Çoklu Faktör Verimliliğinin İlerlemesini Oluşturan Bilgi Kaynakları ve Diğer Faktörler: Farklı Verimlilik Teorilerinde Gelişen Tartışmalar

Year 2009, Volume: 12 Issue: 1-2, 547 - 574, 06.05.2014

Yavuz Yıldırım

Abstract

Bilimsel bilgideki gelişmeler uzun zamandır çoklu faktör verimliliğindeki büyümenin^ önemli bir belirleyicisi olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bilginin verimlilik üzerindeki etkilerini analiz eden pek çok ampirik çalışmalar, verimliliği iyileştirmenin kaynakları olarak farklı araştırma ve geliştirme (AR-GE) ölçüleri üzerinde odaklanmışlardır. Aslında, verimlilik artışının belirleyici faktörler araştırılırken, rekabetçi teorik modellerin de verimlilik artışında önemli olabileceği iddia edilmektedir. Daha önceki çalışmaların ilgili faktörleri ayrı ayrı incelemesi sebebiyle, bu çalışmanın amacı literatürdeki verimliliği belirleyen faktörleri bir arada inceleyerek, anahtar konular hakkında genel bir bakış sağlıyarak, bu konudaki boşluğu gidermektir. İncelemer sonucunda, bütün AR-GE çeşitlerinin ülkelerin verimliliğinin büyümesinde önemli faktörler olduğu belirlenmiştir. Rekabetçi verimlilik teorileri olarakta beşeri sermaye,ihracat ve ithalat, bir ülkede yapılan doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve ülkelerin yurtdışında yaptığı doğrudan yatırımlar, ve devletin gerçekleştirdiği altyapı yatırımları verimliliği belirleyen faktörler olarak gösterilmiştir. Verimliliğin bu belirleyicileri arasında, sadece beşeri sermayenin verimlilik üzerinde tutarlı ve olumlu etkisi varken, diğer faktörlerin verimlilik üzerindeki etkileri çelişkilidir.

Keywords

bilimsel bilgi oluşturma; verimlilik; AR-GE çeşitleri; rekabetçi verimlilik teorileri

References

• Abramovitz, M. (1956). Resources and output trends in the United States since 1870. American Economic Review, 46(2), pp. 5-23.
• Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, %(4), pp. 673—703.
• Adams, J. D. and Clemmons, J. R (2008). The origins of industrial scientific discoveries. NBER Working Paper No. 13823.
• Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., and Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: evidence from U.S. universities, 1981—1999. Research Policy, _33, pp. 259—285.
• Adams J .D., Chiang, E. P. & Jensen J .L. (2000). The inşuence of federal laboratory R&D on industrial research. NBER Working Paper, No. 7612.
• Aghion, P. and Howitt, P (1992). A‘model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, @(2), pp. 323-351.
• Arrow, K. J. and Kurz, M (1970). Public investment, the rate of return, and optimal fiscal policy. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.
• Arundel, A. and Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firm. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Q6), pp. 559-580. '
• Aschauer, D. A. (1989a). Is public expenditure productive? Journal of Monetary Economics, 2&2), pp. 177-200.
• Aschauer, D. A. (1989b). Public investment and productivity growth in group of seven. Economic perspectives: a review from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, gö), pp. 17—25.
• Aschauer, D. A. and Greenwood, J. (1985). The "new monetary economics", “ fiscal issues and unemployment. In Karl Brunner and A. H. Meltezer, (Eds). The Mew Monetary Economics. Amsterdam: N orth-Holland
• Barro, R. J., and X. Sala-i—Martin (1995). Economic Growth. New York: McGraw—Hill.
• Benhabib, J. and Spiegel, M. M. (1994). The role of human capital in economic development: evidence from aggregate cross—country data. Journal of Monetary Economics, Şg), pp. 143-173.
• Bernard, A. B. and Jensen, B. J. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: cause, effect, or both? Journal of International Economics, g(ı), pp. 1— 25.
• Bemdt, E. R. and Hansson, B. (1999). Measuring the contribution of public infrastructure capital in Sweden. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, %(S), pp. 8151—8168.
• Bernstein, J. I. (1988). Costs of production, intra- and interindustry R&D spillovers: Canadian evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics, ua), pp. 324-347.
• Bernstein, J. I. and Nadiri, M. I. (1991). Product demand, cost of production,
• spillovers, and the social rate of return to R&D. NBER Working Paper, no. 3625.
• Bowie, N. E. (1994). University—business partnership: an assessment. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Coe, D. T. and Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, $6), pp. 859—887.
• Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., and Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. G. Noll (Ed.). Challenges to Research University (pp. 171—199). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
• David, P. A., Mowery, D. and Steinmueller W. E. (1992). Analyzing the economic payoffs from basic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2(1), pp. 73—90.
• Delgado, M. A., Farinas, J .C. and Ruano, S. (2002). Firm productivity and export market/: a non-parametric approach. Journal of International Economics, 5_7(2), pp. 397—422.
• Dietz, J. S. and Bozeman, 13-, (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, pp 349—367. 570
• Dowrick, S., and Rogers, M. (2002). Classical and technological convergence: beyond the Solow-Swan growth model. Oxford Economic Papers, $8), pp. 369-385.
• Dunning, J. H (1994). Multinational enterprises and the globalization of innovatory capacity. Research Policy, gü), pp. 67-88.
• Etzkowitz, H. and Stevens, A. J. (1998). Inching toward industrial policy: the university’s role in government initiatives to assist small, innovative companies in the United States. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster and P.
• Healey, (Eds). Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of industry
• and Academia (pp.215—238). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A. and Healey, P. (1998). Introduction. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster and P. Healey, (Eds). Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of industry and Academia (pp.1-17). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Evans, P. and Karras, G. (1994). Are government activities productive? Evidence from a panel of US states. The Review of Economics and Statistics, EU), pp. 1—1.
• Frantzen, D. (2000). R&D, human capital and international technology spillovers: a cross—country analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, mga), pp. 57—75
• Fosfuri, A., Motta, M. and Ronde, T. (2001). Foreign direct investment and spillovers through workers’ mobility. Journal of international economics, :30), pp. 205—222.
• Gramlich, E. M. (1994). Infrastructure investment: a review essay. Journal of Economic Literature, £(3), pp. 1176-1196
• Greenaway, D., and Kneller R. (2007). Exporting, productivity and agglomeration. European Economic Review, doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.07.001
• Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal Economics, mü), pp. 92—116.
• Griliches, Z. and Lichtenberg, F. (1984). R&D and productivity growth at the industry level: is there still a relationship? In Z. Griliches (Ed). R&D, Patents, and Productivity (pp. 465—501). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. MIT Press: Cambridge.
• Hall, B. H., and Mairesse J. (1995). Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufacturing firms. Journal of Econometrics, 6_5(1), pp. 263—293.
• Holtz—Eakin, D. (1994). Public—sector capital and the productivity puzzle. T_he Review of Economics and Statistics, Z§(1), pp. 12—21.
• Hulten, C. R. and Wykoff, F. C. (1981). The measurement of economic depreciation. In C. R. Hulten (Ed.). Depreciation, Inşation and the Taxation of Income from Capital (pp. 81-125). Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute Press. —
• Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firm’s patents, profits, and market value. The American Economic Review, EÜ), pp. 984—1001.
• Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 36), pp. 957-970.
• Jensen, R. and Thursby, M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. The American Economic Review, al), pp. 240-259.
• Keller, W. (1998). Are international R&D spillovers trade—related? Analysing spillovers among randomly matched trade partners. American Economic Review, £(8), pp. 1469-1481
• Keller, W. and Yeaple, S. R. (2003). Multinational enterprises, international trade, and productivity growth: firm level evidence from the United States. NBER Working Paper, No. 9504.
• Lichtenberg, F. R. and Siegel, D. (1991). The impact of R&D investment on productivity — new evidence using linked R&D—LRD data. Economic Inquiry, 22(2), pp. 203-228.
• Luintel, K. B. and Khan, M. (2004). Are international R&D spillovers costly for the United States? The Review of Economics and Statistics, §§(4), pp. 896-910.
• Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), pp. 1-12.
• Markusen, J. (2002). Multinational Firms and the Theory of International Trade. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
• Munnell, A. H. (1990). Why has productivity growth declined? Productivity and public investment. New England Economic Review, (January), Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
• Nadiri, M. I. (1993). Innovations and technological spillovers. NBER Working Paper, no. 4423.
• Nadiri, M. I., and Mamuneas, T. P. (1994). Infrastructure and public R&D investments, and the growth of factor productivity in US manufacturing industries. NBER Working Paper Series, no. 4845.
• National Council on Public Works Improvements (1988). Fragile foundations: a report on America’s public works. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
• National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2008). Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2007. Detailed Statistical Tables NSF 09-303. Arlington, VA. Available at http:/lwww.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf09303/.
• Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S. and Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, gö), pp. 317-330.
• Nelson, R. R. (1982). The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 9_7_(3), pp. 453—470.
• Nickell, S. and Van Reenen, J. (2001). Technological Innovation and Performance in the United Kingdom. CEP Discussion Paper, no. 0488. Center for Economic Performances, LSE.
• OECD (1993). The measurement of scientific and technological activities: standard practice for surveys of experimental development — Frascati Manual 1993. Paris: OECD Press.
• OECD (2002). Benchmarking science—industry relationships. Paris: OECD
• Park, W. G. (1995). International R&D spillovers and OECD economic growth. Economic Inquiry, 33(4), pp. 571—591.
• Pisano, G. P. (2002). Pharmaceutical biotechnology. In B. Steil, D. G. Victor and R. R. Nelson (Eds). Technological. Innovation and Economic Performance (pp. 347—366). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Poole, E. and Bernard, J. (1992). Defence innovation stock and total factor productivity. Canadian Journal of Economics, 25(2), pp. 438—452.
• Press, 1E. and Washbum, J. (2000). The kept university. The Atlantic Monthly, ggot pp. 39—54
• Robson, M. T. (1993). Federal funding and the level of private expenditure on basic research. Southern Economic Journal, @(1), pp. 63-71.
• Rodriguez—Clare, A. (1996). Multinationals, linkages, and economic development. The American Economic Review, _8_6_(4), pp. 852-873. 573
• Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 9_8, pp. S71—S102.
• Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23(3), pp. 323-348.
• Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, Çağ, pp. 772— 789.
• Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies. and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, EU), pp. 65—94.
• Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function.
• ' Review of Economics and Statistics, 2(3), pp. 312-320.
• Tatom, J. A. (1991). Public capital and private sector performance. IE Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 13(3), pp. 3-15.
• Teece, D. (1977). Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know—how. The Economic Journal, &(346), pp. 242—261.
• Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and Lichtenberg, F. (2001). Does foreign direct investment transfer technology across borders? The Reviews of Economics and Statistics, 8_3(3), pp. 490—497.
• Wagner, J. (2002). The casual effects of exports on firm size and labor productivity: first evidence from a matching approach. Economic Letters, HO), pp. 443-472.
• Xu, B. (2000). Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth. Journal of Development Economics, QQ), pp. 477-493.
• Xu, B. and Wang, J. (1999). Capital goods trade and R&D spillovers in the OECD. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 2(5), pp. 1258-1274.