Girişimcilik Eğitimi ve Destek Sistemleri Arasındaki Kopukluk: Kamu Kaynaklarının Etkin Kullanımı İçin Kavramsal Bir Model Önerisi

Abstract

Türkiye'de KOSGEB ve TÜBİTAK aracılığıyla girişimcilik eğitimleri sunulmakta; bu eğitimleri tamamlayanlara çeşitli hibeler, vergi muafiyetleri ve faizsiz krediler gibi teşvikler sağlanmaktadır. Üniversitelerde verilen girişimcilik eğitimi ise mevcut teşvik sistemine doğrudan entegre değildir. Bu çalışma, teşvik sistemleriyle doğrudan bağlantılı olan KOSGEB bünyesinde yürütülen girişimcilik eğitimleri ile bu eğitimleri takip eden teşvik mekanizmaları (hibe, kredi, vergi muafiyeti) arasındaki uyumsuzluğa odaklanmaktadır. Eğitim müfredatında kazandırılmaya çalışılan beceriler ile teşvik sistemlerinde aranan koşullar birbirini tutmamaktadır. Bununla birlikte, eğitimi verenlerin donanımı (akademisyen ağırlıklı kadroların girişimcilik deneyiminden yoksun oluşu), öğrenme çıktılarının ölçülmemesi, desteklerin tek seferlik ve izlemesiz olması ile mezunların sistematik takip edilmemesi gibi sorunlar, sistemin bütüncül olarak sorgulanmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışma, eğitim, teşvik ve izleme sistemleri arasındaki kopukluğu analiz etmekte ve sistemin bütüncül olarak yeniden tasarlanması için altı politika önerisi sunmaktadır: (1) melek yatırımcı ve deneyimli girişimcilerin eğitmen kadrosuna dâhil edilmesi, (2) öğrenme çıktılarını ölçen proje sunumu ve jüri değerlendirme zorunluluğu, (3) teşvik sistemleri ile eğitim müfredatının eşleştirilmesi, (4) tek seferlik destekler yerine aşamalı ve performansa dayalı model, (5) melek yatırımcı eşleştirme sisteminin mevcut teşviklere alternatif ve tamamlayıcı olarak kurgulanması, (6) teşviklerden yararlanan işletmelerin periyodik izlenmesi. Çalışma, kamu kaynaklarının girişimcilik ekosisteminde daha etkin kullanılabilmesi için somut ve uygulanabilir bir çerçeve sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Girişimcilik Eğitimi
• KOSGEB
• TÜBİTAK
• Teşvik Sistemleri
• Kamu Politikası
• Melek Yatırımcı
• Girişimcilik Destekleri

The Gap Between Entrepreneurship Education and Support Systems: A Conceptual Model Proposal for the Effective Use of Public Resources

Abstract

Entrepreneurship education and incentive systems in Turkey allocate substantial public resources through KOSGEB and TÜBİTAK. However, entrepreneurship education provided at universities is not directly integrated into the existing incentive system. This study focuses on the mismatch between the entrepreneurship training programs conducted under KOSGEB-which are directly linked to incentive systems—and the subsequent incentive mechanisms (grants, loans, and tax exemptions). The skills taught in the training curricula and the conditions required by incentive systems are incompatible with each other. Furthermore, issues such as the inadequate qualifications of trainers (academic-heavy cadres lacking entrepreneurial experience), the absence of learning outcome measurement, one-off and unmonitored supports, and the lack of systematic follow-up of graduates necessitate a holistic examination of the system. This study analyzes the gap between training, incentive, and monitoring systems and offers six policy recommendations for a comprehensive redesign: (1) inclusion of business angels and experienced entrepreneurs in the trainer pool, (2) mandatory project presentations and jury evaluations to measure learning outcomes, (3) alignment of incentive systems with training curricula, (4) transition from one-off supports to a phased and performance-based model, (5) development of a business angel matching system as an alternative and complementary to existing incentives, and (6) periodic monitoring of businesses benefiting from incentives. The study aims to provide a concrete and applicable framework for more effective utilization of public resources in the entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Keywords

• Entrepreneurship Education
• KOSGEB
• TUBITAK
• Incentive Systems
• Public Policy
• Business Angel
• Entrepreneurship Support

References

1. Acs, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Index 2013. The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782540427.00009
2. Audretsch, D. B., Kuratko, D. F., & Link, A. N. (2015). Making sense of the elusive paradigm of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 703-712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9663-z
3. Avnimelech, G., & Teubal, M. (2006). Creating venture capital industries that co-evolve with high tech: Insights from an extended industry life cycle perspective of the Israeli experience. Research Policy, 35(10), 1477-1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.017
4. Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/593884
5. Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63-72. https://giurisprudenza.i-learn.unito.it/pluginfile.php/466109/mod_resource/content/1/why%20the%20lean%20startup%20changes%20everything.pdf
6. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X
7. Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 239-258. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810871655
8. EY. (2025). Melek yatırımcı olmanın şartları ve vergi avantajları: Bireysel katılım yatırımcısı rehberi. EY Türkiye. https://www.ey.com/tr_tr/insights/tax/melek-yatirimci-olmanin-sartlari-ve-vergi-avantajlari

9. Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569-593. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810899838
10. Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı. (2026). Genç Girişimcilere Vergi Teşviki. https://cdn.gib.gov.tr/api/gibportal-file/file/getFile?objectKey=DUYURU/UNIVERSAL/2026/2026_genc_girisimciler_info.pdf
11. Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.2.145
12. Goodhart, C. A. E. (1984). Problems of monetary management: The UK experience. In Monetary theory and practice (pp. 91-121). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17295-5_4
13. Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2019). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829-861. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272
14. Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00419
15. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40-50. Kerr, W. R., Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. (2014). The consequences of entrepreneurial finance: Evidence from angel financings. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 20-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr098
16. KOSGEB. (2023). KOSGEB LMS Girişimci Eğitim Programları. Küçük ve Orta Ölçekli İşletmeleri Geliştirme ve Destekleme İdaresi Başkanlığı. https://lms.kosgeb.gov.tr
17. KOSGEB. (2024). KOSGEB 2023 Faaliyet Raporu. Küçük ve Orta Ölçekli İşletmeleri Geliştirme ve Destekleme İdaresi Başkanlığı. https://webdosya.kosgeb.gov.tr/Content/Upload/Dosya/Mevzuat/2024/KOSGEB_2023_Yılı_Faaliyet_Raporu.pdf
18. Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0
19. Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
20. Mason, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2008). Measuring business angel investment activity in the United Kingdom: A review of potential data sources. Venture Capital, 10(4), 309-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691060802380098
21. Mensah-Williams, E., & Derera, E. (2023). Conceptualising impact measurements of entrepreneurship education outcomes: A scoping review. Acta Commercii, 23(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v23i1.1053
22. Murphy, L. M., & Edwards, P. L. (2003). Bridging the valley of death: Transitioning from public to private sector financing (NREL/MP-720-34036). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/nrel-bridging_the_valley_of_death.pdf
23. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
24. Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x
25. OECD. (2019). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/34907e9c-en
26. Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12021
27. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. https://ia800509.us.archive.org/7/items/TheLeanStartupErickRies/The%20Lean%20Startup%20-%20Erick%20Ries.pdf
28. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press. Sorokin, P. S., & Chernenko, S. E. (2022). Skills as declared learning outcomes of entrepreneurship training in higher education institutions across the globe: Classification and analysis with a focus on thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101177
29. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
30. TÜBİTAK. (2024). 1812 - Yatırım Tabanlı Girişimcilik Destek Programı (BiGG Yatırım). https://tubitak.gov.tr/tr/destekler/sanayi/ulusal-destek-programlari/1812-yatirim-tabanli-girisimcilik-destek-programi-bigg-yatirim
31. Wilson, K., & Silva, F. (2013). Policies for seed and early-stage finance: Findings from the 2012 OECD financing questionnaire. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3xqsf00j33-en
32. Wong, H. Y. H., & Chans, C. K. Y. (2022). A systematic review on the learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education within higher education settings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2021583
33. World Bank. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and training programs around the world: Dimensions for success. World Bank Group. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0202-7