BÖLGESEL GİRİŞİMCİLİĞİN EKONOMİK VE SOSYAL BELİRLEYİCİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2009-2022 yılları arasında Türkiye'nin İBBS1 bölgelerinde ekonomik ve sosyal faktörlerin girişimcilik faaliyetleri üzerindeki uzun vadeli etkilerini araştırmaktadır. Araştırma, Tamamen Değiştirilmiş En Küçük Kareler (FMOLS) metodolojisini kullanarak bölgesel GSYH büyüme oranı, gelir eşitsizliği, işsizlik oranı, kamu eğitim harcamaları ve erken okul terk oranları arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektedir. Sonuçlar, GSYİH büyümesi ve gelir eşitsizliğinin girişimcilik faaliyetleri üzerinde olumlu bir etkisi olduğunu ortaya koyarken, işsizlik ve kamu eğitim harcamaları olumsuz etkiler göstermektedir. Özellikle, okulu erken bırakanlar girişimcilik üzerinde sınırlı ancak olumlu bir etki sergilemektedir. Çalışma, girişimciliği gelir eşitsizliği, eğitim ve işsizlik gibi faktörler aracılığıyla daha geniş sosyo-ekonomik boyutlarla açık bir şekilde ilişkilendirmektedir. Bu bulgular, girişimcilik dinamiklerinin şekillenmesinde ekonomik ve sosyal faktörlerin çok yönlü rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, bölgesel farklılıkları ele alarak ve girişimciliği daha geniş sosyo-ekonomik boyutlarla ilişkilendirerek, girişimcilik ve ekonomik kalkınma üzerine yapılan uluslararası çalışmalarla uyum sağlayarak literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır. Pratik öneriler arasında bölgesel mali destek mekanizmalarının güçlendirilmesi, gelir dağılımında eşitliğin teşvik edilmesi ve sürdürülebilir kalkınmayı teşvik etmek için girişimcilik eğitiminin ulusal müfredata entegre edilmesi yer almaktadır. Bu kapsamlı analiz, Türkiye'nin bölgesel girişimcilik ortamına dair içgörüler sunmanın yanı sıra ekonomik büyüme ile sosyal eşitliği dengelemeyi amaçlayan politika yapıcılar için de bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Girişimcilik
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Gelir Eşitsizliği
• Sosyal Faktörler
• Bölgesel Kalkınma

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF REGIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: EVIDENCE FROM TURKIYE

Öz

This study examines the long-term effects of economic and social factors affecting entrepreneurial activities across Türkiye’s NUTS1 regions between 2009 and 2022. Using the Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) methodology, the relationships among regional GDP growth, income inequality, unemployment rates, public education expenditures and early school leaving rates are analyzed. The results show that GDP growth and income inequality have a positive impact on entrepreneurial activities, whereas unemployment rate and public education expenditures have negative effects. Early school leaving rate is found to have a limited but positive effect on entrepreneurship. It explicitly links entrepreneurship to broader socio-economic dimensions, highlighting how factors such as income inequality, education, and unemployment shape entrepreneurial dynamics across regions. The findings reveal that economic and social factors play a multidimensional role in shaping entrepreneurship dynamics. By incorporating regional disparities and linking entrepreneurship with broader socio-economic dimensions, the study aligns with international literature on entrepreneurship and economic development. It also provides practical recommendations for policymakers, such as developing strategies to promote income equality, strengthening regional financial support mechanisms, and integrating entrepreneurship education into the national curriculum to foster sustainable development. This comprehensive analysis offers both insight into Turkey’s regional entrepreneurship landscape and a framework for policymakers aiming to balance economic growth with social equity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Entrepreneurship
• Economic Growth
• Income Inequality
• Social Factors
• Regional Development

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2008). The role of institutions in economic development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.3
2. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9307-2
3. Amaghouss, J., & Ibourk, A. (2013). Entrepreneurial activities, innovation and economic growth: The role of institutional environment in OECD countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(3), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.708612
4. Aparicio, S., Urbano, D., & Audretsch, D. B. (2016). Institutional factors, opportunity entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4906–4912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.011
5. Apaydın, Ş. (2018). Entrepreneurship, innovation and business cycles in Turkey. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 13(59), 1133 - 1142.
6. Arslan, M., & Tatlıdil, H. (2012). Türkiye’de girişimcilik ve kültürel dinamikler: Ampirik bir değerlendirme. Kültür Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 5(3), 78–94.
7. Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, R. (2004). A model of the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533004773563485
8. Borah, A. J., & Bhowal, A. (2023). The Economics of Entrepreneurship: Drivers, Impacts, and Policy Implications. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 20(2), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.9734/SAJSSE/2023/v20i2703

9. Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), Advances in econometrics: Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, 15, 161–178, Amsterdam: JAI Press.
10. Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2005). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research, 437–471, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24519-7_20
11. Demirtaş, C. (2020). Sosyal girişimcilik ile ekonomik büyüle ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri ve Türkiye üzerine ampirik bir analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(3), 45–62.
12. Doran, J., McCarthy, N., & O’Connor, M. (2018). The role of entrepreneurship in stimulating economic growth in developed and developing countries. World Development, 102, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.09.013
13. Emhan, A. (2011). The effects of terror and violence on entrepreneurs in the Eastern and South-Eastern regions of Turkey: A field research. Sosyoekonomi, 16(16). https://doi.org/10.17233/se.13298
14. EuroStat (2024). Database, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database, retrieved date: [08.12.2024].
15. Gu, W., Pan, H., Hu, Z., & Liu, Z. (2022). The triple bottom line of sustainable entrepreneurship and economic policy uncertainty: An empirical evidence from 22 countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137758
16. Gülmez, A., & Yardımcıoğlu, F. (2012). OECD ülkelerinde Ar-Ge harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Panel eşbütünleşme ve panel nedensellik analizi (1990-2010). Maliye Dergisi, 163(1), 335–353.
17. Gür, B. (2017). Girişimcilik endeksinin büyümeye etkisi: Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler karşılaştırması. Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Empirical Economics Journal, 7(1), 99–113.
18. Hoselitz, B. F. (1952). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 12(1), 97–110.
19. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
20. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2
21. Karagöz, K. (2022). Impact of entrepreneurship on employment: An econometric investigation for Turkey. Sosyal Bilimler Akademi Dergisi, 5(2), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.38004/sobad.1186270
22. Kaya, Z., & Aydoğdu, M. (2021). Türkiye’de girişimcilik politikalarının ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi. İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, 6(4), 35–50.
23. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press.
24. Méndez-Picazo, M.-T., Galindo-Martín, M. A., & Castano-Martinez, M.S. (2021). Effects of sociocultural and economic factors on social entrepreneurship and sustainable development. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.001
25. Neumann, T. (2021). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic, social and environmental welfare and its determinants: a systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 71(3), 553-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00193-7
26. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 653–670.
27. Pedroni, P. (2000). Fully-modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 93–130.
28. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Harvard University Press.
29. Sipahi D. E., & Artantaş, E. (2023). Exploring the link between social work, entrepreneurial leadership, social embeddedness, social entrepreneurship and firm performance: a case of SMES owned by Chinese ethnic community in Turkey. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 17(3), 684-707. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-11-2021-0162
30. Stoica, O., Roman, A., & Rusu, V. D. (2020). The nexus between entrepreneurship and economic growth: A comparative analysis on groups of countries. Sustainability, 12(3), 1186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031186
31. Şahin, F., & Akça, M. (2019). Türkiye’de girişimcilik ekosistemi: Kurumsal faktörler ve sosyal sermaye. Türk Girişimcilik ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 88–104.
32. Tunali, C. B., & Sener, S. (2019). The determinants of entrepreneurship in Turkey. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 648-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.099
33. Turgut, S. & Akgun, A. A. (2015). The causality between entrepreneurial activities and regional economic growth: Case of Turkey. 55th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "World Renaissance: Changing roles for people and places", 25-28 August 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, European Regional Science Association (ERSA), Louvain-la-Neuve
34. TurkStat (2024), Data portal for statistics, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/, retrieved data: [07.12.2024].
35. Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? Small Business Economics, 53(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0038-0
36. Van Rijn, M., Raab, J., Roosma, F., & Achterberg, P. (2024). To prove and improve: An empirical study on why social entrepreneurs measure their social impact. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 15(2), 494-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.1975797
37. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008063200484
38. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2000-1