Ar-Ge Harcamalarının Bilimsel Makale Sayısına Etkisi: G7 Ülkeleri Örneği

Öz

Üniversiteler, her türden Ar-Ge çalışmalarının yapıldığı ve akademik eğitimlerin verildiği, kendisine has bir misyonları bulunan, sanayi için bilgi ve insan kaynağının üretildiği kurumsal yapılardır. Rekabetin küresel olarak artmasıyla beraber, bilimsel temellere dayanan bilginin inovasyon faaliyetlerinde daha etkin bir rol oynaması ve bilimsel araştırmalara yapılan hükümet desteklerinin sağlanmasının yanında, geçtiğimiz son 25 yıl içerisinde üniversite-sanayi işbirliği uygulamaları büyük ölçüde artış göstermiştir ve son 5-10 yıl içerisinde de söz konusu işbirliği modelleri radikal değişimlere uğramıştır. Diğer taraftan Ar-Ge harcamalarında meydana gelen artış da işbirliğinin hızlanmasını sağlamıştır. Akademisyenler açısından, üretilen bilginin ve tekniklerin uygulanması, araştırma fonlarıyla yeni teknolojilerin yaratılması, laboratuvarların etkin kullanılması, bilgi kaynaklarının ve teknoloji merkezlerinin kurulması sonucundaki kazanımlar, yayın sayısının artmasına ve performansın önemli ölçüde olumlu yönde gelişmesine neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı gelişmiş ülke grubu G7 ülkelerinde Ar-Ge harcamalarının üretilen makale sayısına etkisini panel eşbütünleşme analizi yardımıyla belirlemektir. Analiz sonucunda, Ar-Ge harcamalarının makale sayısı üzerinde pozitif yönde istatistik anlamlı etkisi olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca Ar-Ge harcamalarından makale sayısına doğru tek yönlü nedensellik elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ar-Ge Harcamaları
• İnovasyon Göstergeleri
• Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi

The Effect of R&D Expenditures on the Number of Scientific Articles: A Case of G7 Countries

Öz

Universities are institutional structures where all kinds of R&D studies are carried out and academic training is given, have a unique mission, and where knowledge and human resources for the industry are produced. With the increase of competition globally, in addition to the more effective role of scientific-based knowledge in innovation activities and the provision of government support to scientific research, university-industry cooperation practices have increased significantly in the last 25 years and in the last 5-10 years cooperation models have undergone radical changes. On the other hand, the increase in R&D expenditures also accelerated the cooperation. In terms of academics, the application of the knowledge and techniques produced, the creation of new technologies with research funds, the effective use of laboratories, the establishment of information resources and technology centers have led to an increase in the number of publications and a significant improvement in performance. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of R&D expenditures on the number of articles produced in the developed country group G7 countries with the help of panel cointegration analysis. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that R&D expenditures had a statistically significant positive effect on the number of articles. In addition, unidirectional causality was obtained from R&D expenditures to the number of articles.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• R&D Expenditures
• Innovation Indicators
• Panel Cointegration Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98-108.
2. Alshehri, A., Gutub, S. A., Ebrahim, M. A., Shafeek, H., Soliman, F. M. & Abdel-Aziz, M. H. (2016). Integration between industry and university: case stud. Education For Chemical Engineers, 14(1), 24-34.
3. Bonecki, M. (2016). Open innovation model within public research and innovation programmes. Public Philosphy & Democratic Education, 5(2) 171-188.
4. Bruneel, J, d’Este, P, Salter, A (2010) Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.
5. Breusch, T. S. & Pegan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
6. Choia, J., & Lee, J. (2017). Repairing the R&D market failure: Public R&D subsidy and the composition of private R&D. Researh Policy, 46(1),1465-1478.
7. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(1), 249-272.
8. D’Este, P. & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? the entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.

9. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
10. Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of ınnovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
11. Feng, H. I., Chen, C. S., Wang, C. H., & Chiang, H. C. (2012). The role of intellectual capital and university technology transfer offices in university-based technology transfer. Service Industries Journal,32(6), 899-917.
12. Galan-Muros, V., Van der Sijde, P. & Grioenwegen, P. (2017). Nurture over Nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business?. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 184-205.
13. Guimon, J. (2013). Promoting university-industry collaboration in developing countries. The innovation policy platform. The Innovation Policy Platform, 1(3), 1-12.
14. Gurmu, S. & Pérez-Sebastián, F. (2008). Patents, R&D and lag effects: evidence from flexible methods for count panel data on manufacturing firms. Empirical Economics, 35(3), 507-526.
15. Hulten, D. G. (2009). University-industry technology transfer: who needs TTOs?,International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 9(1-2), 40-52.
16. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
17. Kaufmann, A. & Todtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the ımportance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30(5), 791-804.
18. Koschatzky, K. & Stahlecker, T. (2010). New forms of strategic research collaboration between firms and universities in the german research system. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 9(1), 94-110.
19. Leydesdorff, L. (2010). The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 367-417.
20. Maddala, G. S. & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Special Issue, 61(1), 631-652.
21. McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2017). University business models in disequilibrium-engaging industry and end users within university technology transfer processes. R&D Management, 47(3), 458-472.
22. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Papers, no.1233, 255–260.
23. Pesaran, M. H. (2007), A Simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
24. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah A., & Yamagata T. (2008). A bias-adjusted lm test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11 (1), 105-127.
25. Pesaran, M. H. & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (1), 50-93.
26. Prodan, I. (2005). Influence of research and development expenditures on number of patent applications: selected case studies in OECD countries and central Europe. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 5(4), 5-22.
27. Ranga, M. & Etzkowitz, H. (2015). Triple helix systems: an analytical framework for ınnovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Exchange, (pp.117-158), New York: Routledge.
28. Roulla, H. (2002). Globalization, university transformation and economic regeneration: a UK case study of public/private sector partnership. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(3), 204-218.
29. Sanyal, S. & Vancauteren, M. (2013). Patents and r&d at the firm level: a panel data analysis applied to the dutch pharmaceutical sector. 35th DRUID Celebration Conference Proceeding Book,1-17, Barcelona.
30. Sezgin, F. H. (2017). Ar-Ge harcamalarının büyüme ile ilişkisinin analizi: gelişmiş ve gelişmekte ülkeler karşılaştırması. 3rdSCF International Conference on “Economic and Social Impacts of Globalization” Bildiriler Kitabı, 60-72, Antalya.
31. Sezgin, F. H. ve Yazıcı, B. E. (2016). Analysis of the relationship between R&D expenditure and economic growth: a case of brimc countries.Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Emprical Economics Journal, 4(1), 1-16.
32. Schartinger, D., Schibany, A. & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: empirical evidence for Austria. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2 (3), 255-268.
33. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.
34. Siddiqi, A., & Anadon, L. D. (2016). Science and technology development in the gulf states: economic diversification through regional collaboration, Berlin: Gerlach Press. Slotte, V. &Tynjälä, P. (2003). Industry-university collaboration for continuing professional development. Journal of Education and Work, 16(4), 445-464.
35. Westerlund, J. & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economic Letters. 97(3), 185-190.
36. Veer, T. & Jell, F. (2012). Contributing to markets for technology?a comparison of patent filing motives of individual inventors, small companies and universities. Technovation, 32(1), 513-522.
37. Vogel, A. (2020). Transnational ınstitutions of higher education and their contribution to the national innovation system: the case of the german university of technology in oman. In Transnational German Education And Comparative Education Systems (pp.155-172), Cham: Springer.