Innovation Portrait of Turkey in The Context of Firm Sizes (2002-2008 Period)

Year 2014, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 23 - 51, 29.04.2014

Özden Akın , Metin Reyhanoğlu

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.62064

Cited By: 4

Abstract

Abstract

Science, technology and rapid transformation in competition are an indispensable part of human development and the wealth of nations shape innovation. For surviving and shining in the business area firms must obtain a sustainable competitive advantage continuously. Innovation brings to firms to have a competitive advantage by creating new product, process, organization and market. Hence, governments support innovation efforts of firms. It is said that government support for innovation must be given to firms within by firm size. In this study, relation between innovation types and firm size were examined in the three periods of 2002-2008 years in Turkey. Despite of the significant and positive relationship between innovation types and firm size innovation is not very different in terms of firm sizes because of weak relationship. Being positive but very weak relationship between innovation expenditure and firms size also supports this finding. Also, innovation efforts of firms didn’t increase in terms of periods.

Keywords: Innovation, Firm Size, Innovation Types.

Keywords

Innovation, Firm Size, Innovation Types

İşletme Büyüklükleri Bağlamında Türkiye’nin İnovasyon Portresi (2002-2008 Dönemi)

Abstract

Öz

İnsanlığın gelişimi ve ulusların zenginliğinin vazgeçilmezi olan bilim, teknoloji ve rekabetin hızlı dönüşümü inovasyonu da şekillendirmektedir. İşletmeler hayatta kalmak ve başarılı olmak için inovasyon aracılığıyla sürekli bir rekabet avantajı sağlama yoluna gitmektedirler. İnovasyonun yeni ürün, süreç, organizasyon ve pazar yaratarak işletmelere rekabet gücü kazandırması nedeniyle, hükümetler inovasyon çabalarını desteklemektedirler. İnovasyona verilmesi gereken hükümet desteğinin, işletme büyüklükleri çerçevesinde yapılması gerektiği söylenmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki 2002-2008 yıllarını kapsayan üç dönemdeki işletmelerin inovasyon çalışmalarına yönelik, inovasyon türleri ile işletme büyüklüğü arasındaki ilişkilere bakılmıştır. İnovasyon türleri ile büyüklük arasındaki anlamlı ve pozitif ilişkiye rağmen bu ilişkinin zayıf olması inovasyonun işletme büyüklükleri açısından çok farklı olmadığını göstermiştir. İnovasyon harcamaları ile işletme büyüklüğü arasındaki ilişkinin pozitif ama çok zayıf olması da bu bulguyu desteklemektedir. Ayrıca, dönemler itibariyle inovasyon çabalarının artmadığı gözlemlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: İnovasyon, İşletme Büyüklüğü, İnovasyon Türleri.

 

Keywords

İnovasyon, İşletme Büyüklüğü, İnovasyon Türleri

References

• Achilladelis, B. ve Antonakis, N. (2001). The dynamics of technological innovation: The case of the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30 (4): 535-588.
• Acs, Z. J. ve Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms an empirical analysis. The American Economic Review, 78 (4): 678-690.
• Araujo, T. ve Mendes, V. R. (2009). Innovation and self- organization in a multi-agent model. Advances in Complex Systems, 12 (2): 233-253.
• Armatlı-Köroğlu, B. (2005). Türkiye’de sanayi bölgelerinde yenilik süreçleri ve KOBİ’lerde yenilikçilik göstergeleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 18 (4): 693-706.
• Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S. ve Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28 (10): 644-657.
• Arundel, A. ve Hollanders, H. (2005). Policy, indicators and targets: Measuring the impacts of innovations policies. Merit, European Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General, http://www.proinno-europe.eu/extranet/admin /uploaded_documents/EIS_2005_Policy_and_Targets.pdf (12.02.2012).
• Becheikh, N., Landry, R. ve Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003. Technovation, 26 (5-6): 644-664.
• Bryman, A. ve Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 14, 15 & 16. New York: Routledge.
• Camison, C. ve Monfort-Mir, V. M. (2011). Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives. Tourism Management, 33 (4): 1-14.
• Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R. ve Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9 (2): 354-359.
• Cetindamar, D. ve Ulusoy, G. (2008). Innovation performance and partnerships in manufacturing firms in Turkey, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19 (3): 332-345.
• Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G. ve Crick A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?. Journal of Business Venturing, 13 (4): 295-316.
• Çalıpınar, H. ve Baç, U. (2007). KOBİ’lerde İnovasyon Yapmayı Etkileyen Faktörler ve Bir Alan Araştırması. Ege Akademik Bakış, 7 (2): 445-458.
• Daft, R. L. (1978). A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21 (2): 193-210.
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3): 555-590.
• Damanpour, F. ve Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006). Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 23 (4): 269-291.
• Devi, S. ve Thangamuthu, C. (2006). A New paradigm of entrepreneurship vis-à-vis liberalization and globalization. Global Business Review, 7 (2): 259-269.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. ve Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7 (2): 136-150.
• Elçi, Ş. (2006). İnovasyon: Kalkınmanın ve rekabetin anahtarı. Ankara: Nova Yayınları.
• Elçi, Ş. (2007). İnovasyon: Nedir, ne değildir?. http://www.focusinnovation.net/inovasyon/inovasyon-nedir,-ne-de%C4%9Fildir .aspx (12.02.2012).
• Erbi, E. (2007). The limits of the national innovation systems model: The case of Turkey. Doctorate Dissertation. Graduate School of Cornell University. USA.
• Eren, E., Alpkan, A. ve Erol, Y. (2005). Temel fonksiyonel yeteneklerin firmanın yenilik ve finansal performansına etkileri. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4 (7): 201-224.
• Eshlagy, A. T. ve Maatofi, A. (2011). Learning orientation, innovation and performance: Evidence from small-sized business firms in Iran. European Joournal of Social Sciences, 19 (1): 114-122.
• European Commission (Aralık 1995). Green Paper on innovation. http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com95_688_en.pdf (12.02.2012).
• European Commission (30 Kasım 2011). Horizon 2020 - The framework programme for research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/ horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none (30.12.2013).
• Grabowski, W., Pamukcu, T., Szczygielski, K. ve Tandogan, V. S. (2013). Does government support for private innovation matter? Firm-level evidence from Turkey and Poland. CASE Network Studies & Analyses No.458, http://www.case-research.eu/sites/default/files/publications/CNSA_2013_458.pdf (22.01.2014).
• Haihua, C. ve Song, C. (2009). “Study on motivations, institutional form organizations of innovation cluster”. 2009 International Conference on Information Management and Industrial Engineering, 26-27 December 2009, Xi’an, China. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5369701, 4: 436-439 (12.02.2012).
• Hansson, F., Husted, K. ve Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: From structural hole jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25 (9): 1039-1049.
• Horizon 2020 - Work Programme 2014-2015. http://ec.europa.eu/ research/horizon2020/pdf/work-programmes/innovation_in_sme_draft_work_ programme.pdf (13.01.2014).
• Hu, Y. ve Zheng, W. (2008). “Market orientation, innovation and performance of nonprofit organizations: evidence from China”. IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (IEEE/SOLI) 2008, 12-15 October 2008, Beijing, China. http://ieeexplore. ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4686434, 1: 429-434 (12.02.2012).
• Işık, N. ve Kılınç, E. C. (2012). İnovasyon sistemi yaklaşımı ve inovasyon'un coğrafyası: Türkiye örneği. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 7 (1): 169-198.
• İstanbul Sanayi Odası (2009). İnovasyon Yönetimi. Yayına Hazırlayan Huriye Aygören, İstanbul Sanayi Odası Kalite ve Teknoloji İhtisas Kurulu (İSO-KATEK), Yayın No: 2009/3, http://www.iso.org.tr/tr/Documents/Kobi/KolayBilgi/ 16-Inovasyon_Yonetimi.pdf (12.02.2012).
• Kanchan, U. ve Gupta, A. (2009). “How to be an innovative organization: developing a culture of innovation in organizations”. 2009 International Conference on Computer Technology and Development, 13-15 November, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber =5360197, 2: 502-505 (12.02.2012).
• Karahan, M. ve Karhan, G. (2013). A case study on innovation activities in Turkey and the obstacles for innovation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75 (3): 129-138.
• Kassicieh, S., Kirchhoff, B., Walsh, S. ve McWhorter, P. (2002). The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive Technologies. Technovation, 22 (11): 667-674.
• Kelley, D. J., Peters, L. ve O'Connor, G. C. (2009). Intra-organizational networking for innovation-based corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3): 221-235.
• Kim, C., Song, J. ve Nerkar, A. (2011). Learning and innovation: exploitation and exploration trade-offs. Journal of Business Research, 65 (8): 1189-1194.
• Kim, Y. ve Ha, S. (2011). Innovation activities and innovation performances of SMEs: The Korean electronic parts industry 1990-1995. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 18 (1): 125-160.
• KOBİ Yönetmeliği (2005). 19/10/2005 tarihli ve 2005/9617 sayılı Bakanlar Kurulu Kararı ile yürürlüğe konulan Küçük ve Orta Büyüklükteki İşletmelerin Tanımı, Nitelikleri ve Sınıflandırılması Hakkında Yönetmelik (Değişiklik Resmi Gazete 4 Kasım 2012/28457).
• Lambooy, J. (2005). Innovation and knowledge: theory and regional policy. European Planning Studies, 13 (8): 1137-1152.
• Lin, L.-H. ve Lin, W.-H. (2010). Innovation and information technology in virtual organizations: an empirical study. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), 2-5 June, Singapore. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5492912, 1188-1193 (12.02.2012).
• Liu, X. ve Cheng, P. (2011). Is China’s Indigenous innovation strategy compatible with globalization?. East-West Center, Policy Studies 61, http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/ps061.pdf (12.02.2012).
• Massa, S. ve Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation, 28 (7): 393-407.
• McDaniel, B. A. (2002). Entrepreneurship and innovation. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
• McGee, J. E., Dowling, M. J. ve Megginson, W. L. (1995). Cooperative strategy and new venture performance: The role of business strategy and management experience. Strategic Management Journal 16 (7): 565-580.
• Meesapawong, P., Rezgui, Y. ve Li, H. (2010). Perceiving societal value as the core of innovation management in public research and development organizations. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), 2-5 June, Singapore. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5492708, 310-317 (12.02.2012).
• Meng, H. ve Wang, Y. (2009). On enterprise innovation integration based on the self-organization model. 16th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2009 (IE&EM '09), 21-23 October, Beijing, China. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp =&arnumber=5344475, 808-812 (12.02.2012).
• Mueller, S. L. ve Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (1): 51-75.
• Nooteboom, B. (1994). Innovation and diffusion in small firms: Theory and evidence. Small Business Economics, 6 (5): 327-347.
• OECD (2005). Oslo manual guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. 3rd Edition. OECD ve Eurostat ortak yayını, http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9205111e.pdf (12.02.2012).
• Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. 4th Edition. Australia: Allen & Unwin. http://ebooks.narotama.ac.id/index.php/16 (06.08.2012).
• Papaioannou, T. (2011). Technological innovation, global justice and politics of development. Progress in Development Studies, 11 (4): 321-338.
• Peters, T. (1991). Get innovative or get dead. California Management Review, 33 (2): 9-23.
• Popadiuk, S. ve Choo, C. W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related?. International Journal of Information Management, 26 (4): 302-312.
• Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
• PRO INNO Europe (2011). http://www.proinno-europe.eu/inno-metrics/page/innovation-union-scoreboard-2011, (12.02.2012).
• Ramadani, V. ve Gerguri, S. (2011). Theoretical framework of innovation and competitiveness and innovation program in Macedonia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 23 (2): 268-276.
• Romijn, H. ve Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Research Policy, 31 (7): 1053-1067.
• Rosenbusch, N., Brinckman, J. ve Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (4): 441-457.
• Saatçioğlu, Ö. Y. ve Timurcanday Özmen, Ö. N. (2010). Analyzing the barriers encountered in innovation process through interpretive structural modelling: Evidence from Turkey. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 17 (2): 207-225.
• Samadi, S. (2011). Fostering creativity and innovation for organizations in a turbulent environment for long-term survival. 2011 IEEE International Summer Conference of Asia Pacific Business Innovation and Technology Management (APBITM), 10-12 July, Dalian, China. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org /stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5996295, 71-74, (12.02.2012).
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. http://books.google.com.tr/ books/about/The_Theory_of_Economic_Development.html?id=-OZwWcOGeOw C&redir_esc=y (12.02.2012).
• Schumpeter, J. A. (2003). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. USA: Taylor & Francis e-Library. http://sergioberumen.files.wordpress. com/2010/08/schumpeter-joseph-a-capitalism-socialism-and-democracy.pdf (24.07.2012).
• Sivadas, E. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64 (1): 31-49.
• Soylu, A. (2011). "AB 2020" ve "Vizyon 2023" stratejilerinde inovasyon hedeflerinin karşılaştırılması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14 (2): 105-122.
• Tang, J. ve Le, C. D. (2007). Multidimensional innovation and productivity. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16 (7): 501-516.
• Temel, S. ve Glassman, B. (2013). Examining university-industry collaboration as a cource of innovation in the emerging economy of Turkey. Journal International Journal of Innovation Science, 5 (1): 81-88.
• Tödtling, F., Lehner, P. ve Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions. Technovation, 29 (1): 59-71.
• Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5): 996-1004.
• TÜİK (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu) (2002-2004-2006-2008). Yenilik Araştırması İstatistikleri Analiz Veri Kütüğü.
• Türker, M. V. ve İnel, M. N. (2013). Is it enough to be entrepreneurship? Enhancing the ‘value added’ created by SME’in Turkey through innovation. Prodecia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75 (3rd April): 397-406.
• TÜSİAD-Sabancı Üniversitesi Rekabet Forumu (2006). Ulusal inovasyon girişimi: İnovasyon çerçeve raporu. C. Arıkan, G. Ulusoy ve S. Karaata (Der.) http://ref.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/ref.sabanciuniv.edu/files/inovasyon_cerceve_ raporu.pdf (22.01.2014).
• Uzkurt, C., Kumar, R., Kimzan, H. S. ve Eminoglu, G. (2013). Role of innovation in the relationship between organizational culture and firm performance: A study of the banking sector in Turkey. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16 (1): 92-117.
• Uzun, A. (2001). Technological innovation activities in Turkey: The case of manufacturing industry, 1995-1997. Technovation, 21 (3): 189-196.
• Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32 (5): 590-607.
• Van Dijk, B., Hertog, R. D., Menkveld, B. ve Thurik, R. (1997). Some new evidence on the determinants of large- and small-firm innovation. Small Business Economics, 9 (4): 335-343.
• Wan, D., Ong, H. C. ve Lee, F. (2005). Determinants of firm innovation in Singapore. Technovation, 25 (3): 261-268.
• Weerawardena, J. ve Mavondo, F. T. (2011). Capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (8): 1220-1223.
• Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2005). Does complexity affect the speed of innovation. Technovation, 25 (8): 865-882.
• Yeşil, S., Çınar, Ö. ve Uzun, E. (2010). Kahramanmaraş’ta faaliyet gösteren işletmelerin yenilik faaliyetleri üzerine bir alan çalışması. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 5 (2): 81-100.
• Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. ve Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6/7): 587-613.
• Zahra, S. A. ve Bogner, W. C. (2000). Technology strategy and software new ventures' performance: Exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15 (2): 135-173.