Yıl: 2007 Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 59 - 72 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler

Öz:
1980 yılından başlayarak izlenen dışa yönelme programı kapsamında dış yatırımlarla ilgili mevzuatın serbestleştirilmesinin ardından yabancı sermaye girişleri ve dış yatırım alanlarında önemli gelişmeler olmuştur. Seksenli yıllarda yabancı sermaye girişlerinin arttırılması amacıyla yapılan yasal ve örgütsel düzenlemeler sonucunda Türkiye’deki yabancı sermayeli firmaların sayısı 29 kat artmıştır. Buna rağmen, bu artış diğer gelişmekte olan ülkelerle karşılaştırıldığında beklenenin altındadır. Günümüzde de coğrafi konumunun sağladığı avantaj, İstanbul’un dünya ekonomik sistemi içinde bölgesel pazarlara ve kaynaklara ulaşmada küresel sermaye için tercih edilen önemli bir düğüm noktası durumuna gelmesine neden olmaktadır. Başka bir deyişle, İstanbul bölgelerarası ağlar içinde kontrol ve erişim fonksiyonlarının merkezi olmaya adaydır. Bu bakımdan bu çalışmada, 1990–2003 yılları arasında Türkiye’de Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların (DYY) bölgesel dağılımlarının il düzeyinde belirleyicilerini saptamak amaçlanmaktadır. İkinci olarak, aynı zaman aralığında Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların sektörlere bağlı yatırım belirleyicilerini incelemektir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Tarih

Factors influencing the choice of FDI locations in Turkey

Öz:
Turkey adopted neo-liberal policies in order to increase economic integration into international relation after 1980. As a result of these policies, foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows increased greatly. In 1980 there were 78 FDI firms in Turkey whereas the number increased by 6511 in 2003. Turkey has become a hub of vast hinterland that extends from Balkans to Caucasus and represented a prime focus for foreign investment. For this reason, it is very important to know the characteristics and spatial distribution of FDI firms in Turkey. This study analyzes the spatial distribution of FDI (foreign direct investment) firms among the provinces in Turkey from 1990 to 2003. Providing employment and job opportunities, application of skills and new technologies, transfer of capital , increase in productivity, enhancing exports, spread of domestic firms, and acceleration of economic growth in the developing countries are among the most important benefits of foreign direct investment (FDI). Since the 1990’s foreign direct investment has been considered as the “development motor” for the developing countries by United Nation Commission of Trade and Development (UNCTAD, 2004), and thus it has been encouraged to create the conditions attracting investment. At the beginning of the 1990’s the investments directed to the developing countries had a share below 20% of the world’s investment capacity. However in the middle of the 1990’s this share increased to 40 %. As a result of neo-liberal policies which were made in order to increase the FDI inflows the number of FDI firms increased 29 times. Although in 1990 Turkey was the second developing country to attract the highest FDI with a foreign capital investment of 1 billion USD, after China, it has not been able to maintain this beneficial position in the world. Increase in FDI especially in Turkey after 1990 is less than expected compared to other developing countries. With a total share of 807 billion USD of foreign investment it reached until 1998, Turkey has obtained of 0.15% of the total sum. This share is 27,4% for China, 17.3% for Brazil, 6.2 % for Mexico, 4.2% for Thailand, and 3.4% for Argentina (UNCTAD, 1999, p.477). According to the findings of 2003, with 0.10%, Turkey has a share of 575 million Dollars of the total foreign investment of 560 billion Dollars in the world. In the general perspective of Turkey related to FDI, Istanbul has an importance. Because Istanbul attracts the highest level of foreign investment in Turkey. 75.39% of Turkey’s total capital investment and 63.29% of the total number of firms in Turkey are in Istanbul. Istanbul has attracted 59.63% of the firms which have made investment in industry in Turkey with 55.22% of this capital and 66.35% of the firms making investment in the service sector with 92.33% of the capital. According to the report of YASED, Istanbul held 6174 foreign capital investment in 2003. There is imbalance in the distribution of FDI in Turkey. To prevent this uneven structure, some precautions should be taken. A model is developed to test the agglomeration economies as a demand, urbanization economies, market size, employment structure, government incentives, information cost, locational wealth and infrastructure. Location decisions of foreign investors are generally determined by agglomeration economies as population growth in the provinces and previous investment, infrastructure, amount of bank credit and local market growth.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Tarih
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Akinlo, A.E. (2004). FDI and growth in Nıgeria: An empirical investigation, Journal of Policy Modelling, 26, 5, 627-639.
  • Bagchi-sen, S., Wheeler, J.O. (1989). A spatial and temporal model of foreign direct investment in the United States, Economic Geography, XX, 113-129.
  • Balasubramanyam, V. N. (1996). Foreign direct investment in Turkey, In: S. Togan and V.N. Balasubramanyam (Eds.) The Economy of Turkey since Liberalization, London, Macmillan Press Ltd.
  • Balkır, C. (1996). Türkiye ve Avrupa Topluluğu: 1980’lerde Dış Ticaret ve Doğrudan Dış Yatırımlar, Türkiye ve Avrupa İlişkileri, C. Balkır and A.M. Williams, eds., Istanbul, Sarmal Yayınevi, 137-188.
  • Baniak, A., Cukrowski, J., Herczynski, J. (2005). On the determinants of foreign sirect investment in transition economies, Problems of Economic Transition, 48, 6-28.
  • Berköz, L. (2005). Locational Determinants of Foreign Investors in Istanbul, Journal of Urban Planning and Development-ASCE, 131, 3 (September), 140-147.
  • Berköz, L. (2001). The Interregional location of foreign investors in Turkey, European Planning Studies, 9, 8, 979-994
  • Berköz, L., Eyuboglu, E. (2005). Locational Preferences of FDI firms in Istanbul, Report for ITU, Research Project, Istanbul (in Turkish).
  • Blomstrom, M., Kokko, A. (1997). How foreign investment affects host countries, World Bank Paper, no: 1745.
  • Broadman, H.G., Sun, X. (1997). The distribution of foreign direct investment in China, The World Economy, 20, 3, 339-62.
  • Chadee, D., Mattsson, J. (1998). Do service and manufacturing exporters behave and perform differently? A New Zealand investigation, Eur. J. Mark, 32, 9/10, 122-134.
  • Chadee, D., Qui, F. ve Rose, E. (2003). FDI location at the subnational level: A study of EJVs in China, Journal of Business Research, 56, 835-845.
  • Chakrabarti, A. (2003). A theory of the spatial distribution of foreign direct investment”, International Review of Economics and Finance 12, 149-169.
  • Chien-Hsun, C. (1996). Regional determinants of foreign direct investment in mainland China, Journal of Economic Studies, 23, 2, 18-30.
  • Coffey, W.J., Drolet, R., Polése, M. (1996a). The Intrametropolitan Location of High Order Services: Patterns, Factors and Mobility in Montreal”, Papers in Regional Science, 75, 3, 293-323.
  • Coffey, W.J., Drolet, R., Polése, M., (1996b). Examining the Thesis of Central Business District Decline: Evidence from the Montreal Metropolitan Area, Environment and Planning A, 28, 1795-1814.
  • Coughlin,C.C., Terza, J.V. ve Arromdee,V. (1991). State characteristics and the location of foereign direct investment within the United States, Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 675-683.
  • Deichmann, J., Karidis, S. ve Sayek, S. (2003). Foreign direct investment in Turkey: regional determinants, Applied Economics, 35, 16, 1767-1778.
  • Deichmann, J., Karidis, S., Sayek, S. (2003). Foreign direct investment in Turkey: regional determinants, Applied Economics, 35, 1767-1778.
  • Devereux, M., Griffith, R., (1998). Taxes and the location of production: evidence from a panel of US multinationals, Journal of Public Economics, 68, 3, 335-367.
  • DPT (2000). Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımları Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, Ankara.
  • Dunning, J. (1998). Locational and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 45-66.
  • Eng, I., Lin, Y. (1996). Seeking competitive advantage in an emergent open economy: foreign direct investment in Chinese industry, Environment and Planning A, 28, 113-1138.
  • Erden, D. (1996). A survey of foreign direct investment firms in Turkey, Bogazici University Printhouse, Istanbul.
  • Erdilek, A. (1982). Direct Foreign Investment in Turkish Manufacturing: An Analysis of Conflicting Objectives and Frustrated Expectations of a Host Country, Kieler Studien, No 169, Paul Siebeck, Tübingen.
  • Friedman, J., Gerlowski, D.A. ve Silberman, J. (1992). What attracts foreign multinational corporations? Evidence from branch plant location in the United States, Journal of Regional Science, 32, 403–418.
  • Gad, G. (1979). Face-to-Face Linkages and Office Decentralization Potentials: A Study of Toronto, Spatial Patterns of Office Growth and Location, P. Daniels, eds., UK:Wiley, Chichester, 277-324.
  • Girma, S. (2005). Technology transfer from acquisition FDI and absortive capacity of domestic firms: An empirical investigation, Open Economies Review, 16, 2, 175-187.
  • Glickman, N., Woodward, D. (1988). The location of foreign direct investment in the US: patterns and determinants, Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 11, 2, 137-154.
  • Guimaraes, P., Figueiredo, O., Woodward, D. (2000). Agglomeration and the location of foreign direct investment in Portugal, Journal of Urban Economics, 47, 1, 115-135.
  • Hayter, R. (1997) The dynamics of Industrial location: The factory, the firm, and the production system, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • He, C. (2002). Information costs, agglomeration economies and the location of foreign direct investment in Chine, Regional Studies, 36, 9, 1029-1036.
  • Head, K.C., Ries, J.C. ve Swenson, D.L. (1995). Agglomeration benefits and location choice: Evidence from Japanese manufacturing investments in the United States, Journal of International Economics, 38, 223-247.
  • Hill, S., Munday, M. (1995). Foreign Manufacturing investment in France and the UK: a regional analysis of locational determinants, Tijdschfift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 86, 311-327.
  • Karluk, R. (2001). Türkiye’de yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının ekonomik büyümeye etkisi, In: A. Tarhan (Ed), Ekonomik İstikrar, Büyüme ve Yabancı Sermaye, T.C. Merkez Bankası, Ankara: İnsan Kaynakları Genel Müdürlüğ, Eğitim Müdürlüğü.
  • Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and Trade, MIT University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Leung, C. K. (1996). Foreign manufacturing investment and regional industrial growth in Guangdong Province, China”, Environment and Planning A, 28, 513-536.
  • Lim, D (1983). Fiscal incentives and direct foreign investment in less developed countries, Journal of development Studies, 19, 207-12.
  • Little, J. S. (1978). Locational decisions of foreign direct investors in the US, New England, Econ. Rev., July/August, 43-63.
  • Little, J. S. (1980). Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: Recent Locational Choices of Foreign Manufacturing, New England Economic Review, November/ December, 5-22.
  • Little, J. S. (1983). Foreign Investors Locational Choices: An Update, New England Economic Review, January/February, 28–31.
  • Li,XY., Liu, XM. (2005). Foreign direct investment and economic growth: an increasingly endogenous relationship, World Development, 33, 3, 393-407.
  • Mariotti, S., Piscttello, L., (1995). Information cost and location of FDIs within the host country :empirical evidence from Italy, Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 815-40.
  • Ondrich, J., Wasylenko, M. (1993) Foreign direct investment in the United States, Kalamazoo:W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalmazoo, MI.
  • Özdemir (2002). The distribution of foreign direct investments in the service sector in İstanbul, Cities, 19, 4, 249-259.
  • Patterson, P. G., Cicic, M. (1995). Profile of service firms in international markets”, NZ Journal Business, 17, 2, 49-66.
  • Pavlinek, P. (2004). Regional development implications of foreign direct investment in central Europe, European Urban and Regional Studies, 11, 1, 47-70.
  • Shatz, H., Venables, A. (2000). The Geography of International Investment, in The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, (Eds) G. Clark, M. Feldman and M. Getrler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-145.
  • Smith, D., Florida, R. (1994). Agglomeration and industrial location: an econometric analysis of Japanese- affiliated manufacturing establishments in automotive-related industries, Journal of Urban Economics, 36, 23-41.
  • Tatoglu, E., Glaister, K. (1998a). Western MNCs FDI in Turkey: An analysis of locational specific factors”, Management International Review, 40, 3, 278-314.
  • Tatoglu, E., Glaister, K. (1998b). Determinants of foreign direct investment in Turkey, Thunderbird International Business Review, 40, 3, 278-314.
  • Tokatlı, N., Erkip, F. (1998). Foreign investment in producer service, TWPR, 20, 1, 87-106.
  • UNCTAD (1999) World Investments Report, Foreign Direct Investment and Challenge of Development, New York.
  • UNCTAD (2002) World Investment Report 2002, United Nations, New York/Geneva.
  • UNCTAD (2004) World Investment Report, The Growth of FDI, New York.
  • Wei, Y., Liu, X., Parker, D. ve Vaidya, K. (1999). The regional distribution of foreign direct investment in Chine, Regional Studies, 33, 857-867.
  • Wheeler, D. ve Mody, A. (1992). International investment location decisions: the case of US firms, J. Int. Econ., 33, 57-76.
  • Woodward, D.P. (1992). Locational determinants of Japanese manufacturing start-ups in the United States, Southern Economic Journal, 58, 690-708.
APA BERKÖZ A, TÜRK S (2007). Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. , 59 - 72.
Chicago BERKÖZ AYŞE LALE,TÜRK SEVKIYE SENCE Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. (2007): 59 - 72.
MLA BERKÖZ AYŞE LALE,TÜRK SEVKIYE SENCE Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. , 2007, ss.59 - 72.
AMA BERKÖZ A,TÜRK S Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. . 2007; 59 - 72.
Vancouver BERKÖZ A,TÜRK S Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. . 2007; 59 - 72.
IEEE BERKÖZ A,TÜRK S "Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler." , ss.59 - 72, 2007.
ISNAD BERKÖZ, AYŞE LALE - TÜRK, SEVKIYE SENCE. "Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler". (2007), 59-72.
APA BERKÖZ A, TÜRK S (2007). Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 6(2), 59 - 72.
Chicago BERKÖZ AYŞE LALE,TÜRK SEVKIYE SENCE Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım 6, no.2 (2007): 59 - 72.
MLA BERKÖZ AYŞE LALE,TÜRK SEVKIYE SENCE Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, vol.6, no.2, 2007, ss.59 - 72.
AMA BERKÖZ A,TÜRK S Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım. 2007; 6(2): 59 - 72.
Vancouver BERKÖZ A,TÜRK S Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler. İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım. 2007; 6(2): 59 - 72.
IEEE BERKÖZ A,TÜRK S "Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler." İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 6, ss.59 - 72, 2007.
ISNAD BERKÖZ, AYŞE LALE - TÜRK, SEVKIYE SENCE. "Yabancı yatırımların yerseçimini etkileyen faktörler". İTÜ Dergisi Seri A: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım 6/2 (2007), 59-72.