Beşeri Sermaye Yoğunluğunun Belirleyicileri: Türkiye’de Otomotiv Tedarikçileri üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı yabancı sahiplik yapısı ve Ar-Ge faaliyetlerine vurgu yaparak, firmaların beşeri sermaye yoğunluk seviyelerini etkileyen faktörleri analiz etmek ve ayrıca bu alanda oldukça kıt olan yazına ampirik bir katkı yapmaktadır. Bulgular Türkiye otomotiv sektöründe faaliyet gösteren tedarikçi firmaların üst düzey yöneticilerinden yüz yüze anket çalışması ile toplanan firma düzeyinde kapsamlı anket verilerine dayanmaktadır. Çalışmaya ilişkin önemli bulgular şu şekilde özetlenebilir: (1) yabancı sahiplik, beklendiği gibi, tedarikçi firmaların beşeri sermaye yoğunlukları üzerine pozitif (anlamlı) etkiye sahip tek değişkendir; (2) yabancı sahipliğin tedarikçi firmanın beşeri sermaye yoğunluğu üzerine etkisi beyaz-yaka yoğunluğu-(genel)için daha yüksek, mühendis yoğunluğu-(spesifik) için daha azdır; (3) daha yaşlı veya daha büyük ölçekliolmak bir tedarikçi firmanın spesifik beşeri sermaye yoğunluğunu negatif (anlamlı) etkilerken, Ar-Ge faaliyetlerinde bulunmak (Ar-Ge bölümüne sahip olmak) ve ilk kademe tedarikçi olmak spesifik beşeri sermaye yoğunluğunu pozitif (anlamlı) etkilemektedir. Bu bulgular Ar-Ge faaliyetlerinde bulunan, daha küçük ve yeni kurulan yabancı sermayeli ilk kademe tedarikçi firmaların daha spesifik (mühendis) beşeri sermaye stoku istihdam ettiklerini ortaya koymaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Beşeri Sermaye, Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım, Teknoloji Yayılımları, Ar-Ge, Otomotiv Sektörü, Türkiye

Determinants of Human Capital Intensity: An Empirical Analysis on Automotive Suppliers in Turkey

Öz

The purpose of the paper is to analyze the determinants of human capital intensity levels of the firms with emphasize on foreign ownership and R&D activities, also to make a contribution to the scarce empirical literature in this subject. The evidence is based on a comprehensive firm-level survey data gathered through face-to-face questionnaire with the top executives of suppliers operating in Turkish automotive industry. The key findings can be summarized as: (1) foreign ownership is the only variable that has positive (and significant) impact on all senses of supplier’s human capital intensity as expected; (2) the impact of foreign ownership on a supplier’s human capital is higher for white collar intensity-(general) than for engineer intensity-(specific);(3) being anolder or larger supplier negatively (and significantly) impacts a supplier’s specific human capital intensity, while performing R&D activities (having an R&D department), and being a firsttier supplier impact positively (and significantly). These findings reveal that smaller and younger first-tier foreign suppliers performing R&D activities employ more specific(engineers) human capital stock

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Human Capital, Foreign Direct Investment, Technology Spillover, R&D, Automotive Industry, Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Aitken, B. J. and Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89 (3), 605-618.
2. Barro, R. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995). Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: McGraw-Hill.
3. Bell, M. and Pavitt, K. (1997). Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts between Developed and Developing Countries. D. Archibugi and J. Michie (Ed.). In Technology, Globalisation and Economic Performance (83-137). Cambridge University Press.
4. Blalock, G. and Gertler, P. (2004). Firm capabilities and Technology Adoption: Evidence from Foreign Direct Investment in Indonesia. Working Paper, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
5. Blomström, M. and Kokko, A. (1997). How Foreign Investment Affects Host Countries. Policy Research Working Paper, No 1745, the World Bank: Washington, DC.
6. Blomström, M. and Sjöholm, F. (1999). Technology Transfer and Spillovers: Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter?. European Economic Review, 43 (4-6), 915-923.
7. Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J. and Lee, J. W. (1998). How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth?. Journal of International Economics, 45, 115–135.
8. Collins, H. M. (2001). Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31 (1), 71-85.

9. Crespo, N. and Fontoura, M. P. (2007). Determinant Factors of FDI Spillovers - What Do We Really Know. World Development, 35 (3), 410–425.
10. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26 (3), 1120-1171.
11. Dunning, J. (1979). Explaining Patterns of International Production: In Defence of the Eclectic Theory. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41 (2), 269–295.
12. Dunning, J. (1993). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Ernst, D. and Kim, L. (2002). Global Production Networks, Knowledge Diffusion, and Local Capability Formation. Research Policy, 31, 1417–1429.
13. Girma, S. and Wakelin, K. (2001). Regional Underdevelopment: Is FDI the Solution? A Semi-Parametric Analysis. GEP Research Paper 2001/11, University of Nottingham.
14. Goffin, K. and Koners, U. (2011). Tacit Knowledge, Lessons Learnt and New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (2), 300-318.
15. Görg, H. and Strobl, E. (2003). Multinational Companies, Technology Spillovers and Plant Survival. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105 (4), 581-595.
16. ISSS database. (2008). Turkstat’s Annual Industry and Service Statistics Survey Database.
17. Kathuria, V. (2000). Productivity Spillovers from Technology Transfer to Indian Manufacturing Firms. Journal of International Development, 12 (2), 343- 369.
18. Keller, W. (1996). Absorptive Capacity: On the Creation and Acquisition of Technology in Development. Journal of Development Economics, 49, 199- 227.
19. Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning. Boston, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
20. Kinoshita, Y. (2001). R&D and Technology Spillovers through FDI: Innovation and Absorptive Capacity. CEPR Discussion Paper DP2775, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
21. Kuznets, S. (1966). Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure, Spread. New Haven: Yale University Press.
22. Lall, S. (1992). Technological Capabilities and Industrialization. World Development, 20 (2), 165-186.
23. Lall, S. (1996). Learning from the Asian Tigers. London: MacMillan Press
24. Lall, S. (1997). East Asia. J. H. Dunning (Ed.). In Governments, Globalization, and International Business (407-430). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Lall, S. and Narula R. (2004). Foreign Direct Investment and Its Role in Economic Development: Do We Need a New Agenda?. The European Journal of Development Research, 16 (3), 447–464.
26. Lee, C. (2008). Innovation, Productivity and Exports: Firm-Level Evidence from Malaysia. Nottingham University Business School University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Working Paper Series, March, Vol. 2008-06.
27. McKelvey, M. (1998). Evolutionary Innovations: Learning, Entrepreneurship and the Dynamics of the Firm. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8, 157-175.
28. Mengistu, A. A. and Adhikary, B. K. (2011). Does Good Governance Matter for FDI Inflows? Evidence from Asian Economies. Asia Pacific Business Review, 17 (3), 281–299.
29. Narula, R. and Dunning, J. H. (2000). Industrial Development, Globalization and Multinational Enterprises: New Realities for Developing Countries. Oxford Development Studies, 28 (2), 141-167.
30. Narula, R. and Marin, A. (2003). FDI Spillovers, Absorptive Capacities and Human Capital Development: Evidence from Argentina. MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum Series, 2003-016.
31. Narula, R. (2004). Understanding Absorptive Capacities in an Innovation Systems Context: Consequences for Economic and Employment Growth. MERIT Research Memorandum, 2004-003.
32. Narula, R. and Driffield, N. (2012). Does FDI Cause Development? The Ambiguity of the Evidence and Why it Matters. European Journal of Development Research, 24, 1–7.
33. Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. (1982). Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
34. OECD (2001). FDI, Human Capital and Education in Developing Countries. In OECD Development Centre Technical Meeting.
35. Pack, H. and Saggi, K. (1997). Inflows of Foreign Technology and Indigenous Development. Review of Development Economics, 1(1), 81-98.
36. Portelli, B. and Narula, R. (2004). Foreign Direct Investment through Acquisitions and Implications for Technological Upgrading. Case Evidence from Tanzania, Merit Research Memorandum.
37. Romer, P. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94 (5), 1002–1037.
38. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), 71–102.
39. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
40. Sinani, E. and Meyer, K. (2004). Spillovers of Technology Transfer from FDI: The Case of Estonia. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32, 445–466.
41. Sönmez, A. (2013). Multinational Companies, Knowledge and Technology Transfer: Turkey's Automotive Industry in Focus, New York, USA: Springer.
42. Teixeira, A. A. C. and Lehmann, A. T. T. (2014). Human Capital Intensity in Technology-Based Firms Located in Portugal: Does Foreign Ownership Matter?. Research Policy, 43, 737–748.
43. Wagner, R. K. and Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical Intelligence in Real-World Pursuits: the Role of Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (2), 436-458.
44. Xu, B. (2000). Multinational Enterprises, Technology Diffusion, and Host Country Productivity Growth. Journal of Development Economics, 62, 477–493.