İmalat Sanayi Firmalarında Ürün İnovasyonuna Etki Eden Faktörler: Türkiye Örneği

Year 2022, , 23 - 46, 09.02.2022

Cem Okan Tuncel , Deniz Oktay

https://doi.org/10.30626/tesamakademi.933061

Abstract

Bu çalışma Türk imalat sanayinde ürün inovasyonunun firma düzeyindeki belirleyicilerini araştırmaktadır. İnovasyon firma performansını ve uzun dönem makro iktisadi büyümeyi doğrudan etkilemektedir. Ürün inovasyonu mal ve hizmet kalitesi ile çeşitliliğini artırmakla birlikte yeni piyasalar açmakta ve yeni iş alanları yaratmaktadır. İnovasyonun firma düzeyindeki kaynaklarının anlaşılması daha yenilikçi endüstriler için gerekli politikaların geliştirilmesine olanak sağlayacaktır. Dünya Bankası’nın 2015 yılına ait Girişim Anketi veri setinden alınan 1.085 firmadan oluşan bir örneklem kullanılarak ulaşılan sonuçlar Türk imalat sanayinde piyasa yapısı ile firmaların ürün inovasyonu yapma olasılıkları arasında ters U ilişkisinin olduğunu, yani olumsuz etkiyi gösteren Schumpeteryan etki ile olumlu etkiyi gösteren rekabetten kaçış etkisinin bir arada gerçekleştiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca verimlilik açığı ile ürün inovasyonu arasında negatif bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Araştırma sonuçları Ar&Ge faaliyeti yürüten firmaların ürün inovasyonu yapma olasılıklarının arttığını, patent sahibi firmaların da ürün inovasyonu yapma olasılıklarının daha yükek olduğunu göstermektedir. Kamu desteği almış firmaların inovasyon yapma olasılıklarının %10,6 daha fazla olduğu, ihracat yoğunluğu arttıkça inovasyon olasılığının arttığı görülmektedir.

Keywords

İnovasyon, Ürün İnovasyonu, İnovasyonun Belirleyicileri, İmalat Sanayi

Supporting Institution

Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi

Project Number

HDP(İ)-2020/16

Factors Affecting Product Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: The Turkish Case

Abstract

This study investigates the firm-level determinants of product innovation in the Turkish manufacturing industry. Innovation affects firm performance and long-run macroeconomic growth directly. Product innovation increases the quality and variety of goods and services, opens new markets, and creates new jobs. Understanding firm-level determinants of innovation opens up an opportunity to develop policies for more innovative industries. Using a sample of 1,085 firms from the World Bank’s 2015 Enterprise Survey dataset, the results show that the relation between firms’ probability of being product innovator with market structure has an inverse-U shape which means combining effects of the Schumpeterian effect, which shows the negative effect, and escape-competition effect, which shows the positive effect, in the Turkish manufacturing industry. Also, it is found that there is a negative relation between the productivity gap and product innovation. The research results show that the firms carrying out R&D activities are more likely to make product innovation, and the patent holder companies are more likely to make product innovation. It is observed that firms that have received public support are 10.6% more likely to innovate, and as the export intensity increases, the probability of innovation increases.

Keywords

Innovation, Product Innovation, Determinants of Innovation, Manufacturing Industry

Project Number

HDP(İ)-2020/16

References

• Acs, Z. J. ve Audretsch, D. B. (1987). Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(4), 567–574.
• Aghion, P., Bergeaud, A., Lequien, M. ve Melitz, M. J. (2018). The Impact of Exports on Innovation: Theory and Evidence. Banque de France Working Paper, 678.
• Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R. ve Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728.
• Akçomak, İ. S. (2016). Bilim, Teknoloji ve İnovasyon Politikasının Kuramsal Çerçevesi. İ. S. Akçomak, E. Erdil, M. T. Pamukçu and M.
• Tiryakioğlu (Ed.), Bilim, Teknoloji ve Yenilik: Kavramlar, Kuramlar ve Politika içinde (1. bs., s. 509–528). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
• Allred, B. B. ve Park, W. G. (2007). The influence of patent protection on firm innovation investment in manufacturing industries. Journal of International Management, 13, 91–109. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2007.02.001
• Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors içinde (s. 609–626). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400879762-024
• Baldwin, J., Hanel, P. ve Sabourin, D. (2002). Determinants of Innovative Activity in Canadian Manufacturing Firms. A. Kleinknecht and P. Mohnen (Eds.), Innovation and Firm Performance içinde . New York: Palgrave.
• Beck, T. (2007). Financing Constraints of SMEs in Developing Countries: Evidence , Determinants and Solutions. Financing Innovation-Oriented Businesses to Promote Entrepreneurship in .
• Bhattacharya, M. ve Bloch, H. (2004). Determinants of Innovation. Small Business Economics, 22(2), 155–162.
• Blalock, G. ve Gertler, P. J. (2004). Learning from exporting revisited in a less developed setting. Journal of Development Economics, 75(2), 397–416. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.06.004
• Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R. ve Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35(5), 655–672. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.002
• Bronzini, R. ve Piselli, P. (2016). The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), 442–457. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.008
• Brouwer, E. and van der Wiel, H. (2010). Competition and Innovation: Pushing Productivity Up or Down? CentER Disxussion Paper No. 2010-52, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1615508
• Brouwer, M. (1998). Firm Size and Efficiency in Innovation: Comment on van Dijk et al. Small Business Economics, 11(4), 391–393. doi:10.1023/A:1007988916242
• Cameron, A. C. ve Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics Using Stata (Revised.). Texas: Stata Press.
• Cantwell, J. (2006). Innovation and Competitiveness. J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation içinde (s. 543–567). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0020
• Cohen, W. M. (2010). Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance. B. Hall and N. Rosenberg (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation içinde (1. bs., Cilt. 1, s. 129–213). Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01004-X
• Cohen, W. M. ve Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.
• Corsino, M., Espa, G. ve Micciolo, R. (2011). R&D, firm size and incremental product innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(5), 423–443. doi:10.1080/10438599.2011.562354
• Crépon, B., Duguet, E. ve Mairessec, J. (1998). Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), 115–158. doi:10.1080/10438599800000031
• De Jong, P. J. ve Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2006). Determinants of product innovation in small firms: A comparison across industries. International Small Business Journal, 24(6), 587–609. doi:10.1177/0266242606069268
• Encaoua, D., Guellec, D. ve Martínez, C. (2006). Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis. Research Policy, 35(9), 1423–1440. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.07.004
• Erdil, E. ve Pamukçu, T. (2013). Institutional Environment , Economic Performance and Innovation in Turkey. SEARCH Working Paper, WP5/17.
• Fazlıoğlu, B., Dalgıç, B. and Yereli, A. B. (2019). The effect of innovation on productivity: evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms. Industry and Innovation, 26(4), 439–460. doi:10.1080/13662716.2018.1440196
• Freeman, C. ve Soete, L. (2003). Yenilik İktisadı. (T. Ergun, Çev.). TÜBİTAK Yayınları.
• Gayle, P. G. (2001). Market Concentration and Innovation : New Empirical Evidence on the Schumpeterian Hypothesis ( No: 01–14). Department of Economics, University of Colorado.
• Güngör, D. Ö. ve Gözlü, S. (2012). Influencing factors of innovation for Turkish companies. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 4(4), 374–386. doi:10.1108/17566691211288359
• Hashi, I. ve Stojčić, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 4. Research Policy, 42(2), 353–366. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.011
• Hashmi, A. R. (2013). Competition and Innovation: The Inverted-U Relationship Revisited. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(5), 1653–1668.
• Hobday, M. (1995). Innovation in East Asia. Aldershot, UK: Edward-Elgar.
• Karaman, F. N. ve Lahiri, S. (2012). Competition and Innovation in Product Quality: Theory and Evidence from Turkey. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2167977
• Kılıçaslan, Y., Sickles, R. C., Atay Kayış, A. ve Üçdoğruk Gürel, Y. (2017). Impact of ICT on the productivity of the firm: evidence from Turkish manufacturing. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 47(3), 277–289. doi:10.1007/s11123-017-0497-3
• Lederman, D. (2010). An international multilevel analysis of product innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 606–619. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.30
• Lööf, H., Heshmati, A., Asplund, R. ve Nåås, S.-O. (2001). Innovation and Performance in Manufacturing Industries: a Comparison of the Nordic Countries ( No: 457). SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance. Stockholm.
• Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., Zhao, Y. ve Zhen, F. (2012). Globalization, Innovation and Productivity in Manufacturing Firms: A Study of Four Sectors of China. ERIA Discussion Paper Series.
• Mohnen, P. ve Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and Productivity: An Update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65.
• Morris, D. M. (2018). Innovation and productivity among heterogeneous firms. Research Policy, 47(10), 1918–1932. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.003
• Mulkay, B. (2019). How does competition affect innovation behaviour in french firms? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 51, 237–251. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2019.05.003
• Newman, A., Gao, Y. ve Zheng, J. (2015). Overcoming the Innovation Challenge: Examining the Determinants of New Product Innovation in Chinese SMEs. D. Cumming, M. Firth, W. Hou and E. Lee (Eds.), Developments in Chinese Entrepreneurship in (pp. 33–57). New York: Palgrave Macmillian. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137412508_2
• OECD/Eurostat. (1997). Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data: Oslo Manual, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264192263-en.
• OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4th ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264304604-en
• OECD. (2006). Government R&D Funding and Company Behaviour: Measuring Behavioural Additionality. OECD Publishing.
• Oliver, N., Dostaler, I. ve Dewberry, E. (2004). New product development benchmarks: The Japanese, North American, and UK consumer electronics industries. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(2), 249–265. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2004.03.006
• Özçelik, E. ve Taymaz, E. (2008). R&D support programs in developing countries: The Turkish experience. Research Policy, 37(2), 258–275. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.001
• Pamukçu, T. (2003). Trade liberalization and innovation decisions of firms: Lessons from Post-1980 Turkey. World Development, 31(8), 1443–1458. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00087-1
• Peneder, M. ve Woerter, M. (2014). Competition, R&D and innovation: Testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(3), 653–687. doi:10.1007/s00191-013-0310-z
• Pianta, M. (2001). Innovation, demand and employment. P. Petit and L. Soete (Ed.), Technology and the Future of European Employment içinde (s. 142–165). Cheltenham: Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781781950999.00015
• Polder, M. ve Veldhuizen, E. (2012). Innovation and Competition in the Netherlands: Testing the Inverted-U for Industries and Firms. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 12(1), 67–91. doi:10.1007/s10842-011-0120-7
• Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D. ve Spielkamp, A. (2009). Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: Substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 35–58. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9185-7
• Rogers, M. (2004). Networks, firm size and innovation. Small Business Economics, 22(2), 141–153. doi:10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000014451.99047.69
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (6. bs.). London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1987.
• Symeonidis, G. (1996). Innovation, Firm Size and Market Structure: Schumpeterian Hypotheses and Some New Themes ( No. 161). OECD: Paris.
• Taştan, H. ve Gönel, F. (2020). ICT labor, software usage, and productivity: firm-level evidence from Turkey. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 53(2), 265–285. doi:10.1007/s11123-020-00573-x
• Tingvall, P. G. ve Poldahl, A. (2006). Is there really an inverted U-shaped relation between competition and R&D? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(2), 101–118. doi:10.1080/10438590500129755
• Tuncel, C. O. (2014). Orta Gelir Tuzağı ve İnovasyon Politikaları: Doğu Asya Deneyimi ve Türkiye İçin Dersler. Maliye Dergisi, 167, 40–70.
• Vaona, A. ve Pianta, M. (2008). Firm size and innovation in European manufacturing. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 283–299. doi:10.1007/s11187-006-9043-9
• Verspagen, B. (2006). Innovation and Economic Growth. J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation içinde (s. 487–513). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0018
• Veugelers, R. ve Cassiman, B. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1), 63–80. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00106-1
• Wadho, W. ve Chaudhry, A. (2018). Innovation and firm performance in developing countries: The case of Pakistani textile and apparel manufacturers. Research Policy, 47(7), 1283–1294. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.007
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2019). Ekonometriye Giriş: Modern Yaklaşım. Çev. Editörü: E. Çağlayan Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. World Bank. (1998). World Development Report: Knowledge for Development. New York: Oxford University Press.