Efficiency Analysis of Universities in Turkey: Focusing on Entrepreneurship and Innovation Activities

Öz

Today, one of the main and most important locomotives of knowledge transfer is Higher Education Institutions. The productivity, efficiency and effectiveness issues in Higher Education Institutions are of high importance for policy makers and higher education professionals in the construction of innovative strategies. In this context, the topic of the research is about the measurement of efficiency and determining the factors that affect performance of the universities efficiency in the focus of entrepreneurship and innovation activities, which is considered as the third role (mission) of the universities. Based on the data for the years 2011 – 2016, it is aimed to calculate the efficiency scores of the top 50 universities in the “Entrepreneur and Innovative University Index” between 2011-2016 by Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and to measure changes in total factor productivity levels of these universities by Malmquist Total Factor Productivity (TFP) Index. According to the results it has been observed that 35 universities in Turkey, which are included in the scope of the study, does not use resources efficiently and provide periodic systematic improvement. The study has a unique value in terms of working with panel data and measuring the efficiency of universities within the scope of entrepreneurship and innovation activities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Efficiency in Higher Education
• Data Envelopment Analysis
• Malmquist Total Factor Productivity Index

Girişimcilik ve Yenilikçilik Faaliyetleri Odağında Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerin Etkinlik Analizi

Öz

Günümüzde bilgi transferinin temel ve en önemli lokomotiflerinden biri olan yükseköğretim kurumlarında verimlilik, etkinlik ve etkililik konuları yenilikçi stratejilerin kurgulanmasında politika yapıcılar ve yükseköğretim profesyonelleri için büyük önem arz etmektedir. Çalışmanın konusu üniversitelerin üçüncü rollerinden biri olarak değerlendirilen girişimcilik ve yenilikçilik faaliyetleri odağında üniversitelerin etkinliklerinin ölçülmesi üzerinedir. Çalışmanın amacı 2011–2016 yıllarına ait veriye dayanarak, TÜBİTAK tarafından yayınlanan "Girişimci ve Yenilikçi Üniversite Endeksi (GYUE)"nde 2012–2017 yılları arasında ilk 50'ye giren üniversitelerin üçüncü rolü (misyonu) olarak değerlendirilen girişimcilik ve yenilikçilik faaliyetleri odağında etkinliklerinin Veri Zarflama Analizi ile ölçülmesi ve etkinlik değerlerinin zaman içindeki değişiminin Malmquist Toplam Faktör Verimliliği Endeksi kullanılarak belirlenmesidir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre çalışma kapsamına alınan Türkiye’deki 35 üniversitenin kaynaklarını etkin kullanmadığı, dönemsel olarak sistematik bir iyileşmenin sağlanmadığı gözlenmiştir. Çalışma, panel veri ile çalışılması ve üniversitelerin girişimcilik ve yenilik faaliyetleri kapsamında etkinliğinin ölçülmesi bakımından özgün değere sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yükseköğretimde Etkinlik
• Veri Zarflama Analizi
• Malmquist Toplam Faktör Verimlilik Endeksi

Kaynakça

1. Agasisti, T. (2017). Management of Higher Education Institutions and the Evaluation of their Efficiency and Performance. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(3), 187-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1336250
2. Arbo, P., Benneworth, P. (2007). Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions: A Literature Review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 9.
3. Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Lafuente, E., SOLÉ, F. (2013). The pursuit of knowledge transfer activities: An efficiency analysis of Spanish universities. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2051-2059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.031
4. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.007
5. Chen, Y., Liang, L., Zhu, J. (2009). Equivalence in two-stage DEA approaches. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(2), 600-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.11.040
6. Coelli, T. (1996). A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Program. CEPA Working Paper 96/08, University of New England, Armidale.
7. Cooper, W. (2005). Origins, uses of, and relations between goal programming and data envelopment analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis,13(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.370
8. Cooper, W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K. (2007). Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Springer.

9. Curi, C., Daraio, C. C., Llerena, P. (2012). University Technology Transfer: How (In-)Efficient are French Universities. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1984043
10. Çınar, Y. (2013). Türkiye’de kamu üniversitelerinin eğitim-araştırma etkinlikleri ve etkinlik artışında stratejik önceliklerin rolü: Çok-aktiviteli VZA uygulaması. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 68(2), 27-62.
11. De Witte, K., Lopez-Torres, L. (2017). Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way forward. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(4), 339-363. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2015.92
12. Emrouznejad, A., Cabanda, E. (2014). Managing Service Productivity: Uses of Frontier Efficiency Methodologies and MCDM for Improving Service Performance. In the series of International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Springer:Verlag.
13. Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1) 64-77.
14. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., Zhang, Z. (1994). Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries. The American Economic Review, 84(1), 66-83.
15. Federica, R. (2018). The drivers of efficient knowledge transfer performance: evidence from British universities. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 729–755. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex054
16. Hannon, P. (2013). Why is the Entrepreneurial University Important?. Journal of Innovation Management, 1, 2 pp.10-17.
17. Kirby, D. A. (2005). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.
18. Lorcu, F. (2010). Malmquist Toplam Faktör Verimlilik Endeksi: Türk Otomotiv Sanayi Uygulaması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi. 39 (2): 276-289.
19. OECD (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Erişim Adresi https://www.oecd.org/site/cfecpr/EC-OECD%20Entrepreneurial%20Universities%20Framework.pdf
20. Sam, C., Sijde, P. V. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68(6), 891-908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9750-0
21. Torre, E. M., Agasisti, T., Perez-Esparrells, C. (2017). The relevance of knowledge transfer for universities’ efficiency scores: An empirical approximation on the Spanish public higher education system. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx022
22. TÜBİTAK (2012). Türkiye'nin Bilim, Teknoloji, Yenilik Sistemi ve Performans Göstergeleri. Erişim Adresi: https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/tr_bty_sistemi_performans_gostergeleri_2012.pdf
23. Wissema, J.G., (2009), Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
24. YÖK (2016). 100/2000 YÖK Doktora Bursu Bilgilendirme Toplantısı Sunumu. Erişim Adresi https://www.yok.gov.tr/HaberBelgeleri/Haber%20%C4%B0%C3%A7erisindeki%20Belgeler/Dosyalar/2016/100_2000_YOK_Bursu_Tanitim_Sunumu.pdf
25. Yücel, L.İ. (2017). Veri Zarflama Analizi, İstanbul: Der.