THE EFFECTS OF AGGLOMERATION EXTERNALITIES ON SECTORAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN TURKEY

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 35, 67 - 102, 30.08.2020

Ayşegül Baykul , Selen Işık Maden

https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.637145

Öz

Agglomeration economies are considered as the driving force behind the development of mega cities and large cities/regions, which are the most successful regions in world economy. According to “New Economic Geography” stream, externalities are approached as static and dynamic externalities. Dynamic externalities are classified as “Marshall (1891) – Arrow (1962) – Romer (1986, 1990) (MAR), Porter (1990) and Jacobs (1969)” by Glaeser et al. (1992). Dynamic externalities come out by the emergence of local knowledge and by strengthening communication among economic actors in the long term. Knowledge spillover also accelerates via strengthening of communication. This paper investigates whether agglomeration externalities affected regional growth in Turkey at the NUTS 3 level during the period 2010 – 2016 by using sectoral employment growth. The results of the study show that effect of MAR (Marshall–Arrow– Romer) externalities is found to be negative as they are in the studies done through the data of most of the countries. It is concluded that unrelated variety (JACOBS) has no effect on employment growth. Coefficients in most of the sectors are seen to be positive in PORTER externalities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Agglomeration externalities, MAR, Jacobs, Porter, Emloyment growth

TÜRKİYE’DE YIĞILMA DIŞSALLIKLARININ SEKTÖREL İSTİHDAM ARTIŞI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Öz

Yığılma (Aglomerasyon) ekonomileri, dünya ekonomisinde en başarılı bölgeler olan mega şehirlerin ve büyük şehirlerin / bölgelerin gelişmesinin arkasındaki itici güç olarak kabul edilmektedir. Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya akımına göre yığılma dışsallıkları statik ve dinamik olmak üzere ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Dinamik dışsallıklar, Glaeser et al. (1992) tarafından “Marshall (1891)- Arrow (1962)- Romer (1986, 1990) (MAR), Porter (1990) ve Jacobs (1969)” olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Dinamik dışsallıklar yerel bilginin ortaya çıkması sonucu uzun vadede ekonomik aktörler arasındaki iletişimi güçlendirmesi ile ortaya çıkar. Bilgi yayılımı aynı zamanda iletişimi güçlendirerek de hızlanır. Bu çalışmada, yığılma dışsallıklarının Türkiye'de NUTS 3 düzeyinde bölgesel büyümeyi etkileyip etkilemediği araştırmaktadır. 2010-2016 verilerinin kullanıldığı çalışmada, büyüme sektörel istihdam artışı kullanarak değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda, MAR (Marshall-Arrow-Romer) dışsallığının etkisinin, büyüme üzerinde negatif etkili olduğu ve sonucun literatürle uyumlu olduğu görülmüştür. İlişkili olmayan çeşitliliğin (JACOBS) istihdam artışı üzerinde bir etkisi olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır. PORTER dışsallıklarında sektörlerin çoğundaki katsayıların pozitif olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yığılma Dışsallıkları, MAR, Jacobs, Porter, İstihdam artışı

Kaynakça

• Alonso, W. (1971). The economics of urban size. Papers in Regional Science, 26(1), 66-83.
• Arrow KJ (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies 29: 155–172
• Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2009). Who's right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Research policy, 38(2), 318-337.
• Beeson P. (1992), Agglomeration Economies and Productivity Growth, in Mills E. et McDonald F. (eds.), Sources of Metropolitan Growth, Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 19-35
• Bishop, P., & Gripaios, P. (2010). Spatial externalities, relatedness and sector employment growth in Great Britain. Regional Studies, 44(4), 443-454.
• Camagni, R., Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2017). Static vs. dynamic agglomeration economies: Spatial context and structural evolution behind urban growth. In Seminal Studies in Regional and Urban Economics (pp. 227-259). Springer, Cham.
• Capello, R. (2009). Spatial spillovers and regional growth: a cognitive approach. European Planning Studies, 17(5), 639-658.
• Caragliu, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). Space and knowledge spillovers in European regions: the impact of different forms of proximity on spatial knowledge diffusion. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(3), 749-774.
• Carlino, G. A. (2001). Knowledge spillovers: cities’ role in the new economy. Business Review Q, 4(1), 17-24.
• Combes, P. P. (2000). Economic structure and local growth: France, 1984–1993. Journal of urban economics, 47(3), 329-355.
• Content, J., & Frenken, K. (2016). Related variety and economic development: A literature review. European Planning Studies, 24(12), 2097-2112.
• Davis, D. R., & Weinstein, D. E. (2002). Bones, bombs, and break points: the geography of economic activity. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1269-1289.
• De Lucio, J. J., Herce, J. A., & Goicolea, A. (2002). The effects of externalities on productivity growth in Spanish industry. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 32(2), 241-258.
• De Vor, F., & De Groot, H. L. (2010). Agglomeration externalities and localized employment growth: the performance of industrial sites in Amsterdam. The Annals of Regional Science, 44(3), 409-431.
• Doğan, E. (2001) External scale economics in Turkish manufacturing industries, International Review of Applied Economics, 15 (14), 429-446.ss.
• Döner, A. S. (2016). Yığılma Dışsallıkları ve Şehirlerde Sektörel İstihdam Artışı&58; Türkiye Örneği (Agglomeration Externalities and Sectoral Employment Growth in Cities&58; Evidence From Turkey). International Journal of Research In Business and Social Science, 5(2), 1-15.
• Drıdı, M. (2015). Dynamic Externalities and Regional Development: The case of Tunisia (No. 66988). University Library of Munich, Germany.
• Filiztekin, A. (2002). Agglomeration and growth in Turkey, 1980-1995. Sabancı Üniversitesi Tartışma Tebliğleri, 201.
• Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional studies, 41(5), 685-697.
• Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables A (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions and international trade. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
• Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of political economy, 100(6), 1126-1152.
• Harvey, D. (2001). Cartographic identities: Geographical knowledges under globalization. Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography, 208-33.
• Henderson JV (1988). Urban development: Theory, fact and illusion. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Henderson, J. V. (1986). Urbanization in a developing country: City size and population composition. Journal of Development Economics, 22(2), 269-293
• Henderson, V., Kuncoro, A., & Turner, M. (1995). Industrial development in cities. Journal of political economy, 103(5), 1067-1090.
• Isard, W. (1956). Regional science, the concept of region, and regional structure. Papers in Regional Science, 2(1), 13-26.
• Jacobs J (1969). The economy of cities. Random House, New York.
• Kanemoto, Y., Ohkawara, T., & Suzuki, T. (1996). Agglomeration economies and a test for optimal city sizes in Japan. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 10(4), 379-398.
• Kıymalıoğlu, Ü., & Ayoğlu, D. (2006). Türk İmalat Sanayinde Yığılma Ekonomileri. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 7 (2), 198-209.
• Klenow, P. J., & Rodriguez-Clare, A. (2005). Externalities and growth. Handbook of economic growth, 1, 817-861.
• Küçüker, C. (2000). Yeni ekonomik coğrafya ve kalkınma. Ekonomik Yaklasim, 11(38), 1-45.
• Lucio, I. F., Mas-Verdu, F., & Tortosa, E. (2010). Regional innovation policies: the persistence of the linear model in Spain. The Service Industries Journal, 30(5), 749-762.
• Mano, Y., & Otsuka, K. (2000). Agglomeration economies and geographical concentration of industries: a case study of manufacturing sectors in postwar Japan. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 14(3), 189-203.
• Marelli, E. (1981). Optimal city size, the productivity of cities and urban production functions. Sistemi Urbani, 1(2), 149-163.
• Marshall, A. (1891). Principles of Economics, 2nd edn, London: Macmillan.
• Melo PC, Graham DJ, Noland RB (2009). A meta-analysis of estimates of urban agglomeration economies. Regional Science and Urban Economics 39: 332–342
• Mukkala, K. (2004). Agglomeration economies in the Finnish manufacturing sector. Applied Economics, 36(21), 2419-2427.
• Nakamura, R. (1985). Agglomeration economies in urban manufacturing industries: a case of Japanese cities, Journal of Urban Economics, 17, 108–24.
• OECD (2018). Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2018-en.
• Paci, R., & Usai, S. (2008). Agglomeration economies, spatial dependence and local industry growth. Revue d'économie industrielle, (123), 87-109. Porter M (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, NewYork
• Romer PM (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94: 1002–1037
• Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71-S102.
• Rosenthal SS, Strange WC (2004). Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In: Henderson JV, Thisse JF (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, volume 4, chapter 49, pp 2119–2171
• Scott AJ (ed) (2001). Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
• Segal, D. (1976). Are there returns to scale in city size?. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 339-350.
• Sveikauskas, L. (1975). The productivity of cities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89(3), 393-413.