Yeni Teknoloji Temelli Firmaların Ekonomi Politiği

Abstract

Yeni teknoloji temelli firmalar (new technology based firms) sadece iktisadi yapının değil, kurumsal yapının da değişiminde etkilidir. Büyük firmalarda girişimciliği rutinleştiren rasyonalizasyon sürecinin aksine, bu tip firmalarla teknolojik yeniliğin (Schumpeterci anlamda yaratıcı girişimciliğin) sürekliliği sağlanabilmektedir.Bu çalışmanın amacı, yeni teknoloji temelli firmalar için Schumpeter’in analizinin uygun bir teorik çerçeve olduğunu göstermek ve bu firmalardaki teknolojik yeniliğin etkisinin sadece iktisadi alandanda değil, kurumsal alanda da etkileri olduğunu ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde yazından faydalanarak, yeni teknoloji temelli firmaların nitelikleri incelenecektir. İkinci bölümde ise, Schumpeter’in analizinin yeni teknoloji temelli firmalar için teorik bir çerçeve sağlayacağı gösterilecek ve Schumpeter’in kapitalist gelişme sürecine ilişkin görüşleri yeni teknoloji temelli firmalar bağlamında yeniden sorgulanacaktır

Keywords

• Yeni teknoloji temelli firmalar, radikal yenilikler, Schumpeter, firma büyüklüğü, kurumsal değişim

Political Economy of the New Technology Based Firms

Abstract

New technology based firms are effective not only changes in economic but also in institutional areas. These firms provide continuous technological innovations (creative entrepreneur in Schumpeterian sense) rather than the rationalization process that routinizes the entrepreneur in big firms. The aim of this study is to denote that the Schumpeterian analysis is appropriate framework for the new technology based firms and to introduce the effects of technological innovations of these firms both economic and institutional areas. This study is composed of two parts. In the first part, the basic characteristics of new technology based firms will be examined by the help of the literature. In the second part of the study, the appropriateness of the Schumpeterian framework for these firms will be displayed and Schumpeter's views on the process of capitalist development within the context of new technology based firms will be re-questioned

Keywords

• New technology based firms, radical innovations, Schumpeter, firm size, institutional changes

References

1. Abernathy, W.J. ve Clark, K. B. (1985), “Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction”, Research Policy, 14:3-22.
2. Abernathy W.J. ve Utterback J.M. (1988), “Patterns of Industrial Revolution”, Tulshman ve Moore (ed.), Readings in the Management of Innovation, 25-36, Ballinger.
3. Andersen, E.S.(1991). Reconstructing Theory Evolution with Special Respect to Schumpeter, A Report from Schumpeter and the Analysis of Economic Evolution , University of Aalborg, August. http://www.business.aau.dk/evolution/esa/ESACV.html.
4. Baumol W. J. (2002), Free Market Innovation machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism, Princeton University Press. Blancflower, D.G. and Oswald, A. (1998), “What Makes an Entrepreneur”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol.16, No,1, pp. 26-60.
5. Birch, D.L.(1979), The Job Generation Process, Unpublished Report Prepared by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program on Neigborhood and Regional Change for the Economic Development Administration, U.S.
6. Birch D.L. (1987), Job Creation in America: How Our Smallest Campanies Put the Most People to Work, New York, Free Press.
7. Bower J.L. ve Christensen C.M. (1995), “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”, Harward University Review, 73(1): 43-53.
8. Brouwer, M. (2002), “Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on Entrepreneurship and Economic Development”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12 ,2002: 83-105.

9. Christensen C.M., ve Bower J.L. (1996), “Consumer Power, Strategic Investment and the Failure of Leading Firms”, Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197-218.
10. Christensen C.M. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Baston, Harward Business School Press.
11. Christensen C. M. ve Raynor M.E. (2003), The Innovator’s Solution: Cretaing and Sustainig Succesful Growth, Harwoard Business School Press.
12. Dahms, H.F.(1995). From Creative Action to the Social Rationalization of the Economy: Joseph A. Schumpeter’s Social Theory, Sociological Theory, 13(1),1- 13.
13. Frank, Mark W. (1998), “Schumpeter on Entrepreneurs and Innovation: A Reappraisal”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol 20, No, 4, pp: 505- 516.
14. Foster, J. (2000), “Competitive Selection, Self-organization, and Joseph A. Schumpeter,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10: 311-328.
15. Foster, J. B. (2004) “The End of Rational Capitalism”, Monthly Review,:56, 10: 1- 11.
16. Heertje, A.(2006). Schumpeter’s Model of The Decay of Capitalism, (Ed.) J. Middendorp Schumpeter on the Economics of Innovation and the Development of Capitalism, (ss. 29-40) Edward Elgar Publishing.
17. Jennings D.F., (2010), “Entrepreneurial Activity and Firm Size: Re-Examining Schumpeter’s Hypothesis”, 1-8. http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/usasbe/1996/pdf/20.pdf
18. Kirchhoff, B.A. (1994), Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism: The Economics of Business Firm Formation and Growth, Westport, Conn:Praeger.
19. Malerba, F.(2006). “Innovation and Evolution of Industries”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16 : 3-23.
20. Moore, G.A. (1991), Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling technology Products to Mainstream Consumers, NewYork, Harper Business.
21. Oakley, A. (1990), Schumpeter’s Theory of Capitalist Motion, Edward Elgar Publishing, England.
22. O’Dennel, L.A, (1975), “Rationalism, Capitalism and the Entrepreneur: The Views of Veblen and Schumpeter”, History of Political Economy, vol. 5, pp. 199-214.
23. Onetti A. , Zucchella A., Jones M., ve McDugall-Covin P., (2012), “Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: business models for new technology based firms”, Journal of Management and Governance, 16: 337-368.
24. Otter and Siemon (2010) “ Can Capitalism Survive? A reconsideration of Schumpeter’s Thesis on The Self-destruction of Capitalist Society and the Crisis” , Conference Paper, Schumpeter Conference 2010.
25. SBA, (1995), The State of Small Business: a Report of the President. Washington D.C. USA Small Business Administration Office.
26. Scherer, F. M. (1980), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd ed., Chiogo, Mc Nally College.
27. Schumpeter, J.A, (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, New York, Oxford University Press.
28. Schumpeter, J.A.(1935). The Analysis of Economic Change, Review of Economic Statistics, 17, 2-10.
29. Schumpeter, J. A.(1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London.
30. Schumpeter, J. A.(1949), “Science and Ideology”, American Economic Review, 39, 345-59.
31. Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of Economic Analysis, London Allen and Unvin, 1954.
32. Schumpeter, J.A, (1989), “Capitalism”, R.V. Clemence (ed.), Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations:, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 189-210.
33. Schumpeter, J. A, (2005). Development, Journal of Economic Literature, 43: 108- 120.
34. Spencer A.S and Krichhoff B.A (2006) “Schumpeter and New Technology Based Firms: Towards a Framework for How NTBF’s Cause Creative Destruction”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,2,2, 145-156.
35. Tilton J.E. (1971), International Diffusion of Technology: The case of Semiconductors, Washington, Brookings Institution.
36. Tripsas. M. ve Gavetti G. (2000), Capabilities, Cognition and Inertia: Evidence from Digital Imaging, Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11): 1147-1161.