What is The Role of Techno-Parks on Regional Innovation in Turkey?

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 43 - 59, 31.03.2021

Doç. Dr. Ferhan Gezici Burcu Müderrisoğlu Güliz Salihoğlu Gülay Başarır

Öz

Techno-parks/science parks took their place in many developing countries' agenda with the successful performances that developed countries put forth. Techno-parks that have initially emerged as a result of university-industry cooperation encourage R&D firms to be located close to the university, to contribute to knowledge production, develop centers of technology and knowledge spill-over and support national and regional economic growth. Since 2001, techno-parks in Turkey have been founded initially in industrialized cities with well-established universities, skilled labor. The numbers of techno-parks increased to 64 in 44 provinces of Turkey in 2016. The roles and efficiency of the increasing number of techno-parks that also have the goal of regional development is a subject of debate.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of techno-parks on regional innovation in Turkey. Therefore, the innovation performance of regions is analyzed related to techno-parks as a base of geographically localized networks and cooperation with the universities, and other endogenous characteristics by two multiple regression models. Results mainly point out the significance of agglomeration economies along with the role of structural changes in the manufacturing industry, leading firms and performance of the universities on innovation performance of regions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation, techno-parks, regional development

Kaynakça

• [1] Wolfe, D..: Neo-Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation and Growth, in: P.Cooke (Eds) Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth, Edward Elgar Publishing (2011)
• [2] Fagerberg, J.: Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, Vol. 13(2), 125-159 (2003)
• [3] Cantner, U., Graf, H.: Innovation Networks: Formation, Performance and Dynamics. Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change. Antonelli, C. Cheltenham, UK; MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing (2011)
• [4] Pakes, A., Griliches, Z.: Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A First Look, R&D, Patents, and Productivity, NBER Books, 55-72 (1984)
• [5] Nooteboom, E. and Stam, B.: Entrepreneurship, innovation and institutions, in D., B., Audretsch, O., Falck, S., Heblich, A., Lederer (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, p 421-438, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (2011)
• [6] Schmookler, J.: Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1966)
• [7] Griliches, Z.: R&D and the Productivity Slowdown, NBER Working Paper No. 434 (1980)
• [8] Griliches, Z.: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, R&D, Patents, and Productivity, NBER Books, 55-72 (1998)
• [9] Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., Wright, M.: Science Parks and the Performance of New Technology-Based Firms: A Review of Recent UK Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research, Small Business Economics, 20(2), 177-184 (2003)
• [10] Jaffe, A. B.: Real Effects of Academic Research, The American Economic Review, 957-970 (1989)
• [11] Kelley, A.C.: Scale Economies, Inventive Activity and the Economics of American Population Growth, Exploration Economic History, 10(1), 35-52 (1972)
• [12] Sokoloff, L., K.: Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence From Patent Records, 1790- 1846, NBER Working Paper No. 2707 (1988)
• [13] O’Huallachain, B.: Patent Places: Size Matters, Journal of Regional Science, 39 (4), 613-636 (1999)
• [14] Qi,Y., Liu, Y.: Empirical Research about the Regional Innovation Capability Based on China’s Patent Application Activities’’, 2014 Proceedings of PICMET '14: Infrastructure and Service Integration, 365-369 (2011)
• [15] Porter, M. E., Stern, S. Measuring the" ideas" production function: Evidence from international patent output(No. w7891). National Bureau of Economic Research (2000)
• [16] Cincera, M.: Patents, R&D, And Technologıcal Spillovers At the Fırm Level: Some Evidence from Econometrıc Count Models for Panel Data, Journal of applied Econometrics, v. 12 (3), 265-280 (1997)
• [17] Zachariadis, M.: R&D, innovation, and technological progress: a test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects, 36 (3), 566-586 (2003)
• [18] Bosch, M.: Patenting and Research and Development: A Global View, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3739 (2005)
• [19] Yanhui, W., Huiying, Z., Jing,: Patent Elasticity, R&D Intensity And Regional Innovation Capacity In China, World Patent Information, 43, 50-59 (2015)
• [20] Kaygalak, I., Reid, N.: Innovation and knowledge spillovers in Turkey: The role of geographic and organizational proximity, Regional Science Policy & Practice, V. 8/1-2, 45-61 (2016)
• [21] Nelson, R.: National Innovative Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press (1993)
• [22] Freeman, C.: The ‘National System of Innovation’ in Historical Perspective, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5-24 (1995)
• [23] Cooke, P.: Introduction: origins of the concept, in: H. Braczyk, P. Cooke and M. Hei-Denreich (Eds) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World, pp. 2-25. London: UCL Press (1998)
• [24] Audretsch, D.: Agglomeration and the location of Innovative Activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,14 (2), 18-29 (1998)
• [25] Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A.: Fortune Favors the Prepared Firm. Management Science, 40(2), 227-251 (1994).
• [26] Moulaert, F., Sekia, F.: Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies, 37 (3), 289-302, (2003)
• [27] Asheim, B. T., Gertler, M. S.: Regional Innovation Systems and the Geographical Foundations of Innovation. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Eds: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2005)
• [28] Lundvall, B.A., Borras, S.: The Globalising Learning Economy: Implications for Innovation Policy, Bruxelles: EC DG XII-TSER (1997)
• [29] Saxenian, A.: Regional Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1994)
• [30] Cooke, P.: Regional Knowledge Capabilities and Open Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems and Clusters in the Asymmetric Knowledge Economy. Clusters, networks and innovation. 80-109. Breschi, S., Malerb, F. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2005)
• [31] Bellini, N., Danson, M., Halkier, H.: Regional Development Agencies: The Next Generation: Networking, Knowledge & Regional Policies, New York: Routledge (2012)
• [32] Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Hardy, D.: Technology and industrial parks in emerging countries: Panacea or pipedream?. Springer (2014).
• [33] Benneworth, P., Charles, D.: University spin-off policies and economic development in less successful regions: learning from two decades of policy practice. European Planning Studies, 13(4), 537-557, (2005)
• [34] Florax, R.: The University: A Regional Booster? Economic Impacts of Academic Knowledge İnfrastructure. Hants (UK): Avebury, (1992)
• [35] Malecki, E. J.: Research and development and the geography of high-technology complexes. Technology, Regions, and Policy, 51-74, (1986)
• [36] Nelson, R.: The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97,453-470 (1982)
• [37] Lund, l.: Locating Corporate R&D Facilities’’, Conference Board Report No. 892, The Conference Board, New York (1986)
• [38] Anselin, L., Varga, A., Acs, Z., “Local Geographic Spillovers between University Research and High Technology Innovations”, Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422-448. (1997)
• [39] Florax, R., Folmer, H.: Knowledge Impacts of Universities on Industry: An Aggregate Simultaneous Investment Model; Journal of Regional Science 32, 4: 437-466 (1992)
• [40] Grasmik, K.: Academic Spin-off as Triple Helix Element: Case-Study of Russian Regions. Journal of technology management & innovation, 11(3), 127-136, (2016)
• [41] Castells, M., Hall, P.: Technopoles of the world: the making of 21st century industrial complexes, London: Routledge (1994)
• [42] Sternberg, R.: Innovation Networks and Regional Development—Evidence from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS): Theoretical Concepts, Methodological Approach, Empirical Basis and Introduction to the Theme Issue, European Planning Studies, 8(4), 389-407 (2000)
• [43] Etzkowitz, H.: Networks of Innovation: Science, Technology and Development in the Triple Helix Era, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 1(1), 7-20 (2002)
• [44] Malecki, E. J.: Connecting Local Entrepreneurial Ecosystems to Global Innovation Networks: Open Innovation, Double Networks and Knowledge Integration, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14(1), 36-59 (2011)
• [45] Breschi, S., Lissoni, F.: Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change,10 (4), 975-1005 (2001)
• [46] Carrincazeaux, C., Coris, M. Proximity and innovation. In P. Cooke, B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, & D. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 269–281). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. (2011)
• [47] Lung, Y., Salerno, M., Dias, C.: Flexibilty through modularity: experimentations with fractal production in Brazil and in Europe, in: Lung, Chanaron, Fujimoto, Raff (Eds), Coping With Variety, Ashgate (1999)
• [48] Rallet, A., Torre, A.: On Geography and Technology: The Case of Proximity Relations in Localized Innovation Networks. Eds: Steiner, M. Clusters and regional specialization. London: Pion (1998)
• [49] Boschma, R., Frenken, K.: Technological Relatedness, Related Variety and Economic Geography. Handbook of regional innovation and growth. Cooke, P., Asheim, B., Boschma, R., Martin, R., Schwartz, D., Tödtling, F. Cheltenham, UK; MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing (2011)
• [50] Westhead, P., Storey, D. J.: Links Between Higher Education Institutions and High Technology Firms, Omega, 23(4), 345-360 (1995)
• [51] Phillimore, J.: Beyond the Linear View of Innovation in Science Park Evaluation, An Analysis of Western Australian Technology Park, Technovation, 19, 673-680, (1999).
• [52] Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., Varsakelis, N. C.: Science Park, A High Tech Fantasy? An Analysis of the Science Parks of Greece, Technovation, 22(2), 123-128 (2002)
• [53] Albahari, A., Barge‐Gil, A., Pérez‐Canto, S., & Modrego, A.: The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms' innovation results. Papers in regional science, 97(2), 253-279 (2018).
• [54] WIPO: Patent Application & Grant Numbers, 2016, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), https://www3.wipo.int/ipstats/ipsPiechart (2016)
• [55] TPO Statistics (Turkey Patent Office), https://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TURKPATENT/ (2016)
• [56]. MSIT Statistics (Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology), https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/istatistikler/istatistiki-bilgiler, (2016).
• [57] Eyyüboğlu, B. B., Aktaş, S. G.: Türkiye’de Teknoparkların Coğrafi Dağılım ve Yoğunluğu (2001-2015), Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 21(35), 75-88 (2016)
• [58] Pekol, Ö., Erbaş, Ç. B.: Patent Sisteminde Türkiye’deki Teknoparkların Yeri, Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(1), 39-58 (2011)
• [59] Griliches, Z.: Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey, NBER Working Paper No. 3301(1990)
• [60]. Jaffe, A. B.: The US patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research policy, 29(4-5), 531-557 (2000)
• [61] Iammarino, S., McCann, P.: Multinationals and Economic Geography: Location, Technology and Innovation, Edward Elgar Publishing (2007)
• [62] WIPO, Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/list.jsp?sub_co...le&year=2004 (2004)
• [63] Beneito, P.: The İnnovative Performance Of İn-House and Contracted R&D in Terms of Patents and Utility Models. Research Policy, 35(4), 502-517, (2006)
• [64] Brynjolfsson, E., Hofmann, P., Jordan, J.: Cloud Computing and Electricity: Beyond the Utility Model. Communications of the ACM, 53(5), 32-34, (2010)
• [65] Benneworth, P., Hospers, G. J.: The New Economic Geography of Old Industrial Regions: Universities as Global—Local Pipelines, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(6), 779-802 (2007)
• [66] Feldman, M. P., Florida, R.: The Geographic Sources of Innovation: Technological Infrastructure and Product Innovation in the United States, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(2), 210–229 (1994)
• [67] Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B. & Feldman, M.: R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 336–340 (1994)
• [68] Ellison, G., Glaeser, E. L., & Kerr, W. R.: What causes industry agglomeration? Evidence from coagglomeration patterns. American Economic Review, 100(3), 1195-1213, (2010)
• [69] Agrawal, A.; Cockburn, I.; Galasso, A.; Oettl, A. :"Why are some regions more innovative than others? The role of small firms in the presence of large labs," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 149-165 (2014)
• [70] Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M.: Scale and scope in drug development: unpacking the advantages of size in pharmaceutical research. Journal of health economics, 20(6), 1033-1057, (2001)
• [71] Van Dijk, B., Den Hertog, R., Menkveld, B., & Thurik, R.: “Some new evidence on the determinants of large- and small-firm innovation.” Small Business Economics, 9(4): 335-343 (1997)
• [72] Fantino, D., Mori, A., & Scalise, D.: Collaboration between firms and universities in Italy: the role of a firm’s proximity to top-rated departments. Italian Economic Journal, 1(2), 219-251 (2015).
• [73] Boschma, R.: “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment”, Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74, (2005).
• [74] Negassi, S.: “R&D co-operation and innovation a microeconometric study on French firms.” Research Policy 33, 365-384, (2004).
• [75] Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B.:“Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance.” Research Policy 33:1477-1492, (2004).
• [76] Gezici, F., Walsh, B., Metin Kacar, S.: Regional and Structural Analysis of Manufacturing Industry in Turkey, Annals of Regional Science, July 2017, Vol. 59, Issue 1, 209-230, (2017).
• [77] Squicciarini, M.: Science parks: seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169-190, (2009).
• [78] Mian, S. and Hulsink,W.: Building Knowledge Ecosystems through Science and Technology Parks, 26. IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks, June 1-4, USA (2009).
• [79] Hervas-Oliver, J. L., & Albors-Garrigos, J.: Are technology gatekeepers renewing clusters? Understanding gatekeepers and their dynamics across cluster life cycles. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(5-6), 431-452, (2014).
• [80] Simmie, J.: Do clusters or innovation systems drive competitiveness?. In B. Asheim, P. Cooke and R. Martin (Eds), Clusters and Regional Development (pp. 182-205). Routledge (2006).