Tekno-Milliyetçilik mi Teknoloji Egemenliği mi? Türkiye ve Brezilya'da MR Teknolojisi Geliştirme Faaliyetlerinden Karşılaştırmalı Bulgular

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 52 Sayı: 2, 453 - 483, 30.12.2025

Ceren Yavuz , İbrahim Semih Akçomak

Öz

Bu makale, tekno-milliyetçilik ve teknoloji egemenliği stratejilerinin teknolojik öğrenme ve yerli üretim kabiliyetlerini, özellikle de MR teknolojisinin geliştirilmesini nasıl etkilediğini analiz ederek Türkiye ve Brezilya'yı ekonomi-politik çerçevede karşılaştırmaktadır. Hızlı teknolojik ilerlemeler ve jeopolitik değişimler, devletleri teknolojik özerklik, tedarik zinciri esnekliği ve ulusal güvenliği vurgulayan sanayi politikalarını yeniden gözden geçirmeye itmiştir. Türkiye'nin “yerli-milli” yaklaşımı, teknolojik öğrenmeyi engelleyen güçlü tekno-milliyetçi eğilimler sergilerken, Brezilya'nın daha açık, işbirliğine dayalı stratejisi teknoloji transferini kolaylaştırmış ve yerli üretim yeteneklerini önemli ölçüde geliştirmiştir. MR teknolojisi, karmaşıklığı, sağlık hizmetleri açısından stratejik önemi ve çok uluslu şirketlerin hakim olduğu yoğunlaşmış küresel pazar nedeniyle ideal bir bağlam sunmaktadır. Bulgular, Türkiye'nin sınırlı kurumsal uyum ve küresel entegrasyon ile karakterize edilen tekno-milliyetçi stratejisinin teknolojik kabiliyet inşasını kısıtladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Buna karşılık, Brezilya'nın yapılandırılmış politika müdahaleleri ve uluslararası işbirliği ile desteklenen üretimin yerelleşmesi politikası, etkili teknolojik öğrenme ile sonuçlanmıştır. Bu araştırma, literatürde karşılaştırmalı olarak nadiren incelenmiş bir alan olan Türkiye'nin hibrit stratejisini inceleyerek yeni içgörüler sunmakta ve böylece gelişmekte olan ekonomilerde teknoloji egemenliği ve tekno-milliyetçilik tartışmalarını zenginleştirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

tekno-milliyetçilik , teknoloji egemenliği , Türkiye , Brezilya

Techno-nationalism or technology sovereignty? Comparative evidence from MRI technology development in Türkiye and Brazil

Öz

This paper compares Türkiye and Brazil within a political-economy framework, analyzing how techno-nationalism and technology sovereignty strategies affect technological learning and indigenous production capabilities, specifically in MRI technology development. Rapid technological advancements and geopolitical shifts have triggered governments to reconsider industrial policies, emphasizing technological autonomy, supply chain resilience, and national security. While Türkiye's “indigenous-national” approach exhibited strong techno-nationalistic tendencies, hindering effective technological learning, Brazil's more open, collaborative strategy significantly facilitated technology transfer and indigenous capabilities. MRI technology provides an ideal context due to its complexity, strategic healthcare importance, and concentrated global market dominated by multinational corporations. The findings reveal that Türkiye’s nationalistic strategy, characterized by limited institutional alignment and global integration, constrained technological capability building. In contrast, Brazil’s strategic localization, supported by structured policy interventions and international collaboration, resulted in effective technological learning and industrial success. This research provides novel insights by examining Türkiye’s hybrid strategy, an area rarely explored comparatively in existing literature, thus enriching discussions on technology sovereignty and techno-nationalism in emerging economies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

techno-nationalism , technology sovereignty , Türkiye , Brazil

Kaynakça

• References AKÇOMAK, İ. S. (2024), “Türkiye’nin Yeni bir Ekonomik Büyüme Hikayesi Arayışına Yeni Sanayi Politikası Çare olur mu?” İkinci 500 Özel Sayısı. İstanbul Sanayi Odası.
• ARROW, K. J. (1962), “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295952
• ASLAN, B., DEMİRDÜZEN, S., and KILIÇ, R. (2014), Türkiye’de Sağlık Teknolojileri Sektör Analizi. TÜSEB Yayınları.
• BATHELT, H., MALMBERG, A., and MASKELL, P. (2004), “Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation”, Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa
• BELL, M. and PAVITT, K. (1993), “Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts Between Developed and Developing Countries”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(2), 157–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/2.2.157
• BINZ, C. and TRUFFER, B. (2017), “Global Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Framework for Innovation Dynamics in Transnational Contexts”, Research Policy, 46(7), 1284–1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.012
• BLIND, K. (2025), “Standardization and Standards: Safeguards of Technological Sovereignty?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 210(123873). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123873
• BMWK – Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. (2021), GAIA-X and Digital Sovereignty. (accessed: 4th of April, 2025)
• CAPRI, A. (2020), Strategic US-China Decoupling in the Tech Sector. Hinrich Foundation Report.
• CAPRI, A. (2025), Techno-Nationalism: How it’s Reshaping Trade, Geopolitics and Society, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
• CONNOLY, R. (2020), Russia’s Response to Sanctions: How Western Economic Statecraft is Reshaping Political Economy in Russia, Cambridge University Press.
• da PONTE, A., LEON, G., and ALVAREZ, I. (2023), “Technological Sovereignty of the EU in Advanced 5G Mobile Communications: An Empirical Approach”, Telecommunications Policy, 47, 102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459
• EDLER, J. and FARERBERG, J. (2017), “Innovation Policy: What, Why, and How”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx001
• EDLER, J., GÖK, A., CUNNINGHAM, P., and SHAPIRA, P. (2016), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, Edward Elgar.
• EDLER, J., BLIND, K., FRIETSH, R., KIMPLER, S., KROLL, H., LERCH, C., REISS, T. and ROTH, F., SCHUBERT, T., SCHULER, J., and WALZ, R., (2020), Technology Sovereignty: From Demand to Concept [Technologiesouveränität: Von der Forderung zum Konzept], Perspectives Policy Briefs, 02/2020, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
• ERNST, D. and KIM, L. (2002), “Global Production Networks, Knowledge Diffusion, and Local Capability Formation”, Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1417–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00072-0
• FREEMAN, C. (1995), “The ‘National System of Innovation’ in Historical Perspective”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309
• FREEMAN, C. and SOETE, L. (1997), The Economics of Industrial Innovation (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
• FU, X. and GONG, Y. (2011), “Indigenous and Foreign Innovation Efforts and Drivers of Technological Upgrading: Evidence from China”, World Development, 39(7), 1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.05.010
• GEETHANATH, S. and VAUGHAN, J. T. (2019), “Accessible Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review”, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 49(7), https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26638.
• GOLDBERG, P.K., JUHASZ, R. LANE, N.J, LO FORTE, and THURK, J. (2024), Industrial Policy in the Global Semiconductor Sector, NBER Working Paper 32651, https://doi.org/10.3386/w32651.
• GOVERNMENT OF BRASIL (2012), “Interministerial Ordinance 28 of 2012”, https://www.normasbrasil.com.br/norma/portaria-interministerial-28-2012_236693.html (accessed: 26th of July, 2024).
• HUANG, C. and SOETE, L. (2025), “Reconciling Open Science with Technological Sovereignty”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2025.2459764
• KHOKHAR, S., PATHAN, H., RAHEEM, A. and ABBASI, A. M. (2020), “Theory Development in Thematic Analysis: Procedure and Practice”, International Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3, 423-433. https://doi.org/10.47067/ramss.v3i3.79.
• KIM, L. (1997), Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea's Technological Learning. Harvard Business School Press.
• KIPER, M. (2013), Medical Devices Sector in the World and in Turkey: Situation Analysis and Strategic Recommendations, Türkiye Sağlık Endüstrisi İşverenleri Sendikası. https://www.seis.org.tr/cms-uploads/2021/09/tibbi-cihaz-sektoru-strateji-onerisi.pdf
• KROLL, H. (2024), Assessing Open Strategic Autonomy, Publications Office of the European Union, https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-01/JRC136359_RD_OSA_JRC136359_final.pdf
• KÖNIG, M., SONG, Z. M., STORESLETTEN, K., and ZILIBOTTI, F. (2021), From Imitation to Innovation: Where is All that Chinese R&D Going? NBER Working Paper No. 27404, revised. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27404
• LALL, S. (2001), Competitiveness, Technology and Skills, Edward Elgar Publishing.
• LAI, M., PENG, S., and BAO, Q. (2006), “Technology Spillovers, Absorptive Capacity and Economic Growth”, China Economic Review. 17(3), 300-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2006.04.005.
• LEE, B-W. (2002), FDI from Developing Countries: A Vector for Trade and Development. OECD Development Centre. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2002/05/fdi-from-developing-countries_g1gh2bbf/9789264176027-en.pdf
• LEE, J., KIM, H., SI, S., and LEE, S. (2024), “Techno-Nationalism To Collaborative Technology Sovereignty“, Science and Public Policy, 51(6), 1185-1190. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae046
• LUNDVALL, B. Å. (der.) (2010), National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Anthem Press.
• MARCH, C. and SCHIEFERDECKER, I. (2023), “Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky”, International Studies Review, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad012
• MAZZUCATO, M. (2015), The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Anthem Press.
• MAZZUCATO, M. and RODRIK, D. (2023), Industrial Policy with Conditionalities. A Taxonomy and Sample Cases, UCLL-IIPP Working Paper 2023/07. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sites/bartlett/files/industrial_policy_with_conditionalities_a_taxonomy_and_sample_cases.pdf
• MONTRESOR, S. (2001), “Techno-Globalism, Techno-Nationalism and Technological Systems: Organizing the Evidence”, Technovation, 21(7), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00061-4.
• NELSON, R. R. and WINTER, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press.
• PALIKAS, L. A., HORWITZ, S. M., GREEN, C. A., WISDOM, J. P., DUAN, N. and HOANGWOOD, K. (2015), “Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research”, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5):533-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
• RODRIK, D. (2004), Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century, Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.617544
• ROMER, P. M. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
• OFFICIAL GAZETTE (2014), https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/11/20141126-3.htm, (accessed: 29 March, 2024).
• STRATEJİ BÜTÇE BAŞKANLIĞI (2014), “Tenth Development Plan”, https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Onuncu_Kalkinma_Plani-2014-2018.pdf, (accessed: 23 August, 2024)
• SEO, I. and WON SONN, J. (2019), “Conflicting Motivations and Knowledge Spill-Overs: Dynamics of the Market Across Space”, Geoforum. 105, 210-212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.026.
• SZCZYGIELSKI, K., MYCIELSKI, J., and BESHENICH, C. (2025), “RTDI Policy Frames and EU’s Technological Performance”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2025.2482997
• VERGARA, F. A., FISCHER, A., SEURING, T., BEAUFORT, C. D., FAGHERAZZI, G., and AGUAYO, G. (2023), “Mixed-Methods Study Protocol to Identify Expectations of People with type 1 Diabetes and Their Caregivers about Voicebased Digital Health Solutions to Support the Management of Diabetes Distress: the PsyVoice Study”, BMJ Open, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068264.
• VIANA, A. L. D., FAUSTO, M. C. R., and LIMA, L. D. (2016), “Health Policy and Technological Innovation in Brazil”, Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 21(10), 2949–2960. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320212612.18632021
• VIANA, A. L. D., SILVA, H. P., OLIVEIRA, Y. P. S., ELIAS, F. T. S., and IOZZI, F. L. (2024), “The Health Economic-Industrial Complex as a Strategy for Health Autonomy in Brazil”, Salud Pública de México, 66(2), 233–242. https://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/salpubmex/sal-2024/sal245o.pdf
• WAGNER, C. S. and POPPER, S. W. (2003), “Identifying Critical Technologies in the United States: A Review of the Federal Effort”, Journal of Forecasting, 22(2-3), https://doi.org/10.1002/for.854
• YAVUZ, C. (2024), How Do Different State Strategies Affect Technological Learning?: A Comparative Study on MRI Manufacturing in Brazil and Türkiye, Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/111411/CY%20THESIS%2003.10.2024.pdf