manufacturing sector have shifted from SITC 8 (Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles) to SITC 7 (Machinery and Equipment); 2. Machinery and Transport Equipment is the sector in which the new member countries have improving competitive power factor values. 3. Turkey has negative or diminishing factor values in all commodity groups while the others have positive and increasing factor values which may result with stronger competition against Turkey in the near future. 4. Apart from clothing and accessories, Turkey seems to lose her competitive power in the EU market. SITC 8 is the field which is left by the other eight countries. We may conclude that there is a shift towards Machinery and Transport Equipment on behalf of the EU-8; as for Turkey, Clothing and Accessories is still the main field of competitive power.
18
Appendix Table 1. The percent of Variance Explained by competitive power factor (Componenet 1)
Countries Turkey Poland Czech Rep. Estonia Latvia Lithuania Slovakia Slovenia Hungary
1997 (%) 90,4 73,9 85,3 85,4 96,3 96,9 73,2 83,8 84,6
2006 (%) 91,6 81,4 70,4 78,3 92,2 92,1 83,9 80,5 78,5
References: Aynagöz, Ö., 2006, “Avrupa Birliği’nin Beşinci Genişleme Süreci: Yeni Üye Ülkeler ve Türkiye’nin Rekabet Durumları”, Gazi Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F Dergisi, 8 (1), 79-94. Aynagöz, Ö., Ş. Yılmaz, 2006, “Outsourcing After The Customs Union Between EU and Turkey”, 8th International European Trade Study Group (ETSG 2006) Annual Conference, Vienna. Derado, D., 2008, “Effects of the Eastern EU-enlargement on Croatia – A Trade Analysis”, Management, Vol. 13, 2008, 1, pp. 37-58. El-Agraa A.M., 2004, “Meausuring the Impact of Economic Integration” in The European Union Economics and Policies, Chapter 7, Grimwade N., Prentice Hall, London. Fuller, F., J. Beghin and J.
Fabiosa, 2000, “Accession of the Czech
Republic, Hungary, and Poland to the European Union: Impacts on Agricultural Markets, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Working Paper No: 00-WP 59, http://www.card.iastate.edu/ publications /DBS/ PDFFiles / 00wp259.
19
Harrison, G., T. Rutherford and D. Tarr, 1996, “Economic Implications for Turkey of a Customs Union with the European Union”, 1996, The World Bank International Economics Department International Trade Division Policy Research
Working
Paper,
no:
1599,
www-wds.worldbank.org / servlet/ WDSContentSerd /PDF/ multi0page.pdf. Harrop J., 2000, “The Political Economy of Integration in the European Union”, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Kaminski, B., F. Ng, 2006, “Turkey’s Evolving Trade Integration into PanEuropean Markets”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3908. Karaman, F., N. Ozkale, 2006, “Static Effects of the EU-Turkey Customs Union”, www.etsg.org/etsg2006/Papers/Karaman.pdf. Kılıçkaplan, S., 1998, “Uluslararası Rekabet Gücünün Ölçülmesinde AKÜ İndeksine Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım”, TC Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü Araştırma Sempozyumu, Ankara. United Nations, Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE), www. unstats. un. org/ unsd/ databases. htm (10.07.2008).
Viner, J., 1950, “The Customs Union Issue”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York, London. Yılmaz, B., 2003, “Turkey's Competitiveness in the European Union: A Comparison with Five Candidate Countries - Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania - and The EU15”, Ezoneplus Working Paper No. 12, http://www.ezoneplusneplus_wp_twelve.pdf.
