ChapterPDF Available

THE SECTORIAL AND PROVINCE BASED ANALYSIS OF BOTH DYNAMIC AND STATIC REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OF TURKEY

Abstract and Figures

Abstract Globalization increased the importance of export competitiveness. The Balassa index (1965) tries to identify whether a country possesses a ‘revealed’ comparative advantage through analyzing relative export performance, instead of determining the underlying other sources of comparative advantage. Against the criticism for static RCA for failure to capture the changing competitiveness over time, Edwards and Schoer (2002) developed the dynamic RCA index to analyze the changing structure of a country’s trade relative to world market over time. In this study, national static and dynamic indexes according to ISIC Rev.(3) sectors were calculated for 2011-2015 periods for Turkey. Then, province based dynamic export performance has been calculated for ISIC Rev. (3) for the sectors above unity at national level for the periods for both 2011-2012 and 2017-2018. The results show that 15 sectors have over unity static RCA scores for whole 2001-2015 period which are: 1, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36, 37. However dynamic RCA shows that while world trade volume are increasing, Turkey’s export share is decreasing at a national level for these sectors. According to dynamic RCA results just 4 sectors; 5, 18, 21, 36 and 37; are in rising star category for the consecutive period for both 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Province based results show that both statistically and dynamically competitive sectors are 5, 18, 21, 36, 37 and just dynamically sectors are 19 and 24. Öz Küreselleşme, ihracatta rekabet gücünün önemini arttırmıştır. Balassa indeksi (1965) karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğü yaratan sebepleri inceleme konusu yapmadan ülkelerin ihracat performanslarını analiz ederek karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğe sahip olup olmadıklarını belirlemeye çalışmaktadır. Edwards ve Schoer (2002) bir ülkenin ticaretini zaman içinde dünya pazarına göre değişen yapısını analiz ederek dinamik RCA indeksini geliştirmişlerdir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye'nin statik ve dinamik RCA indeksleri ISIC Rev. 3 sektör sınıflandırmasına göre 2011-2015 dönemi için hesaplanmıştır. Daha sonra illerin dinamik ihracat performansları 2011-2012 ve 217-2018 dönemleri için hesaplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, Türkiye'nin 15 sektörde 1'den büyük statik RCA indeks değerine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu sektörler, 1, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36 ve 37'dir. Diğer yandan Dinamik RCA sonuçları bu sektörlerde dünya ticaret hacmi genişlerken Türkiye'nin ihracat payının azaldığını göstermketedir. Dinamik RCA sonuçları sadece 4 sektörün (5, 8, 21, 36) hem 2013-2014 hem de 2014-2015 dönemlerinde rising star kategorisinde yer aldığını göstermektedir. İl düzeyinde yapılan analiz sonuçlarına göre 5, 18, 21, 36-37 nolu sektörler hem statik hem de dinamik rekabetçi yapıya sahip iken 19 ve 24 nolu sektörler ise dinamik rekabetçi yapıya sahiplerdir.
Content may be subject to copyright.





Editör:
Prof. Dr. Serdar ÖGE


 Prof. Dr. Serdar ÖGE
 Yusuf Ziya Aydoğan (yza@egitimyayinevi.com)
 Yusuf Yavuz (yusufyavuz@egitimyayinevi.com)
 Eğitim Yayınevi Grafik Birimi
 Eğitim Yayınevi Grafik Birimi
T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
47830
978-625-8468-27-4
1. Baskı, Aralık 2021

Bulut Dijital Matbaa Sanayi Ticaret Limited Şirketi
Musalla Bağları Mah. İnciköy Sok. 1/A Selçuklu / KONYA
Matbaa Sertifika No: 48120



 Prof. Dr. Serdar ÖGE
649 s., 165x240 mm
Kaynakça var, dizin yok.
ISBN: 978-625-8468-27-4
Copyright © Bu kitabın Türkiye’deki her türlü yayın hakkı Eğitim Yayınevi’ne aittir. Bütün
hakları saklıdır. Kitabın tamamı veya bir kısmı 5846 sayılı yasanın hükümlerine göre
kitabı yayımlayan firmanın ve yazarlarının önceden izni olmadan elektronik/mekanik
yolla, fotokopi yoluyla ya da herhangi bir kayıt sistemi ile çoğaltılamaz, yayımlanamaz.
 İstanbul: Eğitim Yayınevi Tic. Ltd. Şti., Atakent mah. Yasemen sok.
No: 4/B, Ümraniye, İstanbul, Türkiye
Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi Tic. Ltd. Şti., Fevzi Çakmak Mah. 10721 Sok. B Blok, No: 16/B,
Safakent, Karatay, Konya, Türkiye
+90 332 351 92 85, +90 533 151 50 42, 0 332 502 50 42
bilgi@egitimyayinevi.com
New York: Egitim Publishing Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 768/Armonk, New York, 10504-0768, United States of America
americaoffice@egitimyayinevi.com
: Kitapmatik Lojistik ve Sevkiyat Merkezi, Fevzi Çakmak Mah.
10721 Sok. B Blok, No: 16/B, Safakent, Karatay, Konya, Türkiye
sevkiyat@egitimyayinevi.com
 Eğitim Kitabevi, Şükran mah. Rampalı 121, Meram, Konya, Türkiye
+90 332 499 90 00
bilgi@egitimkitabevi.com
 www.kitapmatik.com.tr
+90 537 512 43 00
bilgi@kitapmatik.com.tr

 
Büşra KESİCİ
 
Gülşah ŞENTÜRK

 
Sibel ÖRK ÖZELÇiğdem KOŞAR T
 
Seda GÜĞERÇİN
 
Bülent Darıcıİclal ÜNÜVAR

 
Mustafa Salim EREK

 
Dr. Öğr. Üye. İrem PELİT — Prof. Dr. Cuma BOZKURT

 
Fatma Fehime AYDINCemalettin LEVENT
 
Mehmet Fatih BURAK

 
Zehra TÜRK

 
Nurten ŞANVER — H. Işıl ALKAN
 
Aytaç ERDEM
 
Yücel ERGÜN

 
Uğur KAYA — Fatih YILDIRIM

 
Yusuf GÜNEYSU — Oğuz Yusuf ATASEL — Hüseyin ÜNAL
 
Gülden KARAKUŞ

 
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Türkmen Taşer AKBAŞ — Prof. Dr. Sabahat BAYRAK KÖK

 
Gamze SEVİMLİ ÖRGÜN
 
Songül DEMİREL DEĞİRMENCİ — Süreyya YALÇIN KUŞÇU
 
Dr. Handan BOYALI — Ceren DEMİR

 
Orhan DEMİR — Ferit KÜÇÜK

 
Mehmet Tahir KARABOĞA
 
Ebubekir BOZAVLI
L 
Gülşah PARLAK KALKAN

 
Halil TUNCA — Sevcan GÜNEŞ

 
Ömer Yavuz ÖZASLAN — Gönül CENGİZ
 
Özge KAYTAN

 
Selver MERTOĞLU

 
Halis YILMAZ
 
Şaziye Ceren ULUPINAR

 
Muhammet Ali KÖROĞLU

 
Fatih KARCIOĞLU — Ceyhun SERÇEMELİ

 
Alpaslan ALPASLANOĞLU

 
Esma IRMAK — Cuma BOZKURT
 
M. Uluç CEYLANİ — Ahmet S. YILDIZ — Uğur GÜNAY YAVUZ

 
Türker ELİT
 
Kadriye HOCAOĞLU ALAGÖZ
 
Cüneyt ÇATUK


Halil TUNCA1 — Sevcan GÜNEŞ2

The globalization and application of liberal trade policies result in reduction of trade
barriers which increase importance of the competitive position of the countries in
the world market. There is no generally accepted approach regarding the denition,
determinants, and measurement methods of international competitiveness level of
the countries. While some studies focus on the advantage of having natural resources
or cost-ecient manufacturing, some others highlight the existence of clusters,
agglomeration, technological development, or achieving high growth rate and export
performance (Husted and Melvin, 2010). In this framework, competitiveness is
generally linked to relative comparative advantage. In general relative comparative
advantage is referred to as a country’s ability to produce and export a good at a
lower opportunity cost than its trading partner (Ekmen-Özçelik and Erlat, 2013:47).
Balassa (1965) dened revealed comparative advantage (RCA) with relative export
advantage of a certain country in a certain goods as compared to total trade ows.
RCA index tries to identify whether a country possesses a ‘revealed’ comparative
advantage, instead of determining the underlying other sources of comparative
advantage. To achieve relative success in export performance, a country’s exports
should rise more than global trade volume in concerned good.
Revealed Comparative Advantage index can be formulated as follows;
1 Dr. Öğr.Üyesi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, İİBF, İktisat Bölümü, ORCID: 0000-0002-1449-940X, htunca@pau.edu.tr
2 Prof. Dr., Pamukkale Üniversitesi, İİBF, İktisat Bölümü, ORCID: 0000-0001-8367-8965, sgunes@pau.edu.tr
410 
RCA: “revealed” comparative advantage index of i’th country in j’th product.
Xij : exports of i’th country in j’th product
Xi : total export value of the i’th country
Xwj : total world export of j’th product
Xw : total world export
Index value ranges between 0 and ∞. An index value greater than 1 indicates that
the country has a comparative advantage in the concerned product. But if the index
value is below 1, this indicates the country has comparative disadvantage for the
concerned good. In this context, to achieve an increase in competitiveness, country’s
export share have to increase more than the world trade share for concerned goods
or services.
Against the criticism for static RCA about the failure to capture the changing
competitiveness over time, Edwards and Schoer (2002) developed the dynamic
RCA index to analyze the changing structure of South African trade relative to world
market over time. This dynamic revealed advantage index is built by decomposing
the growth in RCA into several components. Formally, by taking the logs of
the conventional RCA index and then calculated by getting total dierentiation.
Edwards and Schoer (2002) decomposed the growth in the RCA index as follows:
The ∆ symbol in this formula indicate the change between two years. So the rst
term in this formula shows the change in the export of product j of country i in two
consecutive years. As a result, the rst part on the right hand side of this equation
shows that export growth of country i in j’th product and second part shows world
export growth in j’th product while the term on the left side indicates growth of
RCA index of country i.
Observing the relative trends in the share of commodity j in the country i and the
world exports, Edwards and Schoer (2002) analyze the dynamics of market position
which is summarized in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Dynamic RCA Position of The Country
Share of commodity J in
country i’s exports
Share of commodity J
in world exports
INCREASE > ⇑ INCREASE Rising Stars
INCREASE > ⇓ DECREASE Falling Stars
DECREASE > ⇓ DECREASE Lagging Retreat
411

DECREASE < ⇓ DECREASE Leading Retreat
INCREASE < ⇑ INCREASE Lagging
Opportunity
DECREASE < ⇑ INCREASE Lost Opportunity
Source: Edward and Schoer (2002)
As it is seen from Table 1, employing the dynamic RCA index, export of the
specic goods in the dynamic market positioning are categorized into the following
six groups:
Rising stars: If a country’s share rises in the world market more than the rise in
the share of a commodity in world’s total exports. This is the most preferred location
for a country since the market share of the country is increasing for commodity by
virtue of its increasing global demand.
Falling stars: If country’s export share rises while the concerned goods share in
worldwide exports is falling
Lagging retreat: If a country’s export share falls more than the fall in the share of
a product in the world market;
Leading retreat: If a country’s share falls less than the fall in the share of a product
in the world market;
Lagging opportunity: If a country’s share rises, but less than the rise in the share
of a product in world exports;
Lost opportunity: If a country’s share falls while the share of worldwide exports
is rising. This is the least favorable position for a country.
Following Edwards and Schoer (2002), Ekmen-Ozcelik and Erlat (2013) studies,
Turkish sectorial export competitiveness were calculated in this study by employing
both static and dynamic RCA. Dynamic RCA enables to evaluate the changes
in RCA by comparing the values between an initial and following years. In this
study, national static and dynamic indexes by sectors were calculated for 2011-
2015 periods. Besides, to nd out regional comparative advantage province based
dynamic comparative advantage has been calculated for the specic sectors (ISI
Rev.3) for both 2011-2012 and 2017-2018 period.
The questions answered in this paper include: (i) Which sectors have dynamic
and static advantages in Turkey at national level? and (ii) Which provinces have
dynamic competitive advantage in which sectors?
The rest of the paper is structured in three parts. The rst part provides a review of
literature that provides summary about the studies of Turkish export competitiveness.
The second part present static and dynamic sectorial comparative advantage at both
national and province based level. The third part discuss and concludes the results.
412 

There is huge literature that calculate comparative advantage and compare export
performance across countries. These studies dier from each other by sectors,
periods and investigated country groups. In addition, Balassa’s RCA index is still
commonly employed in literature despite the fact that many indexes were used in
these studies.
Aynagöz-Çakmak (2005) employed Balassa’s RCA index and Vollrath’s
competitiveness index in her study investigating the comparative advantage
of Turkey’s textile and clothing industry. Altay and Gürpınar (2008) used four
dierent index values in their study which examine the Turkish furniture industry.
Yalcinkaya et al. (2014) investigated Turkey’s competitiveness against China
based on the ISIC Rev.4 classication for the period 2002-2013. Kalaycı (2017)
analyzed for period 2012-2016, Turkey’s comparative advantage in made foreign
trade with countries by which a free trade agreement was signed. Karaalp (2011)
examined the comparative advantages between Turkey and the Commonwealth of
Independent States by considering 16 dierent goods groups. Yılmaz and Ergun
(2003) investigated the international competitiveness of 6 EU candidate countries
which Turkey, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Czech Republic. The
results obtained from the study, in which 6 dierent index numbers were calculated,
show that there are signicant dierences between candidate countries and EU
countries. Ferman, Akgüngör and Yüksel (2004) said that most important rivals of
Turkey in the EU market are China and India. Findings also indicate that Turkey
has comparative advantage in labor intensive and easily imitable goods, but it has
comparative disadvantage in dicult imitable goods. Utkulu and Seymen (2004)
examined Turkey’s comparative advantage against EU by using several indexes.
Findings shows that Turkey has comparative advantage for seven of the 63 product
groups. Paper also assert that competitiveness for some goods lossed due to the
Custom Union.
Erlat and Erlat (2005) analyzed Turkey’s comparative advantage versus EU-15
countries for 1990-2000. Considering the exports of sectors with an RCA index
greater than one, it is seen that the dominant sector for Turkey is labor-intensive
goods.
As mentioned before, the time period and sectors that are used in empirical
models for revealed comparative advantage varies widely however there are few
studies analyzing dynamic RCA.
Jayawickrama and Thangavelu (2010), examined the comparative advantages
between Singapore, China and India by employing RCA and dynamic RCA.
Their ndings indicate that China and India have comparative advantage in most
manufactured goods. Kathuria (2018), analyzed the comparative advantages of
India, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Turkey in the textile and clothing industry
using RCA and dynamic RCA indices for the year of 2003 and 2013. Krisiukeniene
413

and Pilinkiene (2020) investigated and compared the competitiveness of creative
industries of the 28 EU countries. Their ndings indicate that RCA index is
increasing over the period 2004-2017. And dynamic RCA index results show that
France, Poland, Slovakia and Spain has comparative advantages in creative sector
and these countries specied as “rising stars”.
Edward and Schoer’s (2002) pioneer study for dynamic RCA is rst applied by
Ekmen- Özcelik and Erlat (2013). Labor Intensive Goods (LIG) category in the
Turkey has the highest share in total export which fall in the category of “rising
stars”. And second-highest share of sector has the “lagging retreat”. This is indicate
that share of sector which is substantial part of Turkey exports getting decline in EU
market.
Ekmen-Özçelik (2015) research Turkey’s export performance in Greece market
and Greece’s export performance in Turkish market by using RCA and dynamic
RCA index. Findings of the paper indicate that % 35.4 of Turkey’s total exports to
Greece fall in the category of “rising stars” and % 19.4 in “lost opportunity”. On the
other hand, % 63.9 of Greece’s total exports to Turkey fall in the category “lagging
opportunity” and only % 9.3 in “rising stars”.
Gunes and Tan (2017) calculated and compared both static and dynamic RCA
for the 14 common sectors for both Turkey and Russia for the year 2007-2010 and
2011-2014. RCA results show that Russia is more disadvantageous than Turkey
in static terms, however Russia has more sectors in the rising star category While
Turkey has dynamic comparative advantage for six sectors, Russia has dynamic
comparative advantage for 11 sectors.
This study follows Ekmen-Ozcelik and Erlat’s (2013) and Güneş and Tan’s
(2017) approaches by calculating Balassa’s (1965) static RCA and Edwards and
Shoer’s (2002) dynamic RCA index. This study is also dierent in its scope that it
focuses on not only national but also province based regional exports of ISIC Rev.3
sectors for the time period 2011-2012 and 2017-2018. From this aspect, as far as we
know, it is the rst study in the national literature.

With regards to measurement of RCA index, while some studies measure RCA
at the global level, some others measure RCA at a sub-global/regional level. This
study focus on both sectorial static and dynamic RCA at both national and regional
level for 2011-2018 time periods.
We employ national and world trade data from International Trade Center and
province based data taken from Turkish Statistical Institute. Following Edwards and
Schoer (2002) method, sectorial Turkish exports of provinces have been classied
according to their dynamic market positions. Besides that sectorial revealed
compared advantage is calculated.
414 
In our approach, thus, we compare not only “the increase or decrease in the share
of the product in the provinces within Turkey’s total exports” but also “the increase
or decrease in the share of that product in Turkey total exports to relative to world.
- If province’s (country’s) share is rising in Turkey (world) more than the rise
in the share of this product in total Turkey sectorial (world) exports, then we
classify this province is in a “rising star” category. This is the most preferred
position for a province (country) since the market share of the province
(country) is increasing in products for which demand is growing.
- If province’s share is rising but less than the rise in the share of this product
in Turkey sectorial exports, then we classify this as a “lagging opportunity.”
- If province’s share is falling less than the fall in the share of this product in
the Turkey sectorial exports, it is called a “leading retreat.”
- If province’s share is falling more than the fall in the share of this product in
the Turkey sectorial exports, it is called a “lagging retreat.”
- If province’s share is rising while the share in Turkey sectorial exports is
falling, it is called a “falling star.”
- If province’s share is falling while the share in Turkey sectorial exports is
rising, it is called a “lost opportunity.” This is the least favorable position for
the province.
The cases of “rising stars” and “lagging opportunity” are evaluated as “successful
restructuring of exports”, while the cases of “falling stars”, “lagging retreat” and
“lost opportunity” are evaluated as “poor restructuring of exports”.
When Turkey’s static RCA is considered sectors which have competitiveness in
international market are as following: (1), (5), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (21), (25),
(26), (27), (28), (34), (36), (37). These sectors share in total export of Turkey is 73 %
for the year 2015. When dynamic RCA is taken into consideration just 5 sectors; (5),
(18), (21) and (36-37); are in rising star category for the two consecutive period for
2013-2014 and 2014-2015 for Turkey. These sectors share in total export of Turkey
constitute 20 % for the year 2015. Although Turkey has 15 static comparatively
advantageous, over unity RCA sectors, just 5 of them in rising star category (5, 18,
21, 36 and 37). The sectors (19), (24) and (30) are also in rising star category with
RCA value below unity which can be seen Table 2 and Table 4 in the appendix.
When national sectorial static and dynamic position of Turkey is taken into
consideration, Turkey’s export performance is increasing but this increase in trade
volume is not dominated by the dynamically comparative advantage goods. For
instance sectors (14), (15), (16), (27) export share is increasing in Turkey but
global demand is decreasing (falling star) in these sectors. This situation may create
problems to achieve further increase in trade volume in the future. When other over
unity RCA sectors’ (1, 17, 25, 26, 28 and 34) dynamic RCA is analyzed, it is seen
that world trade volume is increasing but Turkey’s export share is decreasing (lost
415

opportunity) for these sectors. The problems that prevent the increase in share of
export in these sector should be investigated with detail because the locomotive
sectors like Textile (17) and motor vehicles (34) are in this group for the year
2015. Sectorial dynamic comparative advantage results can be seen Table 4 in the
Appendix.
At regional level; which provinces show more competitive performance in these
rising star sectors has been investigated through dynamic RCA value of provinces
for the period of both 2011-2012 and 2017-2018. The existence of province-based
data give opportunity to extend the analysis from 2015 to 2018. Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8
in Appendix show the provinces in the rising star category in both or just one period
for the sectors already having over unity RCA.
None of the provinces are in rising star category for statically over unity RCA
sectors (5) and (18). Although it is in the rising star category in sector number 30,
it is not included in the analysis due to its very low (almost equal to zero) static
RCA scores. Despite the fact that their static RCA scores are below unity, the
sector (19) and (24) is in the rising star category for Turkey for the two consecutive
periods:2013-2014 and 2014-2015. So, besides sectors (21) and (36); the sectors
(19) and (24) are also included into this analysis. In sum province based results
show that both statistically and dynamically competitive sectors are (21) and (36);
just dynamically competitive sectors are (19) and (24).
When we look at Figure.1 which shows Turkey map for sector Paper (21), it is
seen that dynamically competitive provinces are increasing. Economic geography
is important because neighbour provinces are in rising star category in 2017-2018.It
can be said that production in this sector has been spreading all over the country. For
the sector (21), 35 provinces are in the rising star, 36 provinces in lost opportunity
and 1 province in the lagging opportunity categories in 2011-2012, while in the
2017-2018 period, 30 provinces are in the rising star, 40 provinces lost opportunity
and 3 provinces in lagging opportunity categories. It seems that Turkey has tendency
to loose its export performance by time in the sector (21) especially at the provincial
level.
When the provinces in the rising star category were examined in detail, it is seen
that the static RCA indexes of Adana, Gaziantep, Istanbul, Izmir, Mardin and Iğdır
are greater than 1 in all analyzed years. However, only Gaziantep is in the rising star
class in both 2011-2012 and 2017-2018. Static RCA value of Antalya, Diyarbakır,
Edirne, Hakkari, Kırklareli, Kütahya, Manisa, Şanlıurfa, Tekirdağ, Van, Yozgat,
Ardahan, Yalova, Kilis and Düzce at least in one period are greater than 1. Although
the static RCA indexes of all provinces other than these provinces are lower than
1, they are in the rising star class as a result of the proportional improvements in
export performances. The static RCA scores of Çorum, Erzurum, Gümüşhane,
Osmaniye, Kars and Kahramanmaraş are higher than 1, it is seen that they are in the
lost opportunity category.
416 
Figure 1: Geographical Distribution of Provinces in The Rising Star Class in Sector Paper (21)
Source: Own calculation
Compared to Paper (21), Furniture (36) competitiveness is robust as it is seen
in Figure 2. Contiguity of provinces is important. Agglomeration, clusters may
decrease production cost and increase competitiveness in this sector. So, 44 and 42
provinces have been rising stars category in 2011-2012 and 2017-18, respectively.
It is seen that the static RCA scores of Bursa, Çorum, Sivas, Tekirdağ, Van,
Bartın and Kilis are higher than 1. On the other hand, the static RCA scores of
approximately 66% of the provinces which are already in the rising star category
(can be seen in appendix 4) are less than 1. While the static RCA scores of Adana,
Bolu, Istanbul, Kayseri and Düzce provinces are higher than 1, they are not in the
rising star category. Istanbul is in Lagging opportunity and other provinces are in
the Lost opportunity category. Other provinces other than Istanbul are considered as
“poor restructuring of exports” for sector 36.
Figure 2: Geographical Distribution of Provinces in The Rising Star Class in Sector Furniture (36)
Source: Own calculation
It is seen in Figure3. Leather (19) production dynamically competitive and its
competitiveness is spreading whole around neighbor provinces as well. It is seen
417

that 33 provinces are in the rising star category in both 2011-2012 and 2017-
2018 periods. Static RCA scores of Bolu, Gaziantep, Istanbul, Izmir, Niğde, Uşak
and Bartın are higher than 1. In addition to these provinces, static RCA scores of
Kırklareli, Konya, Siirt, Tekirdağ, Van, Kırıkkale, Batman, Şırnak, Iğdır, Yalova,
Kilis and Osmaniye are higher than 1 in at least one year. 28 provinces in 2011-2012
and 35 provinces in 2017-2018 were in the lost opportunity category. The static
RCA scores of 64% of the provinces in the rising star category are less than 1. This
situation shows that the dynamic competitive structures of the provinces in sector
number 19 are weakening.
It is observed that Ağrı, Çorum, Erzurum, Mardin, Yozgat and Şanlıurfa are not
in the rising star category, although static RCA scores are higher than 1. While Ağrı
is in the Lagging opportunity category, other provinces are in the Lost opportunity
category, This situation indicates that despite having a competitive infrastructure,
provinces have started to lose their competitive power over time.
Figure 3: Geographical Distribution of Provinces in The Rising Star Class in Sector Leather (19)
Source: Own calculation
Although chemical sector (24) RCA value is less than unity but its export share
is increasing both in most of the provinces and country level. That’s why this sector
can be considered as one of the most important sectors which will contribute to
increase in export volume in following years. Although there isn’t any province
in the rising star category for 2011-2012 period, there is a substantial increase in
certain geographical locations for the period 2017-2018. Chemical production is
done in industrial zones because of its pollution capacity. These zones production
capacity may increase in following years. Because world trade share of chemical
production is increasing.
In the 2017-2018 period, only the static RCA scores of Istanbul, Ağrı, Kocaeli
and Niğde among the 31 provinces included in the rising star category are higher
than 1. Having RCA scores greater than 1 in the 2011-2012 period, Adana, Artvin,
Erzurum, Uşak are in the Leading retreat category, Ankara and Isparta are in the
Lagging retreat category, and Hakkari, Izmir and Rize are in the Falling stars
category. In the 2017-2018 period, Adana, Bitlis, Çorum, Erzurum, Gaziantep,
418 
Isparta, İzmir, Nevşehir, Sivas, Yozgat, Kırıkkale and Batman, among the provinces
with RCA scores greater than 1, are in the Lost opportunity category, while Tekirdağ
and Iğdır are in the Lagging opportunity category.
Figure 4: Geographical Distribution of Provinces in The Rising Star Class in Sector Chemical (24)
Source: Own calculation
No province is in the rising star category in sectors Fishing (5) and Apparel (18)
where the static RCA score is greater than 1. In sector (5), in 2011-2012, 8 provinces
are in the category of falling star, 9 provinces in leading retreat and 3 provinces in
lagging retreat. In the 2017-2018 period, 14 provinces are in the falling star category
and 14 provinces are in the lagging retreat. Balıkesir, Isparta and İzmir, which stand
out with their export performances, are included in the falling star category in both
periods. Çanakkale and Mersin are in the falling star category in 2011-2012 and
leading retreat in 2017-2018. Hatay and Muğla lagging retreat in 2011-2012 and
leading retreat category in 2017-2018. Sinop is in the leading retreat category in
both periods.
Production in sector (18) spread over almost the whole country. While 34
provinces were in the Falling star class in the 2011-2012 period, this number
decreased to 29 in 2017-2018. Among the provinces with high RCA scores; Amasya
and Izmir are in the lagging retreat and falling star categories, Istanbul and Tekirdağ
in the leading retreat and lagging retreat categories, Denizli in falling star and
leading retreat, Mardin in falling star and lagging retreat, Adıyaman is in the leading
retreat in consecutive periods.

The study investigates sectorial static and dynamic comparative advantage in both
national and province based level for periods 2011-2012 and 2017-2018.
15 sectors have over unity static RCA scores for whole 2001-2015 period which
are: (1), (5), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (21), (25), (26), (27), (28) and (34), (36),
(37). However according to dynamic RCA results just 5 sectors; (5), (18), (21), (36)
and (37); are in rising star category for the consecutive period for both 2013-2014
and 2014-2015.
It is seen that although the leading sectors in export like Textile (17) and Motor
Vehicles (34) have static revealed comparative advantage, when we look at their
419

dynamic position they are in lagging and lost opportunity category respectively. To
put it more clearly textile sector export is increasing in Turkey but its world share is
decreasing. Motor vehicles export share is decreasing in Turkey, while world share
is increasing. To protect the already existing competitive position, the developments
in these sectors should be investigated carefully and supports to promote exports
should be given by policy makers.
Another important conclusion can be inferred from this study is that Chemical
sector has great potential to achieve an increase in export in the future. Although
chemical sector (24) static RCA value is less than unity, its export share is increasing
both in most of the provinces and country level. The overall value added in export
can be increased by increasing chemical sector exports share.
Province based results show that both statistically and dynamically competitive
sectors are Fishing (5), Apparel (18), Paper (21) and Furniture (36), Waste and Scrap
(37) and just dynamically competitive sectors without static comparative advantage
are Leather (19) and Chemical (24).
While static and dynamic comparative advantage results show the existing export
structure of Turkish economy, province based analysis which is novel in this study
also shows the importance of agglomeration. Clusters and contiguity is important to
achieve knowledge spillover and human capital accumulation which increase export
performance at the end.
This study clarify the existing export structure of the economy both at national
and at province level for ISI Rev.3 sectors. The results may give some clues to
policy makers about the regional subsidy implementations. For example Fishing (5)
and Apparel (18) sectors have both static and dynamic advantage at national level
but there isn’t any province appearing in rising star category. Another interesting
result is that although Leather (19) and Chemical (24) sectors are statically
disadvantageous RCA scores at national level, they are in rising star category both
at national and at province level. So these sectors have great potential in the future
export performance of Turkey.

Altay, B. and Gürpınar, K. (2008). Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler ve Bazı Rekabet Gücü
Endeksleri: Türk Mobilya Sektörü Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F
Dergisi, 10(1), 257-274
Aynagöz-Çakmak, Ö. (2005). Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler ve Rekabet Gücü: Türkiye
Tekstil ve Hazır Giyim Endüstrisi Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Ege Akademik Bakış, 5(1), 65-76
Balassa, B. (1965), Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage. The Manchester
School of Economic and Social Studies, 33, 99-123.
Edwards, L. and Schoer, W. (2002). Measures of Competitiveness: A Dynamic Approach to South
Africa’s Trade Performance in the 1990s. The South African Journal of Economics, 70(6), 1008-
1046.
Ekmen-Özçelik, S. (2015). An Economic Analysis of Mutually Benecial Export Potential Between
Greece and Turkey. 4th International Conference in Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies in
The Economic and Administrative Science, pp: 93-102. Athens: 21-22 May 2015
420 
Ekmen-Özçelik, S. and Erlat, G. (2013). Turkey’s Comparative Advantages and Dynamic Market
Positioning in the EU market. Topics in Middle Eastern and African Economies, 15(2), 42-70
Erlat, G. and Erlat, H. (2005). Do Turkish Exports Have Comparative Advantage With Respect To The
European Union Market, 1990-2000. Topics in Middle Eastern and North African Economies, 7,
1-19
Ferman, M., Akgüngör S., and Yüksel, A.H. (2004). Türkiye’nin İhracat Rekabet Gücü ve
Sürdürülebilirliği: Avrupa Birliği Pazarında Rakip Ülkeler ve Türkiye Açısından Bir Karşılaştırma.
Içinde 2004 Türkiye İktisat Kongresi Tebliğ Sunuşları: Gelişme Stratejileri ve Makroekonomik
Politikalar (pp: 1-29), DPT. İzmir: 5-9 Mayıs 2004
Günes, S. and Tan, M. (2017). Static and Dynamic Revealed Comparative Advantage: A Comparative
Analysis of Turkey and Russia. İktisadi Yenilik Dergisi, 4(3), 22-38
Husted, S. and Melvin, M. (2010). International Finance (8th Edition). Boston: Addison-Wesley Series
in Economics.
Jayawickrama, A. and Thangavelu, S.M. (2010). Trade Linkages Between China, India and Singapore
Changing Comparative Advantage of Industrial Products. Journal of Economic Studies, 37(3),
248-266
Kalaycı, C. (2017). Serbest Ticaret Anlaşmalarının Türkiye’nin Dış Ticaretine Etkisi: Açıklanmış
Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler Endeksi Uygulaması. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 3(2),
133-147
Karaalp, H.S. (2011). Competitiveness of Turkey in Eurasia: A Comparison with CIS Countries.
China-USA Business Review, 10(9), 727-744
Kathuria, L.M. (2018). Comparative Advantage in Clothing Exports: India Faces Threat From
Competing Nations. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 28(5), 518-540
Krisiukeniene, D. and Pilinkiene, V. (2020). Export Competitiveness Analysis of Creative Industries in
The European Union. Economics and Culture, 17(1), 28-37
URL-1: International Trade Center. https://www.intracen.org/itc/market-info-tools/trade-statistics/
(10-02- 2020).
Utkulu U., and Seymen D. (2004). Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness. Evidence
for Turkey vis-à-vis EU/15. European Trade Study Group 6th Annual Conference, ETSG 2004,
Nottingham, September ,1-26.
Yalçınkaya, H., Çılbant, Ç., Erataş, F. and Hartoğlu, D. (2014). Açıklanmış Karşılaştırmalı Üstünlükler
Ekseninde Rekabet Gücünün Analizi: Türk-Çin Dış Ticareti Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Yönetim ve
Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24, 41-57
Yılmaz B., and Ergun S.J. (2003). The Foreign Trade Pattern and Foreign Trade Specialization of
Candidates of the European Union. Ezoneplus Working Paper, No.19, 1-30
421


Table 2: Turkey RCA with Subsectors
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 1.0372 0.9098 1.0230 1.0393 1.0167
2 0.0846 0.0908 0.0999 0.0712 0.0812
5 0.8666 0.7950 0.9539 1.2098 1.3782
10 0.0055 0.0060 0.0036 0.0089 0.0216
11 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0
13 0.5251 0.5723 0.7217 0.6174 0.6359
14 2.0868 1.8407 2.1834 2.0933 2.5757
15 1.4155 1.3332 1.4227 1.4127 1.5140
16 1.2439 1.3086 1.5531 1.7146 2.0305
17 3.9992 3.7892 4.0474 3.9777 3.8039
18 3.4748 3.3212 3.3488 3.3719 3.4966
19 0.4621 0.4792 0.5539 0.5251 0.5380
20 0.8162 0.7381 0.8026 0.8229 0.7525
21 0.8384 0.9337 1.0788 1.1026 1.1204
22 0.2122 0.1965 0.2184 0.2260 0.2174
23 0.6840 0.6354 0.5671 0.5377 0.6049
24 0.3998 0.3881 0.4116 0.4136 0.4143
25 1.7144 1.5328 1.6890 1.6967 1.5902
26 2.7525 2.3695 2.4412 2.2489 2.0314
27 1.7330 2.3544 1.4922 1.5097 1.8161
28 2.0730 1.9345 2.0327 1.9970 1.8081
29 0.8889 0.8527 0.9467 0.9386 0.8820
30 0.0291 0.0253 0.0316 0.0318 0.0367
31 1.0698 0.9279 1.0281 0.9395 0.8129
32 0.1784 0.1803 0.1413 0.1451 0.1261
33 0.1042 0.1126 0.1498 0.1439 0.1395
34 2.4042 2.3147 2.4665 2.3493 1.8657
35 0.3751 0.2948 0.3884 0.3944 0.3407
36T37 0.9486 1.0582 1.3241 1.3922 1.3982
41-72-74-92-93 0.2818 0.2780 0.1159 0.2268 0.1796
422 
Table 3: Sectors (ISIC Rev3)
1 Agriculture
2 Forestry, logging and related service activities
5 Fishing, aquaculture and service activities incidental to shing
10 Mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat
11 Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas
12 Uranium and Thorium ores
13 Mining of metal ores
14 Other mining and quarrying
15 Manufacture of food products and beverages
16 Manufacture of tobacco products
17 Manufacture of textiles
18 Manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur
19 Tanning and dressing of leather; manufacture of luggage, handbags, saddlery, harness and
footwear
20 Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of
articles of straw and plaiting ma
21 Manufacture of paper and paper products
22 Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media
23 Manufacture of coke, rened petroleum products and nuclear fuel
24 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products
25 Manufacture of rubber and plastics products
26 Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products
27 Manufacture of basic metals
28 Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment
29 Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
30 Manufacture of oce, accounting and computing machinery
31 Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c.
32 Manufacture of radio, television and communication equipment and apparatus
33 Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks
34 Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers
35 Manufacture of other transport equipment
36 Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing n.e.c.
37 Recycling of waste and scrap
40 Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply
74 Other business activities
92 Recreational, cultural and sporting activities
93 Other service activities
423

Table 4: Sectorial Dynamic Advantage for Turkey
2012 2013 2014 2015
1lost opportunity falling stars lagging retreat lost opportunity
2 lagging retreat rising stars lost opportunity falling stars
5 leading retreat rising stars rising stars rising stars
10 lagging retreat leading retreat falling stars falling stars
11
12
13 lagging retreat rising stars leading retreat lagging retreat
14 lost opportunity falling stars leading retreat falling stars
15 lost opportunity rising stars lagging opportunity falling stars
16 rising stars rising stars rising stars falling stars
17 leading retreat rising stars lagging opportunity lagging opportunity
18 leading retreat rising stars rising stars rising stars
19 rising stars rising stars lagging opportunity rising stars
20 leading retreat rising stars rising stars lost opportunity
21 falling stars falling stars rising stars rising stars
22 leading retreat falling stars rising stars lost opportunity
23 lost opportunity leading retreat leading retreat lagging retreat
24 leading retreat falling stars rising stars rising stars
25 lost opportunity falling stars rising stars lost opportunity
26 lost opportunity rising stars lost opportunity lost opportunity
27 rising stars leading retreat lagging retreat falling stars
28 lost opportunity rising stars lagging opportunity lost opportunity
29 leading retreat falling stars lagging opportunity lost opportunity
30 lost opportunity falling stars rising stars rising stars
31 lost opportunity rising stars lost opportunity lost opportunity
32 rising stars lost opportunity rising stars lost opportunity
33 rising stars falling stars lost opportunity lagging opportunity
34 lost opportunity falling stars lost opportunity lost opportunity
35 leading retreat falling stars rising stars lagging opportunity
36T37 rising stars falling stars rising stars rising stars
41-72-74-92-93 lost opportunity leading retreat rising stars lost opportunity
424 
Table 5: Rising Star Cities in Sector 21 (Paper)
2011-2012 2017-2018 2011-2012 and 2017-2018
Adana Adıyaman Afyon
Ankara Ağrı Bolu
Bilecik Amasya Bursa
Çanakkale Antalya Elazığ
Çankırı Giresun Gaziantep
Denizli İstanbul Hatay
Diyarbakır Kastamonu Isparta
Edirne Muş Kırklareli
Hakkari Tokat Kırşehir
İzmir Van Kocaeli
Konya Zonguldak Manisa
Kütahya Batman Şanlıurfa
Mardin Bartın Karaman
Nevşehir Ardahan Yalova
Samsun Iğdır Düzce
Siirt
Sivas
Tekirdağ
Yozgat
Kilis
Table 6: Rising Star Cities in Sector 36 (Furniture)
2011-2012 2017-2018 2011-2012 and 2017-2018
Ağrı Adıyaman Amasya
Diyarbakır Afyon Aydın
Gaziantep Artvin Bilecik
Gümüşhane Bingöl Bursa
Hatay Çorum Çanakkale
Mersin Elazığ Denizli
Kastamonu Eskişehir Edirne
Kocaeli Hakkari Giresun
Kahramanmaraş Manisa Isparta
Muğla Niğde İzmir
Muş Rize Kırklareli
Samsun Tekirdağ Konya
Siirt Tokat Kütahya
425

Sinop Van Malatya
Sivas Yozgat Mardin
Şanlıurfa Aksaray Nevşehir
Uşak Karaman Ordu
Zonguldak Kırıkkale Sakarya
Bayburt Şırnak Trabzon
Bartın Yalova Batman
Iğdır Karabük
Kilis Osmaniye
Table 7: Rising Star Cities in Sector 19 (Leather)
2011-2012 2017-2018 2011-2012 and 2017-2018
Adıyaman Afyon Adana
Ankara Amasya Bilecik
Antalya Artvin Gaziantep
Aydın Bolu Hatay
Balıkesir Çanakkale Kayseri
Diyarbakır Giresun Kütahya
Hakkari İstanbul Malatya
Kırklareli İzmir Manisa
Sakarya Kırşehir Muğla
Siirt Kocaeli Niğde
Uşak Konya Trabzon
Van Kahramanmaraş Zonguldak
Karaman Ordu Bartın
Kırıkkale Sivas Düzce
Batman Tekirdağ
Şırnak Tokat
Iğdır Aksaray
Yalova Karabük
Osmaniye Kilis
426 
Table 8: Rising Star Cities in Sector 24 (Chemical)
2011-2012 2017-2018 2011-2012 and 2017-2018
Adıyaman
Afyon
Ağrı
Aydın
Balıkesir
Bilecik
Bursa
Denizli
Edirne
Eskişehir Kırklareli
Giresun Kocaeli
Trabzon Kütahya
Tunceli Mardin
Van Muş
Bartın Niğde
Kilis Sakarya
Düzce Tokat
İstanbul Şanlıurfa
Kars Şırnak
Kastamonu Yalova
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Research purpose. The research purpose is to assess and compare the competitiveness of the EU creative industries’ export. Design/Methodology/Approach. The article is organised as follows: Section 1 presents a short theoretical conception of creative industries; Section 2 presents the theoretical background of trade competitiveness indices; Section 3 introduces the research data set, method and variables; Section 4 discusses the results of the revealed comparative advantage index analysis; and the final section presents the conclusions of the research. It should be noted that the research does not cover all possible factors underlying the differences in the external sector performance and thus may need to be complemented with country-specific analysis as warranted. Methods of the research include theoretical review and analysis, evaluation of comparative advantage indices and clustering. Findings. The analysis revealed that the EU countries may gain competitiveness because of the globalisation effects and the development of creative industries. The increase in the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index during the period 2004–2017 shows rising EU international trade specialisation in creative industries. According to dynamic RCA index results, France, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain has competitive advantage in creative industries sectors and could be specified as ‘rising stars’ according to dynamic of their export. Originality/Value/Practical implications. A creative industries analysis is becoming increasingly relevant in scientific research. Fast globalisation growth affects the processes in which closed economies together with their specific sectors are no longer competitive in the market because productivity of countries as well as particular economic sectors depends on international trade liberalisation, technology and innovation. Scientific literature, nevertheless, contains a gap in the area of international trade competitiveness research in creative industries sector.
Article
Full-text available
With respect to bilateral trade between Turkey and Russia, static and dynamic RCA was calculated for 14 'common sectors', in which Russia and Turkey exported similar quantities of goods to the rest of the world. The static RCA is indicative of the fact that Turkey is more advantageous than Russia at both bilateral and global levels. However; an analysis of dynamic RCA for the 14 common sectors revealed that while Turkey has dynamic comparative advantage for six sectors, Russia has dynamic comparative advantage for 11 sectors. Despite the fact that Russia is more disadvantageous than Turkey in static terms, it has more sectors falling under the rising star category in dynamic terms. In this context the results of this study could be used to develop new fiscal policies to improve both static and dynamic sectorial comparative advantage.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to determine the location of the Chinese economy in the world trade and the scope of trade relations with Turkey to analyze the effects of the Chinese economy. In this context, Turkey's competitiveness against China is determined by using Balassa's revealed comparative advantage index within ISIC Rev.4. According to the findings, by the end of 2013 there were five industry which possess RCAB > 0,5. These industries are defined as, mining of metal ores and other mining and quarrying, in manufactiring industry manufacture of food products and manufacture of beverages, in water supply; sewerage, in waste management and remediation activities industry water collection, waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery.
Article
Full-text available
This study analyses the competitiveness and the pattern of trade flows/trade specialisation from Turkey to the EU on sectoral levels. Our research is mainly based on different measures of Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) measures (in addition to simple Balassa Index). Accordingly, alternative RCA indices are calculated. The stability of different measures of RCA is also tested. The present work also aims to explain if the ongoing customs union process between Turkey and the EU has significant effects on trade patterns, comparative advantages and competitiveness. In the light of evidence, some policy implications are drawn.
Article
Full-text available
The enlargement of the European Union will bring many political, economical and structural changes on the Continent, which require careful and deep analysis to be made. This paper will grasp the enlargement of the European Union from the aspect of the trade pattern and trade specialization of six major European Union candidates; namely, Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland and the Czech Republic by focusing on the years from 1996 to 2002. In other words, the main purpose of this paper is to examine the international competitiveness of six candidate countries and to compare the structure of specialization in foreign trade with each other and the EU/15.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this paper is to examine Turkey’scomparative advantage and internationalcompetitiveness of textiles and clothing industriesas a whole and of all sub-sectors of theseindustries. The analysis is based on Balassa’s (1965) revealed comparative advantage (RCA)index and Vollrath’s (1991) competitivenessindices. The analysis based on Balassa’s indicesshows that Turkey has a strong comparativeadvantage in textiles and clothing as aggregatecommodity groups and in sub-categories of textileand clothing. In aggregate commodity groups oftextiles and clothing, the analysis based onVollrath’s indices shows that Turkey is lesscompetitive in the world market compared toBalassa’s indices. On the other hand, both RCAand relative trade and export advantage indicesshow that SITC 84 (Articles of Apparel andClothing Accessories) commodity group is morecompetitive than SITC 65 (Textiles Yarn, Fabrics,Made-up Articles and Related Products) in theworld markets. However, the competitiveness ofalmost all sub-sectors falls recently. In order not tolose the competitiveness of Turkish textile andapparel industries in European Union and worldmarkets, it is essential to focus on technologicaldevelopments and research and development(R&D).
Article
Purpose Manufacturing sector plays a vital role in the economy of developing countries like India. The Indian textiles and clothing industry has an overwhelming presence in the economic life of the country. The readymade garment segment contributes 42 per cent of the Indian textiles exports, which include cotton garments and accessories, manmade fiber garments and other textiles clothing. The overall export basket of India has increased from 13.6 per cent in 2014-15 to 15 per cent in 2015-16 for textiles and apparel products including handicrafts. Though clothing exports from India have witnessed high growth rates in the past decade as compared to other commodity exports, India’s performance, when compared to many competing countries, has not been much encouraging. India has lagged behind in clothing exports as compared to China, Bangladesh and Vietnam. This study mainly focused on analyzing the changing clothing export structure of select countries such as India, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Turkey by using revealed comparative advantage indices. Design/methodology/approach This study uses different variants of revealed comparative advantage indices, namely, Balassa’s RCA Index (Balassa, 1965), Dynamic RCA index (Kreinin and Plummer, 1994) and Revealed Symmetrical Comparative Advantage Index (Laursen, 1998). Indices were calculated for the period 2003 and 2013 under knitted category (HS 61) and not knitted category (HS 62) up to four-digit classification. Spearman rank correlation was applied for analyzing changes during the period under study. For calculation of RCA and dynamic RCA indices, the export data have been taken from UN Comtrade, an electronic database of United Nation and International Trade Statistics database of World Trade Organization. Findings The results highlighted that India ranks at the bottom in seven HS 61 clothing products and fourth in five HS 61 products. Bangladesh stands at the top in 11 of the HS 61 clothing products among selected countries. Similarly, Vietnam has also gained stronghold position in the global clothing trade. In many of these products, Bangladesh has higher revealed comparative advantage as compared to other countries. In HS 62 product category, India was at the bottom in eight products, whereas Bangladesh has gained the most in nine products on the comparative advantage basis. The findings highlighted the shift taking place in global clothing trade structure as trade was shifting toward low-cost countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Surprisingly, India has foregone strategic advantage in many value-added products to low-cost countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam. Originality/value This is one of the few studies undertaken to analyze comparative advantages of leading clothing exporter countries (mainly from Asian region) in the recent times. Findings depict changing export structure and dynamics of clothing exports in the region. Findings would help government, industry associations and policymakers in enhancing sector competitiveness and in identifying the growth products.
Article
This paper reveals the static and dynamic comparative advantages of Turkish exports in the EU-15 market in relation to the exports of the non-EU-15 countries, covering the period 1996-2010, based on three-digit Standard International Trade Classification industries. In this regard, this paper is the first attempt to evaluate the dynamic revealed comparative advantage patterns of Turkey vis-a-vis its competitors in the European Union (EU) market. Whether there have been significant changes in Turkey's comparative advantages in the EU market and in which sectors these changes can be utilized further as potential advantages are two important issues affecting the prospects of trade policy in Turkey, which is a candidate for EU membership.
Article
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the trade linkages and degree of export competitiveness between Singapore, China and India. Design/methodology/approach – Balassa's export performance index and the dynamic RCA index was adopted, as suggested by Kreinin and Plummer to identify the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) of the above countries in industrial products by SITC 1- and 2-digit levels. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is used to identify the degree of complementarity between RCA indices. Findings – Given the abundant resources, China and India have comparative advantage in a broad range of manufactured goods as compared to Singapore. From the disaggregated analysis at 2-digit level, the paper finds that the Singapore and China exports are complements, although the degree of complementarity has being declining over time. Meanwhile, Singapore and India exports are found to be stronger complements and stable over time. The results also show that China and India exports are strong substitutes. The paper also finds that the export specialization of China and India has experienced significant changes and shifting to new export products over time. Originality/value – Given the recent trade agreements between China and Singapore and India and Singapore, it is important to examine the trade linkages (complementarity/substitutability of trade) between these countries. The paper highlights the importance of China and India in complementing countries such as Singapore as it climbs the technological ladder to maintain its competitiveness in the world market.