FİRMA BÜYÜMESİ VE BÖLGESEL FARKLILIKLAR

Öz

Firmaların nasıl büyüdüğü ve piyasaların nasıl şekillendiği iktisatta büyük ölçüde ilgi çeken alanlardan birisidir. Firma büyüklüğü ve firma büyümesi arasındaki ilişki; gelir ve iş fırsatlarının artmasına ve endüstriyel kalkınmanın gelişmesine olanak sağlayan kamu politikalarının tasarlanması için de önemli bilgiler sunar. Bu ilişki ilk kez Gibrat’ın (1931) tarafından incelenmiş ve sonrasında çok kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alınarak iktisat literatüründe Gibrat Yasası olarak yerini almıştır. Bu alanda yapılan çalışmaların büyük çoğunluğu, firma büyüklük-büyüme ilişkisini firmaların demografik özellikleri bağlamında ele almıştır ancak coğrafi konumun bu ilişki üzerindeki etkisi oldukça az ele alınmıştır. Bu çalışma, 2005-2015 dönemi için TÜİK Yıllık Sanayi ve Hizmet İstatistikleri Mikro veri setini kullanarak Türkiye’de bölgesel düzeyde (İBBS2) firmaların büyüklük dağılımını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın temel bulguları firma büyüklük dağılımının, şekli ve evrimi açısından önemli bölgesel farklılıklar gösterdiği ve Gibrat yasasının öngördüğü log-normal dağılımdan oldukça uzak olduğudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Firma Büyümesi
• İmalat Sanayii
• Gibrat Yasası

FIRM SIZE AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES

Öz

The relationship between firm size and firm growth has been extensively studied in economics literature following Gibrat's (1931) groundbreaking work. This relationship handled at micro scale is important for its macroeconomic consequences ranging from employment and income generation to industrial development. Basically, Gibrat's law argues that firm growth is independent of firm size. The argument suggesting that firm growth is heterogeneous by nature and that growth patterns depend on the demographic characteristics of the firm has been supported by many theoretical and empirical studies. However, the effects of geographic location of firms on firm dynamics and evolution have been subject to very limited research. This study aims to analyze firm size distributions by considering Gibrat’s law in a regional context. In the study, the size distributions of manufacturing firms and their evolution will be examined at NUTS-2 level for the period of 2005-2015. Using non-parametric technique of density estimation, we will test whether the empirical distributions of firm size approximates to log-normal distribution or not. The main finding of the study reveal that firm size distributions shows significant regional differences in terms of its shape and evolution and they’re far from the distribution stipulated by the Gibrat’s law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gibrat’s Law
• Firm Size
• Manufacturing Industry

Kaynakça

1. Acs, Z.J. 2006. New firm formation and region: Empirical results from the United States. In Entrepreneurship, growth, and innovation: The dynamics of firms and industries, ed. E. Santarelli, 105–133. New York: Springer.
2. Audretsch, D.B., and D. Dohse. 2007. Location: A neglected determinant of firm growth. Review of World Economics 143(1): 79–107.
3. Barbosa, N. and V. Eiriz (2011), ‘Regional variation of firm size and growth: the Portuguese case,’ Growth and Change, 42, 125–158.
4. Bottazzi, G., G. Dosi, M. Lippi, F. Pammolli and M. Riccaboni (2001), ‘Innovation and corporate growth in the evolution of the drug industry,’ International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 1161–1187.
5. Bottazzi, G. and A. Secchi (2003), ‘Common properties and sectoral specificities in the dynamics of U.S. manufacturing companies,’ Review of Industrial Organization, 23, 217–232.
6. Bottazzi, G. and A. Secchi (2006), ‘Explaining the distribution of firm growth rates,’ RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 235–256.
7. Buckley, P. J., Dunning, J. H. and Fearce, R. D. (1984). An analysis of the growth and profitability of the world’s largest firms 1972 to 1977. Kyklos, 37 (1), 3-26.
8. Calvo, J.L. 2004. Testing Gibrat’s Law across regions: Evidence from Spain. Paper presented at the 44th ERSA Conference, Porto, Portugal.

9. Coad, A. (2009), ‘The Growth of Firms: A Survey of Theories and Empirical Evidence. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA.
10. Coad, A. (2012), ‘Firms as bundles of discrete resources: towards an explanation of the exponential distribution of firm growth rates,’ Eastern Economic Journal, 38, 189–209.
11. Dosi, G., M. Grazzi, C. Tomasi and A. Zeli (2012), ‘Turbulence underneath the big calm? The micro-evidence behind Italian productivity dynamics,’ Small Business Economics, 39, 1043–1069.
12. Duschl, M. and S. Peng (2015), ‘The patterns of Chinese firm growth: a conditional estimation approach of the Asymmetric Exponential Power (AEP) density,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(3), 539–563.
13. Farinas, J. and Moreno, L. (2000). Firms’ Growth, Size and Age: A Nonparametric Approach. Review of Industrial Organization, 17 (3), 249-265.
14. Ganugi, P., L. Grossi, and G. Gozzi. 2005. Testing Gibrat’s law in Italian macro-regions: analysis on a panel of mechanical companies. Statistical Methods and Applications 14(1): 101–126.
15. Geroski, P. A., Urga, G., Lazarova, S. and Walters, C. F. (2003). Are differences in firm size transitory or permanent? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18 (1), 47-59.
16. Gibrat, R. (1931). Les in´egalit´es ´economiques: applications: aux in´egalit´es des richesses, `a la concentration des entreprises, aux populations des villes, aux statistiques des familles, etc., d’une loi nouvelle, la loi de l’effect proportionnel. Recueil Sirey.
17. Glaeser, E.L., H.D. Kallal, J.A. Scheinkman, and A. Shleifer. 1992. Growth in cities. The Journal of Political Economy 100(6): 1126–1152.
18. Guimarães, P., O. Figueiredo, and D. Woodward. 2000. Agglomeration and the location of foreign direct investment in Portugal. Journal of Urban Economics 47(1): 115–135.
19. Hart, P. E. and Prais, S. J. (1956). The analysis of business concentration: A statistical approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 119 (2), 150-191.
20. Lee, Y., L. Amaral, D. Canning, M. Meyer and E. Stanley (1998), ‘Universal features in the growth dynamics of complex organizations,’ Physical Review Letters, 8181, 3275–3278.
21. Lensink, R., Steen, P. and Sterken, E. (2005). Uncertainty and Growth of the Firm. Small Business Economics, 24 (4), 381-391.
22. Maasoumi, E., J. Racine and T. Stengos (2007), ‘Growth and convergence: a profile of distribution dynamics and mobility,’ Journal of Econometrics, 136, 483–508.
23. Mansfield, E. (1962). Entry, gibrat’s law, innovation, and the growth of firms. The American Economic Review, 52 (5), 1023-1051.
24. Oerlemans, L., and M. Meeus. 2005. Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Regional Studies 39(1): 89–104.
25. Piergiovanni, R. 2010. Gibrat’s law in the “Third Italy”: Firm Growth in the Veneto Region. Growth and Change 41(1): 28–58
26. Simon, H. A. and Bonini, C. P. (1958). The size distribution of business firms. The American Economic Review, 48 (4), 607-617.
27. Stam, E. 2007. Why butterflies don’t leave: Locational behaviour of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography 83(1): 27–50.
28. Stanley, M., L. Amaral, S. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, H. Leschhorn, P. Maass, M. Salinger and E. Stanley (1996), Scaling behaviour in the growth of companies,’ Nature, 379, 804–806.
29. Sutton, John. (1997). Gibrat’s Legacy. Journal of Economic Literature. 35(1), 40–59.
30. Van Stel, A., and H. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2004. Knowledge spillovers and economic growth: An analysis using data of Dutch regions in the period 1987–1995. Regional Studies 38(4): 393–407.
31. Varian, H. (2014), Big data: new tricks for econometrics,’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28, 3–28.