Next Article in Journal
Public Space Performance Analysis Using Structured Assessment Framework: Design and Sustainability Metrics in Riyadh’s Parks
Previous Article in Journal
Promoting Sustainable Medical Education Through Digital Competence: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 19
10.3390/su17198700
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

COVID-19’s Impact on Türkiye’s Lemon Exports: Constant Market Share Decomposition (2015–2024)

by
Osman Doğan Bulut
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Igdır University, 76000 Iğdır, Türkiye
Sustainability 2025, 17(19), 8700; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198700 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 12 August 2025 / Revised: 16 September 2025 / Accepted: 26 September 2025 / Published: 27 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Türkiye’s role in the global lemon trade was evaluated using the Constant Market Share (CMS) method to assess changes in export competitiveness across major destination markets. The CMS framework decomposes export performance into three components—market share effect, commodity composition effect, and commodity adaptation effect—which, respectively, represent competitiveness, product–market alignment, and structural responsiveness. Trade data for the ten largest importing countries, representing over 80% of Türkiye’s lemon exports, were analyzed to identify the drivers of export growth and structural change. Results show a sharp decline in competitiveness during the COVID-19 disruption, followed by a partial recovery in markets such as Iraq, Poland, Russia, and Azerbaijan. Persistent structural rigidities were identified in several Eastern European and Gulf markets, indicating limited responsiveness to shifting import demand. The findings highlight the need for flexible production systems, improved alignment of export structures with market requirements, and strategic partnerships to sustain long-term competitiveness in the global citrus sector.

1. Introduction

Citrus fruits, particularly lemons (Citrus limon), constitute a significant segment of global fresh fruit trade due to their nutritional value, long shelf life, and widespread use in the food, beverage, and pharmaceutical industries. Global lemon and lime exports exceeded 4 million tons in 2024, with leading exporters such as Mexico, Spain, Türkiye, and South Africa dominating international trade flows [1,2]. Mexico maintains its leadership position in volume, whereas Spain often ranks highest in export value, benefiting from strong access to EU markets and well-developed logistics infrastructure [3,4].
Türkiye’s favorable agro-climatic conditions, particularly in the Mediterranean region, enable the production of high-quality lemons over an extended season. Lemons are strategically important in Türkiye’s agricultural exports because of their high value, strong global demand, and year-round availability. As global trade patterns and consumer preferences evolve rapidly, understanding the underlying dynamics of export performance is critical for maintaining and improving market competitiveness. According to the Turkish Statistical Institute [2], Türkiye exported approximately 361 million USD worth of lemons in 2024, representing a significant increase from previous years. The primary destination markets include Russia, Iraq, Romania, and Saudi Arabia, alongside a growing presence in Eastern European and Gulf countries.
Türkiye’s lemon exports fluctuated markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2019–2020 period therefore constitutes a structurally distinct phase in global agricultural trade. Aday and Aday [5] stated that supply chains are one of the most important sectors of the economy. It has been seen that COVID-19 has an impact on the whole process from the field to the consumer. Gozgor et al. [6] stated that global supply chain shocks have a systematic and measurable impact on commodity markets, especially in agriculture and food sectors. Ridley et al. [7] demonstrated that COVID-19 caused a 5–10% decline in agricultural trade, mainly due to disruptions from supply and demand shocks. Steinbach et al. [8] revealed that temporary non-tariff measures imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a short-term reduction of approximately 27% in agricultural and food trade. Angelidis et al. [9] demonstrate that COVID-19-related supply shocks cascaded through global value chains, with a few central trading hubs amplifying disturbances across multiple sectors, illustrating how disruptions propagate through interconnected trade networks. Erokhin and Gao [10] similarly report that pandemic-driven trade restrictions and logistics bottlenecks in 45 developing countries magnified food-security risks by disrupting critical import–export links. These network-based findings provide complementary insights to the Constant Market Share (CMS) decomposition. In this context, the pandemic triggered production instability, phytosanitary restrictions, shifting trade preferences, and heightened competition, all of which disrupted the normal functioning of Türkiye’s lemon trade. Therefore, the 2019–2020 period is not only analytically distinct but also methodologically significant, as it allows for a meaningful comparison with the pre-pandemic (2015–2016) and post-pandemic normalization (2023–2024) periods. This temporal segmentation allows researchers to identify structural breaks and evaluate policy impacts. It also facilitates assessment of the sector’s resilience and adaptability during global disruptions.
Several studies have attempted to evaluate Türkiye’s competitiveness and market positioning using quantitative methods, employing comparative advantage indices and trade specialization metrics to assess the sustainability of Türkiye’s citrus exports [11,12]. However, while such approaches provide valuable insights, they often fail to capture the multidimensional nature of export performance changes over time. In this context, the Constant Market Share (CMS) analysis offers a comprehensive and decomposition-based methodology, enabling the disaggregation of export growth into structural, compositional, and competitiveness-related components [13,14,15].
CMS analysis has been extensively employed in the agricultural trade literature to assess export performance, competitiveness, and structural dynamics in international markets as a decomposition tool. In the fisheries sector, Klasra and Fidan [16] and Soh et al. [17] applied CMS to examine Malaysia’s fish exports. Their findings revealed sustained competitiveness in frozen fish but declining performance in crustaceans, largely due to inadequate adaptation to evolving market structures. In the fruit and vegetable trade, Nilsson et al. [18] found heterogeneous competitiveness levels among Mediterranean countries, while Capobianco-Uriarte et al. [14] demonstrated Spain’s structural advantage in the EU tomato market. Within the cereal trade, Ahmadi-Esfahani [13] showed that Japan’s wheat import quotas constrained its export opportunities despite robust global demand. Similarly, Chen and Duan [19] used CMS to evaluate Canada’s agrifood trade and emphasized the importance of diversifying export destinations. More recently, Zdráhal et al. [15] analyzed the Czech Republic’s agrifood exports and concluded that insufficient diversification across products and markets limited export potential. CMS has also proven useful in the analysis of meat and livestock exports. Varalakshmi and Devatkal [20] explored India’s bovine meat exports, finding significant variation in competitiveness across importing countries. Majdalawi et al. [21] applied CMS to date palm exports, attributing year-to-year fluctuations in export growth primarily to production variability and shifting import policies, factors CMS helps isolate effectively. In the context of fruit trade, Fu et al. [22] used CMS to study Hainan’s fruit exports and found that rising labor costs eroded price competitiveness. Additionally, Cano-Espinosa and Mendez-Leon [23] investigated Mexico’s fresh grape exports to the United States between 2002 and 2022. Their study highlighted Peru’s success as a competitor, driven by product adaptation and flexible production strategies, dimensions well captured through CMS. Recently, Bulut et al. [24] applied the CMS model to Türkiye’s hazelnut exports to the EU28 market. Their analysis revealed that Türkiye’s overall market share increased between 2010 and 2021, with the CCE making the largest positive contribution. This indicated that hazelnuts are structurally well-matched to the European market’s import demand. However, MSE and CAE had negative impacts in some sub-periods, underlining structural weaknesses in production consistency and responsiveness to evolving market preferences.
Applications of the CMS method in cereals [13], tomatoes [14], and hazelnuts [24] reveal the method’s utility. They also expose its limitations in capturing shocks in perishable commodities. These comparative insights have been incorporated to guide the present application to lemons, and evidence from other sectors has been synthesized to connect their findings to structural and competitiveness issues specific to lemon exports. For example, the need for product–market alignment emphasized by Nilsson et al. [18] and the importance of diversification identified by Chen and Duan [19] are explicitly related to Türkiye’s lemon sector. Beyond the absence of lemon-focused CMS studies, Türkiye’s lemon trade is presented as a high-value, perishable product subject to abrupt demand shifts and policy interventions, providing a rigorous context in which the CMS method can reveal competitiveness and structural adaptation under severe external shocks.
Although CMS has been widely applied to various agricultural sectors, including cereals, livestock, fishery, and horticultural products, no study to date has employed this method to analyze Türkiye’s lemon exports. Given the method’s ability to disentangle structural effects, competitiveness, and external demand shocks, CMS remains a robust and insightful tool for trade diagnostics in agriculture. This represents a notable gap in the literature, given the method’s utility in isolating the effects of market structure, product adaptation, and competitiveness over time.
Türkiye’s lemon exports have undergone notable structural changes over the last decade. While exports to certain markets have exhibited significant growth, others have remained stagnant or contracted. This heterogeneity underscores the importance of conducting a granular, market-specific analysis to capture the distinct dynamics influencing export performance across different destinations. Accordingly, this study points out that agricultural foreign trade is a dynamic process; hence, designing an appropriate analytical model is necessary. CMS analysis was used to determine Türkiye’s competitiveness to ten countries during the period from 2015 to 2024. The analysis is structured across three sub-periods to investigate temporal shifts in export performance. This study specifically aims to address the following research questions: How has Türkiye’s lemon export performance evolved over time across target countries, and what structural factors have driven these changes? By employing the CMS methodology, the research seeks to identify the key drivers of Türkiye’s lemon export dynamics and to generate policy-relevant knowledge for strengthening the country’s position in the global lemon trade. Guided by the above research questions, the analysis is structured around the following testable hypotheses: H1: Türkiye’s lemon export competitiveness declined significantly during the COVID-19 disruption (201920132020) relative to the pre-shock period (2015–2016). H2: Post-pandemic adjustment (2023–2024) led to partial recovery in market share and structural adaptation. H3: The Constant Market Share components—market share effect (MSE), commodity composition effect (CCE), and commodity adaptation effect (CAE)—exhibit significant heterogeneity across destination markets, reflecting country-specific structural dynamics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Determination of the Target Market

The study examines Türkiye’s lemon exports to ten major destinations that account for roughly 80% of total exports. Among these markets, Iraq exhibited the most pronounced growth, whereas Russia remained relatively stable. Exports to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates declined, while Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria recorded moderate but fluctuating volumes (Table 1).
The data suggest that Türkiye retains a strong position in its traditional markets; however, export value alone is a limited indicator for assessing trade performance. While rising export values may indicate growth, they do not fully capture the underlying dynamics of competitiveness, product-market fit, or adaptability to changing demand structures. Without addressing these dimensions, evaluations based solely on export values may result in superficial or even misleading conclusions. A holistic approach is essential for understanding the real drivers behind export trends and for formulating effective trade strategies. A comprehensive analysis requires going beyond absolute figures and incorporating structural components such as the MSE, the CCE, and the CAE, as outlined in the CMS framework. The MSE reflects Türkiye’s competitive strength in the target market by countries; the CCE indicates whether lemons align with growing product categories; and the CAE indicates how well Türkiye adjusts its export structure in response to shifts in import demand.

2.2. Period Selection and Theoretical Background

The identification of distinct periods, as summarized in Table 2, is essential for evaluating trade performance under changing global conditions. Three key phases were selected for Türkiye’s lemon trade: Period I (2015–2016) as the pre-shock baseline, Period II (2019–2020) reflecting the COVID-19 disruption that significantly affected global agri-food supply chains [25,26,27], and Period III (2023–2024) representing the post-pandemic adjustment with partially recovered trade flows [28]. This segmentation, supported by structural-break [28], highlights turning points in competitiveness, adaptability, and product–market alignment. It enables the Constant Market Share (CMS) analysis to isolate changes in competitiveness, product specialization, and structural adaptation across distinct macroeconomic environments [15].

2.3. Constant Market Share (CMS) Method

Being competitive in the international agri-food trade is a key objective for all countries [29]. This study uses the CMS method to assess Türkiye’s lemon export competitiveness from 2015 to 2024. The model decomposes export growth into components that reveal structural and competitiveness-related changes in international trade. It assumes that a country’s export market share remains stable unless affected by shifts in product composition or relative competitiveness, and applies a structural decomposition widely used in agri-food trade studies [13,14,15,21,23,24,30,31]. No universally accepted threshold exists in the CMS literature for judging the economic significance of percentage changes in component values; therefore, interpretations in this study rely on the relative magnitude and economic context of observed shifts.
In this study, the CMS model is implemented through a three-component analytical framework: (1) the MSE, which captures changes in Türkiye’s share of a given market, indicating competitiveness dynamics; (2) the CCE, which reflects how the weight of lemons within the overall import portfolio of the target market changes over time, highlighting whether lemons are a suitable export product for that market; and (3) the CAE, which evaluates Türkiye’s ability to align its export profile with changing import demand structures in destination markets. The sum of the component values indicates the relative change in market share. A positive value indicates an increase in the exporting country’s market share for the selected product in the importing country’s market; a negative value indicates a decrease. Each pairwise comparison yields values for the three CMS components, which are MSE, CCE, CAE, enabling a disaggregated assessment of export performance drivers. This analytical structure allows the identification of whether changes in Türkiye’s lemon exports are primarily due to competitive gains, structural alignment with market demand, or product-specific preferences. The methodological formulation and interpretation of the CMS components are illustrated conceptually in Figure 1, which serves as a reference framework for the empirical results presented in the following section.
Export values (USD) were used instead of quantities because trade statistics may employ incompatible units, creating potential distortions. In this broader trade context, value-based data were considered the most consistent and economically representative indicator of competitiveness.

2.4. Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) and Trade Specialization Index (TSI)

The Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) index was introduced by Liesner [32] and later refined by Balassa [33]. The RCA index is used in studies to determine the strong and weak export sectors of a country [34,35]. In this study, RCA and the TSI are employed as complementary trade indicators to support and validate the CMS findings. This index helps the researchers identify industries where the targeted country has an obvious advantage in international competition. This is of special importance in order to promote trade of products that are more likely to be competitive. It is calculated as the ratio of the industry’s share in the country’s exports relative to its share in world trade goods [36]. The RCA index takes a value between 0 and ∞. If the index value is greater than one, that country has a comparative advantage in the relevant sector. In other words, that industry’s share in the country’s total exports is greater than its share in world trade. If the index value is less than one, the country has a comparative disadvantage in the relevant sector [37]. The limitation of RCA index is that it is affected by anything that distorts the trade pattern, e.g., trade barriers. Another index for assessing Türkiye’s specialization in lemon is the Trade Specialization Index (TSI), which indicates whether the country is a net exporter or a net importer of the product. The TSI ranges from –1 to +1, where a value greater than zero signifies that the country is a net exporter of the good, while a value less than zero signifies that it is a net importer [38,39]. The methodological formulation and interpretation of the RCA and TSI are illustrated in Figure 2.

2.5. Data Sources and Language Support

The trade data used in this study were obtained from reliable international and national databases, including the Food and Agriculture Organization [3], International Trade Centre [1], and Turkish Statistical Institute [2]. All data were accessed through publicly available platforms and official publications. CMS analysis results proportional change values are multiplied by ten thousand for ease of display and interpretation.
The author utilized OpenAI as a language editing tool to refine grammar, style, and structure. The tool was not used for generating content, analyzing data, or drawing conclusions. All interpretations, methodological decisions, and results presented in this article are solely the responsibility of the author. All contents are the author’s own.

3. Results

3.1. An Overview of Türkiye’s Target Market in Lemon Exports

Türkiye holds a significant position not only in global lemon production but also in international lemon trade. As of 2024, global lemon imports amount to approximately 4.54 billion USD, with 843 million USD of this total coming from selected markets targeted by Türkiye. Türkiye’s lemon exports to these markets total around 300 million USD, accounting for over 80% of the country’s total lemon exports (Table 3).
Key destinations such as Iraq, Russia, and Poland stand out among the primary markets for Türkiye’s lemon exports. This highlights the strategic importance of maintaining competitive strength in existing markets while also diversifying export destinations. Analyzing the demand trends and Türkiye’s market share in these target countries is crucial for shaping effective foreign trade policies in the agricultural sector.

3.2. Results of the Constant Market Share (CMS), RCA and TSI Analyses

Although Türkiye’s lemon exports appear to rise steadily, absolute values give only a partial view of performance. The CMS method breaks export growth into three components—MSE (competitiveness), CCE (product-market alignment), and CAE (responsiveness to import shifts)—with Table 4 showing their contributions, positive or negative, across the three comparison periods.
A closer examination of the CMS components reveals considerable heterogeneity in Türkiye’s lemon export performance across different markets. On the one hand, several countries demonstrate persistently negative indicators across one or more CMS dimensions. For instance, countries such as Saudi Arabia (SA: −130.79), Ukraine (−81.06), and Bulgaria (−88.79) exhibit consistently negative MSE values, suggesting that Türkiye’s export growth in these markets has failed to keep pace with the overall import expansion, indicating a relative decline in competitiveness. Similarly, CCE values are consistently negative in countries such as Russia (−108.36), United Arab Emirates (UAE: −18.01), Saudi Arabia (SA: −58.04), Poland (−22.13), and Romania (−103.56). These values point to a mismatch between Türkiye’s lemon export structure and the rapidly expanding product segments in these countries’ total imports, indicating limited product-market fit. Moreover, countries such as Serbia (−22.29/−12.43/cumulative decline), Bulgaria (−15.79/−14.14/−8.51), and Azerbaijan (−113.46/−57.34/−1.17) display consistently negative CAE values across all three periods. These figures highlight Türkiye’s inability to adjust its lemon export structure in response to shifting import compositions, suggesting structural rigidity and limited responsiveness to evolving consumer preferences.
Conversely, the CMS decomposition also identifies markets where Türkiye has demonstrated strategic alignment and adaptive capacity. For instance, Iraq (MSE: +717.63 in Period II vs. III), Russia (+123.82), and Poland (+43.73) show strong positive MSE values in later periods, indicating a recovery and strengthening of Türkiye’s competitive position in those markets. In terms of CCE, countries such as Iraq (+803.48), Azerbaijan (+201.20), and Bulgaria (+69.79) register highly positive results, implying that lemons have increasingly matched broader import preferences. Positive CAE values in Iraq (+30.73) and Russia (+123.82) further signal Türkiye’s capacity to realign its export portfolio with changing demand structures.
Türkiye’s lemon export performance is characterized by both competitive gains in some markets and structural deficiencies in others. The CMS results underscore the need for tailored export strategies that not only sustain market share but also improve adaptability and product alignment in response to the dynamic nature of global agri-food trade.
In addition to the CMS decomposition, Table 5 presents the RCA and TSI values to provide a complementary view of Türkiye’s export competitiveness across the three periods. RCA maintained a consistently strong level across all periods, showing a temporary decline during the COVID-19 disruption and a subsequent rebound in the post-pandemic phase, reflecting the same trend of decline and partial recovery observed in the CMS market-share analysis. TSI stayed almost constant near +1, confirming persistent export specialization and net-exporter status despite temporary shocks. Together, these indicators demonstrate that Türkiye maintained a durable comparative advantage and structural export orientation, experiencing only a short-term competitiveness loss during the pandemic.

3.2.1. Analysis of Export Dynamics: Period I vs. Period II

The comparison between Period I (2015–2016) and Period II (2019–2020) reveals critical insights into the changing dynamics of export performance (Figure 3). This period is notably characterized by broadly negative MSE values across almost all countries, indicating a widespread decline in Türkiye’s competitiveness. The most significant losses were recorded in Iraq (−507.35) and Serbia (−152.98), where Türkiye’s exports failed to keep pace with the overall growth in lemon imports, reflecting a marked inability to sustain market share despite external demand conditions. In addition, CAE values were also predominantly negative, especially in Iraq (−419.00) and Azerbaijan (−113.46), suggesting that Türkiye’s export structure did not sufficiently adjust to the changes in the composition of import demand in these markets. This indicates a structural rigidity in Türkiye’s export portfolio, where responsiveness to evolving product preferences was limited. Although some countries showed slightly positive CAE or CCE values, the overall CMS profile for this period underscores a competitive disadvantage. The negative MSE and CAE values, when considered together, point to both a loss of market share and a lack of adaptability, indicating that Türkiye’s lemon export strategy during this period was misaligned with the structural and dynamic transformations in global demand.
These findings should also be evaluated in the broader context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely disrupted international trade in 2019–2020. Port closures, transport delays, and container shortages particularly affected perishable exports such as lemons [40]. Shifts in trade policies, heightened food-safety concerns, and stronger local sourcing further constrained Türkiye’s market access [41,42]. The pandemic created a positive divergence for lemons compared with other vegetables. Rising demand for disinfectant use and simultaneous supply constraints drove significant price increases. Unlike tomato, green pepper, and squash, lemons maintained stronger price dynamics and export resilience, underscoring their strategic importance [43,44,45]. Domestically, temporary export restrictions were imposed in April 2020 to stabilize prices and ensure supply directly reduced export volumes [43,46,47]. These policy measures, while aimed at supply security, ultimately weakened Türkiye’s lemon exports in Period II.
Additionally, changing consumer preferences toward traceable, packaged, and organic produce increased the need for structural adaptation in export portfolios. Türkiye’s relative inability to meet these evolving market expectations, as evidenced by consistently negative CAE values in key markets, further emphasizes the need for more flexible and responsive export strategies [40,48,49,50]. Overall, the CMS results for Period I versus Period II highlight not only a loss in market competitiveness but also deeper structural limitations exacerbated by pandemic-related challenges.

3.2.2. Analysis of Export Dynamics: Period I vs. Period III

The observed shifts in export performance between Period I (2015–2016) and Period III (2023–2024) can be attributed to both structural changes in global agri-food trade and the profound impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 4). The positive MSE in countries like Russia (+47.17) and Poland (+19.19) suggest that Türkiye regained some of its lost competitiveness in the post-pandemic years. According to the report [51], import and export trends for some of the world’s major trading economies show that with a few exceptions, trade in major economies recovered from the fall of 2020. This improvement may reflect enhanced logistics, stabilized supply chains, and a return to normalized consumer demand following the acute disruptions of 2020 [48,52,53,54,55]. However, not all markets experienced this rebound. Countries like Serbia continued to struggle with maintaining export share (MSE: −116.48), despite showing some level of adaptability (CAE: +22.71).
A prominent trend during this comparison is the substantial improvement in CCE across most markets. This was particularly evident in Iraq (+803.48) and Azerbaijan (+201.20), suggesting that lemons have become more relevant within the overall import portfolios of these countries. This shift may reflect post-pandemic consumer demand for vitamin-rich citrus fruits [47], and Türkiye’s positive CCE values indicate partial alignment with these evolving preferences. However, persistent limitations in CAE across several markets (e.g., Bulgaria: −14.14; Romania: +18.41). This suggests a continued need for structural reform, including product diversification, traceability, and compliance with quality standards [15,56].
In conclusion, while the CMS results for Period I vs. Period III reflect a more nuanced and partially positive outlook compared to the immediate pandemic period, Türkiye’s lemon export strategy still faces challenges. These include addressing supply side rigidity and improving responsiveness to dynamic trade environments factors that are crucial for sustaining and enhancing competitiveness in agri-food export markets.

3.2.3. Analysis of Export Dynamics: Period II vs. Period III

The third CMS comparison, covering Period II (2019–2020) and Period III (2023–2024), reveals a marked improvement in export performance (Figure 5). Positive values in both MSE and CAE across multiple countries, including Iraq (MSE: +717.63; CAE: +30.73), Russia (MSE: +123.82), and Poland (MSE: +43.73), suggest a strengthened competitive stance and a better alignment with structural changes in import demand. Notably, Iraq exhibits strong performance across all three CMS components, including CCE (+29.82), indicating a robust and well-integrated positioning of Türkiye’s lemon exports in that market. This comprehensive success may be attributed to Türkiye’s strategic engagement, improved logistics, and targeted trade diplomacy in neighboring regions during the post-pandemic recovery period [42,48]. These positive outcomes can also be linked to broader trends in the global food trade system, where post-pandemic normalization facilitated renewed export opportunities, especially for Mediterranean horticultural products with high health appeal such as lemons [10,40,56]. Moreover, Türkiye’s exporters likely benefited from enhanced operational resilience and digital integration in supply chains, which improved their responsiveness to shifting demand and import specifications [40]. Nevertheless, structural rigidity remains a concern. Countries like Serbia (CAE: −12.43), Bulgaria (CAE: +8.51 but CCE: −29.61), and Azerbaijan (CAE: −1.17) continued to exhibit limited responsiveness to evolving product demand. These findings echo earlier structural weaknesses identified in the pre-pandemic periods, underscoring that while some markets have been successfully realigned, others still lag in terms of adaptability and product diversification [15]. Such discrepancies highlight the need for differentiated export strategies tailored to specific market dynamics.

4. Discussion

The CMS analysis reveals notable shifts in Türkiye’s lemon export performance across different periods, reflecting structural and external developments in global agri-food trade. The results were interpreted within the framework of structural-break, which treats external shocks as potential turning points in trade competitiveness and market dynamics [28,57,58]. Moreover, as complementary indicators, RCA weakened during the COVID-19 shock and only partially recovered in Period III, remaining below its pre-pandemic level, while consistently high TSI values confirm Türkiye’s net-exporter status across all periods, highlighting persistent export orientation despite temporary competitiveness losses.
Structural rigidity is addressed separately from competitiveness recovery to clarify their distinct roles. Structural rigidity refers to persistent limitations in adapting export composition and diversification, which constrain long-term responsiveness to changing import demand. Competitiveness recovery, by contrast, reflects short- to medium-term market-share gains following the post-pandemic normalization of trade flows. Treating these dimensions independently allows a more rigorous evaluation of export performance and provides a clearer basis for testing the stated hypotheses.
In the initial comparison period (2015–2016 vs. 2019–2020), a widespread decline in Türkiye’s competitiveness is observed, with consistently negative MSE values in most major markets. This pattern coincides with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused severe disruptions in global agricultural value chains due to lockdowns, transportation constraints, and abrupt shifts in demand [40,59]. The pandemic not only reduced the availability of labor and logistical capacity in exporting countries, but also led to a temporary contraction in international trade flows of perishable goods like lemons. Türkiye’s policy response during this period included temporary export bans on lemons, aimed at curbing domestic price inflation. However, these measures undermined Türkiye’s reliability in the international citrus trade and allowed competing suppliers to capture market share [45]. Consistent with the findings of Zdráhal et al. [15] and Chen and Duan [19], which highlight the importance of product–market alignment and diversification, the negative CCE values observed in several Gulf and Eastern European markets indicate that Türkiye’s export structure did not adapt sufficiently to evolving import portfolios.
In the second comparison period (2019–2020 vs. 2023–2024), signs of recovery become evident. Türkiye achieved positive MSE and CCE values in several key markets, most notably in Iraq and Poland. These gains suggest improved market access and partial structural realignment, consistent with the FAO’s observation [55] that global agricultural trade rebounded post-pandemic, especially in developing countries that adapted their logistics and export structures. However, despite this recovery, negative CAE value persisted in many countries, indicating Türkiye’s limited responsiveness to evolving product composition in destination markets. Such structural rigidity has been highlighted in earlier studies, including Chen and Duan’s study [19], which found that lack of diversification and insufficient alignment with market trends constrained long-term competitiveness. Türkiye’s case similarly demonstrates the need for greater investment in value-added citrus products, improved traceability systems, and differentiated export strategies based on market-specific demand profiles, as several markets continued to reveal structural rigidity after the pandemic, underscoring the importance of broader export diversification and adaptability. Without these reforms, the gains in competitiveness may remain fragile and susceptible to future supply or policy shocks.
In summary, while Türkiye has shown the capacity to recover from external disruptions, the CMS findings highlight structural vulnerabilities in its lemon export strategy. These must be addressed through proactive policy, supply chain modernization, and a stronger alignment between export structure and evolving international demand.

5. Conclusions

This study employed the CMS method to analyze Türkiye’s lemon export performance across different countries and time periods. The findings indicate a significant loss of competitiveness during the 2019–2020 period, largely due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, Türkiye’s position weakened in markets such as Saudi Arabia, Serbia, and the United Arab Emirates, where declining market shares reflected both global trade disruptions and reduced reliability due to domestic export bans. Furthermore, in several key markets, Türkiye’s lemon exports failed to align with shifting demand preferences, resulting in missed growth opportunities. Structural rigidity in the export composition, especially in Eastern European and Caucasus countries, prevented adequate adaptation to evolving import patterns.
Nevertheless, the 2023–2024 period showed partial recovery, especially in markets such as Iraq, Azerbaijan, Poland, and Russia. Iraq, in particular, demonstrated strong performance across all CMS components, indicating structural compatibility and improved market responsiveness. The ability to regain share in such markets highlights the importance of maintaining consistent supply, fostering long-term trade relationships, and adapting to partner country’s needs. These results underscore the potential for Türkiye to strengthen its position through strategic engagement in markets where demand for lemons remains stable or growing.
To sustain competitiveness, Türkiye should enhance production and supply systems for greater flexibility, improving product variety, certification, and adherence to international quality standards. Second, Türkiye should strengthen traceability and certification systems to ensure transparent and reliable supply chains and implement market-specific strategies aimed at overcoming structural rigidity in Eastern European markets (e.g., Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia). This includes improved logistics and closer alignment with changing import demand. Third, Türkiye should diversify into processed lemon products such as juice, essential oil, and dried peel. This would reduce reliance on fresh-produce exports and open high-value markets in food processing and pharmaceuticals. Finally, continued trade promotion and diplomatic engagement in key destination markets will contribute to institutional reliability, ensure continuity of market presence, and support Türkiye’s strategic positioning in the global citrus trade.
This study also acknowledges certain limitations. The analysis relies exclusively on export values. Future research could be strengthened by complementary investigations that incorporate price dynamics, production costs, and exchange-rate movements to capture a broader range of determinants of export performance. While these variables cannot be directly integrated into the Constant Market Share (CMS) framework, separate econometric or decomposition analyses including such factors would provide valuable insights into Türkiye’s lemon export competitiveness and its sensitivity to macroeconomic conditions.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ITC—International Trade Centre. Trade Map: Global Exports of Lemons and Limes (HS Code: 080550). Available online: https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  2. TURKSTAT—Turkish Statistical Institute. Foreign Trade Statistics: Lemon Exports by Year and Country. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/ (accessed on 6 May 2025).
  3. FAOSTAT—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Statistical Database. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 12 May 2025).
  4. UN Comtrade—United Nations. UN Comtrade Database. Available online: https://comtrade.un.org/ (accessed on 3 May 2025).
  5. Aday, S.; Aday, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gozgor, G.; Khalfaoui, R.; Yarovaya, L. Global supply chain pressure and commodity markets: Evidence from multiple wavelet and quantile connectedness analyses. Financ. Res. Lett. 2023, 54, 103791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ridley, W.; Akhundjanov, S.B.; Devadoss, S. The COVID-19 pandemic and trade in agricultural products. World Econ. 2023, 54, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Steinbach, S.; Grethe, H.; Nolte, S. The impact of COVID-19 trade measures on agricultural and food trade. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2022, 45, 911–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Angelidis, G.; Bratsas, C.; Makris, G.; Ioannidis, E.; Varsakelis, N.C.; Antoniou, I.E. Global value chains of COVID-19 materials: A weighted directed network analysis. Mathematics 2021, 9, 3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Erokhin, V.; Gao, T. Impacts of COVID-19 on Trade and Economic Aspects of Food Security: Evidence from 45 Developing Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Özözen, S. Türkiye’nin narenciye sektöründe karşilaştirmali rekabet gücü. Yön. Bil. Derg. 2023, 21, 944–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kadanalı, E. Türkiye turunçgiller ihracatının rekabet gücünün analizi. Tar. Eko. Derg. 2019, 25, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ahmadi-Esfahani, F.Z. Wheat market shares in the presence of of Japanese import quotas. J. Policy Model. 1995, 17, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Capobianco-Uriarte, M.T.; Aparicio, J.; De Pablo-Valenciano, J. Analysis of Spain’s competitiveness in the European tomato market: An application of the constant market share method. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 15, e113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zdráhal, I.; Lategan, F.S.; Van Der Merwe, M. A constant market share analysis of the competitiveness of the Czech Republic’s agrifood exports (2002–2020) to the European Union. Agric. Econ.—Czech. 2023, 69, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Klasra, M.A.; Fidan, H. Competitiveness of major exporting countries and Turkey in the world fishery market: A constant market share analysis. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2007, 9, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Soh, R.C.H.; Lim, G.T.; Chua, S.Y. Competitiveness of Malaysian fisheries exports: A constant market share analysis. Malays. J. Econ. Stud. 2021, 58, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nilsson, F.O.L.; Lindberg, E.; Surry, Y. Are the Mediterranean countries competitive in fresh fruit and vegetable exports? Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. C—Food Econ. 2007, 4, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, K.; Xu, L.; Duan, Y. Ex-Post competitiveness of China’s export in agri-food products: 1980-96. Agribusiness 2000, 16, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Varalakshmi, K.; Devatkal, S. Competitiveness of Indian bovine meat exports: A constant market share analysis. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 87, 1026–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Majdalawi, M.; Al-Habbab, M.; Al-Assaf, A.; Tabeah, M.; Araj, S.E.; Al-Antary, T.M. Improving supply chain of date palm by analyzing the competitiveness using a constant market share analysis. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 10997–11005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fu, H.; Huang, C.; Teng, Z.; Fang, Y. Market structure, international competitiveness, and price formation of Hainan’s fruit exports. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2021, 2021, 6664780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cano-Espinosa, D.; Méndez-León, J.R. The competitive dynamics of mexican fresh grapes in the U.S. Market. World 2025, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bulut, O.D.; Ağır, H.B.; Karaman, S.; Özden, C. Analysis of Türkiye’s export performance in the European hazelnut market: An application of the constant market share method. Appl. Fruit Sci. 2025, 67, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. COVID-19 and Global Value: Policy Options to Build More Resilient Production Networks. 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/covid-19-and-global-value-chains-policy-options-to-build-more-resilient-production-networks_04934ef4-en.html (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  26. Glauber, J.; Laborde, D.; Martin, W.; Vos, R. Agricultural Trade Policy Responses During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  27. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Agricultural Trade: Evidence from 2020 and Policy Implications. Available online: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc1127en/ (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  28. WBG—World Bank Group. COVID-19 and Food Protectionism: The Impact of the Pandemic and Export Restrictions on World Food Markets. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/417171589912076742/pdf/Covid-19-and-Food-Protectionism-The-Impact-of-the-Pandemic-and-Export-Restrictions-on-World-Food-Markets.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2025).
  29. Mizik, T. Agri-Food trade competitiveness: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tyszynski, H. World trade in manufactured commodities, 1899–1950. Manch. Sch. Econ. Soc. Stud. 1951, 19, 272–304. [Google Scholar]
  31. Richardson, J.D. Constant market shares analysis of export growth. J. Int. Econ. 1971, 1, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liesner, H. The European common market and British industry. Econ. J. 1958, 68, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Balassa, B. Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. Manch. Sch. Econ. Soc. Stud. 1965, 33, 99–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aiginger, K. Specialisation of European manufacturing. Aust. Econ. Q. 2000, 5, 81–92. [Google Scholar]
  35. Fertö, I.; Bojnec, S. Comparative Advantages in Agro-Food Trade of Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia with the European Union; IAMO Discussion Paper No. 106; IAMO: Halle, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  36. ITC—International Trade Centre. ITC’s Trade and Market Intelligence Section—Trade Performance HS User Guide. Available online: https://tradecompetitivenessmap.intracen.org/Documents/TradeCompMap-Trade%20PerformanceHS-UserGuide-EN.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  37. Mushanyuri, B.E.; Mzumara, M. An assessment of comparative advantage of Mauritius. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 2, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ullah, M.; Kazuo, I. Dynamics of comparative advantage and export potentials in Bangladesh. Ritsumeikan Econ. Rev. 2012, 61, 471–484. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ervani, E. Export and import performance of Indonesia’s agriculture sector. J. Econ. Policy 2013, 6, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
  40. OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. COVID-19 and the Global Food Systems. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/06/covid-19-and-global-food-systems_4e20dc60/aeb1434b-en.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  41. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. COVID-19 and the Risk to Food Supply Chains: How to Respond? Available online: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca8388en (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  42. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food Outlook—Biannual Report on Global Food Markets. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca9509en/CA9509EN.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2025).
  43. Karaman, S.; Kutlar, I. Impact of COVID-19 on the fresh fruit and vegetable market’s equilibrium in Turkey. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2021, 30, 9162–9171. [Google Scholar]
  44. IIAP—Interamerican Institute for Agriculture and Production. COVID-19: Impacts and Opportunities for Citrus. 2020. Available online: https://iiap.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Covid-19-impacts-and-opportunities-for-citrus.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2025).
  45. USDA—United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Annual Report (GAIN Report No. TU2023-0005). Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/turkey-citrus-semi-annual-3 (accessed on 15 May 2025).
  46. Subaşı, O.S.; Uysal, O. Producer Perceptions Regarding Policies Implemented forSustainable Lemon Production and Trade During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Case of Mersin. Tarım Ekon. Araştırmaları Derg. 2024, 10, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Limon Ihracatına Geçici Kısıtlama Getirildi [Temporary Restriction Imposed on Lemon Exports]. 2020. Available online: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr (accessed on 22 April 2025).
  48. Barichello, R. The COVID-19 pandemic: Anticipating its effects on Canada’s agricultural trade. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. d’Agroecon. 2020, 68, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wognum, P.M.; Bremmers, H.J.; Trienekens, J.H.; van der Vorst, J.G.A.J.; Bloemhof, J.M. Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains—Current status and challenges. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gereffi, G. Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2014, 21, 9–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. UNCTAD—United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Global Trade Update (/DITC/INF/2021/2). 19 May 2021. Available online: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditcinf2021d2_en.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  52. Monferdini, L.; Bottani, E. Examining the Response to COVID-19 in Logistics and Supply Chain Processes: Insights from a State-of-the-Art Literature Review and Case Study Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Barman, A.; Das, R.; De, P.K. Logistics and supply chain management of food industry during COVID-19: Disruptions and a recovery plan. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2022, 42, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Deconinck, K.; Avery, E.; Jackson, L.A. Food Supply Chains and Covid-19: Impacts and Policy Lessons. EuroChoices 2020, 19, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed Central]
  55. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/b62d008a-11a8-4630-a603-c98398a9ac16 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
  56. OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Food Supply Chains and COVID-19: Impacts and Policy Lessons. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19). 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/07/covid-19-and-food-systems_393169b7/69ed37bd-en.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  57. Oliveira, M.d.F.; Reis, P. Portuguese Agrifood Sector Resilience: An Analysis Using Structural Breaks Applied to International Trade. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ngobeni, L. Structural Change in the South African Agricultural Sector: Bai–Perron Modelling. Sci. Afr. 2023, 21, e01732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Glauber, J.; Laborde, D.; Martin, W.; Vos, R. COVID-19: Trade restrictions are worst possible response to safeguard food security. IFPRI Blog Post, 27 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 08700 g001
Figure 1. Formulations and explanation of Constant market Share (CMS).
Figure 1. Formulations and explanation of Constant market Share (CMS).
Sustainability 17 08700 g001
Sustainability 17 08700 g002
Figure 2. Formulas and interpretations of TSI and RCA indices.
Figure 2. Formulas and interpretations of TSI and RCA indices.
Sustainability 17 08700 g002
Sustainability 17 08700 g003
Figure 3. Türkiye’s lemon export performance by countries: Period I (2015–2016) vs. Period II (2019–2020).
Figure 3. Türkiye’s lemon export performance by countries: Period I (2015–2016) vs. Period II (2019–2020).
Sustainability 17 08700 g003
Sustainability 17 08700 g004
Figure 4. Türkiye’s lemon export performance by country: Period I (2015–2016) vs. Period III (2023–2024).
Figure 4. Türkiye’s lemon export performance by country: Period I (2015–2016) vs. Period III (2023–2024).
Sustainability 17 08700 g004
Sustainability 17 08700 g005
Figure 5. Türkiye’s lemon export performance by country: Period II (2019–2020) vs. Period III (2023–2024).
Figure 5. Türkiye’s lemon export performance by country: Period II (2019–2020) vs. Period III (2023–2024).
Sustainability 17 08700 g005
Table 1. Türkiye’s lemon exports to top 10 countries (2015–2024).
Table 1. Türkiye’s lemon exports to top 10 countries (2015–2024).
Period IPeriod IIPeriod III
Countries2015201620192020202320242015–2024
MeanRate (%)
Russia73,20476,54265,06476,83276,69469,03976,15825.22
Iraq40,90538,58229,44746,91690,089112,39551,68217.11
Romania20,56925,31517,98618,00524,12223,13322,7397.53
SA29,49834,11920,131886413,00510,24719,9206.60
Ukraine15,47316,30417,09519,39321,09720,65618,2576.04
Poland15,31912,78210,98912,91923,95525,33516,4925.46
Serbia905911,81012,10712,34614,75914,29713,1824.36
Bulgaria10,13712,71213,14312,89112,07613,01212,9944.30
UAE965410,114709170588273492379872.64
Azerbaijan28533029395419257478715544601.48
Subtotal226,671241,309197,007217,149291,548300,192243,87080.75
Others67,10463,33946,82054,70167,03761,07558,14519.25
World293,775304,648243,827271,850358,585361,267302,015100.00
Table 2. Periods for Türkiye’s lemon export analysis.
Table 2. Periods for Türkiye’s lemon export analysis.
PeriodYearsExplanation
Period I2015–2016Selected as the base period, representing pre-shock conditions and Türkiye’s traditional export structure before major global disruptions.
Period II2019–2020Marks a transitional phase characterized by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and shifts in global trade patterns affecting export dynamics.
Period III2023–2024Represents the post-shock adjustment period where Türkiye’s lemon exports have stabilized, indicating a potential new trade equilibrium.
Table 3. Türkiye’s lemon exports to target market: export values and shares in 2024.
Table 3. Türkiye’s lemon exports to target market: export values and shares in 2024.
Value
(1000 $)		Rate in Target Market Import from World (%)Rate in Türkiye’s Export to Target Market (%)
World Import4,543,055--
Target Market Import from World843,083100-
Countries Türkiye Export to
(Target Market)		Iraq112,39513.3337.44
Russia69,0398.1923.00
Poland25,3353.018.44
Romania23,1332.747.71
Ukraine20,6562.456.88
Serbia14,2971.704.76
Bulgaria13,0121.544.33
SA10,2471.223.41
Azerbaijan71550.852.38
UAE49230.581.64
Türkiye’s export to Target Market300,19235.61100.00
Table 4. Result of the Constant Market Share (CMS) Analysis (%).
Table 4. Result of the Constant Market Share (CMS) Analysis (%).
Period I vs. Period IIPeriod I vs. Period IIIPeriod II vs. Period III
MSECCECAETotalMSECCECAETotalMSECCECAETotal
Russia−88.79−37.167.92−118.0347.17−108.36−12.27−73.47123.82−56.02−23.2444.56
Iraq−507.35733.99−419.00−192.36−114.31803.48−103.35585.82717.6329.8230.73778.18
Romania−99.21−40.2512.57−126.89−56.45−103.5618.41−141.6137.33−43.54−8.52−14.72
SA−130.7972.26−45.23−103.76−136.29−58.0437.86−156.47−7.40−48.743.43−52.71
Ukraine−81.06−19.863.89−97.03−93.25−11.922.69−102.49−11.616.39−0.23−5.46
Poland−25.53−1.650.57−26.6119.19−22.13−5.72−8.6643.73−13.45−12.3317.95
Serbia−152.9881.28−22.29−93.98−116.48−108.7922.71−202.5641.82−137.96−12.43−108.58
Bulgaria−88.7969.79−15.79−34.79−176.0831.52−14.14−158.70−102.81−29.618.51−123.91
UAE−3.40−5.040.48−7.96−1.77−18.010.90−18.871.41−11.72−0.60−10.91
Azerbaijan−183.55205.57−113.46−91.44−94.79201.20−57.3449.07143.63−1.96−1.17140.51
Table 5. RCA and TSI values for Türkiye’s lemon exports across three periods (2015–2024).
Table 5. RCA and TSI values for Türkiye’s lemon exports across three periods (2015–2024).
Period IPeriod IIPeriod III
RCA10.9387.3338.180
TSI0.9840.9870.986
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bulut, O.D. COVID-19’s Impact on Türkiye’s Lemon Exports: Constant Market Share Decomposition (2015–2024). Sustainability 2025, 17, 8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198700

AMA Style

Bulut OD. COVID-19’s Impact on Türkiye’s Lemon Exports: Constant Market Share Decomposition (2015–2024). Sustainability. 2025; 17(19):8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198700

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bulut, Osman Doğan. 2025. "COVID-19’s Impact on Türkiye’s Lemon Exports: Constant Market Share Decomposition (2015–2024)" Sustainability 17, no. 19: 8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198700

APA Style

Bulut, O. D. (2025). COVID-19’s Impact on Türkiye’s Lemon Exports: Constant Market Share Decomposition (2015–2024). Sustainability, 17(19), 8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198700

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop