YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

WORKING PAPERS

http://ideas.repec.org/s/yil/wpaper.html

THE EFFECT OF GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE LABOUR PART AND THE

POSITION OF TURKEY’S LABOUR PART IN THIS PROCESS

Tahsin BAKIRTAŞ
 THE EFFECT OF GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE LABOUR SECTION AND THE
POSITION OF TURKEY’S LABOUR SECTION IN THIS PROCESS

Tahsin BAKIRTAS

Sakarya University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Department of Economics
bakirtas@sakarya.edu.tr

SUMMARY
In this study, the effect of global development on labour and position of Turkey’s labour section throughout this process were
examined. Primarily, in this study, the effect of global trade policies on the labour section was considered as a centre-
neighbour country focus. The heterogenous effects of trade on labour were examined by focusing on the technological changes
as well as income differences it creates between workers. The effect of these differences was examined in the scale of Turkey. In
the study, the effects of global trade on centre-neighbour countries were considered within the framework of macro economic
trends and in theoretical frame of labour’s heterogenous structure. Its effects on labour was discussed. In this sense, it was
discussed whether the hypothesis “that the labour is globalized with trade” which was claimed by liberal groups is realistic or
not. By focusing on this discussions, the employment structure of Turkey was analysed; it was discussed within the scope of
global development.

Key words: “Global Development”;“Labour Economics”;“Heterogenous Labour”;“Turkish Economy”; “Global Trade”;

“Globalization”

1. INTRODUCTION
The politic and economic structure emerged as a result of liberal economic policies applied for
nearly quarter century was seen as a global development model among neighbour countries. In this
sense, it is inevitable that the economic structures of the neighbour countries will be liberalized, trade
and finance become internalized and also the process of capital accumulation will become
internalized. During such a process, it is normal that the view for the government and public policies
will change. Different from the previous capital accumulation and development model, government
and public policies apply “international market focused” policies instead of “income distributor-
populist” economy. In this sense, both from legal and application sides, there is a complete
deregulation and irregularity process in trade and finance. In the axis of this new capital accumulation
process in the world, a new capital accumulation process is started to rise throughout the whole world.
Opposite to the previous capital accumulation process, this new capital accumulation process was
based on a monetary capital. In the new capital accumulation model, the profit gained from high

1
interest, stock exchange and money speculation was more than the profit gained from production. For
this reason, in this new model, it was aimed to increase the interest rate instead of decreasing it in an
international basis. Due to high interest rates, it becomes meaningless to make large scale investment
to the industry. Thus, instead of making huge industry production in huge production units in
industrialized countries, the production process was broken into pieces, every stage is given to
subcontractors in the neighbour countries. With this industry model, economic fragilities of the
neighbour countries consists of realizing continous growth but not being able to create capacity in
their employment, not being able to realize fundemantal changes in the traditional structure of
employment and inevitably current deficits.
In this study, with this structure emerged by the global development model, the influence period
of the labour section was examined within the global capital accumulation process; new concepts,
approaches and dimensions which appeared in the new position of labour section were examined. The
study was formed from two parts. In the first part, centre-periphery relations, trends which influence
the labour and makes it heterogenous and develops in the axis of global trade policies and the
theoretical framework of this heterogenous structure were examined. In this examination, trade-labour
relationship and the trends emerged by this relationship was tackled in global dimension. In the second
part, the facts examined and discussed in the first part were handled within the labour section of
Turkey. In this framework, the employment structure of Turkey was examined in detail within the axis
of the production and foreign trade. In the conclusion part, the results obtained were considered in the
axis of world and Turkey.

2. THE NEW POSITION OF LABOUR IN THE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL

In the global development process, labour gained new changes and contents both from the point
of changes in general trends as well as from the theoretical sense. In this sense, there are thousands of
studies that explains the social effects of globalization (for a general summary about these studies, see
Gunter and Hoeven 2004). Globalization created social effects with trade and finance policies. In this
sense, global trade developed rapidly after 1980 and new economic order imposed by this process to
the neighbour countries made a huge effect on the labour section of these countries. These effects will
be explained in two sub headings in this section. First one is the changes and reflections of general
trends and the second one is the changes in the approaches within theoretical sense. The general result
emerged by this two sub headings will be handled in a sub heading through our own view.
2.1 Global Development Trends and Approaches
After 1980, extensive changes were seen on world economy. In global scale, these changes led
to a change in the employment structure. In this process, national economic structure integrated more
to the international economic structures, the international trade volume increased and international
capital trends expand in a way that the history didn’t see before. Developments in the ICT
(Information and Communication Technologies) provides to build up complex international

2
production networks; throughout the process of global supply, the manufacturing industry production
export increased in an unprecedented rate. In this sense, fundemantal changes in economy policies
accompanied to the globalization process. While basically, these policies were low inflation rate,
liberalized markets, the trends of decreasing the share in general economy, providing cross boundary
liberalization to the goods, service and finance trends; no cross boundary liberalization was provided
for the economy during this process.
By the help of liberalization, the world trade was expanded since 1980; thus, while its share in
world GDP was 38%, in the begining of this process, in 2006, it rose to 58%. Especially, after the
collapse of “East Bloc” and entering into the global trade system and location of the Far East Asian
economies in the global trade system were the important factors in the globalization of trade. By
removing the obstructive limitations in front of trade, both country groups were in the global trade
system.
In the last twenty years, financial globalization developed rapidly and total cross boundary
financial assets were increased more than double. Thus, while its share in GDP was 58% in 1990, its
share in the global GDP decreased to 131% in 2004 ( IMF,2007/2).
When we look at to the global development trends, it was claimed by the liberals that the labour
market was integrated throughout the last twenty years but according to them, the integration process
of the labour was separated from the integration process of finance. According to this group,
technological changes and removing the limitations in the cross boundry trade and finance area were
important. During this process, goods and service production became distant from localization and
turned to global markets which was the target market. This position of the production, make the
relative labour costs in the countries to a position which gives more response and this increased the
immigration movements in the borders both legally and illegally. The continous globalization of the
labour market, met with suspicion by the policy makers, media and especially by the economies of the
centre countries and it becomes highly questionable that the people and goods coming by legal and
illegal immigration movements increased the workforce pool of the neighbour countries in an
unprecedented way and it will started to be discussed whether it will affect the employment and
offshoring of the centre countries. The global labour supply increased four times in the last twenty
years. The growth of the global labour pool was realized by the import of the end products of the
developed countries, supporting the production of intermediate goods and channels of immigration.
While the continous globalization of the labour contributes to the decreasing of the increased labour
costs, due to the increase of wages in developing countries, it is said to be beneficial. Nevertheless,
although a big effect was emerged by the fast technological development, it is accepted by these
groups that the globalization in developed economies, especially in sectors which unqualified labour
was needed, was accepted as one of the factors that increased the income share of the labour. The
reason for this is, the low labour costs and the efforts of flexibility reform on the developed labour
market (For the discussions about this subject, IMF;2007/1).

3
 As a common idea of globalization process, globalization created opportunities as well as
challenges and struggles. This idea is especially associated with employment. This process, which we
called as global integration era accompanied a process which affected many things in the employment
structure. In this sense, pressures of making the labour markets flexible and processes of “making
growth by unemployment”, increase in informality and indiscriminateness were the basic properties of
the labour market. Thus, the Employment Outlook published in 2008 by OECD, reports that the
informal employment has reached very important dimensions especially in middle income and low
middle income countries. For example, in Mexico, the share of informal employment within the total
employment has reached to 26.9%. The increase in informalization and indiscriminatenes and
unrecorded economy within the total employment led to expansion of opportunities for the high
qualified workers and there were no opportunities for the low qualified workers. Due to expansion in
global focused production in most of the developing countries, new employment opportunities were
created by the supporters of globalization. This led to increase in income and decrease in poverty.
According to the people who are opposed to this idea, globalization carries many contrasts and
contradictions. According to these people, most of the new employment opportunities carries risks and
ambugiuties and “it creates no change in the incomes of an important part of “Poor Population of
Workers (Heintz J.,2006).
When the production increase, creates employment increase, the benefit of growth will be
shared largely. In this sense, the employment opportunities created will provide new and much better
economic sources to the individuals. In the world, the economic growth emerged by the global process
is focused more on unemployment and inequality. According to USA Bureau of Labor Statistics, for
example in USA, between 1979-2007, 2.8% growth rate was provided, in the same period the
employment rate decreased 1.2% in average. The same trend is valid for all developed countries. The
hypothesis that the global focused growth decrease inequality, contradicts with data. According to the
Poverty in Focus Magazine 2007 June, published in International Poverty Center (IPC), which is
connected to United Nations, “while %10 of the adults in world owns 85% of the global household
wealth, half of the low income groups owns 2% hardly. The determination is that, 2% of the most
richest people of the world owns more than half of global wealth”. Another determination explains the
world’s regional inequality:”Nearly 90% of the global wealth is in North America, Europe and high
income Asia-Pacific countries. While America has 6% of the world’s adult population, it owns 34% of
the global wealth. In World of Work Report 2008, it is reported that in the global process, total income
of high income households expands more than the low income households and determines that in
similar trends, inequalities between labour income-profit and qualified labour-low qualified labour
increased.
Global process revealed the fast integration in trade, finance and service sector. In this sense, the
growth model based on production in the previous process gave way to a growth model based on
service and finance. The capital accumulation process of this model was different. There was a slip to

4
money and finance based capital accumulation process from production based capital accumulation. In
this process, important changes occurred in the employment structure, especially the employment in
the agriculture section slipped to service sector. In ILO 2008 January Global Employment Trends
Report, when we look at to the total employment distribution in agriculture, services and industry
between 1997-2007, in the begining of the period, the share of the agriculture which was 41,4%
decreased to 34.9%, the share of the services increased to 42,7% from 37.5%. In 2002, the share of
both of them was 40%. The employment in industry which was 20% remained and it was accrued
22.4% in 2007.
When we look from the point of centre countries, while the share of the agriculture was 6.1% in
the begining of the period, it dropped to 3.9%, the share of the services increased from 65.6% to
71.5%. In industry, as opposed to the general trend, it dropped to 24.5% from 28.3%. The change in
the employment structure developed as parallel to the globalization process. The global integration
process and rapid change in technology put knowledge and information technology sectors forward as
well as due to globalized trade and finance sections, it is inevitable that there will be a slip from
agriculture and industry sectors to services sector. Thus, the data in productions of both centre country
economies and employment structures reveals this change clearly ( Explained detailed in ILO 2008
and WTO, 2006). In the rest of the world, while there was an important slip from agriculture sector to
services sector, it was seen that there was even a small slip to industry from both production and
employment. The basic reason for slipping to industry was that the industry production of developed
countries slip to these countries in paralel with more flexible employment markets and prevention of
environmet pollution.
One of the important factors that the neighbour countries economies move towards
manufacturing industry both from production and employment point was that the developed countries
move their manufacturing industries to these coutries by the help of multinational companies or
directly by investment. The basic factor in this movement was the low workforce costs of these
countries. The 4 times increase in the global labour supply by the participation of China, India and
East Bloc countries was the important factor in this slip. Most of the labour involved in the global
labour supply, consists of unqualified and low educated labour. In the global scale, in the last twenty
five years, although it was seen that there was an approximately 50% increase in the relative supply of
educated workers, most of this increase came from developed countries, at the same time there was an
increase in China. According to the data in IMF World Economic Outlook 2007/1 , the number of
uneducated people in the global labour supply was 200 million people, this number increased
continously and in 2005 it reached to 750 million people; the amount of educated people rose only 90
million people from 45 million people.
While legal and illegal immigration was an important factor in the movement of global labour
supply from neighbour coutries to centre countries, the actual factor was realized by the trade of goods
and services. In this sense, in the centre countries, labour supply was a very important channel in

5
increasing the pool, it is seen that there was a rapid increase in this area. On the contrary, legal and
illegal immigration were not become an important subject; in figures, it stayed nearly the same. A
similar table is valid for the neighbour countries. The GDP export rate in neighbour coutries was
larger than immigrants in the workforce. Besides this general idea, some EU countries such as
Germany, Italy and Great Britain and USA were the countries which took immigrants. 15 % of USA’s
worforce consists of immigrants coming outside the USA. Most of these immigrants come from
Mexico and have no education or qualification. It is known that most of the immigrants who came to
the mentioned EU countries were not educated and came by illegal ways. The most important subject
which is emphasized by EU countries in recent years is how to prevent this immigration. The
workforce percentages of the biggest countries of EU and USA is lower than the GDP export rates.
This situation shows that the labour globalization is realized by trade in the liberal logic.
From this conclusion, it can be said that, with liberal logic, the globalization and dynamism of
the labour can be provided not with the human activity but with the activity of goods and services.
This inference revealed a result of globalization of production factors. But, this logic and inference
was so indirect and reflects the panic of making wrong and showing the efforts of the labour which is
becoming globalized. The common idea and data of all the reports, articles, etc. which were published
by liberals shows that the free circulation of the labour did formed in physical sense.
The efforts of making the labour globalized through trade was a product of efforts directed to
make the neighbour countries employment markets flexible. In this sense, as a result of the labour
becomes relatively cheap in the neighbour countries; the production of centre countries was directed to
the neighbour countries somehow through methods such as multinational companies or
subcontracting, etc. This production which was directed towards centre countries also slip to centre
countries by trade. It is seen that, centre countries directed production-employment-trade reletionship
in this focus. Especially, countries which the supply of global unqualified and uneducated labour was
increased and the labour cost was relatively low, become the attraction centers for centre countries.
EU and USA which are qualified as two big powers in global sense created their own
peripheries. By expanding or making agreements with old East Block countries, EU, slip its industry
productions to these countries by various channels, USA builds this relationship through China and
India. In this sense, the share of neighbour countries within the manufacturing production export of
centre countries increased two times since before 1990’s. Especially, in this sense, China, which
gained to be the periphery of USA was located as the main motivator country. The export of Old East
Bloc countries and China and India which are peripherized by EU and USA in 1990’s was increased,
their import was increased also. The reason for the increase in their import was that the income of the
production in these countries except labour depends on the intermediate and investment goods in
centre countries. In this sense, it was a very important result that the share of neighbour countries
within the manufacturing industry production export of centre countries increased more than import
share.

6
 When the qualified sectors of past, slip from centre countries to neighbour countries, there was
an important increase in the production and export of the sector producing qualified-skilled goods. The
main factor source of this increase, was labour costs as well the centre countries concern of moving
their environment problems to the neighbour countries. The investment and intermediate goods of this
qualified production was exported to those countries at the same time it was benefited from relatively
low labour costs of the neighbour countries. The rapid spreading of goods and services in the
globalized world decreased both goods export and goods import. In this reduction, labour supply price
was influential as much as technology. Therefore, the share of labour supply gained from total income
was decreased during this period. This decline trend increased the inequality of the factor income
much more. Thus, in OECD countries, since 1980’s, the share of the wages in the national income
decreased gradually. Generally, the inequality formed by this reason was in a dreadful dimension for
many countries most of the population got little share from income. This situation was valid for nearly
every country and it was a result of global process (for details look at OECD 2007a; OECD 2007b,
OECD 2007c; OECD 2007d).
2.2 The Developments In The Theoretical Structure of The Labour
It is an important question in economy that how much share will every factor income used in
production will get. Therefore, it is focused here whether what will the source or method of capital
accumulation will be. While on one hand, the factor income was destroyed against labour, on the other
hand income differences increased rapidly within labour. By moving from this point, paralel to the
increased global labour supply, slipping of traditional production style from centre countries towards
neighbour countries increased the neighbour countries export to centre countries. Paralel to the export
increase, there was a concentration on labour especially in unqualified labour. According to traditional
theories, the integration of centre countries with the world’s economy will met with a decline pressure
on wages. For this reason, it is expected that the labour will get less share from national income.
Opposite to this, the groups who claims the hypothesis of gaining profit from trade, when it was
defined as the the share of labour is the labour wage percentage of average working productivity per
worker, paralel to the increased productivity, there was a thesis that there will be no increase in the
share of workers. There is a wide literature about this subject (for example, Lewer and Van den Berg,
2003; Berg and Krueger,2003).
According to these studies, the increase in economic income can continue with the increase in
productivity and in paralel with this, it can increase the income share of the workers. The studies made
recently about this subject shows that, the productivity increases gained from intermediate trade is
more than the productivity gained from end products trade and in addition to this, due to the
competitive effect of the production sectors, it increases the production costs of the used sectors
(Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg 2006). But even in these or similar studies, there was no common
conclusion. Different results were found in various studies. In comparisons made in this sense were
between the workers wage shares and labour percentage. The labour share of centre countries within

7
the production factors decreased since 1980s. The workers wage share was much stronger than the
labour share. As mentioned in IMF(2007/1), for example in 1970’s, Blanchard, Olivier’s( 1998)
increase in labour percentage in European countries during 1970’s, was realized by a negative slip in
labour supply based on the low regulated wages under factor productivity growth.
When the increase in labour productivity is reflected on the workers wage, there can be an
increase in the income share of the labour section. In an opposite situation, since the increase in the
productivity of labour increase the income of the other sections of the community, factor income
inequalities increased. For this reason, starting from the increase in the productivity of labour, it is a
conterversial thesis that workers situation thereby labour’s situation will benefit from trade. Thus, all
the work and international economic data made in this area reveals that the share of the labour section
was increased. This is an expected result of the global development. Therefore, in idealogical sense,
globalization is the peak point where capitalizm can reach. At this point, turning the income share in
favour of capital was an expected result aimed by global forces. Globalization, is not only a process
which is in favour of the capital but at the same time it is a process which makes the labour inequal
and impoverish. In this sense, rapid change in techological process influenced all the labour markets of
the world deeply and these influences increased continously. Technological process revealed a
heterogenous structure in labour markets. The income inequality between labour section which makes
the technological process internalized and which can not make it internalized increased.
Big discussions and debates about the changing properties of labour market and its inequalities
in economy literature draw attention. Especially, there are many studies focusing on subjects like wage
inequalities which is accelarated by the global process and analysis of wage structure, inequalities in
labour market. The common characteristic of these studies which is different from the others is that
they reveal a new generation. Especially, these studies concentrate on labour market inequalities in
the centre countries and heterogenous labour and in paralel with this are, the differences in extreme
wage inequalities. These studies can be summarized in three main titles: First one is the studies on
wage inequality and the determiners of wage inequality. For example, in the model defined in Katz
and Murphy (1992), in the production function, the labour was not homogenous; it turned
heterogenous structure as skilled labour or unskilled labour.
The second study was the one which was very popular among economists and focused on the
change in wage inequality and explains this change with a technology based on skill. The common
point of these studies was the hypothesis that “why the wage inequality has increased and why the
relative demand slipped into educated and skilled labour”. Bound and Johnson (1992) directed
towards explaining the increased wage deficit and the conclusions they reached were the wage
structure changes in industry, changes in the demand structure of the production, employment slips
within industry and changes in general technology and wage intervals. Juhn and et al, (1993) revealed
the inequalities in the process of wage increases including changes in regarded and disregarded skills.

8
As can be seen from these studies, these were the first studies of Skilled Based Technological
Development (SBTC).
The third one were the studies focused on the ones which showed the last developments and the
nuance versions of skilled based technologic change hypothesis (SBTC hypothesis) and market
polarization. When expressed in simplest form, the common point of this studies was that, to use the
new technologies in production resulted in high productivity but the reflection of productivity
increases on wages was not valid for all of the workers. This was reflected as high wages to the skilled
workers who has the skill to use these technologies and as low wages or discharge from work to the
workers who have no ability to use these new technologies. In this sense, a slip was seen from low
unskilled labour to qualified and educated labour, in the heterogenous structure of labour, wage
inequalities and inequalities ocur while finding a job in the heterogenous structure of labour (for the
detail look at Machin 2008).
The fact revealed in all the theoretical and emprical studies shows that low education and skill
level brings low income or even discharge from work. In this sense, even in the same sectors it is
proved that there was a slip in the labour supply who has low education and skill level to high
education and skilled education level demand.
2.3 Is The Global Development Make The Labour Globalized or Heterogenous?
The supporters of globalization, even with a low voice, tells the thesis that the labour is
globalized by trade and try to prove these thesis and directly they say that the labour is globalized by
this process. This thesis is the one which claims that the trade will be beneficial to all the individuals
and countries, groups and factor owners. On the other hand, since the goods produced within the
country will go to other countries by trade and the labour used in the production of goods and service
will be mobilized, the thesis that the labour should not necessarily circulate like goods, services or
capital, is claimed by the liberals as a support for why the labour is circulated like capital and goods.
In our opinion, even, these thesis and assumptions give opposite results in reports, working papers,
articles and etc. which are prepared by the instituitions of the liberal capital world. In OECD studies
which examined the effects of globalization on labour market, this idea is clearly revealed (for details
look at OECD 2007 b, OECD 2007 c OECD 2007 d). The results are listed below;
First of all, the labour share within the world’s factor income gradually decreased. The cause of
this reduction is that the global labour supply increases by neighbour countries. In this sense, even
though labour supply increases due to low education and skill level of the neighbour countries, the
share of the labour gained from the total income decreases.
Second one is that, besides the share of the labour decreases, the inequality within the the share
of the total labour increases. Technological improvements have an important share in this inequality.
The labour section who can internalize and have the education and ability to use the technological
improvements can turn the productivity increase into profit; the labour section who can not internalize
and do not have the education and ability to use the technological improvements can lead to losses and

9
even faces unemployment. In this sense, even in the same sector, there is a rapid demand slip from low
uneducated labour to educated and skilled labour.
Third one is that, the immigration from centre countries to neigbour countries by legal or illegal
ways leads to panic in centre countries. In this sense, the common ground of the policy makers, labour
sections and media of the centre countries is immigration and their discussions about the negative
effects of immigration on their own communities and people.
This result is very important from the point of determining an important inference. In
denominational basis, the cooperation and common share of world’s people can be realized as long as
it does not coincide with their own interests. When it coincides with their own interests, there is a
movement from international denomination basis to national basis. Even this basis can go to ethnic
and religious foundations within the country. For this reason, it is clearly seen that, especially in
labour, there will be no cooperation on the basis of denomination. In my opinion, the reason for this is
that, instead of denominational common share, communities and individuals become labour on an
individual, singular, nationalist-religious and same gender cooperation axis. Today, it is hard for a
hybrid Mexican to work in USA than a white American. Or, instead of a white man, it is hard for a
black woman to work. The same situation is valid for most of the countries. Thus, in OECD Outlook
2008, it is clearly determined that the gender inequality gradually rises. Capital and goods do not have
such problems. Even it happens, the deregulation policies of liberalism come into force and removes
all the obstacles. In this sense, the ethnic, national or religious motives of the capital were ignored.
Therefore, capital was isolated from humans; it becomes a meta which governs human.
Since global development is a result of liberalism, it is very natural that the trade of goods,
services and capital become globalized. It is easy to build a relationship without human value and to
carry it into a global secale. Thus, there is no ethnic or religious objection to the globalization of
goods, service or capital but when it comes to the globalization of the labour, there are direct or
indirect ethnic or religious objections. For this reason, it is not possible that the labour will gain free
circulation right or going anywhere at any time like goods or capital. It is clearly seen in the past
century and today that, in environments where the denominational organizations are weak, as long as
they do not touch their own interests denominational cooperations can be seen. During a period where
global capital or goods trend reached an incredible dimension, it is a paradocxial and chaotic situation
that the people immigrate to other countries by informal ways for working and have a good life.
For hiding this situation and to ignore the inequality which is based on denomination; a thesis
that the labour is globalized by trade is put forward. Today, trade is realized between the similar
countries; or make the unsimilar structures similar. To be able to benefit from the cheap labour, centre
countries slip their production to countries where the labour is cheap. The only aim of the centre
countries multinational companies is to gain profits from the countries they go. In this sense, the
hypothesis that the labour will get richer by labour is far from reality. For this reason, the hypothesis
that the labour will get richer and globalized by win-win understanding is an understanding which is

10
based on a trade gain. This understanding increased the inequalities of centre-neighbour focus as well
as emerged a heterogenous structure in the labour section.
In paralel with the technological focused developments of the centre countries and neighbour
countries open their production structures to technological developments but the employment
structures of the neighbour countries have much lower education and lower skill. It increased the
position of these countries among centre countries as well as increasing the income inequality and at
the same time it made the employment structure heterogenous. While, the educated and skilled labour
can internalize technological developments, the part who has low education and skill which forms
most of the employment, faces much more lower income. This process increase the inequality of
centre-neighbour focus as well as increase the number of unemployed people and forms a more
unequal income level. This situation is not valid for centre countries especially for EU countries.
Therefore, the education level is developed in these countries and most of the population gained
quality. For this reason, there is no problem whether to internalize or not internalize the technological
developments. Another factor which creates an income inequality in the labour section of the
neighbour countries is whether they know English or not. If a worker does not know English, it is hard
for him to internalize the technological developments; apart from that to know English is in front of
many skills and information. Centre country workers do not have such a problem.
Due to free circulation of capital and goods, it is obvious that the global development model can
not globalize the labour. Instead of direct globalization of labour, the reality is that that the labour will
circulate freely on the axis of nationalist-religious axis. Instead of one dimension axis, it is inevitable
that the global development wil directed towards multidimensional and regionalized global
development. Another important obstacle we face in the globalization of the labour is low education
and skill level and it can only be achieved by developing policies that will make the people more
educated and skilled. In this sense, developing international education programmes and common
grounds and common sense can form an education policy.

3. GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR SECTION IN TURKEY

In Turkey, the global development process started to be applied by making foreign trade
internationalized after 1980. Throughout this process, export got support from public section and
import became more free. After 1989, financial globalization process continues by gaining speed and
come until today. Paralel with global process, both goods and financial capital were directed towards
global markets from national markets and formed the development dynamics of Turkey. In this sense,
the foreign trade volume of Turkey was 10.819.6 in 1980 and increased to 277.335 million dollars in
2007. The ratio of foreign trade volume to GNP was 15.9 in 1980 and this ratio increased to 56.4 in
2007. While the foreign trade deficit was 5 million dollars in 1980, it rises to 50 million dollars today.
Today, only private sector borrowed 190 billion dollars from outside. In this sense, both from goods
and financial terms, Turkey is integrated into global markets. The basic determiner in integration with

11
global markets is the customs agreement made with European Union in the begining of 1996. In the
begining of 1996, the total export of Turkey was 23.2 billion dollars, it increased 14.9% yearly in
average and reached to 107.2 billion dollars; import was increased from 66.8 billion dollars in 2007 to
170 billion dollars. The accelaration trend of export and import was realized after 2001 crisis. In this
respect, the year 2000’s were the years where Turkey integrated fully to the global markets. With
Turkey’s integration into global markets, a decelaration was observed in the long term growth trend of
Turkey’s economy. Thus, between 1950-2007, the average growth was 5 percent, in 1960-2007, it was
4.7%, in 1970-2007, it was 4.4%, in 1980-2007, it was 4.3%. The fast economic growth average
occurred after 2001 showed a limited recovery and reached to 4.5% (Saygılı, Cihan 2008).
The main determiner in Turkey’s growth is the foreign supply. The economy developed in the
axis of global development enter into growth trend especially after 2001 crisis. In this respect, 88.9
percent of Turkey’s export consisted of manufacturing industry goods in 1996, this percentage rose to
92 percent in 2001. During the process of fast connection with global markets, it reached to 95
percent. The share of the agriculture which was 9 percent in 1996 dropped to 6 percent in 2001 and 3
percent in 2007. It is clearly seen from the export/growth rates that the Turkish economy has a growth
model with an export axis. Thus, in TUSIAD’s study, the export/production rate in manufacturing
industry which was 15.46% in 1997 rose to 26.67% in 2001 and 39.6% in 2007. The main
determiner sectors in this increase was land vehicles, electrical machines and tools. The rise in export/
production rates did not reflected on export/supply rates. The export/supply rate was 22.44% in 1997,
in 2001 it rose to 28.7% and 35.86% in 2007. The import/supply rate in manufacturing industry was
32.91% in 1997, in 2007 it rose to 65.26% (Yükseler Z. Türkan E.2008). As can be seen, the rise of
export production did not determined by export supply but with import. Thus, while the annual
average increase in the manufacturing industry annual production index was 3.7%, the annual average
increase in annual import quantity index was 9.4% in consumption goods, 11.9 percent for
intermediate goods and 11.1% for investment goods.
When we look at the to the rising trend in Turkey’ employment, the total employment in
Turkey’s economy between 1988-2007 shows 0.94 percent rise annually. When 1988-2007 period
was evaluated, it was seen that the potential of the economy for creating employment was relatively
strong in 1980’s; it was weakened in 1990’s; in 2000’s, although there was a fast economic growth,
the employment did not rise as expected even it shows a decline. Thus, the employment of Turkey
rose 2.67% in 1988-1991; it rose 2.40% in 1992-1996; it rose 1.48% in 1997-2001 and it rose 0.23%
in 2002-2007.Cumulatively, in 1998-2007, it rose only 18.79%.
It was clearly seen from the above data that Turkey has shown no growth in employment which
accompanies Turkey’s growth trend. In this respect, Turkey’s growth model is a model which does not
create employment. This result is the one which accompanies the global model. The agricultural
structures ignored by global model enter into a resolution process in neighbour countries. There is a

12
production and employment structure which starts from agriculture and directed towards industry and
services.
While Turkey integrated into the global process, it lived a sectoral slip. In this process, while the
share of the agriculture decreases, the share of the industry and services increased. While from the
point of agriculture, this change was in harmony with the world’s centre focused global development ,
from the point of industry and services there was a difference. While the change in centre countries
was from agriculture to services, in Turkey, paralel with other neighbour countries, it was directed
towards industry instead of agriculture. Thus, Turkey’s agriculture share in 1980 was 24.2% and it
gradually decreased to 11 percent in 2007. On the other hand, the share of industry in 1980 was 20.5
while in 2007 it rose to 30 percent. Periodically, it represents nearly 50 percent increase . In services
area, even though it did not decreased as much as industry sector, there was an increase. Thus, in
1980, the share of the services was 55.4 percent and it increased to 59 in 2007 (TUIK 2007).
While 1980, 50 percent of the employment worked in agriculture, this ratio decreased to 27.8%
in 2008. The share of the employment in industry was 13.9%, this ratio was increased to 19.3% in
2007. The share of the services was 36 percent in 1980, it increased to 52.9% in 2007.The share of the
services was 36 percent in 1980, it rose to 52.9% in 2007.
The share of the workforce within the factor incomes was 20.7 percent in 1987, this ratio
increased in 1992 and reached to 31.9% but later it continued to fall and in 1995 it decreased to
22.2%; in 2000, it rose to 30.7%; in 2006 it decreased to 26.2%. As can be seen, although periodically
there were ups and downs in workforce payments within the factor incomes, a periodic increase was
seen. When we look at to the sectoral distribution of workforce payments, the share of the agriculture
was 7.9 percent in 1987, this ratio decreased to 4.9%; in 1996, it rose to 6.9% and later it decreased
and in 2006 it fell to 4.1%. While the share of the industry was 24.8% in 1987, this ratio rose to 27.7%
in 1991 later it decreased and in 2006 it fell to 20.2%. The dramatic fall was in the share of the
workforce in construction sector; in 1987, the share was 17.5%, in 2003, it fell to 5.1; in 2006, it was 8
percent. Even though there were decreases, the income share of the workforce in government services
rose to an important level. In 1987, the income share of government services in the workforce was
23.6%, in 2003, it rose to 37.9; in 2006, it was realized as 35.5%.
Throughout the global development process in Turkey’s economy, the factor incomes gained by
the workforce did not decrease and even an increase was seen and the reason for this is that there was
an income increase in the workforce of the government service. For this reason, it can not be claimed
that labour section was benefited from market focused global process. On the contrary, it is a reality
that market focused development in the global process decreased the private sector profits in foreign
markets. In this respect, contrary to the decreased private profits, there was an increase in governmen
sector’s workforce and the share that the labour force gets from income. Especially opposite to the
qualified structure of public services such as education, health and managment, it was affected by the
private sector which was directed towards unqualified workforce. The positive wage reflection of

13
global process upon the labour section can only be possible by the labour income increases of the
sectors which were opened outside. Opening to outside can only be possible by manufacturing
industry. When we look at to the workforce data of manufacturing industry, although the workforce
productivity increases, it was seen that the real wages decrease. Thus, as annual average in 1997-2001,
the workforce productivity was 3.1% , it was realized as 6.7 percent in 2002-2007. As 1997=100
based, the workforce productivity index was 99.4% in 1998, it continued to increase and in 2007 it
reached to 170.3%. The real wage index per hour was 99.1% in 1998 and in 2002 it was 85.2% and in
2007 it was realized as 93.6%. When TUIK data were examined, the number of workers in the
manufacturing industry was decreased 1.5 percent in 1998-2007; in 2002-2007 period, the number of
workers in the manufacturing industry increased 0.9 percent annually.
From the point of value added and employment growth, the foreign trade which was the main
innovator of global development had made a very limited contribution to the economy; it had a
decreasing effect on the wage incomes of employment in real sense. When 1997=100 based indexes
published by TUIK were examined, in 2001 which is a crisis year for the workers in the manufacturing
industry, it fell to 81.6%, although the economy continued to grow, in 2007 it could reached to 86
percent. In 1997-2007 period, the annual average productivity increase in manufacturing industry was
5.25% ; annual average real wage increase was realized as -0.66%. In 1997-2007 period, out of 22 sub
sectors examined in manufacturing industry only in 7 of them, there was an increase in the number of
workers, in other sectors the number of workers fell. In consumption goods group, -furniture and in
other manufacturing sub sector-, the employment was increased, in textile and clothing sectors where
the employment was high, the number of workers decreased significantly. In investment goods group,
land vehicles and communication equipment, radio-TV manufacturing sectors, a significant
employment increase was seen. The employment increase in investment goods group was realized
after 2001 crisis. In manufacturing industry, in the focus of sub sectors, there was an employment
difference. Thus, in 1997, 52.2 percent of the employment were working in the consumption goods
group, this ratio fell to 44.7% in 2007; in 1997, 2.7 percent of the employment were working in the
intermediate goods group, this ratio was increased to 30.2% in 2007; in investment goods, in 1997, the
ratio which was 20.1% was realized as 25.1% in 2007. The most important factor in the slip from
consumption goods group to other groups was the increase of employment in textile and clothing
sectors. Thus, between 1997-2007, the decrease of employment in these sectors was 82%

In 1997-2007 period, the annual average increase in workforce productivity was nearly 5.3
percent in manufacturing industry, when we examine the sub sectors of the manufacturing industry, in
consumer goods group, it was 3.6%, in intermediate goods group it was 4.8% and in investment goods
it was 4.2%. When we look at to the period between 1997-2007, while the productivity increase in
manufacturing industry was 6.7%, in consumer goods group, it was 2.5%, in intermediate goods group
it was 6.1% and in investment goods it increased 9.8 percent.

14
 In the period between 1997-2007, the increases in workforce productivity in manufacturing
industry did not reflected on the real wage increases, on the contrary, real wages were declined.
During this period, in manufacturing industry, annually,the real wages per worker, declined 0.7% in
average; it declined to 0.3 percent in consumer goods group and 1 percent in investment goods group.
There was 0.2 percent increase in intermediate goods group. Between 2002-2007, the real wage
decrease was more significant. Thus, in this period, the recession was the same for production and
investment goods, the increase in intermediate goods left itself to recession, the 0.2 percent increase
level dropped to 1.3%. According to OECD data, in 1998, in yearly basis, the minumun real wage per
hour in Turkey was 7,84 $, this number was realized as 1,08 $ in 2002 and it was 1,48$ in 2005.
When look at all the trends of OECD countries, the recession trend in real wages lived more rapidly in
Turkey.
The exchange process of the employment was changed as focusing on global development. In
this sense, when we look at to the employment difference between rural and urban, we see that the
employment moved from rural to urban areas in big amounts. Thus, in 1988, while the employment in
rural area was 59.2 percent, this ratio fell to 51.1% in 1997 and to 48% in 2002 and 40.6% in 2007;
in this sense, there was a big workforce immigration to urban areas. Between 1988-2007 period, the
rural employment fell 0.88% annually, the urban employment increased 2.85 percent.
The employment in Turkey, become informal and unrecorded. According to OECD data, the
unrecorded employment increase rapidly in Turkey. Nearly 50 percent of the employment are outside
the social security system. On the other hand, informal employment has an important place among
employment. According to 2008 data, only 57.8 percent of the employment are getting wage. 26.6
percent of the employment are employers and 15.6 percent are wageless family workers.
When the employment structure of Turkey is examined from the point of education level, it was
observed that the employment became more educated between 1988-2007. But, it is still clearly seen
that the education level is an important problem. In this respect, the employment from rural to urban
become more educated. Nevertheless, in 2008, still 61% of the employment has a degree below high
school. While this ratio is 82 percent in rural areas, it is nearly 55 percent in urban areas. The gender
inequality of the employment is still a wide problem. In 2008, 72.7 percent of the employment was
still consisted of men. If thought that half of the workable population are women, due to traditional-
religious pressures or habits, most of the women are stil unemployed. It is seen that the education level
of the women employment is lower than the men employment. All these results clearly show that,
there is a gender inequality in Turkey. In Turkey, when education inequality combines with gender
inequality, it is seen that there is a big inequality from the point of women. Since the women are
employed in agriculture sector and in rural areas, it increases the women-men inequality more from
the point of income.
In Turkey, global development model occurred as a foreign trade growth. Foreign companies
played important roles in this growth. The foreign company share in manufacturing industry reached

15
to 35 percent, in banking and insurance sectors it reached to 50 percent. It was seen clearly that in
foreign trade axis and multinational companies focused growth model created some changes in the
labour structure of Turkey. Paralel with global development model, the expansion model in foreign
trade sector is valid for Turkey. Rather than supporting the production supply, the foreign trade
directed from agriculture to industry created a production structure supported by import; it showed a
production structure which does not increase employment, lowers the real wages and provides
productivity increases. Even though, the relative increase of workforce share within factor incomes
was not appropriate for the global process of centre countries, when we look at to the reasons, actually
it will be seen that it is a result of global development model. Thus, the difference between GNP and
GDP is a significant quality for explaining the decline of capital share in the country. Especially, after
2001 crisis, when there is a full integration with global markets, paralel with the dominance of
multinational company structure in finance and trade, net factor income of production became
negative from positive and profit transfers increased rapidly to outside. Thus, in 2000, with 1987 fixed
prices, while it was 1.397.947 million YTL, at the end of 2003- this number was realized as 2.320.123
million YTL and in 2007, it was -1.389.774 million YTL. In this respect, the decreased profit shares
inside, increased the workforce in macro scale. On the other hand, with the increase of workforce
share, there was an increase in the income share of the government’s service workforce. Thus, in an
environment where the real wages increase and employment decrease, increase in workforce share was
not expected in macro scale.
Global development make it necessary for Turkey to have a growth process which is focused on
foreign trade. Another reality is that, in cases where a finance problem occurs due to foreign deficits,
the recession will become inevitable. When production becomes dependent on import in an increasing
way, employment increase and real wage increase and production which does not provide profit to the
national private sector profit will face blockage.

4. CONCLUSION
World economy is globalized by focusing on goods-service and finance. In this respect, national
markets become international markets. With the help of this international markets, goods, service and
finance movements created increase trends very fast. In this respect, neighbour countries
manufacturing industry export were increased; their production structures become focused on import
increase.
Labour is devoid of free circuulation right such as goods and finance but liberals claimed that
labour can be globalized and they tried to prove it. In this respect, efforts of globalizing the labour by
trade should be percieved as making the employment markets flexible and should be considered as
efforts of using the labour in a cheaper way by multinational companies. In this respect, especially, the
countries where the global unqualified and uneducated labour increased and the labour cost is
relatively becomes low, were the attraction centers for centre countries. EU and USA which are

16
qualified as two big global powers, created their own peripheries. While they created their own
perpipheries, the employment markets of the neighbour countries formed by the desires of these
countries. By the productivity increases and rising profits formed with with the help of technological
developments, growth by production and profit transfer and production which is moving towards the
neighbouring countries and gaining cheaper goods by trade formed the main axis of the growth model
of centre countries. On the other hand, neighbour countries integration into foreign markets by foreign
trade shows high current deficits; high interest policy was applied for financing this current deficits. In
this way, it became a tool for conveying the excess economic value to the centre.
The economic growth formed by the global process in the world is focused more on
unemployment and inequality growth. In this respect, in the growth model formed by global
development, the income share of the employment was dropped; real wage levels were increased.
Informalization and indiscriminateness in employment increased and employment markets turned into
flexible structures.
By the collapse of East Block and China’s and India’s participation into employment, global
labour supply increased, the increase in the labour supply was very limited compared to unqualified
increase. Global development process formed slips on sectoral structure of the employment; many
were determined from agriculture to services sector, slip to industry was limited.
When we evaluate the aspects occurred in the global process as integrated, the affect of global
development model on employment markets serves to a centre focused development. Moving from
this point, the raw material and cheap workforce of the neighbouring country combines with
intermediate and investment goods of the centre country and turned into product and presented to the
consumers of the centre country. The camouflage of this structure is the inference that in every
condition, the countries entered into trade gain profit. By moving from the thesis that labour will be
globalized by trade, this inference makes another inference that there is no need for labour to circulate
freely. In this respect, the immigration to centre countries from neighbour countries by illegal or legal
ways creates panic in centre countries.
This result is very important from the point of developing an important inference. As long as it
does not coincide with their own interests, the world community’s cooperation and common sharing
can be realized on a denominational basis. When it touches their own interests, there is a movement
from international denomination basis to national basis. Even this basis can go to ethnic and religious
foundations within the country. For this reason, it is clearly seen that, especially in labour, there will
be no cooperation on the basis of denomination. In my opinion, the reason for this is, instead of
denominational common share, communities and individuals become labourized on an individual,
singular, nationalist-religious and same gender cooperation axis. Capital and goods do not have such
problems. Even they have a problem, the deregulation policies of liberalism come into force and
removes all the obstacles. In this sense, the ethnic, national or religious motives of the capital were

17
always ignored. Therefore, capital was isolated from humans; it becomes a meta which governs
human.
Since global development is a result of liberalism, it is very common that the trade of goods,
services and capital become globalized. It is easy to build a relationship without human and carry it to
a global secale. Thus, there is no ethnic or religious objection to the globalization of goods, service or
capital but when it comes to the globalization of the labour, there are direct or indirect ethnic or
religious objections. For this reason, it is not possible that the labour will gaine a free circulation right
or can anywhere at any time like goods or capital. It is clearly seen in the past century and today that,
in environments where the denominational organizations are weak, denominational cooperation can be
seen as long as they do not touch their own interests. In a process where global capital or goods trend
reached an incredible dimension, it is a paradoxical and chaotic situation that the people immigrate to
other countries by informal ways for working and have a good life.
In a process where global capital or goods trend reached an incredible dimension, it is a
paradoxial and chaotic situation that the people immigrate to other countries by informal ways for
working and have a good life.
Due to free circulation of capital and goods, it is obvious that the global development model can
not globalize the labour. Instead of direct globalization of labour, the reality is that the labour will
circulate freely on the axis of nationalist-religious axis and instead of one dimension axis, it is
inevitable that the global development will be directed towards multidimensional and regionalized
global development. Another important obstacle we face in the globalization of the labour is low
education and skill level and it can only be achieved by developing policies that will make the people
more educated and skilled. In this sense, developing international education programmes and common
grounds and common sense can form an education policy.
The global development process in Turkey’s economy formed a fluctuated growth trend but
there was not any employment trend which accompanied the growth trend. In this respect, Turkey’s
growth model is the one which does not create employment. Therefore, in Turkey, a foreign trade axis
growth model is used. In this growth model, foreign companies played important roles. It was seen
clearly that the foreign trade axis and multinational companies focused growth model, created changes
in the labour structure of Turkey.
While Turkey integrated to the global process, a sectoral slip was seen. In this process, while the
share of the agriculture decreases, the share of the industry and services increased. From the point of
agriculture, while this change is in harmony with the world’s centre focused global development,
fthere is a difference from the point of industry and services. While the change in centre countries is
from agriculture to services, in Turkey, paralel with other neighbouring countries, it was directed
towards industry instead of agriculture.

18
 The foreign trade which is the main innovator of global development, made a very limited
contribution to the economy from the point of value added and employment growth; in real sense, it
has a decreasing effect on the wage incomes of employment.
The displacement process of the employment was changed as focusing on global development.
In this sense, when we look at to the employment difference between rural and urban, we see that in
big the employment which moved from rural to urban areas was reached to big amounts. The
employment in Turkey, become informal and unrecorded. When the employment structure of Turkey
is examined from the point of education level, it was observed that the employment become more
educated. In this respect, the employment from rural to urban become more educated. At the same
time, in 2008, the employment has an education level which is below high school.
It is stil clearly seen that gender inequality is still an important problem. Nearly ¾ of the
employment consists of men population. If thought that half of the workable population are women, it
is seen that due to traditional-religious pressures or habits most of the women are out of employment.
It is seen that the edcation level of the women employment is lower than the men employment. All
these results show that, there is a clear gender inequality in Turkey. When education inequality
combines with gender inequality in Turkey, it is seen that there is a big inequality from the point of
women. Since the women are employed in agriculture sector and in rural areas, it increases the
women-men inequality more from the point of income
As a result, the trade axis growth development in Turkey did not supported with employment
increases; it shows changes paralel with global model. In this respect, inequalities such as education-
qualification, gender are stil permanent.

References
Berg, Andrew, and Anne O. Krueger,( 2003), “Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey,” IMF
Working Paper 03/30 (Washington: International Monetary Fund). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/wp0330.pdf
on 21 September 2008.
Blanchard, Olivier( 1998) “Revisiting European Unemployment: Unemployment, Capital Accumulation and
Factor Prices,” NBER Working Paper No. 6566 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic
Research).
Bound J. and Johnson G. (1992) ‘Changes in the Structure of Wages in the 1980s: An Evaluation of
Alternative Explanations’, American Economic Review83: 371–392.
Grossman, Gene M., and Esteban Rossi-Hansberg(2006), “The Rise of Offshoring: It’s Not Wine for Cloth
Anymore,” paper presented at Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City symposium, “The New Economic Geography: Effects and
Policy Implications,” Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 24–26. Available via the
Internet: http://www.kc.frb.org/
GUNTER, Bernhard G. and HOEVEN, Rolph van der(2004), The social dimension of globalization: A
review of the literature, International Labour Review, Vol. 143 (2004), No. 1-2
Heintz J.,2006 Globalization, economic policy and employment: Poverty and Gender Implications,
Employment Strategy Department. Employment Strategy Papers. 2006/3. Geneva: ILO.
ILO (2008/a), Global Employment Trends,January 2008,Geneva, Available via the Internet

19
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/download/get08.pdf on 15 September 2008.
ILO(2008/b), World of Work Report ,Income Inequalities in the Age of Financial Globalization, Genova.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/download/summ08.pdf on 15 September 2008.
International Monetary Fund( 2007/1), World Economic Outlook 2007 April, Washington Available via the
Internet http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/pdf/text.pdf on 10 September 2008.
International Monetary Fund( 2007/2), World Economic Outlook 2007 October, Washington Available via
the Internet http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/text.pdf on 21 September 2008.
International Poverty Centre(2007), Poverty in Focus Magazine, June 2007 Brazil, Internet,
http://www.undppovertycentre.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus11.pdf on 09 September 2008.
Juhn C.,Murphy K. and Pierce B. (1993) ‘Wage Inequality and the Rise in Returns to Skill’, Journal of
Political Economy 101: 401–442.
Katz L. and Murphy K. (1992) ‘Changes in Relative Wages, 1963–87: Supply and Demand Factors’, Quarterly
Journal of Economics 107: 35–78.
Lewer, Joshua J., and Hendrik Van den Berg, (2003), “How Large Is International Trade’s Effect on
Economic Growth?” Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 17 (July), pp. 363–96.
OECD (2007a), OECD Employment Outlook.
OECD (2007b), .Moving Up the Value Chain: Staying Competitive in the Global Economy,. Main
OECD (2007c), .Globalisation, Jobs and Wages,. OECD Observer, June.
OECD (2007d), .Making the Most of Globalisation,. OECD Economic Outlook, No. 81, June.
OECD (2008), OECD Employment Outlook.
Saygılı Ş , Cihan C.(2008), Türkiye Ekonomisinin Büyüme Dinamikleri 1987-2007 Döneminde Büyümenin
Kaynakları, Temel Sorunlar Ve Potansiyel Büyüme Oranı, Yayın No. Tüsiad-T/2008-06/462).
Stephen Machin(2008), An Appraisal of Economic Research on Changes in Wage Inequality, LABOUR 22
(Special Issue) 7–26 (2008)
TUİK(2007), İstatistik Göstergeler,1923-2006, Ankara.
WORLD BANK (2007), World Development Indicators
WTO (2006), World Trade Report
Yükseler Z. Türkan E.(2008), Türkiye’nin Üretim Vedış Ticaret Yapısında Dönüşüm,Küresel Yönelimler Ve Yansımalar;
Yayın No: TUSİAD-T/2008-02/453)

20
21