34. International Public Finance Conference

EnglishTürkçe

BÖLÜM


DOI :10.26650/PB/SS10.2019.001.047   IUP :10.26650/PB/SS10.2019.001.047    Tam Metin (PDF)

Factors Affecting the Use of Fiscally Protectionism Instruments Used in International Trade

Göksel Karaş, Ufuk Selen

Depending on the developments in the world, the presence of the state in the economy also changes. In the economic welfare periods, minimal state view is adopted, while in the periods of contraction and crisis the interventionist state view is adopted. The international trade system is also affected from this. In the periods when the minimal state view was adopted, the free trade system was the dominant paradigm and in the periods when the interventionist state view was adopted, protectionism was the dominant paradigm. These developments are shaped by the nation-states, which are the hegemonic power of the period. Such countries act with the discourse of “insinde Keynes outside Smith”, and on the one hand, do not hesitate to apply protectionist policies while making liberalization discourses around the world. Although the international trade system is based on the free trade system, protectionist policies are also implemented. In this context, protectionist instruments which allow World Trade Organization to use under certain constraints are used. These instruments can be grouped into two groups as protectionist instruments that are fiscally and non-fiscally qualified in terms of the effects they create in public finances. In this study, the factors affecting the use of fiscally protectionist instruments in international trade are analyzed on the basis of countries by negative binomial regression analysis. In this study, the data set of 16 countries covering the years 1995-2016 is used. While fiscally protection instruments are used for individual interests instead of macroeconomic targets by developed countries, they are predominantly used for macroeconomic targets by the low and middle-income countries.


Anahtar Kelimeler: Free Trade, Protectionism, Fiscally Protectionism Instruments, Negative Binomial Regression Analysis
JEL Sınıflandırması : F13 , O24 , P45

Referanslar

  • Abboushi, S. (2010). “Trade Protectionism: Reasons and Outcomes”, An International Business Journal, Vol. 20(5), pp.384-394. google scholar
  • Aggarwal, A. (2004). “Macro Economic Determinants of Antidumping: A Comparative Analysis of Developed and Developing Countries”, World Development, Vol. 32(6), pp.1943-1057. google scholar
  • Akalın, G. (2002). Türkiye’de Ekonomi – Politik Kriz ve Piyasa Ekonomisine Geçiş, Ankara, Akçağ Basım Yayım. google scholar
  • Bhagwati, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalization, New York, Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Bown, C. P. (2008). “The WTO and Antidumping in Developing Countries”, Economics & Politics, Vol. 20(2), pp.255-288. google scholar
  • Büyüktaşkın, Ş. (1997). Dünya Ticaret Sistemi (GATT, DTÖ ve Türkiye), http://www.senerbuyuktaskin. com/dunya-ticaret-sistemi-gatt-dunya-ticaret-orgutu-ve-turkiye/, (05.10.2017). google scholar
  • Engin, N. (1992). Uluslararası Ticarette Korumacı Eğilimler, İstanbul, İTO Yayın No: 1992-4. google scholar
  • Finger, J.M., Hall, H. K. & Nelson, D. R. (1982). “The Political Economy of Administered Protection”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 72(3), pp.452-466. google scholar
  • Fouda, R. A. N. (2012). “Protectionism and Free Trade: A Country’s Glory or Doom?”, International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 3(5), pp.351-355. google scholar
  • Knetter, M. M. & Prusa, T. J. (2003). “Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence Form Four Countries”, Journal of International Economics, 61, pp.1-17. google scholar
  • Krugman, P. (1983). “New Theories of Trade Among Industrial Countries”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 73(2), pp.343-347. google scholar
  • Osabuohien, E., Efobi, U. R. & Beecroft, I. (2014). “Free Trade, Protectionism and the Balance of Trade: New Empirical Insights”, Beggar-Thy-Poor-Neighbour: Crisis-Era Protectionism and Developing Countries, (Ed.) Evenett, S. J., London, CEPR Press, pp.13-24. google scholar
  • Robertson, D. (1972). International Trade Policy, UK, Macmillan Education. Seyidoğlu, H. (2003). Uluslararası İktisat, 15. Baskı, İstanbul, Güzem Can Yayınları. google scholar
  • Solow, R. M. (1956). “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 70(1), pp.65-94. google scholar
  • Türkcan, K. & Dişbudak, C. (2005). “Antidamping Uygulamalarının Ekonometrik Analizi: Türkiye Örneği”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, C. 20(233), ss.149-164. google scholar
  • Vural, İ. Y. (1999). “İthalatta Vergi Uygulamaları ve Korumacılık”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 1(1), ss.183-202. google scholar
  • Watts, M. (1992). Piyasa Ekonomisi Nedir?, (Çev.) Köker, L., Ankara, Türk Demokrasi Vakfı. google scholar
  • Winters, L. A. (2004). “Trade Liberalisation And Economic Performance: An Overview”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 114(2), pp.4-21. google scholar


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.