Evrimsel Ekonomik Coğrafya Perspektifinden Türkiye’de Bölgelerin İlişkili Çeşitlilik Dinamiklerine Yönelik Ampirik Bir Analiz

Yıl 2023, , 616 - 659, 30.10.2023

Leventcan Gültekin , Nuri Yavan , Zühal Kurul

https://doi.org/10.33688/aucbd.1354132

Öz

İlişkililik ve bölgesel çeşitlenme konusu son 15 yılda ekonomik coğrafya ve bölgesel kalkınma alanında en çok tartışılan konuların başında gelmektedir. Bu iki kavram, bir yandan bölgelerin büyümesinin ve farklı ekonomik faaliyetlere çeşitlenmesinin kaynaklarını açıklarken, öbür yandan endüstriyel gelişmenin bölgelerde nasıl ortaya çıktığını ve zaman içerisinde nasıl değiştiğini ve dallandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu kapsamında çalışma evrimsel ekonomik coğrafya literatüründe ön plana çıkan İlişkililik konsepti bağlamında Türkiye’de illerin ilişkili çeşitlilik ve bölgesel çeşitlenme dinamiklerinin incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. 2012-2017 döneminde illere ait ürün bazında ihracat verilerinin kullanıldığı çalışmada entropi yöntemiyle ilişkili ve ilişkisiz çeşitlilik endeksleri hesaplanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre ilişkili ve ilişkisiz çeşitlilik değerleri bakımından iller arasında önemli heterojenlik gözlemlenmekle birlikte metropollerin hem ilişkili hem de ilişkisiz çeşitlilik bakımından yüksek değerlere sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca bölgelerin ihracat portföyünün çeşitlenme karakteristiği incelendiğinde, illerin ağırlıkla mevcut üretken yapısı ile ilişkili ürünlere doğru çeşitlenme eğilimi olduğuna yönelik ampirik bulgular elde edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, Türkiye’nin bölgesel kalkınma politikası ve akıllı uzmanlaşma stratejileri için önemli ipuçları sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Evrimsel Ekonomik Coğrafya, Bölgesel Çeşitlenme, İlişkili Çeşitlilik, İlişkisiz Çeşitlilik, Bölgesel Dallanma, Bölgesel Kalkınma

An Empirical Analysis on the Related Variety Dynamics of Regions in Turkey from the Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Geography

Öz

Relatedness and regional diversification have been among the most debated topics in economic geography and regional development over the last 15 years. These two concepts, on the one hand, explain the sources of the growth and diversification of regional economic activities, and on the other hand, they explain how industrial development emerges and how it changes and branching out spatially over time. This study aims to examine the related variety and regional diversification dynamics of provinces in Turkey in the context of the relatedness. Using provincial product-based export data for the period 2012-2017, the related and unrelated diversification indices based on the entropy measure are calculated for the export portfolio of provinces. The results of analysis reveal significant heterogeneity across provinces and prove that metropolitan cities have higher values in terms of both related and unrelated diversity. Additionally, the evidences of diversification analysis show that provinces tend to diversify towards products that are predominantly related to their current productive structure. The results provide important implications for Turkey's regional development policy and smart specialization strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Evolutionary Economic Geography, Regional Diversification, Related Variety, Unrelated Variety, Regional Branching, Regional Development

Kaynakça

• Abay, M., Akgüngör, S., & Akyıldız, Y.T. (2021). Innovation, Relatedness and Complexity in Turkey: A Regional Analysis for 1978-2017. Ekonomi-tek, 10(3), 135-171. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ekonomitek/issue/66126/978402.
• Aitchison, J. W. (1984). Coefficients of specialisation and diversification: employment in rural France. Area, 16(2), 121-129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20002040.
• Alshamsi, A., Pinheiro, F. L., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2018). Optimal diversification strategies in the networks of related products and of related research areas. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03740-9.
• Akgüngör, S., Kuştepeli, Y. & Gülcan, Y. (2013). An overview on industry clusters and the impact of related variety on regional performance in Turkey. European Review of Industrial Economics and Policy, 5, Erişim adresi: http://revel.unice.fr/eriep/index.html?id=3533
• Akgüngör, S. & Abay, M. (2023). Correlation of Relatedness and Complexity with Patent Applications: A Regional Analysis from Türkiye. Verimlilik Dergisi, 57(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1060389
• ANKARAKA (2019). Ankara Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi, Ankara Kalkınma Ajansı, Ankara.
• Attaran, M. (1986). Industrial diversity and economic performance in U.S. areas. The Annals of Regional Science, 20(2), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01287240
• Bahar, D., Hausmann, R., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2014). Neighbors and the evolution of the comparative advantage of nations: Evidence of international knowledge diffusion?. Journal of International Economics, 92(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.11.001
• Balassa, B. (1965). Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
• Balland, P.A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2019). Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1252–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900
• Bathelt, H., & Storper, M. (2023). Related Variety and Regional Development: A Critique. Economic Geography, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2023.2235050
• Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2009). Who’s right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Research Policy, 38(2), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.010
• BEBKA (2020). TR41 Bölgesi Yenilik ve Akıllı Uzmanlaşma Strateji Belgesi, Bursa Eskişehir Bilecik Kalkınma Ajansı, Bursa.
• Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
• Boschma, R., & Iammarino, S. (2009). Related Variety, Trade Linkages, and Regional Growth in Italy. Economic Geography, 85(3), 289–311. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01034.x
• Boschma, R., & Frenken, F. (2011). Technological Relatedness and regional branching. In H. Bathelt, M.P. Feldman & D.F. Kogler (Eds.), In Beyond Territory: Dynamic Geographies of Knowledge Creation, Diffusion , and Innovation (pp. 64–81). Routledge.
• Boschma, R., Minondo, A., & Navarro, M. (2012). Related variety and regional growth in Spain. Papers in Regional Science, 91(2), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00387.x
• Boschma, R., Minondo, A., & Navarro, M. (2013). The Emergence of New Industries at the Regional Level in Spain: A Proximity Approach Based on Product Relatedness: New industries and relatedness in regions. Economic Geography, 89(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01170.x.
• Boschma, R. (2014). Constructing regional advantage and smart specialization. Comparison of two European policy concepts. Italian Journal of Regional Science, 13(1), 51–68. https://doi. org/10.3280/SCRE2014-001004
• Boschma, R., & Capone, G. (2015). Institutions and diversification: Related versus unrelated diversification in a varieties of capitalism framework. Research Policy, 44(10), 1902–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.013
• Boschma, R., & Capone, G. (2016). Relatedness and diversification in the European Union (EU-27) and European Neighbourhood Policy countries. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(4), 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614729
• Boschma, R. (2017). Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: A research agenda. Regional Studies, 51(3), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767
• Boschma, R., Martín, V., & Minondo, A. (2017a). Neighbor regions as the source of new industries: Neighbour regions as the source of new industries. Papers in Regional Science, 96(2), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12215
• Boschma, R., Coenen, L., Frenken, K., & Truffer, B. (2017b). Towards a theory of regional diversification: Combining insights from Evolutionary Economic Geography and Transition Studies. Regional Studies, 51(1), 31–45. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1258460
• Caragliu, A., Dominics, L. & Groot, H.L.F. (2016). Both Marshall and Jacobs were Right!, Economic Geography, 92(1):87-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2015.1094371
• Castaldi, C., Frenken, K., & Los, B. (2015). Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Technological Breakthroughs: An analysis of US State-Level Patenting. Regional Studies, 49(5), 767–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.940305
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
• Combes, P-P. (2000). Economic Structure and Local Growth: France, 1984–1993. Journal of Urban Economics, 47(3), 329-355. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1999.2143
• Conkling, E. C. (1963). South Wales: A case study in industrial diversification. Economic Geography, 39(3), 258-272. https://doi.org/10.2307/142288
• Content, J., & Frenken, K. (2016). Related variety and economic development: A literature review. European Planning Studies, 24(12), 2097–2112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1246517
• Çınar, İ. T. (2023a). İlişkili–İlişkisiz Çeşitlilik ve Gelir Dağılımı: Türkiye’de Düzey-2 Bölgeleri için Bir Analiz. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 38(1), 233-252. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1114624
• Çınar, İ. T. (2023b). Regional development trap in Turkey: Can relatedness find a way out? Papers in Regional Science, 102(4), 817-850
• D’Adda, D., Iacobucci, D., & Palloni, R. (2020). Relatedness in the implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategy: A first empirical assessment. Papers in Regional Science, 99(3), 405–425. DOI: 10.1111/pirs.12492
• De Groot, H.; Poot, J.; and Smith, M. J. (2009). Agglomeration externalities, innovation and regional growth: Theoretical perspectives and meta-analysis. In Handbook of regional growth and development theories, R. Capello and P. Nijkamp (Eds.), (s. 256–81). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar
• De Groot, H.; Poot, J.; and Smith, M. J. (2016). Which Agglomeration Externalities Matter Most And Why?. Journal of Economic Surveys, 30(4), 756–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12112
• Duranton, G. & Puga, D., (2000). Diversity and specialisation in cities why, where and when does it matter?. Urban studies 37(3), 533–555. 10.1080/0042098002104
• Ejermo, O. (2005). Technological Diversity and Jacobs’ Externality Hypothesis Revisited. Growth and Change, 36(2), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2005.00273.x
• Eser, U. & Köse, S. (2005). Endüstriyel Yerelleşme ve Yoğunlaşma Açısından Türkiye Sanayii: İl İmalat Sanayiilerinin Analizi, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60(2), 97-139. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ausbf/issue/3218/44804
• Essleztbichler, J. (2015). Relatedness, industrial branching and technological cohesion in US metropolitan areas. Regional Studies, 49(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.806793
• European Commission. (2023a, 4 Mayıs). What we do. Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/what-we-do.
• European Commission. (2023b, 5 Haziran). Registered countries and regions in the S3 Platform. Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/where-we-are.
• Falcıoğlu, P. (2011). Location and determinants of productivity: The case of the manufacturing industry in Turkey. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 47(5), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.2753/REE1540-496X4706S506
• Falcıoğlu, P., & Akgüngör, S. (2008). Regional Specialization and Industrial Concentration Patterns in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry: An Assessment for the 1980–2000 Period. European Planning Studies, 16(2), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701814678
• Farhauer, O. & Kröll, A. (2012). Diversified specialisation—going one step beyond regional economics’ specialisation-diversification concept, Review of Regional Research, 32(1), 63-84. DOI:10.1007/s10037-011-0063-9
• Foray, D., Goddard, J., Morgan, K., Goenaga Beldarrain, X., Landabaso, M., Nauwelaers, C., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS 3). Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)-Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission.
• Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Regional Economic Growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400601120296
• Gezici Korten, F., Elburz, Z. (2018). Looking for Diversified Specialization in the Regions of Turkey. Megaron, 13(4), 623-635. DOI:10.5505/MEGARON.2018.36450
• Gratton, C. (1979). Industrial Diversification in New Towns. Urban Studies, 16(2), 157–164. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43082389
• Grillitsch, M., Asheim, B., & Trippl, M. (2018). Unrelated knowledge combinations: The unexplored potential for regional industrial path development. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(2), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy012.
• Glaeser, E., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126–1152. DOI: 10.1086/261856
• Hassink, R., Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2019). Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development. Regional Studies, 53(11), 1636-1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517700982
• Hazir, C. S., Bellone, F., & Gaglio, C. (2019). Local product space and firm-level churning in exported products. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(6), 1473–1496. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz021
• Haussman, R., Klinger, B. (2006). Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space, CID Working Paper No. 128, Harvard University.
• Henderson, V., Kuncoro, A., Turner, M. (1995). Industrial Development in Cities, Journal of Political Economy, 103(5), 1067-1090. DOI: 10.1086/262013
• Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabasi, A.L., & Hausmann, R. (2007). The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science, 317(5837), 482–487. DOI: 10.1126/science.1144581
• Isard, W. (1960). Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
• Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities, Vintage, New York.
• Jun, B., Alshamsi, A., Gao, J., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2020). Bilateral relatedness: Knowledge diffusion and the evolution of bilateral trade. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 30(2), 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-019-00638-7
• Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2013). İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması, Ankara.
• Kaygalak, İ. (2018). Türkiye İmalat Sanayisinde Yerelleşme ve Uzmanlaşma Eğilimleri. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education (IGGE), 38, 171-186. https://doi.org/10.32003/iggei.428136
• Kaygalak, İ. (2020). Mekân ve Ekonomi: Ekonomik Coğrafyada Yeni Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Kemeny, T., & Storper, M. (2015). Is Specialization Good for Regional Economic Development?. Regional Studies, 49(6), 1003-1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.899691
• Kogler, D. F., Rigby, D. L., & Tucker, I. (2013). Mapping knowledge space and technological relatedness in US cities. European Planning Studies, 21(9), 1374-1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.755832
• Lo Turco, A., & Maggioni, D. (2019). Local discoveries and technological relatedness: the role of MNEs, imports and domestic capabilities. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(5), 1077-1098. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lby060
• MARKA (2014). Doğu Marmara Akıllı İhtisaslaşma İçin Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi, Doğu Marmara Kalkınma Ajansı, Kocaeli.
• MacKinnon, D., Dawley, S., Pike, A., & Cumbers, A. (2019). Rethinking path creation: A geographical political economy approach. Economic geography, 95(2), 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2018.1498294
• Mameli, F., Faggian, A., & McCann, P. (2008). Employment Growth in Italian Local Labour Systems: Issues of Model Specification and Sectoral Aggregation. Spatial Economic Analysis, 3(3), 343-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421770802353030
• Marshall, J. U. (1975). City size, economic diversity, and functional type: the Canadian case. Economic Geography, 51(1), 37-49. https://doi.org/10.2307/142701
• Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395-437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl012
• Martin, R. (2015). Rebalancing the spatial economy: the challenge for regional theory. Territory, Politics, Governance, 3(3), 235-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2015.1064825
• Martin, R. (2016). Divergent urban economic development: Reflections on a tale of two cities. Regional Studies, 50(9), 1623-1627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1166718
• Martin, R., Sunley, P., Tyler, P., & Gardiner, B. (2016). Divergent cities in post-industrial Britain. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 9(2), 269-299. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsw005
• McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769
• Montresor, S., & Quatraro, F. (2020). Green technologies and Smart Specialisation Strategies: A European patent-based analysis of the intertwining of technological relatedness and key enabling technologies. Regional Studies, 54(10), 1354–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1648784
• Neffke, F., Henning, M., & Boschma, R. (2011). How Do Regions Diversify over Time? Industry Relatedness and the Development of New Growth Paths in Regions. Economic Geography, 87(3), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01121.x
• Neffke, F., & Henning, M. (2013). Skill relatedness and firm diversification: Skill Relatedness and Firm Diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2014
• Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199241002.001.0001
• Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.003
• Pinheiro, F. L., Hartmann, D., Boschma, R., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2021). The time and frequency of unrelated diversification. Research Policy, 51(8), 104323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104323
• Parr, J. B. (1965). Specialization, diversification and regional development. The Professional Geographer, 17(6), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1965.021_h.x
• Puga, D. (2010). The Magnitude and Causes Of Agglomeratıon Economies. Journal of Regional Science, 50(1), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00657.x
• Rodgers, A. (1957). Some aspects of industrial diversification in the United States. Economic Geography, 33(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/142564
• Rosenthal, S. S., Strange, W. C. (2004). Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In J. V. Henderson, J. F. Thisse (Ed.) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics (pp. 2119–2171). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Rumelt, R.P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Scott, A. J. (1988). New industrial spaces: Flexible production organization and regional development in North America and Western Europe. London: Pion.
• Storper, M. & Walker, R. (1989). The capitalist imperative: territory, technology and industrial growth. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
• Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the city: How economics, institutions, social interaction, and politics shape development. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Storper, M., Kemeny, T., Makarem, N. P., & Osman, T. (2016). On specialization, divergence and evolution: a brief response to Ron Martin’s review. Regional Studies, 50(9), 1628-1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1183975
• Trippl, M., Grillitsch, M., & Isaksen, A. (2018). Exogenous sources of regional industrial change: Attraction and absorption of non-local knowledge for new path development. Progress in human geography, 42(5), 687-705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517700982
• TÜİK (2022). İllere Göre Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri, Mikro Veri. TÜİK: Ankara.
• Xiao, J., Boschma, R., & Andersson, M. (2018). Industrial diversification in Europe: The differentiated role of relatedness. Economic Geography, 94(5), 514-549.
• van der Panne, G. (2004). Agglomeration externalities: Marshall versus Jacobs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0232-x
• Van Oort, F. (2015). Unity in variety? Agglomeration economics beyond the specialization-diversity controversy. Karlsson C, Andersson M, Norman T (eds) Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Economic Geography içinde, (s. 259-271), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• van Oort, F., de Geus, S., & Dogaru, T. (2015). Related Variety and Regional Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of European Urban Regions. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1110–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.905003
• Wasylenko, M. J., & Erickson, R. A. (1978). On Measuring Economic Diversification: Comment. Land Economics, 54(1), 106-109. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146209
• Wixe, S., & Andersson, M. (2016). Which types of relatedness matter in regional growth? Industry, occupation and education. Regional Studies, 51(4), 523-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1112369
• Whittle, A., & Kogler, D. F. (2019). Related to what? Reviewing the literature on technological relatedness: Where we are now and where can we go? Papers in Regional Science, 99(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12481
• Yaman, H. & Sungur, O. (2021). Düzey2 Bölgelerinin İmalat Sanayinde Sektörel Çeşitlilik Eğilimleri: 2010-2019 Dönemi. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 301-311. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/asead/issue/64362/937861
• Yavan, N. (2006). Türkiye’de Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Lokasyon Seçimi. İstanbul: İktisadi Araştırmalar Vakfı Yayınları.
• Yavan, N., (2013). Küresel Kriz Sonrası Bölgesel Kalkınma Politikalarında Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dünya Bankası Avrupa Birliği ve OECD nin Yaklaşımları . Coğrafyacılar Derneği Yıllık Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı (s. 520-534). Balıkesir, Türkiye.
• Yavan, N. & Şahin, M.T. (2014) Türkiye Sanayinde Bölgesel Yoğunlaşma ve Çeşitlenmenin Farklı İndekslerle Analizi, TÜCAUM VIII. Coğrafya Sempozyumu 2014, 23-24 Ekim 2014, TÜCAUM, Ankara
• Yavan, N., Yılmaz, Ş. ve Aniç, A. (2022) Institutional Context and Territorial Policy: Analysing the New Regional Policy and Regional Development Agencies in Turkey. L. Storti, G. Urso and N. Reid, (Eds) Economies, Institutions, and Territories: Dissecting Nexuses in a Changing World içinde, s. 135-163, London: Routledge.
• Yılmaz, Ş. (2021). Smart Specialisation Strategies in Turkey: Consistencies, Deviations and Challenges. MA Dissertation. Newcastle University (CURDS).
• Zhu, S., He, C., & Zhou, Y. (2017). How to jump further and catch up? Path-breaking in an uneven industry space. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(3), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbw047