The Competitiveness of Turkish Tourism in the Global Market

Abstract

Assessing a country’s tourism competitiveness is vital for identifying its tourism potential. The aim of this study is to determine Türkiye’s competitiveness in world tourism exports over the period 2010–2023 and to compare the similarity of Türkiye’s exports to the world tourism market with 40 tourism exporting countries that provide complete data for the analyzed period. The study uses the Relative Export Advantage (RXA) Index and Export Similarity Index (ESI) from the Revealed Comparative Advantage indexes. The RXA analysis, based on Trade Map data, reveals that out of 26 competitive countries, 10 have a “strong”, 9 a “moderate”, and 7 a “weak” advantage. The top countries with a “strong” advantage are Macao, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jordan, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand. According to 2023 Trade Map data, Türkiye, ranking sixth globally in tourism export revenues, is the most competitive among Spain, Portugal, Malaysia, Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia, Greece, and Italy, which have a “medium” competitive advantage. The ESI results show that Türkiye’s export similarity with highly competitive countries was initially higher during 2010–2023 but has since decreased.

1. Introduction

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) defines tourism as a social, cultural, and economic phenomenon involving the movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for personal or business/professional purposes [1]. The tourism industry is a composite product, comprising a number of different industries, including accommodation, transport, attractions and more [2]. Despite being susceptible to geopolitical uncertainties, economic fluctuations, and climatic changes, the continuous growth of the tourism sector has made it increasingly attractive. Tourism revenues, which were 989.1 billion USD in 2010, reached 1487.5 billion USD in 2019 and 1532 billion USD in 2023 [3].

As one of the fastest-growing sectors worldwide, tourism is also a major player in international trade [4,5]. Trade is recognized as an engine of economic growth and is also known for its role in fostering cooperation and reducing conflict [6]. Tourism, an important component of export diversification for both developed and developing economies, has a strong capacity to reduce trade deficits and compensate for weak export earnings from other goods and services. Export earnings from international tourism are a significant source of external income for many countries worldwide [7]. By offering opportunities for economic diversification and market creation, tourism has become a critical foreign exchange-generating sector, accounting for 10.4% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2019, as well as about 7.4% of world trade and 25% of services exports [8]. The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) estimates that by 2033, the tourism sector’s contribution to GDP will reach $15.5 trillion, accounting for 11.6% of the global economy and employing 430 million people worldwide, with around 12% of the working population employed in the sector [9].

The growing reliance of developed and developing countries on tourism as a source of economic growth underscores the significance of competitiveness in the tourism sector. In order to thrive in the global marketplace, it is imperative for countries to foster a competitive advantage in tourism. In this context, the monitoring of the competitiveness of the tourism sector is of vital importance for the national economies concerned. Competitiveness is a necessary condition for economic benefit and economic development. In the absence of competitiveness, countries will inevitably lose their competitive advantage in the global market. Consequently, competitiveness can be defined as a systematic process of wealth creation, rather than merely a state of being rich [10]. Competitiveness is analysed in three distinct dimensions: national (i.e., macroeconomic), industrial (i.e., sectoral) and firm (i.e., microeconomic) levels [11]. The present study is concerned with the competitiveness of the tourism sector at the national level in the global market.

Tourism is not merely a sector; it is an integral component of the Turkish economy. Furthermore, it plays a pivotal role in the growth of the Turkish economy, a trend that is likely to persist in the coming years. In the context of today’s highly competitive tourism environment, it is of paramount importance to possess a sustainable competitive advantage. As indicated by the 2023 data, the travel and tourism sector contributes 12% to GDP and 10.2% to employment in Türkiye, which is positioned sixth in terms of global tourism revenues [12].

A review of the tourism literature reveals that the majority of research focuses on the comparison of a destination’s competitiveness or competitive advantage [13]. However, there is a notable lack of comprehensive studies on the export potential and competitiveness of Turkish tourism. For a country to sustain a viable presence in the tourism market, possessing a competitive advantage is essential. Assessing tourism competitiveness is a critical aspect of tourism economics, especially given the significant role of the tourism sector in the Turkish economy. This study examines the competitiveness of Turkish tourism in the global market using Vollrath’s RXA Index and the ESI, which are popular methods for demonstrating competitiveness in international trade. The study is structured as follows: the introduction outlines the main framework, followed by a literature review on tourism sector competitiveness. The methodology is then detailed comprehensively. Finally, the study evaluates the findings and concludes with a discussion of the implications, limitations, and recommendations.

This study comparatively reveals Türkiye’s relative export advantage and export similarity to the global market against 40 countries with complete data for the period 2010–2023 in the world tourism sector export revenues ranking. No existing literature determines the competitiveness of the world tourism sector. Consequently, this study is expected to address this gap in literature.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Overview of the Tourism Sector

Tourism is recognized as a major source of employment and wealth, as well as a driver of economic growth, playing an important role in the development of the world economy [14]. Many economic activities are highly integrated into tourism, with 1 in 10 jobs being directly or indirectly related to the sector [15].

Table 1. Overview of Tourism Revenues of Türkiye and the World (2010–2023), (1000 $).

Year	World	Change (%)	Türkiye	Change (%)	Türkiye’s Share in World Tourism Revenues (%)
2010	962,821,368	9.70	22,585,000	−1.72	2.35
2011	1,076,968,396	11.86	25,054,000	10.93	2.33
2012	1,113,455,102	3.39	26,027,000	3.88	2.34
2013	1,203,742,875	8.11	28,761,000	10.50	2.39
2014	1,256,128,483	4.35	30,383,000	5.64	2.42
2015	1,208,625,184	−3.78	27,315,000	−10.10	2.26
2016	1,237,928,588	2.42	19,113,000	−30.03	1.54
2017	1,336,311,497	7.95	22,968,000	20.17	1.72
2018	1,442,197,103	7.92	25,934,000	12.91	1.80
2019	1,483,906,127	2.89	34,305,000	32.28	2.31
2020	557,679,853	−62.42	13,330,000	−61.14	2.39
2021	631,046,736	13.16	26,634,000	99.80	4.22
2022	1,094,291,140	73.41	41,176,000	54.60	3.76
2023	1,405,113,904	28.40	47,461,775	15.27	3.38

Source: Authors’ calculations based on Trade Map database (Trade Map, 2024).

shows that Türkiye’s and the world’s tourism revenues increased significantly between 2010 and 2023, except during crisis periods. In 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic, world tourism revenues decreased by 62.42%, and Türkiye’s tourism revenues decreased by 61.14%. With the measures taken after the pandemic and vaccination campaigns, tourism activities increased again, leading to a 13.16% increase in world tourism revenues in 2021. During this period, Türkiye’s share in world tourism revenues was 4.22%, marking the highest contribution by Türkiye to world tourism revenues in the 2010–2023 period.

According to 2023 data from Figure 1, Spain ranks first with a share of 14.91%, Türkiye ranks second with a share of 13.31%, Saudi Arabia ranks third with a share of 10.79%, Australia ranks fourth with a share of 10.42%, and France ranks fifth with a share of 6.94%. Hosting millions of tourists from around the world each year for the past 14 years, Türkiye has maintained its sixth place in global tourism revenues for the past two years and is on its way to becoming a top tourism destination [16]. In 2023, Türkiye welcomed 55.16 million international visitors, an increase of 4.71 million compared to 2022 [2]. Driven by increasing demand, the tourism sector is more competitive today than ever before. Given the importance of the tourism sector in the global market, it is crucial for Türkiye to elevate its status as a world-class travel destination and enhance its competitiveness.

Connecting Europe and Asia, Türkiye has 21 heritage sites (19 cultural and 2 mixed) on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2024) World Heritage List. A thriving tourism sector will contribute to Türkiye’s economic growth, leading to an increase in national income and employment.

2.2. Competitiveness of Tourism Sector

Interest in global competition is growing, particularly in developed and developing countries [17]. However, there is a lack of research on tourism competitiveness in developing countries due to the challenges in defining and measuring it [18]. The majority of studies on the competitiveness of the tourism sector have concentrated on time series demand analysis of secondary tourism data for a specific destination country or cross-sectional analysis of multiple countries/destinations for a given year or season. Tourism Destination Competitiveness (TDC) is a topic of considerable interest within the tourism industry, with the majority of research conducted in Europe [19].

To ascertain the competitive position of a tourism destination, Kayar and Kozak (2010) evaluate 13 principal factors that exert an influence on the destination’s competitiveness and compare the competitive levels of EU countries with those of Türkiye. The findings of their study, which employed cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling techniques, indicate that three clusters can be formed from the selected countries. It is emphasised that the factors that most significantly affect the competitiveness of these countries are air transportation infrastructure, the presence of natural and cultural resources, land transportation infrastructure, and the state of health and hygiene conditions. Additionally, it is observed that Türkiye maintains a reputation for offering low-cost tourism products in the global market [20]. Croitoru (2011) subsequently sought to identify the principal factors that contribute to enhancing the competitiveness of the tourism sector, utilising the TCI of the World Economic Forum (WEF). In order to elucidate the impact of communication on the competitiveness of the tourism sector, an analysis of the principal determinants of the TCI of the competing countries Romania and Bulgaria is conducted, which reveals that Romania’s competitiveness index is inferior to that of Bulgaria [10]. Huttasin et al. (2015) employed the Porter Diamond Model to evaluate the growth of the tourism industry in Ubon Ratchathani. Their objective was to assist the Thai government and the Ubon Ratchathani tourism sector in enhancing their competitiveness at the national and international levels. The study reveals that Ubon Ratchathani’s competitiveness in the tourism sector is relatively low and lacks the necessary determinants to facilitate a competitive advantage [21]. In a similar study, Tewal et al. (2017) sought to evaluate the competitiveness of Ternate City tourism in comparison to other regions within North Maluku Province, with the objective of developing strategies to enhance the tourism sector in Ternate City. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, utilising shift-share analysis, indexing, and SWOT, to analyse the data collected from secondary sources and interviews. The findings revealed that the tourism performance of Ternate City exhibited a superior trajectory compared to North Maluku Province between 2011 and 2015. Furthermore, the Diamond Porter model indicates that Ternate City exhibits the highest level of tourism competitiveness, exceeding that of other cities in North Maluku Province. The SWOT analysis identified several strategies that could be employed to maintain and enhance the tourism competitiveness of Ternate City. These include the utilisation of information technology to attract tourists, the establishment of a collaborative system with neighbouring regions for the management of the intricate tourism sector, the formation of alliances with the local and central government for the advancement of the tourism sector, the reinforcement of tour operators in their ability to attract tourists, the expansion of the quantity and quality of scientific and cultural tourism, and the facilitation of tourist access to the tourist destination area [22]. In another study, Albayrak et al. (2018) employed Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) and Importance Performance Competitor Analysis (IPCA) to ascertain the competitive position of the popular holiday destination Costa Brava (Spain) in comparison to Antalya (Türkiye). The findings of the study, which involved the participation of 305 Russian tourists, indicate that Costa Brava possesses certain advantages over Antalya. These include the presence of clean beaches, local cuisine, and value for money. However, when Antalya’s performance is taken into account, the majority of these attributes do not confer a competitive edge [23]. A further analogous study was conducted by [18] on the competitiveness of tourism in the United Arab Emirates. The data collected from 311 businesses on the competitiveness of UAE tourism was analysed using a hierarchical regression model. The findings indicate that destination infrastructure and support services, destination resources, and the general business environment exert a significant influence on the competitiveness of UAE tourism. In comparing Poland’s tourism competitiveness with that of other European countries, Brelik and Grinberga-Zalite (2019) demonstrate that Poland’s tourism competitiveness is on a positive trajectory, as evidenced by their analysis of TTCI data [24]. Abderzag and Mohamed (2023) analyze the factors affecting the competitiveness of Algerian tourism using a hierarchical regression analysis of data from 311 businesses and show that the four main factors determining the competitiveness of Algerian tourism are destination resources, infrastructure and support services, human factors and business environment [25].

Berdo (2016) emphasises that no universal model exists for accurately assessing the competitiveness of a tourism destination, noting the variability across global and Balkan regions [26]. Gómez-Vega and Picazo-Tadeo (2019) analyzed 136 tourism destinations employing Data Envelopment Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Their findings indicate that the rankings derived from both weighted and unweighted indicators are in close alignment with those produced by the WEF [27]. Sarancha (2020) proposes a methodology for evaluating the competitiveness of tourism in the Baltic region. This methodology comprises four sub-indices: conditions, infrastructure, accessibility, and attractiveness. These sub-indices, in turn, are composed of 22 components and over 100 indicators. The results of this methodology reveal high regional competitiveness [28]. Dias et al. (2021) present a model for integrating the factors that determine the competitiveness of creative tourism, thereby providing a foundation for empirical studies on the interrelationships among these factors [29]. In a comparative analysis of tourism competitiveness across 13 countries with high tourism GDP shares, Fernández et al. (2022) recommend an urgent focus on cultural heritage promotion, natural area protection, ICT availability, international openness, and infrastructure [15]. In a recent study, Purwono et al. (2024) employed structural equation modelling to demonstrate that infrastructure, demand drivers, sustainability, and enabling environments exert a significant influence on competitiveness in Asia. In their 2024 study, Smirlis and Ioakimidis employed the TTCI descriptors and the New Synthetic Index-TTCI-LDA method to classify countries based on their tourism competitiveness. They emphasised the importance of service infrastructure and provided insights for policy and benchmarking [30].

The literature includes limited studies on tourism competitiveness based on revenues. Dogru et al. (2020) analyze 150 countries from 2000 to 2017 using shift-share analysis, evaluating tourist arrivals, tourism revenues, and dollars per tourist. Their findings show Japan, Thailand, and Türkiye as the most competitive in tourist arrivals, while Türkiye ranks lowest in tourism receipts. Thailand and Japan are highly competitive in tourism receipts, with Luxembourg leading in dollars per tourist and growth. The study concludes that tourism competitiveness depends on overall development, urging destinations to focus on growth strategies and tourism potential [31]. Kuşat (2019) examines Türkiye’s tourism revenue competitiveness (2012–2016) using RCA and CEP indices, revealing a high competitive advantage according to RCA and low export performance against Thailand per the CEP index [32]. Erkan and Bozduman (2019) assess Türkiye’s specialization and competitiveness through RCA, Net Trade, and Export-Import Ratio indices, showing that Türkiye specializes in tourism and holds moderate competitive advantage [33].

A review of the literature reveals that no studies have applied the ESI to the tourism sector. Therefore, this study draws upon relevant domestic and international studies utilising ESI in other sectors to inform its analysis. Erkan (2012) employs ESI and RCA indices to analyze the export structures of Türkiye and BRIC countries (1993–2010), finding that BRIC nations specialize in raw materials and labor-intensive exports, while Türkiye focuses on labor- and capital-intensive products [34]. Yücel (2014) investigates Türkiye’s export competition with China and India in the EU-5 market, showing that Türkiye specializes in low-quality products, while China and India enhance competitiveness in specific sectors [35]. Wang and Liu (2015) use ESI to examine the export similarity between China and the EU in global, US, and Indian markets (2007–2013), revealing intense competition in developed markets [36]. Sarıçoban and Yalçın (2020) analyze Türkiye’s carpet sector competitiveness (2008–2017) using RCA, ESI, Vollrath, and Net Export indices, comparing Türkiye with Belgium, China, India, and the Netherlands. Results indicate Türkiye has competitive advantages in multiple carpet groups, specializes in all product groups alongside China, and demonstrates increasing competitiveness against India, Belgium, and China based on ESI values [37]. Vlasenko (2020) finds that China’s exports strongly resemble those of Vietnam, Japan, and the Philippines. Lee et al. (2022) apply ESI and TCI to Korean construction machinery exports (2011–2020), showing heightened competition with China in recent years, while competitiveness with the US remains steady. Korean forklifts exhibit robust global market performance [38].

A review of the tourism literature reveals a predominant focus on the competitiveness of a tourism destination and the variables that determine this competitiveness. Additionally, the question of whether a destination has a comparative or competitive advantage is a recurring topic of investigation. Furthermore, it has been noted that the majority of researchers who have examined the competitiveness of a destination have addressed the issue from their perspectives. In order to address this limitation, this study seeks to elucidate the export competitiveness of the tourism sector and export similarity to the global market of 40 countries with comprehensive data for the period 2010–2023 in terms of tourism revenues on a global scale. Therefore, the objective of this study is to advance the existing literature on the competitiveness of tourism destinations. This study aims to provide an understanding of the comparative and competitive advantage of Turkish tourism in global tourism, as well as to address a research gap in the tourism sector by revealing its competitiveness against its competitors with export similarity values in the global tourism market. Furthermore, the study seeks to highlight the significance of the tourism sector’s competitiveness by presenting the findings in a variety of analytical frameworks.

3. Materials and Methods

In the absence of a universally accepted definition of “competitiveness”, countries’ export data are employed as a means of evaluating a nation’s “sales ability”. This is because data on foreign trade allows making comparisons between countries [39].

The measurement of the competitiveness of the tourism sector is of great importance for the assessment of the success of the tourism industry [22]. Nevertheless, as Berdo (2016) observes, no single, universally applicable model exists for measuring the competitiveness of the tourism sector [26]. Nevertheless, the employment of models and techniques is contingent upon the researcher’s capacity and the accessibility of data. The accessibility and availability of reliable, comparable, and accurate data pertaining to the tourism sector is of paramount importance for the development of quality indicators. While the majority of developed countries can provide reliable data on tourism, less developed countries frequently encounter difficulties in supplying accurate and timely statistical information [40].

3.1. Data Set

The research data in the study were obtained by selecting the “travel” classification within the “services” classification from the Trade Map (2024) database. To maintain the consistency and completeness of the survey data, countries and time periods with missing values were eliminated. UNWTO has 160 country members [41]. The survey covers 10 years from 2010 to 2023. Moreover, 10 years of trade data are considered sufficient to examine the trade competitiveness and trade potential of any commodity [42]. A total of 204 countries are included in the Trade Map (2024) database, of which 114 provide uninterrupted data for the period 2010–2023. The first 40 countries account for 86.28% of global travel export revenues, representing over three-quarters of the total. The remaining 74 countries account for 13.56% of global travel export revenues, with shares ranging from 0.54% to 0.00%. Consequently, 74 countries were excluded from the analysis (Countries that provide regular data on tourism revenues but not included in the analysis in

Table A1. Countries providing regular data on tourism revenues but not included in the analysis (2023).

Queue	Country	Queue	Country	Queue	Country
1	Ireland	26	Uruguay	51	Ukraine
2	Israel	27	El Salvador	52	Pakistan
3	Colombia	28	Aruba	53	Bolivia
4	Czech Republic	29	Finland	54	Zambia
5	Belgium	30	Peru	55	Nicaragua
6	Brazil	31	Kazakhstan	56	Honduras
7	Russian Federation	32	Chile	57	Belize
8	Norway	33	Uzbekistan	58	Paraguay
9	South Africa	34	Malta	59	Moldova
10	Luxembourg	35	Ecuador	60	Macedonia, North
11	Panama	36	Mauritius	61	Nepal
12	Argentina	37	Kuwait	62	Rwanda
13	Romania	38	Sri Lanka	63	Cabo Verde
14	Georgia	39	Lithuania	64	Mongolia
15	Albania	40	Montenegro	65	Trinidad and Tobago
16	Costa Rica	41	Slovakia	66	Palestine
17	Bahamas	42	Bosnia and Herzegovina	67	Bangladesh
18	Bulgaria	43	Estonia	68	Namibia
19	Cambodia	44	Azerbaijan	69	Bhutan
20	Cyprus	45	Latvia	70	Mozambique
21	Armenia	46	Uganda	71	Algeria
22	Slovenia	47	Kyrgyzstan	72	Timor-Leste
23	Tanzania	48	Fiji	73	Lesotho
24	Iceland	49	Kenya	74	Angola
25	Tunisia	50	Seychelles	-	-

Source: Authors’ calculations based on Trade Map database (Trade Map, 2024).

.) (see Appendix A). Of the 90 countries with incomplete data, the majority are underdeveloped and characterised by civil conflict in the central and southern regions of the African continent. Only a small number are colonial island countries and civil conflict-ridden Middle Eastern countries (Countries that do not provide regular data on tourism revenues in

Table A2. Countries that do not provide regular data on tourism revenues (2023).

Queue	Country	Queue	Country	Queue	Country
1	Lao People’s Democratic Rep	31	Nigeria	61	Dominica
2	Samoa	32	Niue	62	Faroe Islands
3	Vanuatu	33	Papua New Guinea	63	Equatorial Guinea
4	Zimbabwe	34	Guinea-Bissau	64	Ethiopia
5	Sao Tome and Principe	35	Oman	65	Gambia
6	Eswatini	36	Montserrat	66	Ghana
7	Suriname	37	Nauru	67	Kiribati
8	Brunei Darussalam	38	Sint Maarten (Dutch part)	68	French Polynesia
9	Tajikistan	39	New Caledonia	69	Djibouti
10	Solomon Islands	40	Netherlands Antilles	70	Gabon
11	Liberia	41	Curaçao	71	Syrian Arab Republic
12	Guinea	42	Antigua and Barbuda	72	United Arab Emirates
13	Guyana	43	Bahrain	73	Togo
14	Haiti	44	Afghanistan	74	Tonga
15	Grenada	45	Barbados	75	South Sudan
16	Guatemala	46	Bermuda	76	Sudan
17	Côte d’Ivoire	47	Cameroon	77	Sudan (before 2012)
18	Jamaica	48	Cayman Islands	78	Saint Kitts and Nevis
19	Iran	49	Central African Republic	79	Anguilla
20	Iraq	50	Botswana	80	Saint Lucia
21	Libya, State of	51	Myanmar	81	Saint Vincent and Gre.
22	Lebanon	52	Burundi	82	Sierra Leone
23	Madagascar	53	Belarus	83	Senegal
24	Malawi	54	Chad	84	Serbia
25	Mauritania	55	Comoros	85	Yemen
26	Maldives	56	Congo	86	Serbia and Monteneg.
27	Mali	57	Congo, Democratic Repub.	87	Venezuela, Boliv. Rep.
28	Micronesia, Federated States	58	Cook Islands	88	Burkina Faso
29	Palau	59	Cuba	89	Turks and Caicos Islan.
30	Niger	60	Benin	90	Tuvalu

Source: Authors’ calculations based on Trade Map database (Trade Map, 2024).

).

3.2. Method

Competitiveness analysis is primarily conducted using post-trade data. The purpose of these analyses is to identify the sectors or product groups in which countries have a competitive advantage or disadvantage. These findings enable strategic decision-making and the shaping of trade policies. However, the sectors or product groups in which a country has a competitive advantage or disadvantage may vary by region. Additionally, as sectors are defined more specifically, the advantage can vary in interesting ways. These variations may depend on the continent in which the country is located. Furthermore, a country’s comparative advantage and disadvantage may vary according to the wealth of its trading partners [43].

The theory of comparative advantage, developed by David Ricardo in 1817, explains how countries with diverse resources can benefit from trade [44]. Balassa’s [45] RCA index is a mathematical measure of comparative advantage. The RCA index compares the performance of a country’s trade advantage in a particular product or sector with its average trade performance in world trade [46]. While the RCA index is unquestionably useful for identifying and measuring the intensity of a country’s comparative advantage and disadvantage in a given sector or product, its consistency with the theories of the most well-known trade models has not always been clear, despite Balassa’s efforts [47].

Although the RCA has been frequently employed in global literature for the analysis of international trade flows, tourism trade has frequently been overlooked in empirical studies. Notwithstanding the apparent importance of tourism in both developed and developing countries, the majority of studies have concentrated on industrial goods, with the tourism sector receiving scant attention in empirical research. The objective of this study is twofold: firstly, to analyse the relative export advantage in world tourism exports between 2010 and 2023; secondly, to reveal Türkiye’s competitiveness by comparing its tourism export market similarity with 40 countries in the tourism revenue ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this approach has not yet been adopted in the existing literature.

3.2.1. Vollrath’s Relative Export Advantage Index (RXA)

Comparative advantage is an important concept central to economic theory and is calculated based on post-trade data. The Vollrath RXA index, based on Balassa’s RCA index, differs from the latter by excluding sector and country trade values from the sums used as a criterion. This exclusion prevents double counting and allows for more accurate and reliable results in sectoral comparisons [48]. This index enables us to ascertain which products or sectors a country is more competitive and specialized in within the global market [49]. This approach facilitates the attainment of more accurate and reliable results in the context of trade policies, strategic decision-making, and economic analysis. The RXA index used is shown as follows:

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{X}\mathrm{A}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{j}}∕{\mathrm{X}}_{-\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{j}}}{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{-\mathrm{j}}∕{\mathrm{X}}_{-{\dot{\mathrm{k}}}_{\mathrm{t}}}^{-\mathrm{j}}}}$$

where

• ${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{j}}$: ‘j’ country’s exports of good (sector) ‘k’ in period ‘t’,
• ${\mathrm{X}}_{-\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{j}}$: is the total exports of country ‘j’ excluding good (sector) ‘k’ in period ‘t’,
• ${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{-\mathrm{j}}$: is total world exports of good (or sector) ‘k’ excluding ‘${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{j}}$’ in period ‘t’,
• ${\mathrm{X}}_{-{\dot{\mathrm{k}}}_{\mathrm{t}}}^{-\mathrm{j}}$: denotes total world exports excluding ‘${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{-\mathrm{j}}$’ and ‘${\mathrm{X}}_{-\mathrm{k}\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{j}}$’ in period ‘t’

The index results are interpreted as follows [50];

RXA > 1 indicates that the country has a comparative advantage (competitive advantage) in the product category assessed,

RXA < 1 indicates that the country has a comparative disadvantage (competitive disadvantage).

RXA Index results can be further interpreted by dividing into 4 groups [51];

Class 1: 0 < RXA ≤ 1 no advantage, no competitiveness (specialization),

Class 2: 1 < RXA ≤ 2 have weak competitiveness (weak specialization),

Class 3: 2 < RXA ≤ 4, moderate advantage/competitiveness (moderate specialization),

Class 4: 4 < RXA, means that there is strong competitiveness (strong specialization).

3.2.2. Export Similarity Index (ESI)

The Export Similarity Index (ESI), which was first introduced in the 1960s, is used to assess the extent of overlap in exports between countries or groups of countries and the global or third-party markets. The ESI, which analyzes export performance, is employed to identify a country’s competitors in the international market [34]. The ESI is not influenced by the overall volume of exports; rather, it assesses the performance of specific sectors or product groups in terms of their export activities [50]. Furthermore, the index demonstrates the degree of alignment in the proportional distribution of exports by sectors or product groups, thereby facilitating a comparison of the export structure of a small country with that of a larger country or group of countries [52]. This enables the export structure to be employed as a significant indicator in the analysis of international trade.

In contrast to other indices, the ESI places greater emphasis on the structural aspects of exports rather than their quantitative aspects, utilising standardised international trade data [50,53]. The ESI values assist in the measurement of competitive threats between countries and the evaluation of the sophistication of exports [54]. High ESI values indicate the presence of intense global market competition and constrained prospects for inter-industry trade through regional arrangements [53]. The ESI is capable of assessing the potential for future competition between Türkiye and its travel export partners. The proposed ESI is defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{E}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}=\sum \mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\left[{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}\left({\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{w}}\right),{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}\left({\mathrm{m}}_{\mathrm{w}}\right)\right]\times 100$$

where X_i(j_w), is the share of export value of sector i (product or product group) of country j in total export value,

Xi(mw), is the share of the export value of sector i (product or product group) of country m in the total export value [50].

The index, which is employed to ascertain the identity of competitor countries, assumes a value between 0 and 100. A value of “0” indicates that export profiles are not similar (countries are not competitors), while a value of 100 indicates perfect similarity (countries are competitors) [37,53]. An increase in the ESI value over time indicates that the export structure of two countries or regions has become more similar over time, while simultaneously signifying that the two countries or regions will become more competitive in the third market [55]. Greater export similarity can lead to increased competition in the future, potentially triggering trade conflicts. Moreover, the concentration of two or more countries in the same markets for similar products can result in direct competition between them. For instance, a textile-producing country and another country producing similar products may aim to export to the same common market, which could exert downward pressure on the prices of textile products [56]. When such growth occurs between developing and developed countries, it often signifies rapid economic progress and sectoral advancements in the developing nations [50].

4. Findings

In this study, it is attempted to reveal Türkiye’s competitiveness in global trade in terms of tourism export revenues and to provide more reliable results on whether Türkiye is a competitor with 40 countries that provide complete data in the world tourism revenues ranking, and if so, to what extent. For this purpose, RXA and ESI coefficients are found and interpreted.

4.1. Türkiye’s Tourism Sector Competitiveness Analysis with the Help of Vollrath’s RXA Index

The analyzed period is divided into two sub-periods: 2010–2016 and 2017–2023. Changes in both periods are analyzed using the RXA index, with the values presented in

Table 2. Vollrath’s RXA Index Scores.

No.	Exporters	2010–2016 Average	2017–2023 Average	AA	CV	Degree of Superiority
1	USA	1.01	0.96	0.98	6.81	disadvantage
2	Spain	3.52	3.66	3.63	13.12	MS *
3	United Kingdom	0.47	0.61	0.52	21.65	disadvantage
4	France	0.92	1.09	0.98	17.12	disadvantage
5	Italy	2.07	2.59	2.29	15.85	MS
6	Türkiye	3.72	4.12	3.80	33.69	MS
7	Australia	5.15	6.52	5.63	21.67	strong superiority
8	Canada	0.95	1.29	1.10	18.92	weak superiority
9	Saudi Arabia	6.52	8.67	7.12	38.67	strong superiority
10	Germany	0.52	0.47	0.49	12.99	disadvantage
11	Japan	0.42	0.65	0.53	46.55	disadvantage
12	India	0.45	0.48	0.47	13.45	disadvantage
13	Thailand	6.63	6.59	6.73	31.02	strong superiority
14	Macau, China	56.43	37.54	47.85	31.10	strong superiority
15	Mexico	11.04	14.29	12.20	34.59	strong superiority
16	Portugal	2.53	4.18	3.29	29.89	MS
17	Austria	1.51	1.64	1.53	15.40	weak superiority
18	Greece	2.19	2.86	2.49	22.91	MS
19	Switzerland	0.50	0.61	0.54	18.29	disadvantage
20	Hong Kong, China	1.61	0.91	1.30	44.05	weak superiority
21	Singapore	0.48	0.28	0.38	32.92	disadvantage
22	Netherlands	0.28	0.30	0.29	15.15	disadvantage
23	Croatia	7.20	9.43	7.81	28.24	strong superiority
24	Poland	1.05	0.94	1.00	14.14	weak superiority
25	Republic of Korea	0.53	0.73	0.61	27.54	disadvantage
26	China	0.95	0.39	0.68	48.39	disadvantage
27	Malaysia	3.36	2.06	2.85	37.91	MS
28	Egypt	2.03	3.55	2.68	45.66	MS
29	Indonesia	2.31	2.73	2.60	34.86	MS

Source: Authors’ calculations based on Trade Map database (Trade Map, 2024). * MS: Moderate Superiority.

. Additionally, the overall average value for the 2010–2016 period was calculated as the “Appropriate Average (AA)” to mitigate excessive positive or negative periodic effects on tourism export revenues and to ensure the RXA index value reflects an accurate measure. In the next stage, the standard deviation and Coefficient of Variation (CV) values of the RXA were calculated to analyze the course of competition over the years in more detail and to reveal deviations from the AA. In this study, the marginal value of CV was accepted as 15 [56]. According to Table 2, 26 out of 40 countries have a competitive advantage and 14 countries have a competitive disadvantage in tourism sector exports. Moreover, it is understood that 10 out of 26 countries with competitive advantage have “strong”, 9 have “moderate” and 7 have “weak” competitive advantage. The 10 countries with “strong” competitive advantage are Macao-China (47.85), Dominican Republic (12.70), Mexico (12.20), Jordan (8.10), Croatia (7.81), Saudi Arabia (7.12), Thailand (6.73), Vietnam (6.20), Australia (5.63), and New Zealand (4.51) (Table 2). In addition, the table shows that 7 out of the 10 countries with “strong” superiority increased their NCI values in the 2017–2023 period compared to the 2010–2016 period. The increases in the AA values indicate that Jordan (5.73%), Mexico (3.25%), Dominican Republic (3.03%), Croatia (2.23%), Saudi Arabia (2.15%), Australia (1.37%), and New Zealand (0.65%) have increased their competitiveness in global tourism trade in the second period. However, Macao-China (18.89%), Thailand (0.81%), and Vietnam (0.04%), whose AA values have decreased, have decreased their competitiveness in the global tourism trade in the last period. The COVID-19 pandemic is thought to be effective in these decreases. High CV values in the table indicate that these countries do not have a stable competitiveness. According to the AA value, the 9 countries with “moderate” competitive advantage are Türkiye (3.80), Spain (3.63), Portugal (3.29), Malaysia (2.85), Morocco (2.69), Egypt (2.68), Indonesia (2.60), Greece (2.49) and Italy (2.29).

According to Trade Map 2023 data, Türkiye, which ranks 6th in the world in terms of tourism export revenues, ranks the highest among the countries in its class according to AA values. While 8 countries with “medium” competitiveness managed to increase their AA values in the 2017–2023 period compared to the 2010–2016 period, only Malaysia’s AA value decreased from 3.36 to 2.06. This decline indicates that Malaysia’s competitiveness in tourism has weakened compared to the previous period. The ranking of countries in terms of AA value increases in 2017–2023 compared to 2010–2023 is Egypt (74.57%), Portugal (65.53%), Greece (30.16%), Italy (24.76%), Indonesia (18.26%), Morocco (14.20%), Türkiye (10.64%) and Spain (3.77%). These values indicate that Egypt, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Italy, Indonesia, and Morocco have increased their competitiveness in the tourism sector better than Türkiye and Spain in the 2017–2023 period. These increases indicate that the countries’ policy decisions towards the tourism sector have been successful. In order for Türkiye to increase its competitiveness in the tourism sector, it is of great importance for the future of the sector and the Turkish economy that the government and tourism operators evaluate the results of the policies they implement, identify deficiencies and mistakes, and make rapid revisions.

The countries with “Medium” degree of competitiveness are Spain (13.12), Italy (15.85), Morocco (16.06), Greece (22.91), Portugal (29.89), Türkiye (33.69), Indonesia (34.86), Malaysia (37.91) and Egypt (45.66). According to the “CV” values, Spain, Italy, Morocco, Greece, and Portugal appear to be more stable in global tourism sector competition compared to Türkiye while Indonesia, Malaysia, and Egypt exhibit a more unstable outlook in global tourism sector competition.

The countries with a “weak” degree of competition according to the AA value are Austria (1.53), Qatar (1.51), Hong Kong-China (1.30), EU-NES (1.24), Canada (1.10), and Poland (1.00). Canada, which was at a competitive disadvantage in the 2010–20216 period, has risen to an advantageous position in the 2017–2023 period, while EU-NES, Qatar, and Hong Kong-China have lost their competitive advantages and become disadvantaged.

According to the AA values, the 14 countries with competitive disadvantage in tourism exports are the United States, France, Philippines, China, Republic of Korea, Germany, India, Denmark, Singapore, Japan, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America.

4.2. Türkiye’s Export Similarity with Countries with Competitive Advantage in World Tourism

This section calculates the ESI based on countries’ tourism export data. The ESI measures the similarity between the export profiles of a country and those of other countries. It assesses the proportional distribution of exports by commodity groups, independent of export size, enabling comparisons between small and large countries or groups of countries [50,52]. Furthermore, the ESI allows for tracking changes in export similarity over time [50].

The ESI ranges from 0 to 100 and is expressed as a percentage. A higher index value indicates greater export similarity between countries, suggesting stronger competition in international trade. Conversely, a lower index value reflects less similarity and diminishing competitiveness in the corresponding sector. The ESI is widely recognized in the literature as a reliable method for identifying close and distant competitors in exports. Finger and Kreinin pioneered its application in their research [50].

In this section, the export similarity of Türkiye and 40 countries with complete data for the 2010–2023 period in the Trade Map database has been analyzed in the context of global tourism revenue exports. For this purpose, four groups of country markets were selected as a sample based on Türkiye and RXA Index scores: “high”, “medium”, “weak”, and “disadvantaged”. Türkiye’s similarity in tourism exports with this sample group of countries is presented ins Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.

When Figure 2 is analyzed, it is evident that Türkiye’s tourism export similarity with other countries has generally decreased over the years. The tourism export similarity with Jordan, which was 61.96% in 2010, decreased to 34.86% in 2020 and increased again to 46.89% in 2023. Similarly, the similarity with Croatia, which was 61.96% in 2010, decreased to 34.86% in 2020 and increased to 46.89% in 2023. These results indicate that Türkiye initially faced more competition for tourism exports from countries with a high competitive advantage on a global scale, but the intensity of competition decreased over time.

• When Figure 3 is examined, the three countries with the highest tourism export similarity to Türkiye in 2010 are Egypt, Malaysia, and Spain. Greece and Italy, on the other hand, are the countries with the lowest export similarity to Türkiye in 2010. These results indicate that in 2010, the countries with which Türkiye faced intense competition in the tourism sector were Egypt, Malaysia, and Spain. By 2023, it was determined that the three countries with the highest export similarity to Türkiye were Portugal, Spain, and Morocco. Therefore, high ESI values compared to other countries indicate that Türkiye is in intense competition with these countries in the tourism sector.
• One of the striking results in the table is the increase in the similarity of Türkiye’s exports with Greece over the years. The similarity value, which was 34.20% in 2010, rose to 45.26% in 2019 and reached 41.78% in 2023. This means that, in general, Türkiye’s tourism sector export competition with Greece has increased in recent years. However, a decline in similarity rates during the COVID-19 periods is also noteworthy.

Figure 4 shows that Türkiye and Austria have the highest export similarity in the tourism sector’s export market. The high similarity at the beginning of the 2010–2023 period indicates that Türkiye and Austria were in intense competition with each other. However, the high similarity value between the two countries decreased to 34.86% in 2020 and reached 46.89% in 2023. Despite the decrease, Türkiye and Austria remained the two countries with the highest export similarity in 2023.

The study concluded that Türkiye has a competitive advantage in the global tourism industry. Türkiye is an attractive tourist destination, boasting a rich cultural and historical heritage and a diverse range of services catering to a multitude of interests. Furthermore, the country’s diverse tourism activities, including skiing, spa tourism, cultural experiences, and beach tourism, align with the expectations of its visitors. Its strategic location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia contributes to its appeal as a tourist destination. Additionally, Türkiye is perceived to possess a competitive advantage in the tourism sector, largely due to the warmth and hospitality of its people, the quality of its handicrafts, and its rich gastronomic culture. Despite these advantages, Türkiye’s tourism industry is largely concentrated in the summer months and is located in a region where intense competition is experienced in the Mediterranean basin, with some infrastructure deficiencies. The terror incidents experienced in the country’s past, the security concerns caused by wars and political conflicts, especially in neighboring countries to the south, and the increase in environmental problems that have emerged with rapid urbanization are the issues where Türkiye is disadvantaged in tourism.

When we look at the tourism sector worldwide, it is evident that, although the sector has shown a rapid recovery, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now facing new trends such as sustainability, digitalization, and personalized experiences. In line with changing consumer behaviors and technological developments, Türkiye should strengthen its position in tourism by adapting to these new global trends and tendencies. In recent years, sustainability trends in tourism, such as being in touch with nature, respecting local culture, and reducing carbon footprints, have gained significant attention. The climate crisis, one of the biggest challenges of our age, is also likely to affect tourism activities. In alignment with global trends and developments, Türkiye should ensure the sustainability of its tourism sector by adopting practices such as establishing ecological hotels that are environmentally friendly, have high energy efficiency, and use local products, as well as implementing policies aimed at protecting and promoting historical and cultural heritage.

5. Conclusions

The development of tourism, an integral part of the economies of both developed and developing countries, has begun to attract investment from an increasing number of nations, making tourism one of the largest trade categories in the world. The tourism sector, which plays a vital role in the growth of the Turkish economy, is likely to remain important in the coming years. This article presents the global competitiveness of Turkish tourism for the period 2010–2023 and compares Türkiye’s competitiveness against 40 countries with complete data in the world tourism export revenue ranking.

According to the RXA index results, which reveal the global competitiveness of 40 countries with complete data on the world tourism export revenue rankings, 26 countries have a competitive advantage in tourism sector exports while 14 countries have a competitive disadvantage. Of the 26 countries with a competitive advantage, 10 were found to have a “strong”, 9 an “average”, and 7 a “weak” competitive advantage. The countries with a “strong” competitive advantage are, in order, Macao-China, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jordan, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand. Additionally, 7 out of the 10 countries with a “strong” competitive advantage in global tourism trade (Jordan, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and New Zealand) increased their competitiveness in the 2017–2023 period compared to the 2010–2016 period, while Macao-China, Thailand, and Vietnam saw a decline in their competitiveness in global tourism trade. It is believed that the COVID-19 pandemic was effective in this decline. According to Trade Map 2023 data, Türkiye, ranked 6th in the world in tourism export revenues, is the most advantageous among the 9 countries with a “medium” degree of competitive advantage in the world tourism sector exports. Additionally, 8 out of the 9 countries with a “medium” degree of competitive advantage (excluding Malaysia) have increased their competitive power in the 2017–2023 period compared to the 2010–2016 period. The ranking of countries with “medium” degree competitive advantage that further increased their competitive advantage in the 2017–2023 period is as follows: Egypt, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Indonesia, Morocco, Türkiye, and Spain. This result indicates that, compared to Türkiye and Spain, Egypt, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Indonesia, and Morocco have better increased their competitiveness in the global tourism sector during the 2017–2023 period, demonstrating the success of their tourism policies. Additionally, Spain, Italy, Morocco, Greece, and Portugal, which possess a “medium” degree of competitive advantage, exhibit a quite stable appearance in the global tourism sector competition compared to Türkiye according to their “CV” values, while Indonesia, Malaysia, and Egypt show a more unstable appearance in global tourism trade.

According to the RXA index, it has been determined that the export similarity between countries with high competitive power and Türkiye was higher at the beginning of the period but this ratio has decreased in recent times. This indicates that Türkiye has been facing less competition in the tourism sector recently compared to countries with a high competitive advantage on a global scale. A similar trend is observed with countries that have a moderate degree of advantage. At the beginning of the period, there was a higher similarity, but by the end of the period, the index values decreased. This again shows that Türkiye’s competition with countries having a medium degree of superiority decreases by the end of the period. Finally, when examining the similarities with countries that have weak advantages, it has been determined that Türkiye is in intense competition with Australia compared to other countries.

The findings are of particular value to politicians and business leaders, as they will inform the formulation of strategies to enhance the export competitiveness of the global tourism sector and ensure balanced tourism revenues in the context of future global challenges. For Türkiye to enhance its competitiveness in the tourism sector, it is of paramount importance for the government to assess the impact of the policies implemented by tourism operators. Identifying shortcomings and errors in these policies and implementing prompt revisions is crucial for the future of the sector and the Turkish economy. In order to maintain a competitive advantage on the global stage, it is essential to identify the most effective strategies for competing in the market and to capitalise on these strategies. In light of this expanding cash grant incentive, it could be argued that such a strategy would be crucial for Türkiye to adopt in order to compete with other tourist destinations in the Mediterranean basin. These incentives could assist small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, in overcoming their financial difficulties and enhancing their competitive advantage within the sector. Furthermore, the encouragement of environmentally friendly facilities within the context of sustainable tourism is of paramount importance for the preservation of natural resources and the mitigation of environmental pollution. These incentives can help destinations become more environmentally and economically resilient by promoting eco-friendly energy systems, waste management solutions, and ecological design. Such measures can simultaneously enhance the well-being of local communities and ensure the sustained prosperity of the regional tourism industry.

Furthermore, the establishment of a multilateral international dialogue platform would facilitate the adaptation of tourism policies, practices and investment decisions, thereby ensuring long-term sustainable growth in the tourism sector. In order to facilitate the collaborative governance approach to the development of Türkiye’s tourism sector, a new strategy must be developed to ensure competitive transformation and sustainable growth. It is considered more beneficial for Türkiye, which has a competitive advantage in the global tourism market, to pursue a policy that strengthens bilateral cooperation and coordination with other countries in the global economy. It would be prudent to initiate negotiations for mutually beneficial trade agreements, and to endeavour to avoid trade disputes.

According to the 2024 statistics from the UNWTO, 160 countries are engaged in the tourism sector. While most developed nations provide reliable tourism data, less developed countries face challenges in delivering accurate and timely statistics. A significant limitation of this study is that 120 out of the 160 countries involved in tourism activities are unable to provide reliable, complete, and comparable data for various reasons. Access to comprehensive data from all countries participating in global tourism would enable the creation of quality indicators for assessing the competitiveness of the tourism sector on a global scale. Future research could analyze the competitiveness of the tourism sector based on classifications of developed, developing, and less developed countries. Additionally, it could identify which of the seven continents holds the most advantage in tourism activities.