İnovasyonun Coğrafyası: Bilgi Türleri ile Bilgi Yayılma Kanalları Arasındaki Yapısal İlişkiler

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 1 - 24, 30.04.2019

Fatih Altuğ

Öz

Ekonomik büyüme ve kalkınmanın anahtarı olan inovasyonun en önemli girdisi bilgidir. Bir üretim faktörü olarak bilgi diğer üretim faktörlerinin verimliliğini artırmakta, yeni ürün ve hizmetlerin geliştirilmesini sağlamakta ve inovasyon yoluyla ekonomik bir çıktıya dönüşmektedir. Böylece rekabetçi bir çağda belirsizliklerle dolu piyasa koşullarında bölgelerin ve firmaların risklerini azaltmaktadır. Bölgelerin ve firmaların rekabetçi piyasa koşullarındaki bu belirsizlikleri azaltmasının gereği olarak bilgiye erişim temel koşul haline gelmiştir. Farklı sektörlerde faaliyet gösteren firmaların inovasyon süreçlerinde kullandıkları bilginin türü de sektörlerin yapısına göre değişmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı ekonomik coğrafya literatüründe inovasyonun temel girdisi olarak görülen bilginin türlerini ve bu türlerin hangi kanallar yoluyla yayılma gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktır. Teorik ve kavramsal literatürün değerlendirilmesi sonucunda bilgi türlerinin yayılma kanalları bilginin yapısal özellikleri tarafından şekillendirilmektedir. Bilgi türleri ile bilginin yayılma kanalları arasında birbirini karşılıklı olarak etkileyen yapısal bir ilişki vardır. Bilgi yapısı geliştikçe bilginin yayılma kanalları da gelişmektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ekonomik Coğrafya, İnovasyon, Bilgi, Bilgi Türleri, Bilgi Yayılımı

Innovation geography: structural relationships between knowledge diffusion channels with types of knowledge

Öz

The most important input  of innovation, which is the key to economic growth and development, is knowledge. As a production factor, knowledge increases the productivity of other production factors, enables the development of new products and services, and turns into economic output through innovation. Thus, in a competitive era, it reduces the risks of regions and firms in uncertain market conditions. Access to information has become a prerequisite for the reduction of these uncertainties of regions and firms in competitive market conditions. The forms of knowledge  that firms operating in different sectors of knowledge use in the process of innovation has change according to the structure of the sectors. The aim of the study in this context is to reveal the types of knowledge seen as the basic input of innovation in economic geography literature and the channels through which these types are spread. As a result of the theoretical and conceptual literature review, the diffusion channels of information types are shaped by the structural characteristics of knowledge. There is a structural relationship between knowledge types and knowledge propagation channels that interact with each other. As the knowledge structure develops, the channels of propagation of knowledge are also evolving.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Economic Geography, Innovation, Knowledge, Knowledge Types, Knowledge Diffusion

Kaynakça

• Amin, A., Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities, and Communities, New York: Oxford University.
• Asheim, B., Coenen, L. (2005a). Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Systems: Comparing Nordic Clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173–1190. doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013.
• Asheim, B., Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., Vang, J. (2005b). Regional Innovation System Policy: A Knowledge-Based Approach. CIRCLE (Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy) Working Paper, 13. 10.12.2014 tarihinde https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lars_Coenen/publication/4816274_Regional_ Innovation_System_ Policy_a_Knowledge-based_Approach/links/02bfe50cedeab6ea66000000.pdf.
• Asheim, B., Gertler, M., S. (2005). The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems, Jan Fagerberg, David C. Movery, Richard R. Nelson. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. içinde (291-318). NewYork: Oxford University Press.
• Asheim, B.; Boschma, R.; Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differetiated knowledge bases, Regional Studies, 45 (7), 893-904.
• Asheim, B., Coenen, L., Vang, J. (2007). Face-to-Face, Buzz and Knowledge Bases: Socio-Spatial Implications for Learning and Innovation Policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25, 655-670. doi.org/10.1068/c0648.
• Bathelt, H., Glücker, J. (2003). Toward a Relational Economic Geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 3 (2), 117-144. doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.2.117.
• Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., Maskell P. (2004). Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28 (1), 31-56. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.
• Bravo, I. B., (2007). Antikçağ’da Varlık ve Bilgi Problemleri Üzerine. Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4, 43-58. ISSN 2618-5784.
• Broekel, T., Boschma, R. (2011). Aviation, Space or Aerospace? Exploring the Knowledge Networks of Two Industries in the Nederlands. European Planning Studies, 19 (7), 1205-1227. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.573133.
• Brusoni, S., Marsili, O., Salter, A. (2005). The Role of Codified Sources of Knowledge in Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Dutch Manufacturing. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15, 211-231. doi: 10.1007/s00191-005-0244-1.
• Cohendet, P., Steinmuller, W., E. (2000). Codification of Knowledge: A Conceptual and Empirical Exploration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9 (2), 195-209. doi.org/10.1093/icc/9.2.195.
• Cowan, R., David, P.A., Foray, D. (2000). The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9 (2), 211-253. doi.org/10.1093/icc/9.2.211.
• Çalık, D., Çınar, Ö. P. (2009). Geçmişten Günümüze Bilgi Yaklaşımları Bilgi Toplumu ve İnternet, XIV. Türkiye’de İnternet Konferansı Bildirileri, içinde (77-88), İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi.
• Çüçen, A. (2012). Bilim Felsefesine Giriş (1. Baskı). Ankara: Sentez.
• Droege, S., B., Hoobler, J., M. (2003). Employee Turnover and Tacit Knowledge Diffusion: A Network Perspective. Journal of Managerial, 15 (1), 50-64.
• Feldman, M. P., Kogler, D. F. (2010). Stylized Facts in the Geography of Innovation. The Handbook of Economics of Innovation, 1, 381-404. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01008-7.
• Foray, D., Lundvall, B. (1998). The Knowledge-Based Economy: From The Economics of Knowledge to the Learning Economy. Dale Neef, G Anthony Siesfeld, Jacquelyn Cefola (Ed.), The Economic Impact of Knowledge, içinde (115-121). Boston: Butterworth.
• Gertler, M. (2008). Buzz without Being There? Communities of Practice in Context. Ash Amin, Joanne Roberts (Ed.) Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization, içinde (203-227). London: Oxford University Publication.
• Gertler, M., S. (2003). Tacit Knowledge and the Economic Geography of Context or the Undefinable Tacitness of Being (There). Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 75-99. doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.75.
• Grillitsch, M., Trippl, M. (2014). Combining Knowledge from Different Sources, Channels and Geographical Scales. European Planning Studies, 22 (11), 2305-2325. doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.835793.
• Grimaldi, R., Torrisi, S. (2001). Codified-Tacit and General-Specific Knowledge in The Division of Labour Among firms A Study of the Software Industry. Research Policy, 30, 1425–1442. doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00160-3.
• Holste, J. S., Fields, D. (2010). Trust and Tacit Knowledge Sharing and Use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14 (1), 128-140. doi: 10.1108/13673271011015615. Howells, J. (2002). Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography. Urban Studies, 39 (5-6), 871-884. doi: 10.1080/0042098022012835 4.
• Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680-693. doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
• Jonsson, O., (2002). Innovation Processes and Proximity: The Case of IDEON Firms in Lund, Sweden. European Plannig Studies, 10 (6), 705-722. doi: 10.1080/0965431022000003771.
• Leonard, D., Sensiper, S. (1998). The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation. California Management Review, 40 (3), 112-132. doi.org/10.2307/41165946.
• Liu, J., Chaminade, C., Asheim, B. (2013). The Geography and Structure of Global Innovation Networks: A Knowledge Base Perspective. European Planning Studies, 21(9), 1456-1473. doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.755842.
• Lundvall, B.Ä., Johnson, B. (1994). The Learning Economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1 (2), 23-42. doi.org/10.1080/136 62719400000002.
• Manniche, J. (2012). Combinational Knowledge Dynamics: On the Usefulness of the Differentiated Knowledge Bases Model. European Planing Studies, 20 (11), 1823-1841. doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.723423.
• Martin, R. (2012a). Measuring Knowledge Bases in Swedish Regions. European Planning Studies, 20(9), 1569-1582. doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.708022.
• Martin, R. (2012b). Knowledge Bases and The Geography of Innovation, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Lund University Middelanden Fran Institutionen För Kulturgeografi och Ekonomisk Geografi Avhandlingar, Sweden.
• Martin, R., Moodysson, J. (2011). Comparing Knowledge Bases: On The Geography and Organization of Knowledge Sourcing in the Regional Innovation System of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20 (2), 170-187. doi: 10.1177/0969776411427326.
• Maskell, P., Malmberg, A. (1999). Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 167-185. doi.org/10.1093/cje/23.2.167.
• Matney, S., Brewster, P. J., Sward, K. A., Cloyes, K. G., Staggers, N. (2011). Philosophical Approaches to the Nursing Informatics Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom Framework. Advances in Nursing Science, 34 (1), 6-18. doi: 10.1097/ANS.0b013e3182071813.
• Mattes, J. (2012). Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-Spatial Factors. Regional Studies, 46 (8),1085–1099. doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.552493.
• Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Technical Change, Cambridge: Beknap Harvard.
• Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5 (1), 14-38. doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.1.14.
• Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., (1995). The Knowledge Creation Company: How Japanesse Companies Create The Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York. Oerlemans, L., Marius M. (2005). Do Organizational and Spatial Proximity Impact on Firm Performance? Regional Studies, 39 (1), 89-104. DOI: 10.1080/0034340052000320896.
• Özelçi Eceral, T. (2005). Bölgesel/Yerel Ekonomik Kalkınma Kuramlarının Tarihsel Süreç İçerisindeki Gelişimleri. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 16 (55), 89-106.
• Pastor, R., Sipikal, M., Rehak, S. (2013). Knowledege Creation an Knowledge Acquisition in the Software Industry in Slonakia: The Case Study of Kosice Region. Regional Sicence Policy & Practice, 5, 401-416. doi:10.1111/rsp3.12018.
• Pears, D. (1971). What is Knowledge, New York: Harper & Row.
• Polanyi, M. (1966). Tacit Dimension, Chicago: The University of Chicago.
• Polanyi, M. (1967). Tacit Dimension, New York: Garden City.
• Ranucci, A. R., Souder, D. (2015). Facilitating Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Routine Compatibility, Trustworthiness, and Integration in M & As. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19 (2), 257 -276. doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0260.
• Reiffenstein, T. (2006). Codification, Patents and the Geography of Knowledge Transfer in the Electronic Musical Instrument Industry. Canadian Geographer, 50 (3), 298-318. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2006.00143.x.
• Rowley, J. (2007). The Wisdom Hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW Hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33 (2), 163-180. doi: 10.1177/0165551506070706. Scott, A. (2006). Geography and Economy, London: Clarendon Press
• Stover, M. (2004). Making Tacit Knowledge Explicit: The Ready Reference Database as Codified Knowledge. Reference Services Review, 32 (2), 164-173. doi: 10.1108/00907320410537685.
• Tekeli, İ. (2002). Bilgi Toplumuna Geçerken Farklılaşan Bilgiye İlişkin Kavram Alanı Üzerine Saptamalar, İ. Tekeli vd. (Der.) Bilgi Toplumuna Geçiş Sorunsallar/Görüşler/ Yorumlar/Eleştiriler ve Tartışmalar, Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
• Tekeli, İ. (2010). Mekânsal ve Toplumsal Olanın Bilgibilimi Yazıları, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
• Tether, B., S., Cher Li, vd., (2012). Knowledge-Bases, Places, Spatial Configurations and the Performance of Knowledge-Intensive Professional Service Firm. Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 969-1001. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs015.
• Uçak, N. Ö. (2010). Bilgi: Çok Yüzlü Bir Kavram. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 24 (4), 705-722.
• Vissers, G., Dankbaar, B. (2013). Knowledge and Proximity. European Planning Studies, 21 (5), 700-721. doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.734459. Yeund, W. H. (2005). Rethinking Relational Economic Geography. Transactions of The Institute of British Geographers, 30 (1), 37-51. doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00150.x.
• Zander, U., Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and The Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test. Organization Science, 6 (1), 76-92. doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.76.