Türkiye imalat sanayinde yoğunlaşma

Abstract

Az gelişmiş ülkelerin kalkınma çabalarının başarıya ulaşmasında, sanayileşmenin taşıdığı önem kuşkusuz çok büyüktür. Türkiye'de imalat sanayi, sanayi kesiminin bileşiminde en yüksek paya sahiptir. Bu nedenle imalat sanayinin yapısının incelenmesi gerekir. Çünkü bir ekonominin problemlerini saptamak ve bunlara geçerli çözümler bulmak, o ekonomideki çeşitli mal piyasalarına ait yapının analizini gerektirir. İktisatçıların çoğu monopolcü piyasa yapısının toplumsal refahı olumsuz yönde etkilediğini savunmakta dırlar. Bunda en büyük etken monopolcü piyasalarda faaliyet gösteren firmaların fiyatları, kendi çıkarları toplumun zararı yönünde değiştirme eğilimleridir. Fiyat mekanizmasının toplumun refahı yönünde işleyip işlemediğini görmek amacıyla yapılan çalışmaların çoğunda fiyat belirleme gücünün bir ölçütü kabul edilen yoğunlaşma oranları kullanılmıştır. Sanayi yoğunlaşması, veri bir sanayinin o sanayide faaliyet gösteren başlıca firmaların küçük bir grubu tarafından kontrol " edilmesidir. Monopolcü rekabet ve oligopol piyasalar!' mamul farklılaştırılması, giriş engelleri ve yoğunlaşmanın varlığı ile rekabetçi piyasalardan ayrılır. Büyük ölçekli girişimin veya çok fabrikalı işlemlerin avantajları, firmalar arası birleşmeler ve başlangıç sermaye gereğinin yüksekliği gibi faktörler de rekabeti önleyerek piyasada az sayıda monopol güce sahip firma yaratır. Yoğunlaşma bu monopolleşme gücünün bir ölçüsü olarak ortaya çıkar. Bu konuda Türkiye için yapılan çalışmalar Türk imalat sanayinde yoğunlaşma düzeylerinin oldukça yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak firmaların faaliyetleri ve bunların sonuçlarıyla ilgili bilgi toplama alanında duyulan sıkıntı ve banka ve holdinglerin denetimlerinde ki sanayi grupları ile içice olan karmaşık ilişkiler bütünlüğü yoğunlaşmanın gerçek boyutlarının saptanmasın da önemli engel teşkil etmektedir.

In this study we first discussed the concept of industrial concentration and we tried to give the various concentration measures suggested in the literature together with their advantages and disadvantages. Finally we applied, four of these measures to sectors of the Turkish manufacturing industry according to their three and four ISIC codes and analysed the results. Industry concentration means the degree to which a small number of firms control a large proportion of an industry' s output. Therefore, concentration consists basically of two features; inequality in size distribution and tendency toward increased monopolization. Generally, the factors which affect industrial concentration can be classified as follows; - scale economies, - product line diversification, - vertical integration, - product differentiation» - mergers, - advertising, - barriers to entry. Scale economies, product dif ferantiation and product line diversification prevent erosion of dominant firms' share and limit smaller firms' growth in concentrated markets. Advertising, especially TV advertising gives dominant firm additional power. Vertical integration may also give dominant firms enchanced control over their economic environment. And high barriers to entry discourages new entrants. Mergers among firms competing in the same market is also another factor which cause increases in concentration. All these factors leads to monopoly. VIII There are many measures of concentration to find out the concentration level in an industry. However, all of them have some advantages and disadvantages. The widely used concentration measures are the Concentration ratio-CR-, Herf indahl-Hirschman index-H-, Rosenbluth index-RHT-, and Entropy index-E. The concentration ratio shows the market shares of the largest few firms in an industry. The basic shortcoming in using the concentration ratio is on the selection of the number of few firms. And the second defect is that whether these selected few large firms should be identical or changing group. In spite of these disadvantages, the concentration ratio is the most widely used measure. It gives some idea on the monopolistic tendencies of industries. Herf indahl-Hirschman index takes the squared percentages of the firms' shares. Under pure monopoly the index attains its maximum value of 1. This index avoids the basic shortcomings of the concentration ratio as it utilizes all the firms' shares. But, since it takes the squared percentages of the firms' shares it is insensitive to changes among small firms. The Rosenbluth index weights each firm by its rank. Therefore, the absolute number of firms in an industry is stressed in this measure while the others weight each firm by its relative share. Another similar measure is the Entropy index. There is an inverse relationship between Entropy measure and concentration. It rises with increased equality of market shares of firms and is zero under pure monopoly. The most frequently used determinants of the size of firms are employment, sales, assets, and value added. But all of them are some defects, too. For example, when there is vertical integration between firms in the same industry, sales figures will lead to the understatement of concentration. A somewhat similar case can be seen when employment are used as indicator. The leading producers in particular industries use more capital-intensive production processes than smaller IX manufacturers. And this situation will cause to estimate concentration level lower than it is. On the other hand value added data are seldom avaliable. For the application of measures of concentration to the sectors of the Turkish manufacturing industry, we used the data gathered by Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ISO) about Turkey' s 500 large industrial establishments and data gathered by Statistical Institute of Government (DIE). Each country has developed an elaborate system for categorizing by industry or product line the output of firms. Generally this basic system is called the international standard industrial classification or ISIC. We used information about the sales from production and applied four measures to sectors and subsectors of the Turkish manufacturing industry acording to their three and four ISIC codes. We called three ISIC code industries as sector and four ISIC code industries as subsector. We chose 4-firm concentration ratio, Herfindahl- Hirschman index, Rosenbluth index and Entropy index among concentration measures. We thought that using the measures like logarithmic variance or Gini coefficient is impossible due to the lack of data. For example, logarithmic variance requires samples of a certain minimum size in order to be meaningful, on the other hand we have samples as small as one in our applications. And Gini coefficient needs detailed data on individual sizes and number of firms in each sector. For analysing the degree of concentration in the Turkish manufacturing industry we had to limit ourselves to only two years which are 1988 and 1989. We had to begin from the year of 1988 since ISO has begun to classify the firms according to ISIC codes in this year. And we didn't classify the firms ourselves among 500 large firms before the year of 1988 since a firm may produce goods for two or many three ISIC code sectors at the same time. When we were collecting the data, the data for the year after 1989 were being processed by DIE, therefore since we could not use the data before 1988 and after 1989. We chose the years 1988 and 1989 for which data was available at the time. However, we took into account the indexes which can be calculated for 1990. As results of this study the following general remarks can be made about the concentration measures. CR4 has the largest value since it considers only the top four firms. So, it is not affected by the small firms, even though they may be large in number. And since the other three indexes take into account all the firms, they give lower values than CR4 and so their values are close to each other. In these three indexes, since H weights the larger firms' shares more than the smaller firms' shares, it gives more similar results to CR4 than RHT and E do. CR4 is a better measure of concentration for small samples. When there is an increase in the number of firms, three concentration measures reflect this change better than CR4. For the analysis of the Turkish manufacturing industry, in general, we see that a relatively few very large enterprises account for a considerable share of all industrial activity. The top four firms in terms of sales from pruduction among the 500 large establishments are all public-owned firms in 1988, 1989 and 1990. The top three position were occupied by the same firms during these years. And the leader of public firms, Tupras, and the leader of private sector, Arcelik, were both leaders in their groups in searched years. We see that the sales from production leader in the private sector, Arcelik, moved up from seventh to fifth from 1988 to 1990. And among the 500 large establishments, private sector firms increased their share of sales from production compared to the previous years. The share of public-owned firms in the total sales from production declined from 43.55 % in 1988 to 40.61 % in 1990 while that of private sector firms went up from 56.45 % in 1988 to 59.39 % in 1990. Private sector firms continued to increase their share in the total sales from production as they did from 1982. Another conclusion worthy of note that the share of these 500 large establishments in terms of sales from production was 79 % in the total sales from production of Turkish manufacturing industry in 1988 and 1989. For sectoral analysis, we reached the result that the concentration degree is generally high in all sectors and subsectors. Among sectors tobacco processing, petroleum refining and rubber pruducts industries are sectors with highest degree of concentration both in 1988 and 1989. We have seen that in 1989 there were more sectors in the upper echelons of the distribution of concentration. XI The other sectors with high degree of concentration were found manufacture of pottery chine and earthenware with a 4-firm coccentration ratio 74.91 %, manufacture of petroleum and coal derivatives with 73.70 %, manufacture of machinery (except electrical) with 62.46 %, manufacture of basic industrial chemicals with 54.04 %, manufacture of glass and glass products with 53.73 %, manufacture of transport equipment with 50.12 %, printing, publishing and allied industries with 44.17 %, and iron and steel basic industries with 40.71 % in 1989. Since this study cover only the largest 500 firms, we have a very few firms which produce goods only for one or two four ISIC code subsectors in some sector. Therefore, this stuation caused to estimate the degree of concentration of these sectors lower than it was. This picture emerged when we analysed subsectors. For example, in food industry 4-firm concentration ratio was found 23 % in 1988 and 24 % in 1989, and H index was found 0.45 % in 1989 and 0.53 % in 1989 that means there is no concentration in this sector. On the other hand, the indexes calculated for four ISIC code subsectors in this sector showed concentration is considerably high. For example, we found out that only four firms controlled 79.37 % of the sales from production of the sugar factories and refineries in 1988 and 85.02 % in 1989. Similarly, in the dairy products industry only three firms were dominant 71.93 % of the sales from production in the total sales of this sector in 1988 and 67.76 % in 1989. In adition, 4-firm concentration ratio was found 79.23 % in 1988 and 73.13 % in 1989 in manufacture of cacao, chocolate and sugar cofectionery, 70.31 % in 1988 and 68.86 in 1989 for slaughtering products industry. 45.23 % in 1988 and 44.75 % in 1989 for vegetable and animal oils and fats industry. According to four ISIC codes, the highest degree of concentration was found in aircraft and repairing industry. Only one public firm was dominant approximately 80 % of the sales from production in the total sales of this subsector. And the other subsectors with highest concentration ratio were railway equipments and repairing, ship building and repairing, tyre and tube, paints, varnishes and lacquers, LPG, motorcyles and bicycles and repairing, and knitting mills indust ries. And we have seen that two new dynamic subsectors, XII manufacture of soap and cleaning preparation, perfumes, cosmetics and other toilet preparations and hygienic products industries, indexes indicate a tendency towards the increase of large firms. In sum, while industrialization are being continued by public and private sectors, the share of private sector is increasing over time. The sectors which require high investments are dominated by public firms. Many firms which compete in the same sector generally belong to the same groups or families. In spite of the increase of the share of private sector and a tendency towards the increase of concentration, firms with small scales continue to exist.