The agricultural sector is being supported in Turkey, as well as in the world. The issue of competitiveness is observed in agriculture, despite supports. This study aims at investigating the impact of agricultural supports in Turkey on competitiveness of agricultural products. Vector autoregression (VAR) model has been adopted in the study. The internal terms of trade (TOT), percentage producer support estimate (PSE), and the producer nominal protection coefficient (NPC) variables have been included in the model. The internal terms of trade in Turkey have developed over time against the benefit of agricultural sector. PSE has had a significant impact on TOT. Therefore, the use of PSE as a political variable has been concluded as a significant. Means of support must be discussed in Turkey more than the amount of supports. In particular, supports that will provide farmers with competitive advantage and boost up product farmyard prices will be more efficient and beneficial for farmers.
Arisoy H., Bayramoglu Z., Karakayaci Z., Oguz C. (2017): The effect of agricultural support on the economic sustainability of agricultural enterprises. Custos e Agronegócio Online, 13.
Benavıdes-Perales G., Tellez-Leon I.E., Venegas-Martınez F. (2018): The impact of banking and external sectors on Mexican agriculture in the period 1995–2015. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 64: 36–49.
Callen J., Segal D. (2004): Do accruals drive firm-level stock returns? A variance decomposition analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 42: 527–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2004.t01-1-00140.x
Cechura L. (2008): Theoretical-empirical analysis of the role of the SGAFF in financing of farmers’ activities. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 54: 476–488.
Dickey D.A., Fuller W.A. (1981): Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49: 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
Dunmore J.C. (1986): Competitiveness and comparative advantage of U.S. agriculture. In: Proceedings 1986 National Public Policy Education Conference, Denver, Colorado, Sept 16, 1986: 31.
Erokhin V., Ivolga A., Heijman W. (2014): Trade liberalization and state support of agriculture: effects for developing countries. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 60: 524–537. https://doi.org/10.17221/137/2013-AGRICECON
FAO (2018): Food and Agriculture Organization Data. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data
Fohlin C., Robinson S., Schluter G. (1989): Terms of trade and factor commitments in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 41.
Gujarati Damodar N., Porter D.C. (2009): Essentials of Econometrics. 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill Education.
Hossain A.A. (2009): Macroeconomic policies and agricultural terms of trade, Bangladesh, 1952–2005. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 39: 204–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330902723790
Jensen N.M., Shin M.J. (2014): Globalization and domestic trade policy preferences: foreign frames and mass support for agriculture subsidies. International Interactions, 40: 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2014.899228
Klomp J., Haan J.D. (2013): Conditional election and partisan cycles in government support to the agricultural sector: an empirical analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95: 793–818. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aat007
Lütkepohl H. (2011): I Gusti Ngurah Agung (2009): Time Series Data Analysis Using Eviews. Book Review. Statistical Papers, Springer, 52: 497–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-009-0281-1
Moon W., Pino G. (2018): Do U.S. citizens support government intervention in agriculture? Implications for the political economy of agricultural protection. Agricultural Economics, 49: 119–129.
OECD (2018): Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Data. Available at https://data.oecd.org/emp/labour-force.htm#indicator-chart (accessed Oct 24, 2019).
Pawlak K. (2018): Agricultural support policy as a determinant of international competitiveness: evidence from the EU and US. Proceedings 2018 International Conference Economic Science for Rural Development No 47, Jelgava, LLU ESAF, May 9–11, 2018: 229–237.
Phillips G.D.A., Tzavalis E. (2007): The Refinement of Econometric Estimation and Test Procedure. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Rockström J., Williams J., Daily G., Noble A., Matthews N., Gordon L., Wetterstrand H., DeClerck F., Shah M., Steduto P., Fraiture C., Hatibu N., Unver O., Bird J., Sibanda L., Smith J. (2017): Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46: 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6
Russo C., Goodhue R.E., Sexton R.J. (2011): Agricultural support policies in imperfectly competitive markets: why market power matters in policy design. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93: 1328–1340. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar050
Sims C.A. (1980): Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912017
Smutka L., Spicka J., Ishchukova N., Selby R. (2016): Agrarian import ban and its impact on the Russian and European Union agrarian trade performance. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 62: 493–506.
Spicka J., Hlavsa T., Soukupova K., Stolbova M. (2019): Approaches to estimation the farm-level economic viability and sustainability in agriculture: A literature review. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 65: 289–297. https://doi.org/10.17221/269/2018-AGRICECON
Spoerer M. (2015): Agricultural protection and support in the European Economic Community, 1962–92: rent-seeking or welfare policy? European Review of Economic History, 19: 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/ereh/hev001
Tomsik K., Rosochatecka E. (2007): Competitiveness of the Finnish agriculture after ten years in the EU. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 53: 448–454.
TSI (2018): Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at http://www.tuik.gov.tr/Start.do (accessed Oct 24, 2019).
Yang F. (2017): Impact of increasing agricultural domestic support on China’s food prices considering incomplete international agricultural price transmission. China Agricultural Economic Review, 9: 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-01-2016-0001