Middle Eastern Finance and Economics ISSN: 1450-2889 Issue 8 (2010) EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2010 http://www.eurojournals.com/MEFE.

htm

Foreign Trade and Economic Growth the Case of Turkey

Mehmet Adak Economics Department, Yalova University, Safran Campus, Yalova 77100, Turkey E-mail: madak@yalova.edu.tr Tel: +90 (226) 814 60 90; Fax: +90 (226) 814 60 89 Abstract Foreign trade and Economic Growth interrelation in Turkey will be examined in this paper. The analysis is covering the years between 1981 and 2007. The econometric analysis shows that there is a significant causality between foreign trade and economic growth. Furthermore, statistics show that the influence of foreign trade on economic growth is positive and consistent.

Keywords: Causality, Economic Growth, Foreign Trade JEL Classification Codes: F10, F43, O19

1. Introduction
The causality between Turkish economic growth and foreign trade is analyzed in this paper. The Turkish economy was integrated into the global economy in the 1980s. As a result, the GDP per capita and foreign trade statistics have developed dramatically in the last 30 years. The GDP per capita has doubled and foreign trade has increased by 20 fold. This development in foreign trade is a new feature in Turkey. New production lines and units were established for the export market and foreign exchange reserves started to increase. In addition, new highly developed production industries were also a boost for the Turkish economy. Accordingly, all these expansive economic activities had an optimistic development on GDP and per capita income. At the same time economic development was supported by legal regulations such as tax return and tax discounts for foreign traders. Major economic indicators over the last 30 years are shown in figure 1. All economic series show a positive upward increase in the analyzed period. The Foreign Trade values are calculated by the sum of the export and import values of each year. As can be seen, the export series is more regular than the other series. Nevertheless, one does notice that all series, especially GDP per capita, foreign trade and import series fluctuated very sharply during the economic crisis of 1994, 1999 and 2001.

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010)

Figure 1: Major Economic Indicators of Turkey (in US Dollars)
GDP per CAP
12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 3.50E+11 3.00E+11 2.50E+11 2.00E+11 1.50E+11 1.00E+11 5.00E+10 0.00E+00 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

138

FOREIGNTRADE

EXPORT
1.40E+11 1.20E+11 1.00E+11 8.00E+10 1.20E+11 6.00E+10 4.00E+10 2.00E+10 0.00E+00 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 8.00E+10 4.00E+10 0.00E+00 2.40E+11 2.00E+11 1.60E+11

IMPORT

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

This paper is organized as follows. Foreign Trade and Economic Growth Theory is analyzed in section 2. The data set and its statistical analysis is defined in section 3. Econometric analysis is given in section 4.

2. Recent Literature on Foreign Trade

Positive influences of foreign trade on economic growth were first defined by Adam Smith in economic literature. However, David Ricardos contribution on international economics is the accepted source for todays global economy. In the 1980s economists began to analyze the International economics as an endogenous variable in production functions. The affects of foreign trade tariffs were found to be determinant on economic growth by Romer (1990). Strong foreign trade unions were found to have a positive contribution on economic growth by Young (1991). In addition, foreign trade influences on economic growth have been accepted as a major factor for economic growth in economic literature by Grossmann and Helpman (1991), Frankel and Romer (1999), Rodrik and Rodrigez (2000), Wacziarg and Welch (2003), Alcala and Ciccone (2004). Positive Trade Opennesss impact on price deviation and economic growth was focused upon by Dolar (1992). Ben-David (1993) showed the convergences in per capita income with open trade regimes in the global economy. The economies which have free trade regimes growth rate were found higher than the closed economies by Sachs and Warner (1995). Edwards (1998) claims that there has been a positive impact on open foreign trade and Total Factor Productivity. In addition, Foreign Trade impact on growth and productivity is discussed in several researches by Coe and Helpman (1995). Foreign trade growth rates and rate of economic growth interrelation was analyzed by Lewer and Van den Berg (2004). It was found that in a country, where exports grow by 12 percent per year,

139

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010)

the economic growth will be 2.5 percentage points faster than a country whose foreign trade grows by 2 percent per year. This 2.5 percent difference in annual growth rates will give the faster growing country a GDP that is 12 bigger than the slower growing country after just one century. Effects of trade liberalization on innovation were found positive in this study. Not many researches were found dealing with the Foreign Trade and Economic Growth relation for the case of Turkey. One micro econometric study about Turkey was done by Pamukcu (2003) on firms innovation production relation with foreign trade and trade liberalization. In addition, positive influences of economic integrations were found by Mihci and Akkoyunlu (2009). Furthermore, imports were found to have positive influences on output per labor. Import of manufacturing materials from EU has had positive effects on productivity and output. The trade liberalization effects on productivity were researched by Bayar (2002). Bayar found that there are productivity increases in industrial sectors after trade liberalization activities. Alici and Ucal (2003) found significant economic growth in the Turkish economy after the foreign direct investment and export led growth policies were decided after 1980. Utkulu and Ozdemir (2004) showed that these new trade policies have had direct influences on economic growth in the short and long run. Yucel (2009) found that the new foreign trade regime and trade liberalization activities increased the foreign trade volume and economic growth in the Turkish economy after the 1980s.

3. Data Set
There are two variable time series in this analysis. The dependent variable which is the economic growth rate has been represented by GDP per Capita Growth rate. GDP per Capita values were calculated with constant US Dollars prices of the year 2005. It has been normalized with the international purchase power of parity as well. Afterwards, its growth rate is calculated yearly. The foreign trade series is calculated by the addition of export and import values of Turkey on a yearly basis. Export and import values are calculated in US Dollars. The growth rate of foreign trade is then calculated yearly.
Table 1: Statistical Characteristics of the Series
Foreign Trade Growth Rate 0.136444 0.166000 0.386000 -0.116000 0.142687 -0.019134 2.043695 1.030482 0.597357 3.684000 0.529353 27 GDP per Capita Growth Rate 0.026778 0.036000 0.087000 -0.072000 0.041208 -0.972021 3.229095 4.310755 0.115859 0.723000 0.044151 27

Mean Median Maximum Minimum Std. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis Jarque-Bera Probability Sum Sum Sq. Dev. Observations

Both series are sourced from the World Bank Development Indicator data base. The main characteristics of the series are given in Table 1 and the graphs of the series are shown in Figure 2. The average growth rate for Foreign Trade in Turkey was 13% annually and the average growth rate for GDP per Capita was 2.6% annually in the last 27 years. The maximum Foreign Trade Growth rate reached 16% and the maximum Growth Rate for GDP per Capita reached 3.6%. Whereas the minimum growth rates for foreign trade and GDP per Capita were recorded as -11% and -7.2% in the 27 year period. The series of Foreign Trade has a high cycle length than the GDP per capita growth rate. This can be seen in Table 1 with the standard deviation of each series.

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010)

Figure 2: GDP per Capita and Foreign Trade Growth Rate

140

GDP per Capita Growth Rate

.12 .5 .4 .08 .3 .04 .2 .1 .0 -.04 -.1 -.08 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 -.2

Foreign Trade Growth Rate

.00

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

The Granger Causality Test result for the years between 1980 and 2008 is given in Table 2. In Table 2, two null hypotheses are tested according to the direction of causality. The first null is GDP per capita Growth Rate does not Granger Cause Foreign Trade Growth Rate. The second null hypothesis tests the reverse direction of causality from foreign trade growth rate to GDP per Capita Growth Rate. The test results show probabilities of 0.35 and 0.28 for the first and second hypotheses respectively. We can therefore conclude that there is no Granger causality in either direction, because we cannot reject the null in both cases.
Table 2: Granger Causality Test

Pairwise Granger Causality Tests Sample Range : 1980 2008 Lags: 2 Observations: 25 Null Hypothesis: GDP per capita Growth Rate does not Granger Cause Foreign Trade Growth Rate Foreign Trade Growth Rate does not Granger Cause GDP per capita Growth Rate

F-Statistic 1.10823 1.35615

Probability 0.34959 0.28034

Table 3 and Table 4 are the correlation and covariance matrixes of the times series of the analysis. Both tables show that there is a positive relation between the two series.
Table 3: Correlation Matrix
Foreign Trade Growth Rate 1 0.79834 GDP per Capita Growth Rate 0.79834 1

Foreign Trade Growth Rate GDP per Capita Growth Rate

Table 4:

Covariance Matrix
Foreign Trade Growth Rate 0.01960 0.00452 GDP per Capita Growth Rate 0.00452 0.00163

Foreign Trade Growth Rate GDP per Capita Growth Rate

141

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010)

The Unit root test has been applied for each economic series. The Augmented Dickey Fuller test is applied with Schwarz info Criterion. The Intercept has been included in the test equations. Tests have been done in level while the series was found stationary at level I(0).
Table 5: Unit Root Test Result for GDP per Capita Growth Rate

Null Hypothesis: GDP per Capita Growth Rate has a unit root Exogenous: Constant Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=6) Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic Test critical value for 1% level t-Statistic -5.729561 -3.711457 Probability 0.0001

Table 6:

Unit Root Test Result for Foreign Trade Growth Rate

Null Hypothesis: Foreign Trade Growth Rate has a unit root Exogenous: Constant Lag Length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG=6) Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic Test critical values for 1% level t-Statistic -5.762271 -3.689194 Probability 0.0001

4. Analysis
4.1. Model This model is performed linearly. The foreign trade growth rate has positive influences on GDP per Capita Growth Rate. y = f ( XM ) (+) y represents the GDP per Capita Growth Rate, XM depicts Foreign Trade Growth Rate. Least Square Method has been used in the analysis so the model can perform as; y = 0 + 1 XM + e

0 is the intercept (constant), 1 is coefficient of foreign trade growth rate and e is the residual of the
model. 4.2. Least Square Method GDP per capita growth rate is the dependent variable of the model and the foreign trade growth rate is the independent variable of the model.
Table 7: Regression Analysis Output

Dependent Variable: GDP per Capita Growth Rate Method: Least Squares Sample: 1981 2007 Included observations: 27 after adjustments Variable Coefficient C -0.004681 Foreign Trade Growth Rate 0.230562 R-squared 0.637358 Adjusted R-squared 0.622853 S.E. of regression 0.025307 Sum squared resid 0.016011 Log likelihood 61.99804 Durbin-Watson stat 1.771193

Std. Error 0.006800 0.034783 Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion F-statistic Prob(F-statistic)

t-Statistic -0.688376 6.628619

Probability 0.4976 0.0000 0.026778 0.041208 -4.444299 -4.348311 43.93859 0.000001

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010)

142

All the parameters signs have been found as expected. Intercept of the analysiss t-statistics value could not exceed the confidence interval but t-statistics value of foreign trade growth rate has exceeded the critical value of the confidence interval. R square and adjusted R square values were found at about 62-63 percent. Standard error of regression is too low at 2.5 percent and the sum squared residual can be seen at about 1.6 percent. The leaner relation between the two variables is given in figure 3.
Figure 3: Scatter Regression Line
.5 .4 Foreign Trade Growth Rate .3 .2 .1 .0 -.1 -.2 -.08

-.04

.00

.04

.08

.12

GDP per Capita Growth Rate

Durbin-Watson statistics gives information about autocorrelation which was found at 1.77 being quite close to 2. F-statistic value of regression analysis exceeded critical level as well. Figure 4 gives information about the residual of regression analysis. As can be seen, the residual fluctuates into a very narrow tunnel.
Figure 4: Residual Graphic
.08 .06 .04 .02 .00 -.02 -.04 -.06 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06

4.3. Heteroskedasticity Test Whites statistic test is calculated as R square times the number of observations from the regression table below. The Whites statistic test is asymptomatically distributed as a 2 with degrees of freedom equal to the number of slope coefficients, excluding the constant, in the test regression. Since the

143

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010)

observation times R squared value of 0.838886 is smaller than the 5% critical 2 value of 3.841454, so there is no heteroskedasticity found in the model. The probability values of 0.3597 can be incorrect if we reject the null hypothesis of no heteroskedasticity.
Table 8: White Heteroskedasticity Test
Prob. F(1,25) Prob. Chi-Square(1) Prob. Chi-Square(1) 0.3791 0.3597 0.4346

0.801654 F-statistic Obs*R-squared 0.838886 Scaled explained SS 0.610460 Dependent Variable: RESID^2 Method: Least Squares Sample: 1981 2007 Included Observations: 27 Variable Coefficient Constant 0.000715 XM^2 -0.003181 R-squared 0.031070

Std. Error 0.000204 0.003553

t-Statistic 3.504391 -0.895351

Prob. 0.0017 0.3791

4.4. Autocorrelation Test Autocorrelation can be found in the models when the least square residual lag t has a correlation with past values of least residual lag t-1, t-2 and so on. If the correlations between the equations errors are significantly different from zero we can assume that there is no autocorrelation in the model. The residual correlogram has been given in Figure 5. 12 lags are included in the correlogram. Each lag represents the correlation of et with et-1, et-2, and et-12. Autocorrelation numerical values are given in the table under the first column of AC. These are indicated in the first raw graph with their own signs. The bars were not enough to obscure the dotted lines. This signifies that autocorrelations are not significantly different from zero at 5 percent significance level.
Figure 5: Correlogram of Residuals

Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test works in the linear model which is defined below;
e t = 0 + 1 foreign .trade + 2 e t 1

e t and e t 1 are the least square residuals in lag of t and lag of t-1. LM test has run for 1 lag in the test. The two main LM test outputs are given in the top two lines of the Table 10 with corresponding p-

values. F-statistic gives information about the significance of 2 . F-statistics value calculated as;

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010) F-statistic = (t-statistics of 2 )2 F-statistic = (0.399)2 = 0.153 Lagrange Multiplier value calculated as; LM = number of observations R-squared value LM= 27 0.0063=0.171
Table 10: Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test
F-statistic Obs*R-squared Dependent Variable: et Method: Least Squares Sample: 1981 2007 Included observations: 27 Variable Constant foreign trade growth rate et-1 R-squared 0.153358 0.171432 Prob. F(1,24) Prob. Chi-Square(1) 0.6988 0.6788

144

Coefficient -0.000582 0.003905 0.083465 0.006349

Std. Error 0.006933 0.036023 0.208826

t-Statistic -0.083906 0.108412 0.399685

Probability 0.9338 0.9146 0.6929

The calculated Breusch-Godfrey LM test statistic of 0.171 and F-statistic value did not exceed the critical value, we can thereby accept the hypothesis of no serial correlation up to lag order 1 at the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the null hypothesis of H0: 2 =0 cannot be rejected at 5 percent significance level.

5. Conclusion
The foreign trade growth rate has pushed up the GDP per capita growth rate in the past three decades after the integration of Turkey into the global economy. As a result of changing foreign trade policies, a rapid increase in foreign trade and national production followed. The econometric model and ordinary least square test done in the research show that the foreign trade growth positively affects the GDP per capita growth rate. This study has also shown that foreign trade is one of the economic growth determinants of Turkey. In further studies, foreign trade can be segmented into major sectors and each sectors deviations can be regressed by the income development of the lands studied.

References
[1] [2] [3] Alcala, F., Ciccone, A. (2004). Trade and productivity Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (2), 613646. Alesina Alberto, Spolaore Enrico, Waczarg Romain (2005), Trade, Growth and the Size of Countries, Handbook of Economic Growth, pp 1499-1539, North-Holland, Elsevier Alici A., A., Ucal, S., M., (2003), Foreign Direct Investment, Export and Outpu Growth of Turkey: Causality Analysis, European Trade Study Group Fifth Annual Conference, 11-13 September 2003 Madrid. Bayar, G., (2002). Effects of Foreign Trade Liberalization on the Productivity; Trade Liberalization, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 38 (5), 46-71 Ben-David, D. (1993). Equalizing exchange: Trade liberalization and income convergence Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3), 653679. Coe T. and Helpman E. (1995) International R&D spillovers, European Economic Review, 39, 859-87

[4] [5] [6]

145 [7]

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics - Issue 8 (2010) Dollar, D. (1992). Outward-oriented developing economies really do grow more rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 197685. Economic Development and Cultural Change 40 (3), 523 544. Edwards, S. (1998). Openness, productivity and growth: What do we really know? Economic Journal 108 (447), 383398. Frankel, J.A., Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth?. American Economic Review 89 (3), 379399. Greene, W., H., (2007), Econometric Analysis, 6th edition, Prentice Hall Griffiths, W., E., Hill, R., C., Lim, G., C., (2008). Using EViews for Principles of Econometrics 3th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. NJ. Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1991) Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA Gujarati, D., (2004) Basic Econometrics, McGraw Hill Mihci, S., Akkouyunlu, Arzu. (2009) The Impact of The Customs Union with The European Union on Turkeys Economic Growth, Argumenta Oeconomca, 22-1, 163-179 Lewer, J., J., Van den Berg, H. (2004) How Large is International Trades Effect on Economic Growth,Surveys in Economic Growth Theory and Empirics, Blackwell Publising, Malden, MA, USA, 137-170 Pamukcu, T., (2003) Trade Liberalization and Innovation Decisions of Firms: Lessons from Post-1980 Turkey, World Development 31-8, 1443-1458 Rodrik, D., Rodriguez, F. (2000). Trade policy and economic growth: A skeptics guide to the cross-national evidence. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, vol. 15. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 261325. Romer, P, (1990) Endogenous Technical Change, Journal of Political Economy 98, 71-102 Sachs, J., Warner, A. (1995). Economic Reform and The Process of Global Integration. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 1118. Utkulu, U., Ozdemir, D. (2004), Does Trade Liberalization Cause a Long run Economic Growth in Turkey, Economics of Planning, 37, 245-266 Wacziarg, R., Welch, K.H. (2003). Trade liberalization and growth: New evidence. NBER Working Paper 10152, December. Young, A., (1991) Learning by Doing and The Dynamic Effects of International Trade Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 369-405 Yucel, F., (2009). Causal Relationships between Financial Development , Trade Openness and Economic Growth: The Case of Turkey Journal of Social Sciences 5(1), 33-42

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

[16] [17]

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]