Search

This study puts forward a model of a multisector economy and embeds it in a novel theoretical framework to address the relationship between commodity revenues and manufacturing output with a special focus on the role of the agricultural sector. The three-sector model lays the groundwork for analyzing policy choices in more complex sectoral settings. Based on the theoretical analysis, the study identifies the weight of the individual economic sectors in the public revenue generation as a determinant of the magnitude of rent seeking epitomized in the crowding out effect of investments in manufacturing. We find that enclave agriculture contributes to the deindustrialization pressure in the face of natural resource windfalls. The central finding of the multisector analysis is the conclusion that not diversification per se but rather a diversification with the substantial domestic factor or market orientation has the capability to limit the magnitude of deindustrialization. For the empirical validation of the theoretical findings, the study employs fixed effects, fully modified OLS, dynamic common correlated effects estimators and dynamic fixed effects estimators for the dataset of 113 developing and transition economies for 1963&ndash, 2014 period. The estimations reveal that natural resource revenues correspond with a higher level of the manufacturing sector output. In the economies with a low level of economic diversification, commodity bonanza leads however to the shrinkage of the manufacturing. In the commodity revenue dependent settings, nevertheless, agricultural sector exports have a negative impact on the performance of the manufacturing sector. These findings are in line with the predictions of the theoretical model.

Introduction Countries have traditionally been split into two major groups: developed or industrialized (“the North”) and developing or underdeveloped (“the South”). Several authors and organizations have challenged this classification to recognize countries that have reached an intermediate stage of social and economic development. As proposed by Morel and collaborators in 2005, the concept of Innovative Developing Countries (IDCs) defines a group of nations with impactful scientific programs. Here, IDCs are reexamined by a variety of metrics to highlight their role in health innovation through research and development (R&D) programs on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) that also positively impact epidemic preparedness. Results To address the global changes due to expanding globalization we updated the original indicator of the number of USPTO patents deposited by individual countries per GDP and per capita to the number of international patents applications, related to applicant residence and deposited under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) per GNI (or GDP) and per capita. A comparison of the originally described ranking of top innovative countries to those in the present study revealed new members that updated the list of IDCs and showed a prominent role now played by China. Analyzing scientific publications in international journals since the introduction of the IDC concept in 2005 we found that IDCs do prioritize Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) as an area of research. Finally we investigated the role of IDCs in two major public health emergencies between 2012 and 2016, the outbreaks of Ebola in West Africa and Zika in South America. An analysis of the co-authorship country networks demonstrated an important role for IDC infrastructure and personnel in the prevention and control of these epidemics. Discussion and conclusions Different techniques can be used to evaluate and measure innovative performance of countries. Country rankings published by traditional indexes, such as the Bloomberg Innovation Index (BII) and the Global Innovation Index (GII), only include high income economies among the top 20 performers. This is in sharp contrast to our approach, which identified 8-9 IDCs among the first 25 with China occupying the top position. Through an analysis of the pros and cons of the different methodologies, the IDC concept challenges more conventional approaches to address and estimate the innovative capacity of countries., Author summary Splitting countries into two groups—rich and poor; developed (the “North”) and developing (the “South”); leaders and followers—appears to us to be progressively more simplistic, unrealistic and a heritage from colonial times. Triggered by the first wave of globalization, the share of world income going to today’s wealthy nations soared from twenty to almost seventy percent between 1820 and 1990, a fact that supported and strengthened this dichotomic vision; however, the new globalization driven by information technology has propelled the rapid industrialization of several developing nations and simultaneous deindustrialization of developed nations, a phenomenon that has not yet been fully understood nor reflected in traditional economic indexes and analyses. In this article we revisit the 2005 concept of Innovative Developing Countries (IDCs) that points to the underrepresentation of IDCs in well-known innovation indexes and country ranks. Our analysis clearly shows a prominent role for IDCs in health innovation, research and development on NTDs and in epidemics preparedness, prevention and control.

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, uyumlaştırılmış uluslararası girdi-çıktı tabloları verilerinden sektörel dikey uzmanlaşma ve yurtiçi katma değer paylarını hesaplayarak, seçilmiş Asya ülkeleri ve Türkiye'nin ihracatlarının gerçekte ne kadarının bu ülkelerde üretildiğini belirlemektir. İkinci amaç, gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde uluslararası ticaretin değişen yapılarına bağlı olarak ticaret teorilerinin ve analiz araçlarının gelişimini ortaya koymaktır. Üçüncü amaç, Doğu Asya ülkelerinin ihracata dayalı istisnai sanayileşme süreçlerinde (Asya mucizesi) neyi farklı yaptıklarına ilişkin muhtemel cevapları aramaktır. Dördüncü amaç, Türkiye'nin 1980 sonrası ihracata yönelik sanayileşme sürecini, sektörel ihracat gelişmeleri ve yapısal dönüşümü ile birlikte incelemektir. Son amaç ise, geleneksel ve yeni analiz yöntemlerini kullanarak, bu ülkelerin ihracat performanslarını çok boyutlu olarak karşılaştırmaktır. Böylece Çin ve Asya etkileri de ayrıca incelenmektedir. Çalışmada, çeşitli sektörel ve toplulaştırılmış verilerden gözlenen küresel gelişmeleri ve farklı analizlerden elde edilen sonuçları şu şekilde özetlemek mümkündür: i) İhracata yönelik sanayileşme modeli ekonomik gelişmenin temeli durumundadır. ii) Ticaret önündeki engelleri büyük oranda kaldıran gelişmekte olan ülkelerin, küresel ticaret sistemine katkıları son 20 yıldır sürekli artış trendi göstermektedir. iii) Yüksek ihracat performansı için talep ve arz yönlü faktörler önemlidir. iv) Küresel değer zincirleri, çok sayıda ülkenin iş bölümü içinde birlikte üretim yaptığı, sektörler arası ve sınır ötesi üretim sistemlerini biçimlendirmektedir. Bu yapı, rekabetçilik baskılarının yanında, karşılıklı tamamlayıcılığı da geliştirmektedir. v) Sanayileşme üretimde, ihracatta ve istihdamda bir kalite gelişimini ve yapısal dönüşümü ifade etmektedir. Bu dönüşüm, 'doğal' olarak var olan karşılaştırmalı üstünlüklerden çok, Doğu Asya ülkelerinin başardığı gibi 'edinilmiş' rekabetçi üstünlüklere işaret etmektedir. vi) Uzun bir süre geri planda kalan sanayileşme politikaları, Doğu Asya mucizesinde hükumet müdahalelerinin ve sektörel uygulamaların belirleyici olduğu yönündeki konsensus ile birlikte yeniden önem kazanmıştır. Ancak, özellikle aşırı müdahalelerin, günümüzde diğer gelişmekte olan ülkeler için uygulanabilirliği ve başarısı halen tartışmalıdır. vii) Birçok küresel değer zincirinde üretimin ve ihracatın yurt dışı faktör içerikleri ile katma değer payları 1990 yılından itibaren yükselme trendindedir. Bu süreçte aramalı ticareti nihai mal ticaretinden daha fazla artmaktadır. viii) Ülkelerin ne ürettikleri ve ne ihraç ettikleri önemlidir. Uygulamada, üretim ve ihracat içeriği daha sofistike olan ülke performanslarının daha sürdürülebilir olması, inovasyonun önemini vurgulamaktadır. ix) 2000'li yıllarla birlikte ihracatını hızlı bir şekilde artıran Türkiye, makine ve motorlu taşıtlar gibi orta seviye teknolojili ürünler ihracatındaki küresel payını, geleneksel tarım ve emek yoğun gıda ve tekstil ürünleri aleyhine artırarak yapısal bir dönüşüm de yaşamaktadır. Bu dönüşüm, şimdilik, gelişmiş ülkelerin sanayileşmeme eğilimleri ve yerel avantajlardan yararlanmak için üretim süreçlerini gelişmekte olan ülkelere kaydırmaları ile açıklanabilmektedir. x) Girdi ticareti ve yeniden ihracat kaynaklı çoklu hesaplama nedeniyle, standart toplam ticaret istatistikleri ülkelerin ticaretindeki net katma değerlerini ve kazançlarını yansıtmamaktadır. Ayrıca sadece nihai malları dikkate alan 'endüstri içi ticaret' ve sadece ihracatta ithal girdi payını gösteren (ithalattaki yurtiçi içerikleri kapsamayan) 'dikey uzmanlaşma' ölçümlerinin kullanımı da sınırlıdır. Bu nedenle katma değer ticareti hesaplamaları şimdilik en uygun yöntem durumundadır. xi) 2002 yılı için Türkiye'nin toplam ihracatının ithal girdi içeriği yaklaşık yüzde 17 ve toplam aramalı talebi içinde ithal ara mallarının payı yaklaşık yüzde 16 iken, 2009 yılında toplam ihracatının yurtdışı katma değer içeriği yaklaşık yüzde 22'dir. xii) 2009 yılında Türkiye, Güney Kore, Hindistan ve Çin için imalat sanayisi ihracatında yurtiçi katma değer payları sırasıyla yüzde 74, 64, 76 ve 74 iken, toplam katma değer ihracatının toplam katma değer ithalatını karşılama oranları sırasıyla yüzde 79, 69, 67 ve 51'dir. Sonraki değerler bu ülkelerin net katma değer ithalatçısı olduklarını göstermektedir. Güney Kore (yüzde 470) ulaşım araçlarında; Türkiye (yüzde 336), Hindistan (yüzde 226) ve Çin (yüzde 316) ise tekstil, deri ve ayakkabı ürünlerinde en yüksek oranlara sahiptir. The primary purpose of this study is to determine how much of selected Asian countries' and Turkey's exports is really made in these countries measuring sectoral vertical specialization and domestic value-added from harmonized international input-output table data. Second objective is to present changing patterns of international trade in both developed and developing countries, together with the responses of evolving trade theories and their analysis tools to these changes. Third objective is to find out some possible explanatory answers to what East Asian countries did different for the exceptional export-led industrialization paths (Asian miracle). Fourth objective is to investigate Turkey's export-oriented industrialization process with demonstrations of export developments and structural transformation. The last objective is to compare export performances of these countries multidimensionally, using the traditional and new analysis methods. By doing so, China and Asia effects are also examined. The global and country-specific outlooks of various sectoral and aggregated data and main findings from different analysis techniques can be summarized as follows: i) Export-oriented industrialization model is fundamental of economic development. ii) After substantial reductions in developing countries' trade barriers, their participations in international trading system have rapidly grown over the past two decades. iii) Both demand and supply side factors are important determinants of high export performance. iv) Global value chains have formed inter-sectoral and cross-border production networks, in which, numerous countries have been manufacturing with an international division of labor. This trade in tasks also implies mutual complementarity besides rising competitive pressures. v) Industrialization is principally a process of structural transformations and upgrades in production, export and employment. This requires 'acquired' competitive advantages rather than 'natural' comparative advantages, as East Asian countries carried out. vi) After a long neglect, industrial policies have become fashionable with the rising consensus that government interventions contributed to East Asian miracle. However, the applicability and success of especially excessive regulations are still controversial for other developing countries. vii) Foreign contents and value-added shares of production and export have rapidly increased since the 1990s in most global value chains. In this process, global trade in intermediate goods has grown much faster than in final goods. viii) What countries produce and export matter. In practice, the fact that countries producing and exporting more sophisticated components have more sustainable performance, confirms the importance of innovation. ix) Turkey has not only experienced a boom in its gross export but also increased its global export share in medium-level technological manufactures mainly like machinery and motor vehicles, while reducing that of traditional agriculture and labor intensive goods such as food and textile over time since the early-2000s. This transformation, for now, can be seemingly explained by developed countries' deindustrialization processes and sliding their production stages to the developing countries to benefit locational advantages. x) Because of multiple counting, caused by export and re-export of intermediate goods, standard gross trade statistics are unable to capture countries' net value-added and gains in their trades. Furthermore, the use of the intra-industry trade calculated taking into account only final goods and vertical specialization including just import content of export (excluding export content of import) are also limited. Therefore, measuring countries' trade in value added is for now seen the most appropriate method. xi) Turkey's import content of gross export is about 17 percent; the share of input import in total input demand is about 16 percent in 2002 and foreign value-added share of gross export is about 22 percent in 2009. xii) In 2009, domestic value-added shares of manufacturing industry for Turkey, South Korea, India and China are 74, 64, 76 and 74 percent and the rates of total value-added imports covered by total value-added exports are 79, 69, 67 and 51 percent, respectively. The latter values indicate that these countries are net value-added importers in their trades. South Korea (470 percent) has the highest ratio in transport equipment while Turkey (336 percent), India (226 percent) ve China (316 percent) have in textiles, leather and footwear products. 372

The advent of the development gap between the industrialized countries and the underdeveloped countries is explored through an examination of early attempts to industrialize in Latin America and the Middle East in the years 1770-1870. The beginning of the development gap can be dated to 1830-60, with the diffusion of the industrial revolution in Western Europe and the US. The periphery remained poorly defined and still enjoyed a significant degree of economic autonomy through 1870, but lowered cost of international freight, the increasing cost and technological complexity of machinery,and other factors after that date combined to assure increasing economic integration of nations. Latin America and the Middle East were selected for study because they were the only present-day developing regions to have developed modern industry before 1850-60 except for Bengal, which was already colonized by the British. The industrial revolution was a decisive development in the history of human societies, marked by a drastic acceleration of the rate of economic growth as much as by an unprecedented increase in inequality of development between countries. Societies bypassed by technological innovations thus seemed doomed sooner or later to depend on societies at the center of development. Third world contemporaries of the early industrial revolution appear to have been aware of this, and some peripheral states made serious efforts to avoid the worst forms of external dependence and to resist the deindustrialization, pauperization, and direct colonization of underdevelopment. 3 types of attempts at industrialization in Latin America and the Middle East before 1860-80 are distinguished and described, including partial and unsuccessful public efforts in several countries, isolated private initiatives going against prevailing trends in Mexico and Brazil, and industrial development directed step by step by the state in Egypt and Paraguay. It is argued that the model of industrialization in Egypt and Paraguay anticipated the Japanese experience in certain respects and would have had a good chance of success hand not devastating warfare destroyed the economics of both countries. The author explores 5 questions to assess the relevance of the Paraguayan and Egyptian model: 1) whether the natural environment of the 2 countries offered favorable conditions for modern factories, 2) whether peripheral states had the resources for financing a true industrialization policy, 3) whether the sociocultural context of the 2 countries would have permitted them to develop an industrial culture, 4) whether the West would have tolerated the competition implied by their economic development and industrialization, and 5) whether this model of industrialization was adjusted to the specific conditions of the periphery.