Dijital Dönüşümden İnovasyona: OECD Ülkelerinin Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Yolculuğuna Yönelik Kurumsal Düzeyde Bir Değerlendirme

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: Özel Sayı, 88 - 106, 31.10.2025

Fatih Bıyıklı

https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1813025

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2010–2023 yılları arasında OECD ülkelerinde dijitalleşme, araştırma ve geliştirme (Ar-Ge) harcamaları ile yüksek teknoloji ihracatının ulusal yenilik (inovasyon) performansı üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Dinamik yetenekler teorisi, ulusal yenilik sistemleri ve kaynak temelli bakış açısı çerçevesinde temellendirilen araştırmada, yenilik performansını ölçmek için Küresel Yenilik Endeksi (GII) kullanılmış; açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak ise Bilişim ve İletişim Teknolojileri Gelişim Endeksi (IDI), Ar-Ge yoğunluğu ve yüksek teknoloji ihracat oranı dikkate alınmıştır. Sabit etkiler regresyon analizi sonuçları, dijitalleşme ve Ar-Ge harcamalarının yenilik çıktısını anlamlı biçimde artırdığını ortaya koyarken, yüksek teknoloji ihracatının bu ilişkiyi daha zayıf ve heterojen şekilde etkilediği görülmüştür. Bulgular, dijital altyapı ve bilgi temelli yatırımların yenilik ekosistemlerini güçlendirmede kritik rol oynadığını ve bu etkileşimin sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleriyle doğrudan bağlantılı olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, uzun dönemli eğilimleri ve ülkeler arası farklılıkları dikkate alarak hem örgütsel teoriye hem de politika tartışmalarına katkı sağlamakta; dijitalleşen küresel ekonomide kapsayıcı ve dirençli inovasyon stratejileri geliştirilmesine yönelik kanıta dayalı öneriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

İnovasyon Performansı , Dijitalleşme , Araştırma Geliştirme (Ar-Ge) , Yüksek Teknoloji İhracatı , Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma

From Digital Transformation to Innovation: An Institutional-Level Evaluation of OECD Countries’ Sustainable Development Pathways

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of digitalization, research and development (R&D) expenditures, and high-technology exports on national innovation performance across OECD countries from 2010 to 2023. Drawing on panel data analysis and grounded in the theoretical frameworks of dynamic capabilities, national innovation systems, and the resource-based view, the research employs the Global Innovation Index (GII) as a proxy for innovation performance, while utilizing the ICT Development Index (IDI), R&D intensity, and high-tech export share as explanatory variables. Fixed effects regression analysis reveals that digitalization and R&D expenditures significantly enhance innovation output, while high-tech exports exhibit a weaker and more heterogeneous relationship. The findings emphasize the critical role of digital infrastructure and knowledge investment in strengthening innovation ecosystems, particularly in the context of sustainable development goals. By focusing on cross-country dynamics and long-term trends, this study contributes to both organizational theory and policy discourse, offering evidence-based insights for designing more inclusive and resilient innovation strategies in an increasingly digital global economy.

Keywords

Innovation Performance , Digitalization , Research and Development (R&D) , High-Technology Exports , Sustainable Development

References

• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
• Castellacci, F. and Natera, J.M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.006
• Castellacci, F. and Tveito, V. (2018). Innovation and the ICT–productivity link: Evidence from OECD industries. Research Policy, 47(9), 1611–1630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.014
• Cirera, X. and Maloney, W.F. (2017). The innovation paradox: Developing-country capabilities and the unrealized promise of technological catch-up. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1160-9
• Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
• Crespi, G. and Zuniga, P. (2012). Innovation and productivity: Evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development, 40(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.010 Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery and R.R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 181–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Erkek, E. and Karaata, S.O. (2020). Türkiye’de yenilikçilik ve girişimcilik kapasitesinin değerlendirilmesi. İktisat ve Toplum, 10(113), 56–63. Retrieved from https://iktisatvetoplum.com/
• Filippetti, A. and Archibugi, D. (2011). Innovation in times of crisis: National systems of innovation, structure, and demand. Research Policy, 40(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.001
• Gujarati, D.N. and Porter, D.C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Lee, C. and Xia, Y. (2018). The synergy between information and communication technology and R&D as a platform for innovation: Evidence from Asia and the Pacific. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.016
• Lee, H., Kim, Y.J. and Park, Y. (2021). ICT infrastructure, innovation capability and firm performance: Evidence from OECD countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1810759
• Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. UK: Pinter Publishers.
• Maddala, G.S. and Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631 Niebel, T. (2018). ICT and economic growth – Comparing developing, emerging and developed countries. World Development, 104, 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.024
• OECD. (2020). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2020: Are changing lives for the better? https://doi.org/10.1787/1110c1c2-en
• Sachs, J.D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G. and Fuller, G. (2019). Sustainable development report 2019. Retrieved from https://sdgindex.org/reports/sustainable-development-report-2019/
• Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
• Vu, K.M. (2011). ICT as a source of economic growth in the information age: Empirical evidence from the 1996–2005 period. Telecommunications Policy, 35(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.01.002
• Wooldridge, J.M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). USA: MIT Press.
• World Bank. (2023). Turkey country economic memorandum: Innovation and competitiveness in a changing world. Retrieved from https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail
• Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995