THE RELATION BETWEEN GEOGRAPHICAL PLACE AND INNOVATIVENESS: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Year 2011, Volume: 4 Issue: 1-2, 75 - 95, 26.05.2014

Pınar Falcıoğlu

Abstract

A line of argument in the new growth economy discussions is whether specialization or diversification of economic activity on the geographical scale stimulates innovation. This study explores the relation between innovativeness and different types of geographical concentrations in the case of a developing country. The study addresses the discussion through statistical and econometric analyses using variables such as number of patents, new firm entry and exit at the regional level for the period 1995-2001. The results do not confirm that regions with higher levels of related variety or specialization are more innovative, but instead regions with higher levels of variety are found to be more innovative supporting the diversity thesis.

Keywords

Innovation, geographical concentration, related variety

References

• Akgüngör, S. (2002). Innovativeness within Industrial Relationships: A Case Study of Industry Clusters in Turkey. (in: Salah S. Hassan, Enrique Bigne, J.S. (Vic) Johar –Eds., Multicultural Marketing Conference Proceedings,) Valencia, Spain: Academy of Marketing Science, pp.730- 746.
• Akgüngör, S. and P. Falcıoğlu. (2005).European Integration and Regional Specialization Patterns in Turkish Manufacturing Industry. (in: Coskun Can Aktan-Ed., Selected Proceedings of the First International Conference) İzmir, Turkey: Yaşar University, pp.291-307.
• Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962). "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for
• Invention," in R.R. Nelson, ed., The Rate and Direction of inventive Activity, Princeton: Princeton University Prcss.
• Audretsch, D. and M.Feldman. (1999). Innovation in Cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition, European Economic Review 43, 409-429.
• Audretsch, D. and M.Feldman. (1996). R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation. American Economic Review, 86(3), pp. 630-640.
• Boschma, R.and Iammarino, S. (2009) .Related variety, trade linkages and regional growth in Italy. Economic geography, 85(3). pp. 289-311.
• Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
• Breschi, S. (2000).The Geography of Innovation: A Cross-sector Analysis. Regional Studies, 34(3), pp.213-229.
• Breschi, S. (1998).Agglomeration Economies, Knowledge Spillovers, Technological Diversity and Spatial Clustering of Innovations, Liuc Papers in Economics, n.57, Castellanza: Catteneo University.
• Cetindamar Dilek; Gunduz, U. (2008). Innovation performance and partnerships in manufacturing firms in Turkey. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(3).
• Duranton, G., and Puga, D. (2003). Nursery cities: urban diversity, process innovation, and the life-cycle of products. The American Economic Review 91(5), 1454–1477.
• Eraydin, A., & Armatli-Köroğlu, B. (2005). Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(4), 237-266.
• Falcıoğlu, P. (2011). Location and Determinants of Productivity: The Case of the Manufacturing Industry in Turkey. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, Nov/Dec2011 Supplement, 47, 86-96.
• Falcıoğlu P. and Akgüngör, S. (2008). Regional Specialization and Industrial Concentration Patterns in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry: An Assessment for the 1980-2000 period. European Planning Studies, 16 (2), 303-323.
• Falcıoğlu P. and Akgüngör, S. (2006). Geographical Concentration Patterns and Innovativeness of Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Selected Proceedings of the Second International Conference, İzmir, Turkey: Yaşar University.
• Frenken K, Boschma R.A. (2007). A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic geography: industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process. J Econ Geogr 7(5):635–649
• Frenken, K., van Oort, F.G., Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685- 697.
• Glaeser, E., H.Kallal, J.Scheinkman and A.Shleifer. (1992). Growth of Cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100, pp. 1126-1152.
• Gülcan, Y. & Akgüngör, S. (2008). Textile cluster initiatives and related variety in Turkey, in: Regional Studies Association International Conference Regions: The Dilemmas of Integration and Competition, May 27–29, Prague.
• Gülcan, Y., Akgüngör, S., Kuştepeli, Y. (2011). Knowledge Generation and Innovativeness in Turkish Textile Industry: Comparison of Istanbul and Denizli. European Planning Studies, 19(7), 1229-1243.
• Gunday, G. L. (2008). Modeling innovation: Determinants of innovativeness and the impact of innovation on firm performance. Management of Innovation and Technology, 766-771.
• Henderson, Vernon, Ari Kuncoro, and Matt Turner. (1995). "Industrial development in cities." Journal of Political Economy 103, no. 5: 1067- 1090.
• Hirschman, A. (1958). The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Howells J. R. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography. Urban Studies, 39, 871–884.
• Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities, New York, Random House.
• Jaffe, A., M. and R. Henderson Trajtenberg. (1993). Geographic Localisation of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 63, pp.577-598.
• Kaya N., Patton J. (2011). The Effects of Knowledge-Based Resources, Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study of Turkish Firms. Journal of International Development, 23(2):204-219.
• Klepper, S. (2007). Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the capital of the U.S. automobile industry. Management Science 53:616–31.
• Kuştepeli, Y., Gülcan, Y., Akgüngör, S. (2013). The innovativeness of the Turkish textile industry within similar knowledge bases across different regional innovation systems. European Urban & Regional Studies, 20(2), 227-242.
• Lazzeretti, L., Capone, F., Cinti, T. (2010). The Regional Development Platform and “Related Variety”: Some Evidence from Art and Food in Tuscany. European Planning Studies, 18(1), 27-45.
• Lenger, A., Taymaz, E. (2006). To innovate or to transfer?. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(1/2), 137-153
• Lenger, A.2008. Regional Innovation Systems and the Role of State: Institutional Design and State Universities in Turkey. European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1101-1120.
• Mancusi, M.L. (2003). Geographical Concentration and the Dynamics of Countries’ Specialization in Technologies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(3), pp. 269-291.
• Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics, 8th ed. London: Macmillan.
• Martin, R., Sunley, P. (2006). Path Dependence and Regional Economic Evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6: 395–437.
• Moreno, R., Paci, R., Usai, S. (2005). Geographical and Sectoral Clusters Of Innovation In Europe. Annals of Regional Science, 39(4), 715-739.
• Nelson, R.R. and S.G. Winter.1982.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge and London: Belknap Press.
• Özçelik, E., and Taymaz, E. (2008). R&D Support Programs in Developing Countries: The Turkish Experience. Research Policy, 37(2), 258-275.
• Pınarcıoğlu M. (2002). Türkiye Girişimcilik Coğrafyası (in Türkiye'de Girişimcilik (Entrepreneurship in Turkey), TÜSİAD publications, no:10/340, 144-154.
• Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, November–December, 77–90.
• Romer, Paul. (1986). Increasing Retums and Long-Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5). pp. 1002-37.
• Saxenian, A., and Hsu, J. (2001). The Silicon Valley—Hsinchu Connection: Technical Communities and Industrial Upgrading. Industrial & Corporate Change, 10(4), 893-920.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interests and the Business Cycle, London: Oxford University Press.
• Shearmur, R. (2010). Space, Place and Innovation: a Distance-Based Approach. Canadian Geographer, 54(1), 46-67.
• Taymaz, E. (2001). Ulusal Yenilik Sistemi: Türkiye İmalat Sanayiinda Teknolojik Değişim ve Yenilik Süreçleri, Ankara : TÜBİTAK/TTGV/DİE.
• Taymaz, E., and Üçdoğruk, Y. (2009). Overcoming the double hurdles to investing in technology. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 109-128.
• Traistaru I., Iara, A. (2002). European Integration, Regional Specialization and Location of Industrial Activity in Accession Countries: Data and Measurement. PHARE ACE Project P98-1117-R.
• Tüylüoğlu, Ş., Karakaş, D. (2006). Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Ekonomik Durgunlaşma Süreci: Zonguldak Örneği(Regional Development and Economic Stagnation Process: The Case of Zonguldak). Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 39(4), 195.
• Weterings, A. and Boschma R. (2006). The impact of geography on the innovative productivity of software firms in the Netherlands (in Philip N. Cooke, Andrea Piccaluga – Eds., Regional Development in the Knowledge Economy), 63-83.