Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T15:17:44.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Migration in Economic Relations between Europe and Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2013

Gudrun Biffl
Gudrun Biffl*
Affiliation:
Danube University Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30, A-3500 Krems, Austria. Email: gudrun.biffl@donau-uni.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Turkey and Europe are closely interlinked through migration, trade and investment flows. In the year 2000, the interrelationships entered a new phase. Return migration of Turkish migrants to Turkey set in, of often well-educated second-generation migrants, triggered by the fast economic growth and shortages of skilled labour in Turkey. At the same time continued family migration to Europe and Turkish business start-ups in Europe promote trade between Turkey and Europe due to preference and network channels. While economic growth in Turkey is dynamic, it is also volatile, depending on foreign capital. The major challenge for stable and sustainable economic growth is, however, the low labour force participation rate of women and the slow progress in the educational attainment level of its workforce.

Type
Focus: Turkey and Europe
Information
European Review , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 372 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and Notes

1. The population data are taken from EUROSTAT, the data on migrants from OECD (International Migration Outlook, various SOPEMI reports).Google Scholar
2. The largest number and share of foreign born in Turkey are Bulgarians with Turkish origins, dating back to the Osman Empire. In the year 2000 (census) 480,800 Bulgarian-born migrants were living in Turkey, i.e. 38% of all foreign born – data from OECD (2010) International Migration Outlook, SOPEMI 2010 (Paris: OECD). Dustmann and Kirchkamp investigate the activities of Turkish migrants in Germany who return to Turkey, see Dustmann, C. and Kirchkamp, O. (2001) The optimal migration duration and activity choice after re-migration. Journal of Development Economics, 67, pp. 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Arslan, I. and van Wijnbergen, S. (1990) Turkey: export miracle or accounting trick? Working Papers WPS 370, World Bank.Google Scholar
4.Rodrik, D. (2009) The Turkish economy after the crisis. Turkish Economic Association Discussion Paper 2009/9.Google Scholar
5.Erdilek, A. (2003) A comparative analysis of inward and outward FDI in Turkey. Transnational Corporations, 12(3), pp. 78–105. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/35.Google Scholar
6.Akkoyunlu, S., Kholodilin, K.A. and Siliverstovs, B. (2006) The effect of economic reforms of 1980s and of the Customs Union 1996 upon the Turkish intra-industry trade. DIW-Discussion Paper 649.Google Scholar
7. Trade data are taken from the UN-Databank.Google Scholar
8.Vural, I.Y. and Zortuk, M. (2011) Foreign direct investment as a determining factor in Turkey's export performance. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 4(7), pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
9. Data are from Central Bank of Turkey.Google Scholar
10.Betcherman, G., Fares, J. and Sanchez, L. (2008) Investing in Turkey's next generation: the school-to-work transition and Turkey's development. Report N. 44048-TU, Human Development Sector Unit, World Bank, Washington DC.Google Scholar
11.OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volumes 1 and 2) (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
12.OECD (2006) Where Immigrant Students Succeed. A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement in PISA 2003 (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
13. On the linkage between trade and migration see M. Schiff (2000) South-north migration and trade: a survey. Revue d'Economie du Developpement, 3, 3–54; Venables, A. (1999) Trade liberalisation and factor mobility: an overview. In: R. Faini, J. De Melo and K.F. Zimmermann (eds) Migration: The Controversies and the Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.OECD (2010) International Migration Outlook, SOPEMI 2010 (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
15.Hönekopp, E. (1987) Rückkehrförderung und Rückkehr ausländischer Arbeitnehmer. Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, 114, pp. 287–366.Google Scholar
16.Biffl, G. (2007) Erwerbstätigkeit und Arbeitslosigkeit: Die Bedeutung von Einbürgerung, Herkunftsregion und Religionszugehörigkeit. In: H. Fassmann (ed.) 2. Österreichischer Migrations- und Integrationsbericht 2001-2006 (Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava Publishing).Google Scholar
17.Akkoyunlu, S. and Siliverstovs, B. (2009) Migration and trade – complements or substitutes? Evidence from Turkish migration to Germany. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 45(5), pp. 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. They calculate the migration potential between Germany and Turkey on the basis of a migration function, taking host–home country income differentials, host–home country unemployment rates and trade flows over the period 1963 to 2004 as explanatory variables.Google Scholar
19.Bruder, J. (2004) Are trade and migration substitutes or complements? – the case of Germany 1970-1998. University of Rostock Working Paper.Google Scholar
20.Insel, A. and Sungur Cakmak, N. (2010) The impact of Turkish emigrants on Turkish exports and imports in Europe. Marmara University Working Paper.Google Scholar
21.Akkoyunlu, S. and Kholodilin, K. (2006) What affects the remittances of Turkish workers: Turkish or German output? DIW Discussion Paper 622, Berlin.Google Scholar
22.Akkoyunlu, S. and Siliverstovs, B. (2007) The role of remittances in migration decision: evidence from Turkish migration. DIW Discussion Paper 691, Berlin.Google Scholar
23.Sassen, S. (2002) Global Networks/Linked Cities (New York: New Press).Google Scholar
24.Coskun, N. and Yalcin, S. (2007) Gentrification in a globalising world, case study: Istanbul. Conference Proceedings Sustainable Urban Areas, Rotterdam.Google Scholar