Pandeminin Sektörel Maliyetleri: Ticarete Açık Olmanın Rolü Nedir?
Cem Çakmaklı, Selva Demiralp, Sevcan Yeşiltaş, Muhammed Ali YıldırımBu çalışmada pandemi döneminde oluşan şokların ülkeler üzerinde sektörel düzeyde maliyetleri incelenmiş, bu maliyetlerin ülkelerin ve sektörlerin dış ticarete açıklığıyla ilişkisi analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada sektörel seviyede arz ve talep ilişkilerini ele alan bir model kullanılmıştır. Bu modelde OECD ülkelerarası girdi-çıktı tablosu kullanılarak ülkeler ve sektörler arasındaki ekonomik bağlantılar kullanılarak arz ve talep taraflı şokların ekonomi üzerine etkisi ölçülmektedir. Arz ve talep yanlı şoklar pandeminin gidişatına bağlı olarak hesaplanmış daha sonra bu şokların sektörlere etkisi ele alınmıştır. Bu etkiler incelenirken özellikle ülkelerin dışa açıklığı yani ülkelerin Gayrisafi Yurtiçi Hasılası (GSYH) içinde ihracat ve ithalatın payları göz önüne alınmıştır. Pandeminin ülke ekonomilerine dış ticaret yoluyla etkisi ihracat ve ithalat kanallarıyla olmak üzere iki yönlüdür. İhracat açısından bakıldığında, pandemi döneminde ticaret ortaklarında gözlenen ekonomik yavaşlama dışa açık bir ülkenin ihracat imkanlarını da yavaşlatmaktadır. İthalat açısından bakıldığında ise pandemi döneminde üretimde yaşanan aksamalar tedarik zincirleri vasıtasıyla tüm dünyaya sirayet ederek ithal girdilerin tedariğinde sorunlara sebep olmuştur. Bu bağlamda bu makalede elde edilen sonuçlar da dışa açık ülkelerin pandemi döneminde daha ağır ekonomik kayıplar yaşadıklarını göstermektedir. Bu sonuç, dışa açık olan ülkelerin pandemi kaynaklı talep daralması ve tedarik zinciri sorunlarına daha fazla maruz kalmaları ile tutarlıdır. Bu bulgu özellikle farklı dışa açıklık yapısı olan Türkiye ve Brezilya örnekleri üzerinden gösterilmiştir. Ticarete açıklığı yüksek bir gelişen pazar olan Türkiye ve görece daha kapalı olan Brezilya arasında pandemi dönemi maliyetlerini karşılaştırdığımızda Türkiye için hesaplanan maliyetlerin daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuçlara daha ayrıntılı baktığımızda, Türkiye’de arz sıkıntıları nedeni ile sektörel maliyetlerin genele yayıldığı, üretiminde ithal ara malına bağımlılığı yüksek olan gayrimenkul, inşaat, imalat gibi sektörlerde kayıpların Brezilya’dan daha yüksek olduğu gözlenmektedir. Benzer bir karşılaştırmayı iki gelişmiş ülke olan ABD ve Hollanda arasında yaptığımızda da dışa açıklığı yüksek olan Hollanda’nın daha yüksek maliyet ödediği gözlenmiştir.
The Sectoral Costs of the Pandemic: What is the Role of Openness?
Cem Çakmaklı, Selva Demiralp, Sevcan Yeşiltaş, Muhammed Ali YıldırımThis study investigates the sectoral costs of the shocks during the pandemic period and analyzes the relationship of these costs with the openness of countries and sectors to trade. We use a model that focuses on the demand and supply side relations at the sectoral level. This model measures the effect of supply and demand-side shocks on the economy by exploiting the economic linkages between countries and their sectors using OECD Intercountry InputOutput tables. We compute supply and demand-side shocks concerning the course of the pandemic, and we consider the effects of these shocks on the sectors. The openness of the countries, or the proportions of exports and imports in the GDP of the countries, was taken into consideration when analyzing these effects. The pandemic’s impact on the nation’s economies through trade, such as through import and export channels, is bidirectional. When it comes to exports, the economic downturn seen among trading partners during the pandemic era likewise reduces an open country’s export potential. From the point of view of imports, the disruptions in production and supply chains during the pandemic period spread to the whole world through supply chains and caused problems in the supply of imported inputs. In this context, the results obtained in this article show that open countries have experienced heavier economic losses during the pandemic period. This result is consistent with the fact that open countries are more exposed to demand contraction and supply chain problems due to the pandemic. This finding is demonstrated by considering Turkey and Brazil as two examples, which have different openness structures. When we compare the costs of the pandemic period between Turkey, which is an emerging market with a high openness to trade, and Brazil, which is a relatively closed economy, it is seen that the costs computed for Turkey are higher. When we focus on the results in more detail, we observe that the sectoral costs are widespread in Turkey due to supply problems, and losses in sectors such as real estate, construction, and manufacturing, which have a high dependence on imported intermediate goods in their production, are higher than in Brazil. When we compare the US and the Netherlands, two developed countries, we find that the Netherlands, with its high level of openness, has higher costs.
In this paper, we utilize the framework developed in Çakmaklı, Demiralp, Kalemli-Özcan, Yeşiltaş, and Yıldırım (2020) to calculate the sectoral costs. Our objective is to determine how sectoral costs are impacted by openness or the ratios of exports and imports in the GDP. To determine the role of openness in sectoral costs during the pandemic, we compare the costs between countries that are open and relatively closer in terms of share of trade in the GDP. We first split countries into two groups: Advanced Economies (AE) and Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDE). We assume that AEs are less vulnerable to health shocks. Thus, the pandemic is successfully contained for this group. In contrast, EMDEs are more sensitive to the progress of the pandemic and have to deal with the pandemic and its health-related and economic consequences. Separating the countries in this manner allows us to evaluate the heterogeneous nature of the health shock. Two representative countries were selected from each group depending on trade openness. From the EMDE group, we pick Turkey, which is an open emerging market economy, and Brazil, which is a relatively closed emerging market economy. We then make a similar selection for the AEs. This time we pick the US, which is a relatively closed economy versus the Netherlands, which is a more open economy.
The COVID-19 shock was unexpected and severe. The world was caught unprepared as countries hastily put together policies to curb the spread of the virus, contain the financial panic, and offset the economic contraction all at the same time. In Çakmaklı, Demiralp, Kalemli-Özcan, Yeşiltaş, and Yıldırım (2020), a framework is developed that illustrates the economic costs of the pandemic. Accordingly, a country’s pandemic not only impacts its production and employment as a pure domestic supply shock, but it also impacts the production of intermediate inputs imported by other countries.
The sectoral costs for the EMDEs are the highest for those sectors that are more severely affected by the domestic pandemic conditions such as accommodation and food services, arts and entertainment, or real estate. The decline in demand caused by the fear factor in these nations where the pandemic is unregulated is mostly reflected in the economic losses in these sectors. We see a different sectoral breakdown when we look at AEs. Because the domestic drag from the pandemic is eliminated in these countries, the sectors that bear the highest economic costs are those that are more exposed to trade with EMDEs countries such as textiles and apparel, transportation and storage, basic metals, wholesale and retail, or agriculture and fishing. These sectors are either sizable importers of inputs or are connected to other industries that are major importers of inputs.
Within the hardest hit sectors for AEs, wholesale and retail or transportation and storage are non-tradable sectors. The wholesale and retail sectors use oil as a major input. A fair amount of the inputs utilized in the manufacture of coke and refined petroleum, mainly through mining, are imported. Additionally, there are clear nonlinearities where the oil industry is linked to chemicals and pharmaceuticals, which are two industries that were dramatically affected by the pandemic. Turning to transportation and storage, which is another non-tradable sector, the costs borne by this sector are largely explained by the sizable contraction in the motor vehicles sector.
The real estate sector in the Netherlands and the construction sector in the US appear to be outlier sectors that experience disproportionate losses compared to other AEs. When we take a closer look at these sectors, we observe their exposure EMDEs more clearly. The real estate industry in the Netherlands has almost 30 percent of its mining inputs obtained from EMDEs, which experiences a significant decline during the pandemic We see similar declines in basic metals, rubber, and plastic. For the US, the imports of basic metals and electrical equipment from EMDEs as intermediate inputs have reduced significantly. We observe that the countries that are more open to trade bear higher economic costs. More specifically, within two AEs such as the Netherlands and the US, we observe that the sectoral costs are generally higher in the Netherlands compared to the US, consistent with more trade exposure. Comparing the sectoral costs for two EMDE countries reveals a similar picture. In comparison to Brazil, Turkey is more open to trade. Consequently, Turkish sectoral expenses are often greater than Brazilian ones.
