Neden Bazı İşletme Grupları Diğerlerinin Gerisinde Kalmaktadır? Türkiye’deki Bölgesel Şebeke Örgütleri Örneği

Yıl 2009, Sayı: 22, 325 - 334, 01.08.2009

Hüseyin Özgen Hande Mimaroğlu Özgen

Öz

Bugüne kadar bilim adamlarısıklıkla gelişmişya da ekonomik olarak önemli görülen işgruplarınıinceleme konusu yapmaktaydılar. Ancak son zamanlardaki araştırmalar aynıpazarda ortaya çıkan ancak performans ve yaş, büyüklük, ölçek, sahiplik, finansal kaynaklar, içsel sermaye pazarlarıve devlet ilişkileri gibi bir takım örgütsel belirleyiciler açısından farklılaşan işgruplarınıele almaktadır. Bu tür işgruplarından bazıları, özellikle Türkiye için sıklıkla aile işletmeleri, bölgesel, ulusal ve uluslararasıpazarlarda büyüyerek önemli rol oynarken bazılarıbaşarısız olarak yok olmaktadırlar. Bu makalede neden bazıişgruplarının diğerleri gibi başarılıolamadıklarının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Kurumsal bağlamın örgütlerin büyümelerini nasıl sınırlandırdıklarıTürkiye odağında ele alınmaktadır. Makalede öncelikle işgruplarının tanımlanmasına çalışılmış, Türkiye’deki işgruplarıhakkında kısa bilgi verilmiştir. İkinci olarak işgruplarınıkonu alan araştırmalardaki kurumsal yaklaşıma değinilmiş, geçerli kurumsal boşluklar, sosyal ilişkiler, devlet icraatleri gibi işgruplarının oluşumunu ve gelişimini etkileyen faktörler ele alındıktan sonra üçüncü olarak Türkiye’nin bölgesel ağının nasıl oluşabileceği tartışılarak, son olarak gelecek araştırmalar için bir takım öneriler getirilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşgrupları, örgütsel büyüme, gelişmekte olan pazarlar, Türkiye

Why Some Types of Business Groups Fall Behind Others? The Case of Regional Networks in Turkey

Öz

To date, much of the business groups BGs literature has focused on mature and/or economically more important types of groups in their respective markets such as the chaebol jae-bul in South Korea, the quanxi qiye in Taiwan, the konglomerat in Indonesia, the family business groups in India, the family holdings in Turkey, the grupos economicos in Latin America, the twenty-two families of Pakistan, financial-industrial groups or FIGs semibankirschchina in Russia, and the qiye jituan in China. Yet, more recent analyses of BGs recognize distinct types of BGs which emerge in the same markets but differ in terms of their performances and a variety of organizational characteristics such as age, size, scope, ownership status, financial resources, and relations with the state business groups. Alliances composed of small and medium sized firms, which are often loosely connected through joint production, joint marketing, and knowledge sharing networks, are identified as regional networks in Turkey Karademir, 2004; Yaprak, Karademir and Osborn, 2007 . Member firms of these networks seek benefits such as gaining access to more advance technological and marketing knowledge. In most cases, member firms of these networks establish relatively stronger social and economic ties to policy makers at the local and national levels compared to their stand alone counterparts. Some of them appear to be networks of second-tier and third-tier suppliers. Some others evolve into hybrid structures which would be known as multiownership holding company structure in Turkey. For the purposes of this study, we review the literature on regional networks and examine institutional factors affecting their evolutionary dynamics. BGs are often conceptualized as groups of firms which are legally independent but connected through economic, social, and legal ties. Yet, it should be considered that BGs may vary according to some organizational characteristics such as such as age, size, scope, status of ownership, axes of solidarity, administrative structure, and network characteristics. A review of current literature illustrates that these complex entities which emerge in different institutional and economic settings considerably vary from each other Yaprak, Karademir and Osborn, 2007 . While we are relatively more informed about the varying characteristics of BGs in different emerging markets, we are not informed as well about whether different types of BGs exist in these markets, and on what basis and to what extent do they differ from each other. More recent analyses of BGs recognize distinct types of BGs which emerge in the same markets but differ in terms of their performances and a variety of organizational characteristics. For example, Karademir 2004 identifies four types of BGs in Turkey; a Dominant Business Groups-DBGs, b Emergent Business Groups EBGs, c Encouraged Networks-ENs, and d Regional Networks-RNs. The first two of these are family owned and controlled BGs which emerged in different institutional and economic periods of Turkey. With a few exceptions initial investments of DBGs date back to 1950s. These BGs evolved along with the “roller coaster” economy and political climate of the country. Today, they dominate key industrial sectors, are likely alliance partners for multinationals, and favorable participants of the big privatization projects. EBGs, on the other hand, are mostly established after 1980s, in the Outward Growth and Liberalization Period of Turkey. Today, some of the subsidiaries of EBGs are important players in key industrial sectors. Some of these EBGs grow faster than their counterparts as long as they find strong state backing. A review of the studies on political economics of Turkey demonstrates that economic policies throughout the various institutional and economic periods since the foundation of the republic in 1923, provided accumulation of capital in the hands of family owned BGs Karademir et al., 2005; Karademir and Danışman, 2007 . On the other hand, initiatives for encouraging formation of networks of small and medium sized enterprises were easily broken. It can be articulated that while outward growth and liberalization policies of 1980s indirectly supported formation of regional networks in the country, legislation regarding the formation of Sectoral Foreign Trade Companies which largely borrowed from the Japanese trading company model directly encouraged formation of networks of small and medium sized enterprises. Interestingly, a few of these encouraged networks transformed into BGs composed of loose networks. Some of them reached very high export volumes; some of them suffered from poor performance; some survived thanks to strong state backing; some blueprinted institutionalized growth patterns of family owned business groups and diversified into a wide range of areas; some of them disbanded; some others still survive. Our examination of the formation and evolution of regional networks in the Turkish business context suggests that in parallel with the theoretical reasoning there are set of institutional factors limiting organizational growth. First, we observe that formation and evolution of regional networks are highly dependent on clustering of firms in a region and complementary relations among both small and medium sized enterprises and large scale companies. Clustering of firms in a region and formation of well-built production, service, marketing, and knowledge relations substitute institutions and fill institutional voids. However, institution substitution role of regional networks are limited in the absence of network building and/or organizing institutions such as medium and/or large size companies, multinationals, state owned enterprises, chambers, and associations. Second, we observe that social relations which form on the region, ethnicity, religion basis become liability rather than asset in the absence of proper economic policy orientations and state backing. In less developed regions, social networks of entrepreneurs impose uniform behaviors. Third, we observe that state activity plays an important role in the formation and evolution of regional networks. In this paper, we aim to examine why some types of BGs do not prosper as well as other types, how institutional context limits organizational growth with a special emphasis on Turkey. Our paper is organized as follows. First, we define BGs and briefly explain the types of BGs in Turkey. Second, we present the institutional approach to the study of BGs. Third, we present discussion of formation and evolution of regional networks in Turkey. Finally, we present a discussion and propositions for future research

Anahtar Kelimeler

Business groups, organizational growth, emerging markets, Turkey

Kaynakça

• Akgungor, S. (2006) Geographic concentrations in Turkey’s manufacturing industry: Identifying regional highpoint clusters”, European Planning Studies, 14(2): 169-97.
• Barlow, R. and Senses, F. (1995) The Turkish export boom: Just reward or just lucky? Journal of Development Economics, 48: 111-133.
• Encarnation, D. (1989) Dislodging multinationals: India’s comparative perspective, NY: Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
• Eraydin, A. (2005) Global networks as open gates for regional innovation systems, in C. Alvstram and E.W.Schamp (eds) Linking Industries across the World: Processes of Global Networking, Ashgate: Aldershot, 53- 88.
• Eraydin, A. and Armatli-Koroglu B. (2005) Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: The characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17: 237-266.
• Eraydin, A. (2002a) Yeni sanayi odakları: Yerel kalkınmanın yeniden kavramlaştırılması, Ankara, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Basım İşliği.
• Eraydin, A. (2002b) The local embeddedness of firms in Turkish industrial districts: The changing role of networks in local development, in M.Taylor and S. Leonard (eds), Social Capital and the Embedded Enterprise: International Perspectives, Ashgate: Aldershot: 269-289.
• Evren, Y. (2002) Supply networks in the car industry: Do peripheral economies perform specific tasks? Lessons from the Turkish car industry, International Planning Studies, 7(4):283-302.
• Falcioglu, P. and Akgungor S. (2008) Regional specialization and industrial concentration patterns in the Turkish manufacturing industry: An assessment for the 1980-2000 Period, European Planning Studies, 16(2):304-323.
• Filiztekin, A. and Tunali, I. (1999) Anatolian Tigers: Are they for real? New Perspectives on Turkey, Spring: 7-21.
• Gordon, I and McCann P. (2000) Industrial clusters: Complexes, agglomeration, and/or social networks? Urban Studies, 37(3): 513-532.
• Granovetter, M. (1994) Business Groups, in N.Smelser and R. Swedberg (eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton University Press: 453-475.
• Karademir, B. (2000) Şebeke organizasyonlarında yer almanın KOBİ’ler açısından örgütsel sonuçları: Sektörel dış ticaret şirketleri üzerine bir araştırma, unpublished master thesis, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
• Karademir, B. (2004) Institutional isomorphism, markets, firm resources, and business group corporate diversification in emerging economies: A study of Turkish Business Groups, doctorate dissertation, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
• Karademir, B., Ozgen H., Osborn, R.N. and Yaprak, A. (2005) The Co-evolution of Institutional environments, markets, organizational capabilities, and organizational strategies: A comparative case study of Turkish Family Holdings, 21st Colloquium of European Group for Organizational Studies, 2005, Berlin, Germany.
• Karademir, B. and Danışman, A. (2007) Business groups and media in emerging economies: A co- evolutionary approach to their interrelationships in Turkey, 1960-2005, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 5(3): 44-57.
• Keister, L.A. (1998) Engineering growth: Business group structure and firm performance in China’s transition economy, American Journal of Sociology, 104, 404-440.
• Khanna, T. and Palepu K. (1997) Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets? Harvard Business Review 75 (4):41-51.
• Khanna, T. and Yafeh Y. (2007) Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, XLV (June), 331-372.
• Leff, N.H. (1976) Capital markets in the less developed countries: The group principle, in Ronald I. McKinnon (ed.), Money and Finance in Economic Growth and Development, New York, Dekker: 97-122.
• Leff, N.H. (1978), “Industrial Organization and Entrepreneurship in the Developing Countries: The Economic Groups”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 26(4), 661-675.
• Oba, B. and Semercioz F. (2005) Antecedents of trust in industrial districts: An empirical analysis of interfirm relations in a Turkish industrial district, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(May): 163-182.
• Okten, A., Sengezer, B., Camlibel, N. and Evren Y. (1998) Spatial implications of organization of production in the automotive industry in Turkey, The 38th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, 28 August-1 September, Vienna.
• Oz, O. (2002) Geographic clusters and international competitiveness: Evidence from Turkey, Ankara: METU.
• Ozcan, G.B. (1995) Small business networks and local ties in Turkey, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7: 265-282.
• Schwartz, A. (1992) A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990’s, Allen and Unwin, Sydn
• Yaprak, A., Karademir B. and Osborn R.N. (2007) How do business groups function and evolve in emerging markets? The case of Turkish business groups, Advances in International Marketing, 17: 275-294.