Ülkelerin girişimcilik etkinliklerinin belirlenmesi ve sınıflandırılması: Veri zarflama analizi ve hiyerarşik kümeleme analizi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 85 - 112, 31.01.2024

Esra Kaygısız Begum Sahin Karahan Kara

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1316415

Öz

Girişimcilik teşebbüslerinin ülke ekonomileri üzerindeki yadsınamaz etkileri bulunmaktadır. Devletler ve hükümetler girişimciliğin ülke ekonomisine katkılarını artırmak adına çeşitli stratejiler ve politikalar üretmektedirler. Çeşitli kuruluşlar tarafından da ülkelerin girişimcilik düzeyleri tespit edilmektedir. “Global Entrepreneurship Monitör (GEM)” tarafından düzenli olarak ülke girişimcilik skorları ve sıralamaları yayınlanmaktadır. Ülkeler ise bu raporlara göre mevcut girişimcilik düzeylerini tespit etmektedirler. Bu araştırmada GEM 2021 raporlarından elde edilen verilerle ülkelerin girişimcilik aktivite etkinlik düzeylerinin tespit edilmesi ve etkinlik düzeylerine göre kümelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda 2021 GEM raporunda kırk iki ülkeye ait sunulan beş indikatör kullanılmıştır. Araştırma iki aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. Birinci aşamada dört adet çıktı odaklı veri zarflama (DEA) modeli oluşturularak ülkelerin girişimcilik aktiviteleri etkinlik düzeyleri tespit edilmiştir. İkinci aşamada ülkelerin etkinlik düzeylerine göre kümelemesi hiyerarşik kümeleme analiziyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre DEA-1 modelinde 21 ülke tam etkinlik düzeyinde, DEA-2 modelinde 22 ülke tam etkinlik düzeyinde, DEA-3 ve DEA-4 modellerinde 18 ülke tam etkinlik düzeyinde olarak tespit edilmiştir. Hiyerarşik kümeleme analizi bulgularına göre ülkeler üç grupta kümelenmiştir. Cluster-1’de yirmi iki ülke, Cluster-2’de yedi ülke, Cluster-3’te on üç ülke yer almıştır. Cluster-1, Cluster-2 ve Cluster-3 sırasıyla etkinlik düzeyi yüksek, orta ve düşük olarak nitelendirilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda ülkelere girişimcilik etkinliklerini geliştirmelerine yönelik öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ulusal Girişimcilik, Ülke Girişimcilik Etkinliği, Veri Zarflama Analizi, Hiyerarşik Kümeleme Analizi

Determination and classification of entrepreneurial efficiency of countries: Data envelopment analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis

Öz

Entrepreneurship initiatives have undeniable effects on national economies. States and governments produce various strategies and policies to increase the contribution of entrepreneurship to the country's economy. Entrepreneurship levels of countries are determined by various organizations. Country entrepreneurship scores and rankings are regularly published by the “Global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM)”. Countries, on the other hand, understand their current level of entrepreneurship according to these reports. In this research, it is aimed to determine the entrepreneurial activity efficiency levels (EAE) of the countries with the data obtained from the GEM 2021 reports and to cluster them according to their activity levels. In this context, forty-two country data of five indicators presented in the 2021 GEM report were used. The research was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, four output-oriented data envelopment (DEA) models were created and the EAE were determined. In the second stage, the clustering of countries according to their EAEs was carried out by hierarchical clustering analysis. According to the research findings, 21 countries were at full efficiency in the DEA-1 model, 22 countries were at full efficiency in the DEA-2 model, and 18 countries were at full efficiency in the DEA-3 and DEA-4 models. In the hierarchical clustering analysis, the countries are clustered in three groups. Twenty-two countries were included in Cluster-1, seven countries in Cluster-2, and thirteen countries in Cluster-3. Cluster-1, Cluster-2 and Cluster-3 were characterized as high, middle, and low efficiency levels, respectively. As a result of the research, suggestions were made to countries to improve their entrepreneurial activities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

National Entrepreneurship, Country Entrepreneurship Efficiency, Data Envelopment Analysis, Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

Kaynakça

• Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research policy, 43(3), 476-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016
• Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00011-9
• Aparicio, S., Turro, A., & Noguera, M. (2020). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in social, sustainable, and economic development: opportunities and challenges for future research. Sustainability, 12(21), 8958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218958
• Arafat, M. Y., & Saleem, I. (2017). Examining start-up Intention of Indians through cognitive approach: a study using GEM data. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 7(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-017-0073-3
• Baggen, Y., Lans, T., Biemans, H. J., Kampen, J., & Mulder, M. (2016). Fostering Entrepreneurial Learning On‐the‐Job: evidence from innovative small and medium‐sized companies in Europe. European Journal of Education, 51(2), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12171
• Bergmann, H., & Stephan, U. (2013). Moving on from nascent entrepreneurship: Measuring cross-national differences in the transition to new business ownership. Small business economics, 41(4), 945-959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9458-4
• Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000033
• Bosma, N. S., & Levie, J. (2010). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009 Executive Report. Utrecht University Repository.
• Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. S. (2014). Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 787-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9514-8
• Callegari, B., & Nybakk, E. (2022). Schumpeterian theory and research on forestry innovation and entrepreneurship: The state of the art, issues and an agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 138, 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102720
• Cantillon, R. (1755). An essay on commerce in general. History of economic thought books.
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
• Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J., & Ortt, J. R. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028
• Delić, A., Alibegović, S. Đ., & Mešanović, M. (2016). The role of the process organizational structure in the development of intrapreneurship in large companies. Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, 62(4), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1515/ngoe-2016-0023
• Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro-meso-macro. Journal of evolutionary economics, 14(3), 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0193-0
• Drucker, P. F. (1985). Entrepreneurial strategies. California Management Review, 27(2).
• Ferreira, L., & Hitchcock, D. B. (2009). A comparison of hierarchical methods for clustering functional data. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 38(9), 1925-1949. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610910903168603
• Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. (2004). Effects of new business formation on regional development over time. Regional Studies, 38(8), 961-975. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000280965
• Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American journal of small business, 12(4), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878801200401
• GEM (2020). GEM 2020/2021 Global Report. https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-20202021-global-report (Access date: 13.09.2022).
• Gieure, C., del Mar Benavides-Espinosa, M., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2020). The entrepreneurial process: The link between intentions and behavior. Journal of Business Research, 112, 541-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.088
• Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research policy, 40(8), 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005
• Hands, S., & Everitt, B. (1987). A Monte Carlo study of the recovery of cluster structure in binary data by hierarchical clustering techniques. Multivariate behavioral research, 22(2), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2202_6
• Hessels, J., & Stel, A. V. (2008). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and entrepreneurs’ export orientation. In Measuring Entrepreneurship (pp. 265-278). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72288-7_13
• Kao, R. W. (1993). Defining entrepreneurship: past, present and?. Creativity and innovation management, 2(1), 69-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.1993.tb00073.x
• Karabey, C. N. (2013). Girişimsel düşünceyi anlamak: düşünme tarzi ve risk tercihinin girişimsel özyetkinlik ve girişimcilik niyeti ile ilişkisi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 143-159. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sduiibfd/issue/20817/222734
• Karadeniz, E., & Özçam, A. (2018). Regional Disparities in Entrepreneurship in Turkey with Respect to Gender Using a Regression of Pooling Cross Sections: 2006–2015. In Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) (pp. 433-448). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75913-5_15
• Kobia, M., & Sikalieh, D. (2010). Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship. Training, 34(2), 110-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591011023970
• Koellinger, P. (2008). Why are some entrepreneurs more innovative than others?. Small Business Economics, 31(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9107-0
• Lanero, A., Vázquez, J. L., & Aza, C. L. (2016). Social cognitive determinants of entrepreneurial career choice in university students. International Small Business Journal, 34(8), 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/026624261561288
• Leunbach, D. (2021). Entrepreneurship as a family resemblance concept: A Wittgensteinian approach to the problem of defining entrepreneurship. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 37(1), 101141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101141
• Liñán, F., Moriano, J. A., & Jaén, I. (2016). Individualism and entrepreneurship: Does the pattern depend on the social context? International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 760-776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615584646
• Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research policy, 31(2), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137-8
• Moterased, M., Sajadi, S. M., Davari, A., & Zali, M. R. (2021). Toward prediction of entrepreneurial exit in Iran; a study based on GEM 2008-2019 data and approach of machine learning algorithms. Big Data and Computing Visions, 1(3), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.22105/bdcv.2021.142089