Yenilik Temelli Büyüme ve Gelir Eşitsizliği Üzerine Etkileri: Kuramsal Bir Yaklaşım

Abstract

Yaklaşık yarım asırdır dünya genelinde ve özellikle gelişmiş ülkelerde gelir eşitsizliğinde dikkate değer bir artış yaşanmaktadır. Ancak bu artışın nedenleri konusunda henüz bir görüş birliğine varılamamıştır. Bu konuda son dönemlerde üzerinde durulan nedenlerden biri “yenilikler”dir. Birçok ülke iktisadi büyümeyi hızlandırmak için yeniliklere ve teknolojik sürece önem vermiştir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, yenilik ve gelir eşitsizliği ilişkisini teorik ve ampirik yaklaşımlar çerçevesinde incelemektir. Çalışmanın sonucuna göre, yenilik ve gelir eşitsizliği ilişkileri farklı kanallardan ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu iki değişken arasında iki yönlü ilişki olup, bu ilişkinin niteliği pozitif olabildiği gibi negatif de olabilmektedir. Yenilik süreci rekabet üstünlüğü sağlamak, verimliliği ve iktisadi büyümeyi artırmak açısından gerekli olmakla birlikte, bu sürecin gelir eşitsizliği ile olan ilişkisi sosyo-ekonomik şartlara ve kurumsal yapıya bağlıdır.

Keywords

• Yenilik,gelir eşitsizliği,teknolojik gelişme,ekonomik büyüme,Vasıf yanlı teknolojik değişim

Innovation and Income Inequality: A Theoretical Approach

Abstract

There has been a remarkable increase in income inequality in the world and especially in developed countries for nearly half a century. However, there is no consensus on the reasons of this increase. One of the reasons that have been mentioned in recent years is the “innovations”. Many countries have given importance to innovation and technological process to accelerate economic growth. The main purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between innovation and income inequality within the framework of theoretical and empirical approaches. According to the results of the study, the relationship between innovation and income inequality emerges from different channels. There is a two-way relationship between these two variables and the nature of this relationship may be positive or negative. While the innovation process is necessary to ensure competitive advantage and to increase productivity and economic growth, the relationship between this process and income inequality depends on the socio-economic conditions and the institutional structure. 

Keywords

• Innovation,Income Inequality,Technological Change,Economic Growth

References

1. Acemoglu, D. ve Autor, D. (2010). Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16082.pdf, (Erişim: 27.06.2017)
2. Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technological Change, Inequality and the Labor Market, Journal of Economic Literature, 40 (1), 7-72.
3. Acemoglu, D. , Robinson, J. A., Verdier, T. (2012). Can't We All Be More Like Scandinavians? Asymmetric Growth and Institutions in an Interdependent, NBER Working Paper, No. w18441.
4. Aghion, P., Caroli, E. ve Garcia-Penalosa, C. (1999). Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories, Journal of Economic Literature, 37(4), 1615-1660.
5. Aghion, P. (2002). Schumpeterian Growth Theory and the Dynamics of Income Inequality, Econometrica, 70(3), 855-882.
6. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Bergeaud, A., Blundell, R. ve Hemous, D. (2015). Innovation and Top Income Inequality, National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w21247.
7. Akçomak, İ. ve Gürcihan, B. H. (2013). Türkiye İşgücü Piyasasında Mesleklerin Önemi: Hizmetler Sektörü İstihdamı, İşgücü ve Ücret Kutuplaşması, TCMB Çalışma Tebliği, No: 13/21.
8. Akçoraoğlu, A. (2015), Gelir Dağılımı ve İktisadi Büyüme: Post-Keynesyen Modeller ve Politika Analizi, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 26(96), 91-126.

9. Antonelli, C. ve Gehringer, A. (2013). Innovation and Income Inequality, http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2013dip/wp_24_2013.pdf, (Erişim: 12.08.2017)
10. Antonelli, C. ve Gehringer A. (2017). Technological Change, Rent and Income Inequalities: A Schumpeterian Approach, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 115(2017), 85-98.
11. Autor, D. ve Dorn, D. (2009). This Job is “Getting Old”: Measuring Changes in Job Opportunities using Occupational Age Structure, American Economic Review, 99, 45-51.
12. Autor, D., Levy, F. ve Murnane, R. J. (2003). The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1279-333.
13. Bakhtiarizadeh, H. (2016). The Effect of Innovation on Income Inequality in Canadian Cities”, http://summit.sfu.ca/item/16134 (Erişim: 12.08.2017).
14. Botta, A. (2017), The Complex Inequality-Innovation-Public Investment Nexus: What We (Don’t) Know, What We Should Know and What We Have to Do, Forum for Social Economics, 46(3), 275-298.
15. Breau, S., Kogler, D. F. ve Bolton, K. C. (2014). On the Relationship Between Innovation and Wage Inequality: New Evidence from Canadian Cities, Economic Geography, 90(4), 351-373.
16. Bruton, G. D., Ketchen, D. ve Duane, R. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Poverty, Journal of Business Venture, 28(6), 683-689.Bulutay, T. (2016). Yaşamda ve Bilimde Değişme Esastır, Turkish Economic Association, Discussion Paper, No. 2016/1, http://www.tek.org.tr (Erişim: 12.10.2016).
17. Card, D. ve DiNardo, J. E. (2002). Skill-biased Technological Change and Rising Wage Inequality: Some Problems and Puzzles, Journal of Labor Economics, 20(4), 733-783.
18. Clark, G. ve Demircioğlu E. (2013). Fukaralığa Veda: Dünyanın Kısa İktisadi Tarihi, Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
19. Eeckhout, J. ve Jovanovic, B. (2002). Knowledge Spillovers and Inequality, American Economic Review, 92(5), 1290-307. Falkinger, J. (1994). An Engelian Model of Growth and Innovation with Hierarchic Consumer Demand and Unequal Incomes, Ricerche Economiche, 48(2), 123-139.
20. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, New York: Basic Books.
21. Freeman, C. ve Soete L. (2004), Yenilik İktisadı, Dördüncü Baskı, TÜBİTAK Yayınları, Ankara.
22. GII (2017), The Global Innovation Index, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator (Erişim:13.08.2017)
23. Goldin, C. ve Katz L. F. (2009). The Race Between Education and Technology: The Evolution of U.S. Wage Differentials, 1890-2005, NBER Working Paper, No. 12984.
24. Goos, M. ve Manning A. (2007). Lousy and Lovely Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in Britain, Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 118-33.
25. Goos, M., Manning, A. ve Salomons, A. (2014). Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-biased Technological Change and Offshoring, The American Economic Review, 104(8), 2509-2526.
26. Hiltunen, J. (2017), The Relationship Between Economic Inequality and Innovation, https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/131341 (Erişim:13.08.2017)
27. Hopkin, J., Lapuente, V. ve Moller, L. (2014). Lower Levels of Inequality are Linked with Greater Innovation in Economies, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/lower-levels-of-inequality-are-linked-with-greater-innovation-in-economies/ (Erişim:13.08.2017) Iacopetta, M. (2008) Technological Progress and Inequality: an Ambiguous Relationship, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(3-4), 455-475. Karaöz, M. ve Albeni, M. (2003). Ekonomik Kalkınma ve Modern Yenilik Teorisi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(3).Karlsson, C. (2008). Handbook of Research on Innovation and Clusters: Cases and Policies, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
28. Katz, L. F. ve Murpy, K. M. (1992). Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 35-78.
29. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality, American Economic Review, 45, 1-28.
30. Lee, N. (2011). Are innovative regions more unequal? Evidence from Europe, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(1), 2-23.
31. Lewis, A. (1954). Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour, The Manchester School, 22 (2), 139-191.
32. Lucas, R. E. (2000). Some Macroeconomics for the 21st Century, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 159-78.
33. Malecki, E. J. (2010). Everywhere? The Geography of Knowledge, Journal of Regional Science, 50(1), 493-513.
34. OECD ve EUROSTAT (2005). Oslo Manual: Guıdelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovatıon Data, 3rd Edition, http://www.sourceoecd.org/scienceIT/9264013083, (Erişim: 22.06.2017)
35. OECD (2014). All on Board: Making Inclusive Growth Happen, OECD Publishing, Paris.
36. OECD (2017). OECD Data Income Inequality, https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm (Erişim: 12.01.2017).
37. GII (2017). Global Innovation Index 2014 Report, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home (Erişim: 12.01.2017).
38. Ornston, D. (2013). Creative Corporatism: The Politics of High-Technology Competition in Nordic Europe, Comparative Political Studies, 46(6), 702-729.
39. Paunov, C. (2013). Innovation and Inclusive Development: A Discussion of the Main Policy Issues, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2013/01.
40. Paul, G. (2008). Innovation and Inequality: How does Technical Progress Affect Workers, NJ: Princeton University Press, http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8659.pdf, (Erişim:12.08.2017).
41. Schoales, J. (2006). Alpha Clusters: Creative Innovation in Local Economies, Economic Development Quarterly, 20(2), 162-177.
42. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economics Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
43. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Fifth Edition, https://books.google.com.tr, (Erişim:12.08.2017).
44. Schumpeter, J.A. (1994), Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy with a New Introduction by Richard Swedberg. London and New York: George Allen & Unwin (Publishers).
45. Toivanen, O. ve Väänänen, L. (2016). Education and Invention, Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(2), 382-396.
46. Tselios, V. (2011). Is Inequality Good for Innovation?, International Regional Science Review, 34(1), 75-101.
47. Turanlı, R. ve Sarıdoğan, E. (2010). Bilim-Teknoloji-İnovasyon Temelli Ekonomi ve Toplum, İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları.
48. Tunali, H., Şahan, F. (2016). Income Inequality and Innovativeness: an Application for European Countries, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 66(1), 67.
49. Vav Reenen, J. (2011). Wage Inequality, Technology and Trade: 21st Century Evidence, Labour Economics, 18, 730-741.
50. Weiss, M., Garloff, A. (2005). Skill Biased Technological Change and Endogenous Benefits: The Dynamics of Unemployment and Wage Inequality, ZEW Discussion Paper, No. 05-79.
51. Wheeler, C. H. (2005). Cities, Skills, and Inequality, Growth and Change, 36, 329-53.