Kümelenmeye İlişkin Literatür Taraması

Öz

İşletmelerin coğrafi yakınlık ve karşılıklı bağımlıktan gelen yoğunlaşmasıyla birlikte oluşan sinerjiye kümelenme adı verilir. Bir küme içerisindeki firmalar birbiriyle rekabetten öte, işbirliğine giderler. Kümelenmenin üretkenliği artırdığı, verimliliği yükselttiği, yeni ürünlerin oluşmasına fayda sağladığı, inovasyona ortam oluşturduğu ve rekabet avantajı sağladığı görülmektedir. Bir ülkenin gelecekteki refahının anahtarı olarak, o ülkenin sınırları içerisinde kümelerin kurulmasıyla verimliliğin geliştirilmesini işaret edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada kümelenmenin genel özellikleri, avantajları ve Porter’ın kümelenme yaklaşımı irdelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kümelenme, Kümelenme’nin Genel Özellikleri, Kümelenme’nin Avantajları ve Porter’ın Kümelenme Yaklaşımı

-

Öz

The synergy of enterprises with the intensification of geographical proximity and mutual dependence is called cluster. Enterprises in cluster besides competing each other, they are in cooperation. The cluster increases the productivity, raises efficiency, provides creation of new products, creates a platform for innovation and provides competitive advantage. As the key to future prosperity of a country, it is pointed out the establishment of the clusters develops productivity in the country. In this study, the general features of clustering, advantages of clustering and Porter's cluster approach are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Clustering, General Features of Clustering, Advantages of Clustering and Porter’s Cluster Approach

Kaynakça

1. AKDEVE, E. (2008), “Sanayi Kümelerinde Yenilik, İşletmeler arası İlişkiler ve Yakınlıklar Organize Sanayi Bölgesinde Uygulama: Ankara 1. Organize Sanayi Bölgesi,” Doktora Tezi, Akara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, Ankara.
2. ALSAÇ, F. (2010), “Bölgesel Gelişme Aracı Olarak Kümelenme Yaklaşımı ve Türkiye İçin Kümelenme Destek Modeli Önerisi,” Planlama Uzmanlığı Tezi, DPT, Ankara.
3. ASHEIM, B., COOKE, P. ve MARTIN, R. (2000), “The rise of the Cluster Concept in Regional Analysis and Policy: a critical assessment in Clusters and Regional Development,” Routledge, pp: 1-30.
4. BEKAR, C., and LIPSEY, R.G. (2001), Clusters and Economic Policy, Toronto: CIAR.
5. BERKSHİRE STRATEGY PROJECT. (2006), Rural Clusters of Innovation: Berkshires Strategy Project Driving A Long-Term Economic Strategy. United States Department of Commerce Berkshire Economic Development Corporation Monitor Company Group, LLP.
6. BLAKELY, E., and BRADSHAW T. (2002), Planning Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice, London, Sage Publications.
7. BRAUNERHJELM, P., and CARLSSON, B. (1999), “Industry Clusters in Ohio and Sweden, 1975-1995,” Small Business Economics, S.12, C.4, s.279-293.
8. COOKE, P. (2001), Knowledge Economies: Clusters, Learning & Co-Operative Advantage, London: Routledge.

9. CORTRİGHT, J. (2006), Making Sense of Clusters: Regional Competitiveness and Economic Development, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
10. CROUCH, C., and FARRELL, H. (2001), “Great Britain: falling through the holes in the network concept”, in C. Crouch, P. Le Galés, C. Trogilia and H. Voelzkow (eds.), Local Production Systems in Europe. Rise or Demise?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 154-205.
11. ÇERÇEVE. (2009), “Rekabet ve Kümelenme” Sayı: 51.
12. DOLOREUX, D. (2002), “What We Should Know About Regional Systems of Innovation,” Technology and Society, S.24, s. 243-263.
13. DTI. (1998), Our competitive future: Building the knowledge driven economy, Cm 4176, London: HMSO.
14. ENRİGHT, M. (1996), “Regional Clusters and Economic Development: A Research Agenda. In U. Staber, N.V. Schaefer, and B. Sharma , eds., Business Network. Prospects for Regional Development. Berlin: de Gruyter. FESER, E. (1998), Old and New Theories of Industry Clusters, in Steiner, M.(1998). Cluster and Regional Socialization: On Geography, Technology, and Networked, Londres, Pion, pp. 18-40
15. FESER, E. J., and BERGMAN, E. M. (2000), “National Industry Cluster Templates: A Framework for Applied Regional Cluster Analysis”, Regional Studies, S.34, C.1, s.1-19.
16. HAKANSON, H., and JOHANSON, J. (1993), “Industrial Functions of Business Relationships,” Advanced International Marketing, S.5, s.13-29.
17. HENDERSON, J. V. (1986), The efficiency of resource usage and city size, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 19: 47-70.
18. HİLL, E. W., and BRENNAN, J. (2000), “A Methodology for Identifying the Drivers of Industrial Clusters: The Foundation of Regional Competitive Advantage,” Economic Development Quarterly, S.14, C.1, s.65-96.
19. HODGETTS, R. M. (1993), “Porter’s Diamond Framework in a Mexican Context,” Management International Review; Second Quarter, 33, 2, 41.
20. KETELS, C. H. M. (2003), The Development of the Cluster Concept – Present Experiences and Further Developments, http://www.isc.hbs.edu/pdf/Frontiers_of_Cluster Research, 23.11.2003, Erişim tarihi: 13.03.2010.
21. LO, C. (2003), The Diamond Approach of National Competitiveness Using DEA and Benchmarking Analysis For Asian Countries, http://etdncku.lib.ncku.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/getfile?URN=etd0622103-014129&filename=etd-0622103-014129.pdf, erişim tarihi: 09. 020
22. MOROSINI, P. (2004), Are Mergers And Acquisitions About Creating Values?.
23. OECD. (1999), Boosting Innovation: The Cluster Approach, OECD, Paris.
24. ÖZ, Ö., and PAMUKSUZ, M. K. (2003), Understanding Competitiveness: The Case of The Turkish White Goods Industry, European Applied Business Research Conference, Italy, Venice.
25. PIORE, M. J., and SABEL C. (1984), The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity, New York: Basic Books.
26. PORTER, M. E. (1990a), The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.
27. PORTER, M. E. (1995), “The competitive advantage of the inner city,” Harvard Business Review May/ June, 55-71.
28. PORTER, M. E. (1998a), On competition. Harvard Business School, Massachusetts.
29. PORTER, M. E. (1998b), “Clusters and the new economics of competition,” Harvard Business Review, November-December: 77-90.
30. PORTER, M. E. (2000b), “Location, competition and economic development: local clusters in a global economy,” Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), February, 15–34.
31. PREİSSŞ, L., and SOLİMENE B. (2003), The Dynamics of Clusters and Innovation: Beyond Systems and Networks, Heidelberg.
32. RABELLOTTİ, R. (1995), “Is there an "Industrial District Model? Footwear districts in Mexico and Italy Compared,” World Development, S.23, C.1, s.29REDMAN, J. M. (1994), Understanding State Economies Through Industry Studies. Washington, DC, USA: National Governors’ Association.
33. ROELANDT, T., and HERTOG, P. (1999), Cluster analysis and cluster-based policy making in OECD countries: an introduction to the theme, Chapter One in: OECD Boosting Innovation: the cluster approach, (1999), Paris: OECD, 9-23.
34. ROSENFELD, S. A. (1997), “Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economic development,” European Planning Studies, Vol. 5-1: 3-23.
35. ROSENFELD, S. A. (2001), Networks Aand Clusters: The Yin and Yang of Rural Development, Exploring Policy Options for a New Rural America, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
36. SOLVELL Ö., LINDQVIST G. and KETELS C. (2003), “The Cluster Initiative Greenbook” Bromma Tryck AB, Stockholm.
37. SWANN G.M.P., PREVEZER, M. and STOUT, D. eds. (1998), The dynamics of industrial clustering: International comparisons in computing and biotechnology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. TEECE, D. J. (1986), “Profiting from Technological Innovations,” Research Policy, S.15, C.6, s.285-306.
39. UZZI, B. (1997), “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, S.42, s.35
40. VOYER, R. (1997), “Emerging High-Technology Industrial Clusters in Brazil, India, Malaysia and South Africa,” Paper prepared for IDRC.
41. WEBSTER, F. E. (1992), “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation,” Journal of Marketing, S.56, s.1-17.