Bölgesel Girişimcilik Düzeyinin Teknolojik İnovasyon Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye İllerine Yönelik Bir İnceleme

Öz

Girişimcilik, işletme biliminin temel araştırma alanlarından biri olarak ekonomik büyüme ve yenilikçi faaliyetlerin itici gücü kabul edilmektedir. Türkiye’de kalkınma ajansları, KOSGEB ve TÜBİTAK gibi kurumların destekleri girişimciliği teşvik etse de illeri kapsayan panel veri yapısı üzerinden girişimcilik ile teknolojik inovasyon arasındaki ilişki literatürde yeterince incelenmemiştir. İllerin gelişmişlik düzeyi, beşerî sermaye yoğunluğu ve yatırım ortamı, bu ilişkinin bölgesel farklılık göstermesine yol açmaktadır. Bu nedenle çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’nin 81 ilini kapsayan girişimcilik düzeyi ile teknolojik inovasyon çıktıları arasındaki etkileşimi panel veri analiziyle incelemektir. Araştırma 2010-2023 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Bağımlı değişken il bazlı patent başvurusu sayısı, bağımsız değişken yeni şirket sayısı, kontrol değişkeni ise kişi başına gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla olarak belirlenmiştir. Analizler STATA 17 ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, girişimcilik düzeyindeki artışın patent başvurularını anlamlı biçimde artırdığını ve Türkiye’de bölgesel inovasyon kapasitesine önemli katkı sağladığını göstermektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, girişimciliğin politika yapıcılar açısından girişimcilik ekosistemini güçlendirecek stratejilerin bu kapasitenin artırılmasında kilit rol oynayabileceğine işaret etmektedir. Çalışma, işletme yönetimi ve politika yapıcılar için bilimsel kanıt sunarken ölçüm yalnızca patent verilerine dayalı olduğundan gelecekte yapılacak araştırmalarda farklı inovasyon göstergelerinin dahil edilmesiyle modellerin zenginleştirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşletme
• Girişimcilik
• İnovasyon
• Bölgesel Kalkınma
• Panel Veri Analizi

The Impact of Regional Entrepreneurship Level on Technological Innovation: An Analysis of the Provinces in Türkiye

Öz

Entrepreneurship is widely regarded as one of the fundamental research areas in business studies and as a key driver of economic growth and innovation. Although the support of institutions such as development agencies, KOSGEB and TÜBİTAK encourages entrepreneurship in Türkiye, the relationship between entrepreneurship and technological innovation has not been sufficiently examined in the literature through the panel data structure covering the provinces. The level of development of the provinces, human capital density and investment environment cause this relationship to differ regionally. Therefore, the aim of the study is to examine the interaction between entrepreneurship level and technological innovation outputs covering 81 provinces of Türkiye with panel data analysis. The research covers the period 2010-2023. The dependent variable is the number of patent applications at the province level, the independent variable is the number of new firms, and the control variable is gross domestic product per capita. The analyses were performed with STATA 17. The findings show that the increase in the level of entrepreneurship significantly increased patent applications and made a significant contribution to regional innovation capacity in Türkiye. The results obtained indicate that strategies that will strengthen the entrepreneurship ecosystem can play a key role in increasing this capacity for entrepreneurship policymakers. While the study provides scientific evidence for business management and policy makers, it is recommended to enrich the models by including different innovation indicators in future research, since the measurement is based only on patent data.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Business
• Entrepreneurship
• Innovation
• Regional Development
• Panel Data Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Acs, Z. J., ve Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and Small Firms. MIT Press.
2. Albarran, P., ve Arellano, M. (2019). GMM Estimation from Incomplete and Rotating Panels. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 134, 5-42. https://doi.org/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.134.0005
3. Arellano, M., ve Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297 https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968
4. Ashley, R., ve Sun, X. (2016). Subset-continuous-updating gmm estimators for dynamic panel data models. Econometrics, 4(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics4040047
5. Audretsch, D. B., ve Thurik, A. R. (2001). Linking entrepreneurship to growth. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2001/02. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2001/05/linking-entrepreneurship-to-growth_g17a1542/736170038056.pdf
6. Audretsch, D. B., ve Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242-1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00722.x
7. Badzińska, E. (2016). The concept of technological entrepreneurship: the example of business implementation. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(3), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.15678/eber.2016.040305
8. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. John Wiley & Sons.

9. Belitski, M., ve Desai, S. (2015). Creativity, entrepreneurship and economic development: city-level evidence on creativity spillover of entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1354-1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9446-3
10. Bosma, N., ve Sternberg, R. (2014). Entrepreneurship as an urban event? Empirical evidence from European cities. Regional Studies, 48(6), 1016-1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.904041
11. Blundell, R., ve Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8
12. Cameron, A. C., ve Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner's guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317-372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
13. Carree, M., ve Thurik, R. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Springer.
14. Chen, F., Law, S. H., Wong, Z. W. V., ve Ngah, W. A. S. W. (2021). The role of institutions in private investment: panel data evidence. Studies in Economics and Finance, 39(4), 630-643. https://doi.org/10.1108/sef-09-2020-0381
15. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
16. Choi, D. S., Sung, C. S., ve Park, J. Y. (2020). How does technology startups increase innovative performance? the study of technology startups on innovation focusing on employment change in korea. Sustainability, 12(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020551
17. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661-1707. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2727442
18. Dan, M., ve Agoston, S. (2018). Entrepreneurship and regional development. a bibliometric analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 12(1), 276-287. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2018-0025
19. Demirdağ, İ., ve Eraydın, A. (2020). Explaining regional differences in firm formation rates: how far are government policies important for entrepreneurship?. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(2), 254-281. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeee-02-2020-0040
20. Franco, M., ve Rodrigues, M. (2020). Indicators to measure the performance of sustainable urban entrepreneurship: an empirical case study applied to portuguese cities and towns. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 11(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-03-2020-0017
21. Gezici, F., ve Hewings, G. J. D. (2004). Regional convergence and the economic performance of peripheral areas in Turkey. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 16(2), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-940x.2004.00082.x
22. Gidron, B., Bar, K., Finger, M., Gafni, D., Hodara, Y., Krasnopolskaya, I., …, ve Mannor, A. (2023). The impact tech startup: initial findings on a new, sdg-focused organizational category. Sustainability, 15(16), 1-26, https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612419
23. Glukhikh, P., ve Golovina, A. (2021). Strategies for creating technology businesses by serial entrepreneurs as a source of new industrialization. SHS Web of Conferences, 93, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219301023
24. Greene, W. H. (2018). Econometric analysis (8th ed.). Pearson.
25. Hansen, L. P. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica, 50(4), 1029-1054. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912775
26. Hayakawa, K. (2014). The asymptotic properties of the system gmm estimator in dynamic panel data models when bothnandtare large. Econometric Theory, 31(3), 647-667. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266466614000449
27. Hu, G., He, S., Dong, X., Li, C., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., ve Mardani, A. (2024). The impact of urban digital platforms on entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from China, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100468
28. Jiang, Y., ve Yan, H. (2023). The theory of innovation and entrepreneurship education practice with the integration of modern information technology and new engineering. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1), 1-14, https://doi.org/10.2478/amns.2023.2.00206
29. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., ve Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
30. Levine, R., Loayza, N., ve Beck, T. (2000). Financial intermediation and growth: Causality and causes. Journal of Monetary Economics, 46(1), 31-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(00)00017-9
31. Maddala, G. S., ve Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
32. Mayer, H. (2010). Catching up: the role of state science and technology policy in open innovation. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(3), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242410366563
33. Nguyen, V. B. (2019). The role of institutional quality in the relationship between fdi and economic growth in vietnam: empirical evidence from provincial data. The Singapore Economic Review, 64(03), 601-623. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217590816500223
34. Özkubat, G., ve Selim, S. (2019). Türkiye’de illerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişliği: bir mekânsal ekonometrik analiz. Alphanumeric Journal, 7(2), 449-470. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.507697
35. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229.
36. Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900106
37. Sargan, J. D. (1958). The Estimation of Economic Relationships using Instrumental Variables. Econometrica, 26(3), 393-415. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907619
38. StataCorp. (2021). Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
39. Triono, S. P. H., Rahayu, A., Wibowo, L. A., ve Alamsyah, A. (2024). The impact of entrepreneurial strategy on the firm performance of indonesian technology startups. Jurnal Manajemen Indonesia, 24(1), 84-104. https://doi.org/10.25124/jmi.v24i1.7303
40. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2025). İl bazında gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla, 2023. 30 Haziran 2025 tarihinde erişildi, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Il-Bazinda-Gayrisafi-Yurt-Ici-Hasila-2023-53575
41. Türkiye Odalar ve Borsalar Birliği. (2025). Kurulan-kapanan şirket istatistikleri. 30 Haziran 2025 tarihinde erişildi, https://www.tobb.org.tr/BilgiErisimMudurlugu/Sayfalar/KurulanKapananSirketistatistikleri.php
42. Türkiye Patent ve Marka Kurumu. (2025). Patent istatistikleri. 30 Haziran 2025 tarihinde erişildi, https://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/patent-istatistik
43. Tüysüz, S., Baycan, T., ve Altuğ, F. (2022). Economic impact of the covid-19 outbreak in Turkey: analysis of vulnerability and resilience of regions and diversely affected economic sectors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 6(3), 1133-1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-022-00255-6
44. Yıldırım, J., Öcal, N., ve Özyıldırım, S. (2008). Income inequality and economic convergence in Turkey: A spatial effect analysis. International Regional Science Review, 32(2), 221-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017608331250
45. Westerlund, J. (2009). A note on the use of the LLC panel unit root test. Empirical Economics, 37, 517-531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-008-0244-8
46. White, H. (1980). A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and A Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817-838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
47. Winden, W. V. (2019). Boosting the entrepreneurial scene in cities: experiences and reflections from the infocus network - a short communication. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 10(2), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkbd.2019.100988
48. Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.005
49. Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics. A modern approach (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
50. Wyrwich, M. (2012). Regional entrepreneurial heritage in a socialist and a postsocialist economy. Economic Geography, 88(4), 423-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01166.x