Innovation, Relatedness and Complexity in Turkey: A Regional Analysis for 1978-2017

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 135 - 171, 01.12.2021

Mert Abay , Sedef Akgüngör , Yağmur Tuçe Akyıldız

Abstract

The paper aims to explore innovations and smart specialization opportunities in Turkey’s regions. Patent applications measure innovations. Relatedness density and regional complexity measure prospects for smart specialization. The data is from OECD RegPat data (January 2020) for the 1978 – 2017 period. Following the approach outlined in smart specialization literature, the paper demonstrates geographic distribution of patents, average relatedness density and complexity of Turkey’s regions.
There are four main results of the paper. Firstly, patent applications in Turkey during the 1978-2017 period are mostly low-tech products. Secondly, regional distribution of patent applications and relatedness density is uneven. Thirdly, regional knowledge complexity index became uniform over time, indicating that creating unique regional positions became harder. Fourthly, the potential of regions for smart specialization is higher in west of Istanbul-Ankara-Adana axis.

Keywords

relatedness, complexity, smart specialization, patents, Turkey

Türkiye'de Yenilik, İlişkililik ve Karmaşıklık: 1978-2017 için Bölgesel Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bu makalenin amacı, Türkiye'de bölgesel yenilik ve akıllı uzmanlaşma fırsatlarını ortaya koymaktır. Yenilikler, patent başvuruları ile ölçülmüştür. Akıllı uzmanlaşma fırsatları ise, ilişki yoğunluğu ve bölgesel karmaşıklık değişkenleri ile ölçülmüştür. Veriler, 1978–2017 dönemi için OECD RegPat’den (Ocak 2020) alınmıştır. Çalışma, akıllı uzmanlaşma literatürü yaklaşımı çerçevesinde Türkiye bölgelerinde patent başvurularını, ilişki yoğunluğunu ve karmaşıklığını göstermektedir.
Makalede dört ana sonuca varılmaktadır. İlk olarak, 1978-2017 döneminde Türkiye'deki patent başvuruları çoğunlukla düşük teknolojili ürünlerdir. İkinci olarak, patent başvuruları ve ilişki yoğunluğu düzensiz bir bölgesel dağılım göstermektedir. Üçüncü olarak, bölgesel bilgi karmaşıklığı endeksi zamanla bölgeler arasında tek tip hale gelmiş ve rekabet eden bölgeler arasında özgün konumlar yaratmak zorlaşmıştır. Dördüncü olarak, bölgelerin akıllı uzmanlaşma potansiyeli İstanbul-Ankara-Adana ekseninin batısında daha yüksektir.

Keywords

ilişkililik, karmaşıklık, akıllı uzmanlaşma, patentler, Türkiye

References

• Abay, M & Akgüngör, S. (2021). Knowledge Space, Relatedness and Complexity: A Regional Analysis in Turkey. Yıldız Social Science Review. Forthcoming.
• Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31, 1069–1085.
• Adak, M. (2015). Technological progress, innovation and economic growth : The case of Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 776–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.478
• Akgüngör, S., Y. KUştepeli & Y. Gülcan (2021). Türkiye’de Akıllı Uzmanlaşma Stratejileri ve Üniversiteler. in T. Şahin and F. Altuğ (eds). Yerel ve Bölgesel Kalkınmada Değişen Dinamikler. Nobel.
• Antonelli, C. (2003). The digital divide : Understanding the economics of new information and communication technology in the global economy. Information Economics and Policy, 15, 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6245(02)00093-8
• Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893-904. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.543126
• Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems : Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34, 1173–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013
• Asheim, B. T., Coenen, L., Moodysoon, J. & Vang, J. (2007). Constructing knowledge-based regional advantage: Implications for regional innovation policy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7(2/3/4/5), 140-155.
• Balland, P. A. (2017). Economic geography in R: Introduction to the EconGeo package. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 17(09), 1-75.
• Balland, P. A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2019). Smart specialization policy in the European Union : Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Stıdies, 53(9), 1252–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900
• Balland, P. A., & Rigby, D. (2017). The geography of complex knowledge. Economic Geography, 93(1), 1-23. doi:10.1080/00130095.2016.1205947
• Balland, P. A., Rigby, D., & Boschma, R. (2015). The technological resilience of US cities. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(2), 167-184.
• Basberg, L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change : A survey of the literature. Elsevier Science Publisher, 16, 131–141.
• Boschma, R. (2017). Relatedness as driver of regional diversification : A research agenda. Regional Studies, 51(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767
• Boschma, R. (2014). Constructing regional advantage and smart specialisation: comparison of two european policy concepts. Italian Journal of Regional Science (Scienze Regionali), 13(1), 51-68.
• Boschma, R., Balland, P. A. & Kogler, D. F. (2015). Relatedness and technological change in cities: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtu012
• Breschi, S. and F. Malerba, (1997) “Sectoral Innovation Systems: Technological Regimes, Schumpeterian Dynamics, and Spatial Boundaries”, in C Edquist (ed.), Systems Of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions, And Organizations, Pinter, London s. 130-56.
• Buerger, M., Brokel, T. & Coad, A. (2012). Regional dynamics of innovation: investigating the co-evolution of patents, research and development (R&D), and employment. Regional Studies, 46(5), 565-582.
• Camagni, R. P. (1991). Technological change, uncertanity and innovation networks: Towards a dynamic theory of economic space. In: Boyce D.E., Nijkamp P. & Shefer D. (eds). Regional Science. Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76311-3_10
• Carvalho, D. T. De, Beijo, L. A., & Salgado, E. G. (2020). Factors that influence the number of patent deposited in some countries of the American continent. Revista GEINTEC, 10(2), 5471–5485.
• Cooke, N. J. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41(6), 801-849. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1083
• Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation exploring ‘Globalisation 2’— A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy, 34, 1128–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.12.005
• Cooke, P. (2005). Regional Knowledge Capabilities and Open Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems and Clusters in the Asymmetric Knowledge Economy. In: Breschi, S & Franco, M. (eds). Clusters, Networks and Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 80-109.
• Cooke, P. & Morgan, K. (1994). The regional innovation system in Baden- Württemberg. International Journal of Technology Management, 9(3-4), 394-429.
• Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4-5), 475-491. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5
• Çelik, N., Akgüngör, S., & Kumral, N. (2019). An assessment of the technology level and knowledge intensity of regions in Turkey. European Planning Studies, 27(5), 952-973. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1579301
• Dereli, T., & Durmus, A. (2009). Patenting activities in Turkey : The case of the textile industry. World Patent Information, 31, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2008.07.003
• Dosi, G. (1988). Sources , procedures , and microeconomic effects of innovation. American Economic Association, 26(3), 1120–1171.
• Dulupcu, M. & Govdere, B. (2005). Bölgesel gelişme stratejileri için bir perspektif: yerel bilgi ağbağlari yaklaşimi. In: H. Erlat (Ed.) Bölgesel Gelişme Stratejileri ve Akdeniz Ekonomisi. Ankara, Turkey: Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu.
• Ejermo, O. (2009). Regional innovation measured by patent data—Does quality matter? Industry and Innovation, 16 (2), 141-165.
• Encaoua, D., Guellec, D., & Mart, C. (2006). Patent systems for encouraging innovation : Lessons from economic analysis. Research Policy, 35, 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.07.004
• Ernst, D. & Kim, L. (2002). Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1417–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00072-0
• European Commission (2021). Smart Specialisation Platform. Retrieved May 2021, from https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/turkey
• European Commission (2017). HORIZON 2020 - Work Programme 2016 - 2017 Part 15. Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation.
• European Commission (2006). Country Profile : Turkey. https://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/psi_countryprofile_turkey.pdf
• EUROSTAT (2020). High-tech industry and knowledge-intensive services (htec). Retrieved April 21, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/FR/htec_esms.htm
• Feldman, M.P. (1994). The Geography of Innovation. Boston, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. H. (2011). Smart specialization from academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation. MTEI Working Paper(001).
• Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. H. (2009). Smart specialisation – The concept. Knowledge Economists Policy, Brief 9.
• Foray, D., & Van Ark, B. (2007). Smart specialisation in a truly integrated research area is the key to attracting more R&D to Europe. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief n 1.
• Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘national system of ınnovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5-24.
• Frenken, K., & Boschma, R. A. (2007). A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic geography: Industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(5), 635-649.
• Gezici, D., Müderrisoğlu, B., Salihoğlu, G. & Başarır, G. (2021). What is The role of techno-parks on regional innovation in Turkey? Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning, 9(1), 43-59.
• Gezici, F., Walsh, B.Y. & Kacar, S.M. (2017). Regional and structural analysis of the manufacturing industry in Turkey. The Annals Regional of Sciences, 59, 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-017-0827-4
• Ginarte, J. C., & Park, W. G. (1997). Determinants of patent rights : A cross-national study. Research Policy, 26, 283–301.
• Gómez Prieto , J., Demblans , A., & Palazuelos Martínez, M. (2019). Smart specialisation in the world, an EU policy approach helping to discover innovation globally. JRC Science for Policy Report.
• Griliches, Z. (1998). R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, R&D, Patents, and Productivity. Cambridge, UK: NBER Books.
• Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators : A survey. American Economic Association, 28(4), 1661–1707.
• Guerrero, D.C & Sero, M.A. (2010). Spatial distribution of patents in spain: determining factors and consequences on regional development. Regional Studies, 31(4), 381-390. DOI: 10.1080/00343409750132982
• Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance : Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365–1379.
• Hassink, R., & Gong, H. (2019). Six critical questions about smart specialization. European Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1650898
• Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9– 30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549
• Hidalgo, C. A., Balland, P. A., Boschma, R., Delgado, M., Feldman, M., Frenken, K., Glaeser, E., He, C., Kogler, D. F., Morrison, A., Neffke, F., Rigby, D., Stern, S., Zheng,
• S. & Zhu, S. (2018). The principle of relatedness. In: Morales A., Gershenson C., Braha D., Minai A., Bar-Yam Y. (eds) Unifying Themes in Complex Systems IX. ICCS 2018. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96661-8_46
• Hidalgo, C. A. & Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10570–10575.
• Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M. & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
• Johnson, B. (2008) . Cities, systems of innovation and economic development, Innovation, 10:2-3, 146-155, DOI: 10.5172/impp.453.10.2-3.146
• Karaöz, M. & Albeni, M. (2004). Türkiye’de teknoloji çabalarina ilişkin bir değerlendirme: Türkiye’de patent aktivitesi. Pamukkale Üniveristesi III. Bilgi Teknolojileri Kongresi BİLGİTEK, 1–14.
• Kaygalak, İ. (2013). Türkiye sanayi coğrafyasında endüstriyel kümelenme ve bölgesel yoğunlaşma eğilimi. Beşeri Coğrafya Dergisi, 1(1), 67-81.
• Kaygalak, İ. & Reid, N. (2016). The geographical evolution of manufacturing and industrial policies in Turkey. Applied Geography, 70, 37-48. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.01.001
• Kleiner‐Schäfer, T. & Liefner, I. (2021). Innovation success in an emerging economy: A differentiated comparison of R&D‐oriented companies in Turkey. Growth and Change, 1– 27. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12479
• Kroll, H. (2015). Exploring pathways of regional technological development in China through patent analysis. Arbeitspapiere Unternehmen Und Region, No. R1/201.
• Kumrali N, Güçlü, M. (2018). Akıllı Uzmanlaşmaya Yönelik Bölgesel Araştırma ve Yenilik Stratejisi Hazırlama Kılavuzu. Doğu Anadolu Kalkınma Ajansı. (https://www.daka.org.tr/panel/files/files/yayinlar/Akilli-uzmanlasma-stratejisi.pdf)
• 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 and Regional Studies, 2013. DOI: 10.1177/0969776412448088
• Lagendijk A., Kayasu S. & Yasar S. (2009). The role of regional development agencies in Turkey. European Urban and Regional Studies, 16(4), 383-396.
• 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. doi: 10.1080/09654310802315781
• Lin, C., Tan, B., & Chang, S. (2002). The critical factors for technology absorptive capacity. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 102(6), 300-308. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570210431993
• Lo Turco, A., & Maggioni, D. (2017). Local discoveries and technological relatedness: The role of foreign firms. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (17.10).
• Löfsten, H., Klofsten, M. & Cadorin, E. (2020). Science parks and talent attraction management: university students as a strategic resource for innovation and entrepreneurship. European Planning Studies. 28(12), 2465-2488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1722986
• Lundvall, B. Ä. & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of industry Studies, 1(2), 23-42. doi:10.1080/13662719400000002
• Malecki, E. J. (1991). Technology and Economic Development: The Dynamics of Local, Regional, and National Change. Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific & Technical.
• Morgan, K. (1997). The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5), 491-503.
• Narin, F., Noma, E. & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2-4), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90028-X
• Neffke, F., Henning, M. & Boschma, R. (2011). How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 87(3), 237-265
• OECD (2013). Innovation-Driven Growth in Regions: The Role of Smart Specialisation. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
• Oğuz, M. Ö. (2019). Potential regions for smart specialization: a taxonomy of Turkish nuts 2 regions [Thesis (M.S.) -- Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. City and Regional Planning.]. Middle East Technical University.
• Özkaya, A. (2014). Türkiye’de rekabet, Ar-Ge, inovasyon ve ekonomik büyüme: Nasil bir ilişki söz konusudur?, Maliye Dergisi, 166, 17-38.
• Pekkarinen, S. & Harmaakorpi, V. (2006). Building regional innovation networks : The definition of an age business core process in a regional innovation system. Regional Studies, 40(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600725228
• Pekol, Ö. & Erbaş, B. Ç. (2011). Patent sisteminde Türkiye’deki teknoparklarin yeri. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(1), 39–58.
• Raghupathi, V. & Raghupathi, W. (2017). Innovation at country-level : Association between economic development and patents. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-017-0065-0
• Rigby, D. L. (2015). Technological relatedness and knowledge space: Entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies, 49(11), 1922-1937. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2013.854878
• Schäfer, T. K. & Liefner, I. (2021). Innovation success in an emerging economy : A comparison of R & D - oriented companies in Turkey. Growth and Change, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12479
• Schmoch, U. (2008). Concept of a technology classification for country comparisons. Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
• Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P. & Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology based firms: A review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 177-184.
• Stancova, K. C. & Cavicchi, A. (2017). Dynamics of smart specialisation agri-food trans-regional cooperation. JRC Technical Reports (JRC107257). doi:10.2760/020864
• Stehr, N. (2007). Societal transformations, globalisation and the knowledge society . International Journal of Knowledge and Learning (IJKL), Vol. 3, No. 2/3, 2007; https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKL.2007.015548
• Stöhr, W , 1988, “Regional policy, technology complexes and research/science parks”, in Informatics and Regional Development Eds Giaoutzi, M, Nijkamp, P, (Gower, Aldershot, Hants) pp 201–214
• Şahin, M. T. & Altuğ, F. (2017). Türkiye'de yenilik faaliyetlerinde yenilikçi uzmanlaşma eğilimleri : İstanbul, Ankara ve İzmir bölgeleri imalat sanayi patent göstergeleri. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 15(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1501/Cogbil
• Şahin, M.T. & Ertürk, M (2021). Akilli Bölgesel Kalkınma İçin Akl-ıllı Uzmanlaşma Stratejisi, Ölçümü ve Kalkınma Ajansları Üzerinden bir Değerlendirme. in T.
• Şahin and F. Altuğ (eds). Yerel ve Bölgesel Kalkınmada Değişen Dinamikler. Nobel.
• T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2014). National Strategy on Regional Development: 2014-2023. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/bolgesel-kalkinma-faaliyetleri/strateji-belgeleri/01135b
• Technology Transfer Accelerator (2021). Competitive Sectors Programme. TTA Turkey Advisory Services and Networking. http://ttaturkey.org/
• Tödtling, F., Trippl, M. & Lengauer, L. (2008). Towards regional knowledge economics. Routes and policy options. SRE - Discussion Papers, 2008/05. Vienna: Institut für Regionalund Umweltwirtschaft, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
• TUBITAK - Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (2010). Science and Technology Human Resource Strategy and Action Plan (2011-2016). https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files//BTYPD/strateji_belgeleri/BT_IK_STRATEJI_BELGESI_2011_2016.pdf
• TUBITAK (2004). Ulusal Bilim ve Teknoloji Politikaları 2003-2023 Strateji Belgesi. Ankara: TUBITAK Publications.
• Türkcan, B. & Çelik, N. (2020). Türkiye'de Bölgesel İktisat - Teori, Uygulama, Politika, Ankara: Turkey: Orion Publishing.
• Uzun, A. (2001). Technological innovation activities in Turkey : The case of manufacturing industry, 1995 – 1997. Technovation, 21, 189–196. Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliği Merkezleri Platformu (2021, 8 February). Genel Bilgi. Retrieved from https://www.usimp.org.tr/icerik/genel-bilgi-8
• Widuto, A. (2019). Regional inequalities in the EU. In European Parliamentary Research Service (Issue May). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/637951/EPRS_BRI(2019)637951_EN.pdf.
• Yavan, N. (2011). Teşviklerin bölgesel ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: Ampirik bir analiz. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 22(June), 65–104.
• Yılmaz, Ö. (2019). Türkiye’de İl Bazında Patent Başvuruları-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Ekonometrik Bir Analiz. Kırıkkale, Turkey: Kırıkkale University Publishing.
• Zeschky, M., Widenmayer, B. & Gassmann, O. (2011). Frugal innovation in emerging markets. Research-Technology Management, 54(4), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5404007