OECD ÜYESİ DOĞU-ORTA AVRUPA ÜLKELERİNİN BİYOTEKNOLOJİK GELİŞME PERFORMANSI AÇISINDAN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ

Year 2015, , 345 - 358, 20.06.2015

Yaşar Yaşgül Yavuz Turguter

https://doi.org/10.18092/ijeas.76974

Abstract

Çalışmada, OECD üyesi 7 Doğu-Orta Avrupa ülkesinin biyoteknolojik gelişme performansı karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla “Veri Zarflama Analizi Yöntemi” kullanılmıştır. Karşılaştırmalı analizler için 1998 ve 2011 yıllarına ait veriler seçilmiştir. “CCR Modeli”nden ve “Süper Etkinlik Modeli”nden elde edilen ampirik sonuçlara göre, incelenmiş olan 13 yıllık süreçte Slovakya ve Slovenya’nın önemli birer atılım yaptıkları görülmektedir. Tüm diğer ülkelerde ise performans kayıpları söz konusudur. Türkiye’nin gösterdiği performans, incelenmiş olan 7 ülkenin performans sıralaması yönünden oldukça dikkat çekicidir. Türkiye biyoteknolojik gelişme performansı bakımından 1998 yılı itibariyle tüm diğer ülkelere göre daha avantajlı bir konumda iken, 2011 yılına gelindiğinde Slovakya ve Slovenya’nın gerisinde kalmıştır. Bu durum Türkiye’nin ulusal inovasyon sistemini yeniden gözden geçirmesi gereğini ortaya koymaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Biyoteknolojik Gelişme Performansı, Veri Zarflama Analizi, Türkiye, Doğu-Orta Avrupa Ülkeleri

JEL Sınıflandırması: O33, C44

COMPARATIVE BIOTECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS of THE EASTERN-CENTRAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WHICH ARE THE MEMBERS of OECD

Abstract

In this study, seven members of the OECD in East-Central European countries were examined the comparative performance of biotechnological development. For this purpose, data envelopment analysis method was used. 1998 and 2011 data were selected for comparative analysis. According to “CCR Model” and “Super Efficiency Model”, Slovakia and Slovenia has spurted for 13 years. In all other countries, there is a loss of performance. In terms of seven countries’ performance, Turkey’s is quietly remarkable. Turkey was in an advantageous position compared to all other countries in 1998. But It lagged behind Slovakia and Slovenia in 2011. This situation demonstrates that Turkey needs to reconsider the national innovation system.

Keywords: Biotechnological Development Performance, Data Envelopment Analysis, Turkey, East-Central European Countries

JEL Classification: O33, C44

Keywords

Biyoteknolojik Gelişme Performansı, Veri Zarflama Analizi, Türkiye, Doğu-Orta

COMPARATIVE BIOTECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS of THE EASTERN-CENTRAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WHICH ARE THE MEMBERS of OECD

Abstract

In this study, seven members of the OECD in East-Central European countries were examined the comparative performance of biotechnological development. For this purpose, data envelopment analysis method was used. 1998 and 2011 data were selected for comparative analysis. According to “CCR Model” and “Super Efficiency Model”, Slovakia and Slovenia has spurted for 13 years. In all other countries, there is a loss of performance. In terms of seven countries’ performance, Turkey’s is quietly remarkable. Turkey was in an advantageous position compared to all other countries in 1998. But It lagged behind Slovakia and Slovenia in 2011. This situation demonstrates that Turkey needs to reconsider the national innovation system

Keywords

Biotechnological Development Performance, Data Envelopment Analysis, Turkey, East

References

• ABUDUXIKE, G.- S. M. ALJUNID (2012), “Development of Health Biotechnology in Developing Countries: Can Private-Sector Players be the prime movers?”, Biotech Advances, Vol.30, No:6, s.1589-1601.
• ANDERSEN P. - N. C. PETERSEN (1993), “A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, Vol.39, No:10, s. 1261-1264.
• BARTHOLOMEW, S. (1997), “National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global System”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.28, No:2, s.241-266.
• CHARNES A., vd, (1978), “Measuring the Efficency of Decision Making Units”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.2, s.429-444.
• HO, R. J. - M. GIBALDI (2003), Biotechnology and Biopharmaceuticals Transforming proteins and Genes into Drugs, Wiley-Liss, ABD.
• HSIEH, C. R. - H. LOFGREN (2009), “Biopharmaceutical Innovation and Industrial Development in South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan”, Aust Health Rev. Vol.33, No.2, s. 246-247.
• KOÇAK, Habip - Ahmet Mete ÇİLİNGİRTÜRK (2008), “AB Ülkeleri Ve Aday Ülkelerin Kaynak Kullanımında Etkinliklerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi”, İs-tanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.40, No:2, s.166-175,
• MARSH D. (2003), “Does New Zealand have an innovation system for biotechnology?”, Technovation, Vol.3, s.103-112.
• MYTELKA, L. K. (2006), “Pathways and Policies to (Bio)Pharmaceutical Innovation Systems in Developing Countries”, Industry and Innovation, Vol.13, No:4, s.415-435.
• NIOSI, Jorge - Rosa M. YAGUE PERALES, “Growth Model in the Spanish Biotechnology Industry: A Comparative Analysis against the Leading Countries”, http://www.usc.es/congresos/xiirem/pdf/1.pdf, (01/05/2012).
• NIOSI, Jorge (2003), “Alliances are not enough. Explaining rapid growth in Canadian Biotechnology”, Research Policy, Vol.32, s.737-750.
• NIOSI, Jorge - S. E. REID (2007), “Biotechnology and Nanotechnology: Science-based Enabling Technologies as Windows of Opportunity for LDCs?”, World Development, Vol.35, No:3, s.426-438.
• NIOSI, Jorge (2011),“Complexity and Path Dependence in Biotechnology Innovation Systems. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.20, No:6, s.1803-1804
• NIOSI, Jorge, vd. (2013), “Biopharmaceuticals in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities”, Innovation and Development. Vol.3, No:1, s.19-36
• OECD (2006), Innovation in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology Comparing National Innovation Systems at the Sectoral Level, OECD Publishing, Paris.
• PRANGE, H. - R. KAISER (2004), “The Reconfiguration of National Innovation Systems- The Example of German Biotechnology”, Research Policy. Vol.33, No:3, s.395-408.
• QUACH, U., vd. (2006), “Biotechnology patenting takes off in developing countries”, Int. J. Biotechnology, Vol:8, No:1/2, s. 43-59.
• RAMANATHAN, R. (2003), An Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
• RASMUSSEN, B. (2010), Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry Creating and Capturing Value, Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham.
• RAWAT, H. (2008), Textbook of Biotechnology, Global Media, Jaipur.
• ROCK, F. (2010), Basic Concepts of Bio-Technology, Global Media, Chandigarh.
• SENKER J. - P. VAN ZWANENBERG (2001), “European Biotechnology Innovation Systems”, http://www.grenoble.inra.fr/Docs/pub/A2001/EBIS.pdf, (01/05/2012).
• SENKER J. vd. (2011), “Biotechnology in Central and Eastern Europe: An Overview of Performance and Policy Systems”, P.T. Robbins ve F.Huzair (eds), Exploring Central and Eastern Europe’s Biotechnology Landscape, The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, Heidelberg, s.13-36.
• SUBHASH C. R. (2004), Data Envelopment Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• ÖZDEN, Ünal H. (2008), “Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) İle Türkiye’deki Vakıf Üniversitelerinin Etkinliğinin Ölçülmesi”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakül-tesi Dergisi, 37 (2), ss.167-185.
• WONG, J. (2004),“From Learning to Creating: Biotechnology and the Postindustrial Developmental State in Korea”, Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol.4, No:3, s.491-517.
• WONG, J. vd. (2012), “In Search of an Innovative State: The Development of the State of the Biopharmaceutical Industry in Taiwan, South Korea and China”, Development and Change. Vol.43, No:2, s.481-503.
• ZUCKER, L., vd.(1998), “ Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprise”, American Economic Review, Vol.88, No:1, s.290-306.