Sihirli Bir Araç Olarak Endüstriyel Kümelenmeler

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 2, 99 - 122, 01.07.2017

Sedat Acar , Bayram Güneş

Öz

İktisadi kalkınma yarışı, çoğu zaman mevcut sistemin eşitsizlik üreten doğasını görmemize engel olmaktadır. Uluslararası güç ilişkileri ve sınıfsal gerçekliklerden soyutlanmış analizler, ana akım kalkınma yazınını kaplamış görünmektedir. Bunlardan biri de bölgesel kalkınma alanının yeni gözdelerinden biri olan ‘endüstriyel kümelenme’ çalışmalarıdır.

Toplumsal alana ilişkin güven, karşılıklılık, dayanışma ve aidiyet gibi bazı değerleri bölgesel kalkınma çabalarının bir bileşeni haline getirerek ‘toplulukçu bir piyasa’ tahayyülü oluşturan kümelenme konsepti, son yıllarda oldukça ilgi görmektedir. Endüstriyel bölgelerin sağladığı dışsallıkları, bahsi edilen ‘sosyal sermaye’ unsurlarıyla aktive etme veya geliştirme çabası olarak değerlendirilebilecek kümelenme girişimleri, araştırmacılar nezdinde pozitif bir karşılık bulmaktadır. Ancak, bu girişimlere dair yapılan analizler kalkınma meselesinin ele alınışındaki sakatlıkları aynen içermektedir.

Bu çalışma, teknoloji teması üzerinden, endüstriyel bölgeler ve bunun üzerine bina edilen kümelenme girişimlerine dair yazının eleştirel bir değerlendirmesini içermektedir. Çalışmada, konseptin dönüşümünü sağlayan bazı temel tartışmaların yanı sıra, endüstriyel bölgelerin uluslararası işbölümü içerisindeki yeri, bölgesel harmoni çabalarının ideolojik imaları ve konseptin önemli yapıtaşlarından biri olan üniversite-sanayi işbirliklerinin yarattığı sorunlar gibi ilgili yazının ihmal ettiği konular ele alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bölgesel kalkınma, endüstriyel kümelenmeler, teknoloji, sosyal sermaye, üniversite-sanayi işbirliği.

Kaynakça

• Acemoğlu D ve Robinson J A (2014). Ulusların Düşüşü: Güç, Zenginlik ve Yoksulluğun Kökenleri. Doğan Egmont Yayıncılık: İstanbul.
• Agrawal A, Kapur D ve McHale J (2008). How do Spatial and Social Proximity Influence Knowledge Flows? Evidence From Patent Data. Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 258- 269.
• Alcacer J ve Oxley J (2014). Learning by Supplying. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 204-223.
• Amin A (2003). Industrial Districts, İçinde: E Sheppard ve T J Barnes (der.), A Companion to Economic Geography, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 149-168.
• Amin A ve Cohendet P (2005). Geographies of Knowledge Formation in Firms. Industry & Innovation, 12(4), 465-486.
• Araştırma, Geliştirme ve Tasarım Faaliyetlerinin Desteklenmesi Hakkında Kanun (2008). http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5746.pdf Son Erişim Tarihi, 02.02.2017.
• Archibugi D ve Pietrobelli C (2003). The Globalisation of Technology and its Implication for Developing Countries Windows of Opportunity or Further Burden?. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 70, 861-883.
• Asheim B, Cooke P ve Martin R (2006). The Rise of the Cluster Concept in Regional Analysis and Policy: A Critical Assessment. İçinde: B Asheim, P. Cooke ve R. Martin (der.), Clusters and Regional Development: Critical Reflections and Explorations, Oxon: Routledge, 1-29.
• Balland P A, Boschma R ve Frenken K (2015). Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907-920.
• Bathelt H ve Cohendet P (2014). The Creation of Knowledge: Local Building, Global Accessing and Economic Development—Toward an Agenda. Journal of Economic Geography, 14, 869-882.
• Bathelt H ve Henn S (2014). The Geographies of Knowledge Transfers Over Distance: Towar d a Typology, Environment and Planning A, 46, 1403-1424.
• Becattini G (1990). The Marshallian Industrial District as a Socio-economic Notion. İçinde: F Pyke ve W Sengenberger (der.), Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy, Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies, 37-51.
• Biggiero L ve Sammarra A (2010). Does Geographical Proximity Enhance Knowledge Exchange? The Case of the Aerospace Industrial Cluster of Center Italy, International Journal of Technology Transfer & Commercialization, 9(4), 283-305.
• Bimber B (1990). Karl Marx and the Three Faces of Technological Determinis., Social Studies of Science, 20, 333-351.
• Boschma R A (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment, Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
• Bowles S ve Gintis H (1975). The Problem with Human Capital Theory: A Marxian Critique. The American Economic Review, 65(2), 74-82.
• Broekel T (2015). The Co-evolution of Proximities – A Network Level Study. Regional Studies, 49(6), 921-935.
• Brusco S (1982). The Emilian Model: Production Decentralization and Social Integration. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 6, 167-184.
• Bulu M ve Yalçıntaş M (2014). Cluster as a Development Policy Tool: The Turkish Experience. İçinde: M Yülek (der.), Economic Planning and Industrial Policy in the Globalizing Economy: Concepts, Experience and Prospects, 331-344.
• Bunnel T G ve Coe N M (2001). Spaces and scales of innovation. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4), 569-589.
• Camagni R (1991). Introduction: From the Local ‘Milieu’ to Innovation Through Cooperation Networks. İçinde: R Camagni (der.), Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, London: Belhaven Press, 1-9.
• Camagni R (2004). Uncertainty, Social Capital and Community Governance: The City as a Milieu. İçinde: R Capello ve P Nijkamp (der.), Urban Dynamics and Growth: Advances in Urban Economics, Amsterdam: Elseiver, 121-150.
• Capello R ve Faggian A (2005). Collective Learning and Relational Capital in Local Innovation Process. Regional Studies, 39(1), 75-87.
• Carlsson B vd. (2002). Innovation Systems: Analytical and Methodological Issues. Research Policy, 31, 233-245.
• Cassi L ve Plunket A (2015). Research Collaboration in Co-inventor Networks: Combining Closure, Bridging and Proximities. Regional Studies, 49(6), 936-954.
• Cooke P, Uranga M G ve Etxebarria G (1998). Regional Systems of Innovation: An Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Planning A. 30, 1563-1584.
• Crescenzi R, Nathan M ve Rodriguez-Pose (2016). Do Inventors Talk to Strangers? On Proximity and Collaborative Knowledge Creation. Research Policy, 45, 177-194.
• Cruz S C S ve Teixeira A A C (2009). The Evolution of the Cluster Literature: Shedding Light on the Regional Studies-Regional Science Debate. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1263- 1288.
• Dei Ottati G (1994). Co-operation and Competition in the Industrial District as an Organisational Model. European Planning Studies, 2(4), 371-392.
• Doloreux D (2002). What We Should Know About Regional Systems of Innovation. Technology in Society. 24, 243-63.
• EC (European Commission) (2016). Smart Guide to Cluster Policy. Guidebook Series: How to Support SME Policy from Structural Funds. 2507138, Belgium: EC.
• Enright M. J. (2003). Regional Clusters: What We Know and What We Should Know. İçinde (der.), J Bröcker, D Dohse ve R Soltwedel (der.), Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition, New York: Springer, 99-129.
• Farrel H (2005). Trust and Political Economy: Institutions and the Sources of Interfirm Cooperation. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 459-483.
• Fine B (2001). Social Capital Versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium. Routledge: London
• Fine B ve Lapavitsas C (2004). Social Capital and Capitalist Economies. South Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 1, 17-34.
• Fitjar R D ve Huber F (2015). Global Pipelines for Innovation: Insights from the Case of Norway. Journal of Economic Geography, 15, 561-583.
• Fitjar R D ve Rodriguez-Pose A (2011). When Local Interaction Does not Suffice: Sources of Firm Innovation in Urban Norway. Environment and Planning A, 43, 1248-1267.
• Fitjar R D, Huber F ve Rodriguez-Pose A. (2016). Not too Close, Not too Far: Testing the Goldilocks Principle of ‘Optimal’ Distance in Innovation Networks. Industry and Innovation, 23(6), 465-487.
• Florida R (2007) [1995]. Toward the Learning Region. İçinde: R Butten ve F Boekeme (der.), The Learning Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future, UK: Edward Elgar, 58-70.
• Fromhold-Eisebith M (2004). Innovative Milieu and Social Capital- Complementary or Redundant Concepts of Collaboration-Based Regional Development?. European Planning Studies, 12(6), 747-765.
• Giuliani E (2007). The Selective Nature of Knowledge Networks in Clusters: Evidence from the Wine Industry, Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 139-168.
• Grabher G ve Ibert O (2013). Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 97-123.
• Grootaert C (1998). Social Capital: The Missing Link?. The World Bank Social Development Department Social Capital Working Paper Series, No:3.
• Gündem F (2016). Klasik Politik İktisattan Ekonomik Coğrafyaya Mekânın Seyri. Mülkiye Dergisi, 40(4), 69-90.
• Hall P V ve Jacobs W (2010). Shifting Proximities: The Maritime Ports Sector in an Era of Global Supply Chains, Regional Studies, 44(9), 1103-1115.
• Hansen T (2015). Substitution or Overlap? The Relations between Geographical and Non spatial Proximity Dimensions in Collaborative Innovation Projects. Regional Studies, 49, 1672-1684.
• Hardeman S vd. (2014). Characterizing and comparing innovation systems by different ‘modes’ of knowledge production: A proximity approach. Science and Public Policy, 42(4), 530-548.
• Harvey D (2011). Umut Mekânları. Çev. Zeynep Gambetti, İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Herrmann A M, Taks J L ve Moors E (2012). Beyond Regional Clusters: On the Importance of Geographical Proximity for R&D Collaborations in a Global Economy—the Case of the Flemish Biotech Sector. Industry and Innovation, 19(6), 499-516.
• Hervas-Oliver J L ve Albors-Garrigos J (2009). The Role of the Firm’s Internal and Relational Capabilities in Clusters: When Distance and Embeddedness are Not Enough to Explain Innovation, Journal of Economic Geography, 9, 263-283.
• Humphrey J ve Schmitz H (2002). How Does Insertion in Global Value Chains Affect Upgrading in Industrial Clusters?. Regional Studies, 36(9), 1017-1027.
• IASP. http://www.iasp.ws/publico/index.jsp?enl=2 Son Erişim Tarihi, 18.03.08.
• KB (Kalkınma Bakanlığı) (2013). Onuncu Kalkınma Planı 2014-2018. http:// www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Lists/Kalknma%20Planlar/Attachments/12/Onuncu%20 Kalk%C4%B1nma%20Plan%C4%B1.pdf Son Erişim Tarihi, 11.01.2017.
• Kesidou J ve Snijders C (2012). External Knowledge and Innovation Performance in Clusters: Empirical Evidence from the Uruguay Software Cluster. Industry and Innovation, 19(5), 437-457.
• Kirat T ve Lung Y (1999). Innovation and Proximity: Territories as Loci of Collective Learning Process. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 27-38.
• Knoben J ve Oerlemans L A G (2006). Proximity and Inter-organizational Collaboration: A Literature Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89.
• Knoben J ve Oerlemans L A G. (2012). Configurations of Inter-organizational Knowledge Links: Does Spatial Embeddedness Still Matter?. Regional Studies. 46(8): 1005-1021.
• Knorringa P ve Nadvi K (2016). Rising Power Clusters and the Challenges of Local and Global Standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 55–72.
• Knorringa P ve Staveren I (2005). Social Capital for Industrial Development: Operationalizing the Concept. V-05.86710, UNIDO: Vienna.
• KOBİ İşbirliği ve Kümelenme Projesi (2017). http://www.smenetworking.gov.tr/detay. cfm?MID=45 Son Erişim Tarihi, 1.1.2017.
• Leborgne D ve Lipietz, A (1988). New Technologies, New Modes of Regulation: Some Spatial Implications. Enivonment and Planing D: Society and Space, 6, 263-280.
• Lipietz A (1986). New Tendencies in the International Division of Labor: Regimes of Accumulation and Modes of Reguation, İçinde: A Scott ve M Storper (der.), Production, Work, Territory, Boston: Allen & Unwin, 16–40.
• Liu C L ve Zhang Y (2013). Learning Process and Capability Formation in Cross-border Buyer–supplier Relationships: A qualitative Case Study of Taiwanese Technological Firms. International Business Review, 23(4), 718-730.
• Lund-Thomsen P ve Pillay R G (2012). CSR in Industrial Clusters: An Overview of the Literature. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12(4), 568-578.
• Maillat D (1998). From the Industrial District to the Innovative Milieu: Contribution to Analysis of Territorialised Productive Organisations. Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 64(1), 111-129.
• Marshall A (1895) [1890]. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan and Co.
• Martin R ve Sunley P (2003). Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concept or Policy Panacea?. Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 5-35.
• Maskell P (2014). Accessing Remote Knowledge—The Toles of Trade Fairs, Pipelines, Crowdsourcing and Listening Posts. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(5), 883-902.
• Mattes J (2012). Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1085-1099.
• Metcalfe J S (1994). Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy. The Economic Journal, 104(425), 931-944.
• Meyer-Stame J. (2003). Obstacles to Cooperation in Clusters and How to Overcome Them. Developing Alternatives, 9(1), 19-24.
• Molina-Morales F X, Garcia-Villaverde P M ve Parra-Requena G (2014). Geographical and Cognitive Pproximity Effects on Innovation Performance in SMEs: A Way Through Knowledge Acquisition, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(2), 231-251.
• Moodysson J (2008). Principles and Practices of Knowledge Creation: On the Organization of “Buzz” and “Pipelines” in Life Science Communities. Economic Geography, 84(4), 449-469.
• Morgan K (2007) [1997]. The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. İçinde: R Butten ve F Boekeme (der.), The Learning Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future, UK: Edward Elgar, 101-124.
• Nadvi K ve Halder G (2005). Local Clusters in Global Value Chains: Exploring Dynamic Linkages between Germany and Pakistan. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 17(5), 339-363.
• Narin Ö (2010). Adam Smith ve Marks’ta Emek Bölümü ve Teknoloji. İçinde: H Kapucu vd. (der.), Politik İktisat ve Adam Smith, 233-255, Yön Yayınları: İstanbul.
• Nonaka I ve Toyama R (2003). The Knowledge-Creating Theory Revisited: Knowledge Creation as a Synthesizing Process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1: 2-10.
• Nooteboom, B. (2004). Interfirm Collaboration, Learning, and Networks: An Integrated Approach. Routledge: London.
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1996). The Knowledge-Based Economy. Paris: OECD.
• Paci R, Marrocu E ve Usai S (2014). The Complementary Effects of Proximity Dimensions on Knowledge Spillovers. Spatial Economic Analysis, 9(1), 9-30.
• Peck J ve Tickell A (1992). Local Modes of Social Regulation? Regulation Theory, Thatcherism and Uneven Development. Geoforum, 23, 347-364.
• Piore M ve Sabel C (1984). The Second Industrial Divide. Newyork: Basic Books.
• Porter M (2010) [1998]. Rekabet Üzerine, Çev. K Tanrıyar, İstanbul: Optimist.
• Potter J ve Miranda G (2009). Clusters, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD.
• Pyke F ve Lund-Thomsen P (2015). Industrial Clusters and Social Upgrading in Developing Countries: Towards an Analytical Framework. CBS Working Papers, No:1.
• Rallet A ve Torre A (1999). Is Geographical Proximity Necessary in the Innovation Networks in the Era of Global Economy?. GeoJournal, 49, 373–380.
• Rudra N (2008). Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries: Who Really Gets Hurt?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmitz H ve Nadvi K (1999). Clustering and Industrialization: Introduction. World Development, 27(9), 1503-1514.
• Scott A J (1988). New Industrial Spaces. London: Pion.
• Scott A J (2004). Flexible Production Systems and Regional Development: The Rise of New Industrial Spaces in North America and Western Europe, İçinde: T J Barnes vd. (der.), Reading Economic Geography, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 125-136.
• Sengenberger W ve Pyke F (1992). Industrial Districts and Local Economic Regeneration: Research and Policy Issues. İçinde: F. Pyke ve W. Sengenberger (der.), Industrial Districts and Local Economic Regeneration, Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies, 3-29.
• Sharif N (2006). Emergence and Development of The National Innovation Systems Concept. Research Policy, 35, 745-766.
• Sismondo S (2015). Bilim ve Teknoloji Araştırmaları Yaklaşımı: Temeller. Epos Yayınları: Ankara.
• Slaughter S (2000). The Neo-Liberal University. New Labor Forum, 6, 73-79.
• Taymaz E (2001). Ulusal Yenilik Sistemi: Türkiye İmalat Sanayinde Teknolojik Değişim ve Yenilik Süreçleri. Ankara: TUBİTAK, TTGV, DIE http://www.inovasyon.org/html/kitap. htm Son Erişim Tarihi, 30.03.08.
• Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri Kanunu (2001). http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/ MevzuatMetin/1.5.4691.pdf Son Erişim Tarihi, 02.02.2017.
• TÜBİTAK (Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu) (2005). Oslo Kılavuzu: Yenilik Verilerinin Toplanması ve Yorumlanması için İlkeler. http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/ tubitak_content_files/BTYPD/kilavuzlar/Oslo_3_TR.pdf Son Erişim Tarihi, 11.12.2016.
• Türkcan E (2009). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Bilim, Teknoloji ve Politika. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) (2010). Cluster Development for Pro-poor Growth: The UNIDO Approach, Business. Investment and Technology Services Branch Technical Paper Series. Vienna: UNIDO.
• Viale R ve Etzkowitz H (2005). Third Academic Revolution: Polyvalent Knowledge; The “DNA” of The Triple Helix. 5th Triple Helix Conference. Turin, Italy. www.triplehelix5.com. Son Erişim Tarihi, 12.10.2007.
• Weterings A ve Ponds R (2009). Do Regional and Non-regional Knowledge Flows Differ? An Empirical Study on Clustered Firms in the Dutch Life Sciences and Computing Services Industry. Industry & Innovation, 16(1), 11-31.
• Wolfe, D A ve Gertler M S (2004). Clusters from the Inside and Out: Local Dynamics and Global Linkages. Urban Studies, 41(5/6), 1071-1093.
• YÖK Tez Merkezi (2016). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ Son Erişim Tarihi, 15.11.2016.