REDEFINING SPACE IN PRODUCTION NETWORKS: NETWORK CENTRALITY AND R&D ACTIVITIES IN ANKARA DEFENCE AND AVIATION CLUSTER

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 2, 17 - 33, 19.06.2017

Bilge Armatlı Köroğlu Tanyel Özelçi Eceral

Öz

The main motivation behind the cluster approach in the 1990s is to improve the innovation capacity by means of production networks. This paper presents the findings on production networks and innovation activities in Ankara defence and aviation cluster. The network maps show that, inclusion/exclusion to the network and centrality in the network has taken the place of spatial proximity and geographical location. Moreover, the results of the analysis could not confirm the relation between subcontracting networks and R&D activities, but have confirmed the relation between service networks and R&D activities. These outcomes may guide the sector and cluster development strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Defence and aviation industry, cluster, production networks, R&D activities, Ankara

Kaynakça

• Ferretti, M. and Parmentola, A. “Leading Firms in Technology Clusters: The Role Of Alenia Aeronautica in The Campania Aircraft Cluster”, International Journal Of Business And Management, 7(21), (2012).
• Porter, M. Competitive Advantages of Nations, New York: Free Pres, (1990).
• Power, D. and Malmberg, A. “The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: in what sense a regional problem?”, Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 1 (2), 233-245(2008).
• Armatlı-Köroğlu, B. “SME Networks as New Engines of Economic Development and Innovativeness”, Unpublished Phd Thesis, METU, Ankara, (2004).
• Eraydin, A. and Armatlı Köroğlu, B. “Innovation, networking and the new industrial districts: The characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17(4), 237-266, (2005).
• Beaudry, C. “Entry, Growth and Patenting in Industrial Clusters: A Study of the Aerospace Industry in the UK”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), 405-436, (2001).
• Lublinski, A. “Does geographic proximity matter? Evidence from clustered and non-clustered aeronautic firms in Germany”, Regional Studies, 37(5), 453–467, (2003).
• Niosi, J. and Zhegu, M. “Aerospace clusters: local or global knowledge spillovers?”, Industry and Innovation, 12(1), 5-29, (2005).
• Cooke, P. and Ehret, O. “Proximity And Procurement: A Study Of Agglomeration in The Welsh Aerospace Industry”, European Planning Studies, 17(4), 549-567, (2009).
• Torre A. and Rallet A. “Proximity and localization”, Regional Studies 39, 47–59, (2005).
• Torre, A. “On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission”, Regional Studies, 42, 869–889, (2008).
• Holl, A. and Rama, R. “The Spatial Patterns of Networks, Hierarchies and Subsidiaries”, European Planning Studies, 17(9), 1261-81, (2009).
• Boschma, R.A. “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment”, Regional Studies, 39 (1), 61–74, (2005).
• Romer, P. M. “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5). 71-s102, (1990).
• Rodri´Guez-Pose A. and Crescenzi, R. “Research and Development, Spillovers,Innovation Systems, and the Genesis of Regional Growth in Europe”, Regional Studies, 42(1), 51–67, (2008).
• Rosenberg, N. Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1994).
• McSweeney, P. J. "Gephi Network Statistics", Google Summer of Code 2009 Project Proposal, (2009).
• Newman, M. E. J. “Models of the Small World: A review”, J. Stat. Phys. 101, 819–841, (2000).
• Jocamy, M., Heymann, S., Venturini, T. and Bastian, M. ForceAtlas2, A Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization, (2012).
• Fruchterman T. M. J. and Reingold, E. M. “Graph drawing by force-directed placement”, Software Practice Exper. 21 (11), 1129–1164, (2009).