ANTALYA’DA TARIM VE TARIMLA İLİŞKİLİ FİRMALARIN İNOVASYON VE YEREL AKTÖRLERLE İŞBİRLİĞİ FAALİYETLERİNİN ANALİZİ

Öz

İnovasyonun ekonomik kalkınmanın ana unsuru olduğu günümüz ekonomisinde bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki tarımsal üretim değeri açısından ilk sırada yer alan Antalya’da tarım ve tarımla ilişkili sektörlerde faaliyet gösteren firmaların inovasyon faaliyetleri ve yerel paydaşlarla işbirliği düzeyleri araştırılmaktadır. Antalya ilindeki 77 firmanın anket yöntemiyle inovasyon açısından incelendiği çalışmada bu firmaların. yerel aktörlerle ilişkileri (1) Eğitim-Araştırma Kurumları, (2) Üretici Birlikleri-Dernekler, (3) Kooperatifler, (4) Ticaret OdalarıBorsalar, (5) Kamu Kurumları ve (6) Finans Kuruluşları olmak üzere altı grupta analiz edilmektedir. Araştırma bulguları ilde incelemeye konu olan 77 firmanın söz konusu altı gruptaki 37 aktörle inovatif işbirliğinin düşük olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu durum tarım ve tarımla ilişkili sektörlerde inovasyon sistemi aktörlerle işbirliği kanallarının zayıflığına işaret etmektedir. Bulgulara göre firmaların ölçeklerinin küçüklüğü, kurumsallaşmanın zayıflığı, göreli az dış ticaret yapmaları sonucunda rekabet baskısı ile az karşılaşmaları sonucunda firmaların inovatif işbirliği baskısını üzerlerinde daha az hissettikleri söylenebilir. Bunun doğal sonucu olarak inovasyon faaliyetlerinde işbirliği konusuna bakıldığında; araştırma bulguları firmaların inovasyon faaliyetlerini büyük ölçüde tek başlarına yürüttükleri ve herhangi bir firma/kurum ile işbirliği yapmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çerçevede işbirliği kanalları ve araçları geliştirilmeli, oda ve borsa öncülüğünde sektörel bölgesel inovasyon stratejisi hazırlanmalı, benzer rakip kentler araştırılarak farkındalık arttırılmalı ve üniversitenin sektörle daha aktif inovatif eylemeler içerisinde olması sağlanmalıdır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnovasyon (Yenilik), İnovasyon Sistemi, Tarım Sektörü, Antalya

An Analysis of Innovation and Collaboration Activities of Agricultural and Agricultural Related Firms with Local Actors in Antalya

Öz

Contemporary economies assume innovation as a main factor for promoting economic development. This study, in this line, explores the innovative activities, and the level of collaboration with local stakeholders of agricultural and agricultural related firms in Antalya_ a province that ranks at the first place in Turkey in terms of agricultural product value. As the innovation literature confirms stronger collaboration among related actors’ results in the better innovative achievements. In this context this article investigates 77 firms in Antalya by a survey in terms of innovation and the collaborations of firms with local stakeholders is analysed in six categories, which are: (1) education, research institutions, (2) producer associations-unions, (3) cooperatives, (4) chambers and exchanges, (5) public institutions and (6) financial institutions. Research findings indicate that the innovative collaboration activities of 77 firms with 37 different local actors under the aforementioned six categories are clearly very weak. This low level of innovative cooperation may be related to insufficient channels for collaboration. It can be said that the smaller size of firms, weak institutionalization, less competitive pressure due to relative low level of foreign trade have cause those 77 firms to feel pressure for innovative cooperation. Correspondingly, considering the cooperation in innovation activities, the results show that firms carry out innovation activities mainly by themselves and do not collaborate any firms/institutions. Thus news channels and tools for cooperation must be developed; a regional-sectoral innovation strategy document should be prepared through the leadership of chambers and stockexchanges; similar provinces must be examined in order to increase awareness, and finally the university should take more innovative actions with the sector

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Innovation, Innovation System, Agriculture Sector, Antalya

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, F., Hajihoseini, H. 2004. Evaluating Iranian national innovation system (NIS), International Symposium on Science and Technology Policy in an Innovation-driven Economy (STEPI), 10 Kasım.
2. Amstrong, G., Kotler, P. 2007. Marketing: an Introduction, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
3. Antalya İl Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Müdürlüğü 2011. 2011 Yılı Değerlendirilmesi, Antalya.
4. Antalya Valiliği İl Tarım Müdürlüğü 2011. Antalya Tarım Master Planı, Antalya.
5. Asheim, B.T., Coenen, L. 2005. Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters, Research Policy, 34(8), 1173-1190.
6. Asheim, B.T., Coenen, L. 2006. Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: on knowledge bases and institutional frameworks, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 163-173.
7. Asheim, B.T., Isaksen, A. 1997. Location, agglomeration and innovation: towards regional innovation systems in Norway?, European Planning Studies, 5(3), 299-330.
8. Asheim, B.T., Isaksen, A. 2002. Regional innovation systems: the integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 77-86.

9. ATSO 2014. www.atso.org.tr, [Erişim: 10.01.2014]
10. Batı Akdeniz Kalkınma Ajansı 2010. TR61 Bölgesi (Antalya- Isparta-Burdur) Bölge Planı 2010-2013, BAKA Yayını, Antalya.
11. Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A. 2008. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis, Research Policy, 37(3), 407-429.
12. Carlsson, B. 1995. Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
13. Carlsson, B. Stankiewicz, R. 1991. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1(2): 93-118.
14. Cooke, P. 1992. Regional innovation systems: competitive regulation in the new Europe, Geoforum, 23(3), 265-382.
15. Cooke, P. 2001. Regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945-974.
16. Cooke, P. 2002. Biotechnology clusters as regional, sectoral innovation systems, International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 8-37.
17. Cooke, P. 2002. Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 133-145.
18. Cooke, P. 2004a. The role of research in regional ınnovation systems: new models meeting knowledge economy demands, International Journal of Technology Management, 28(3-6): 507-533.
19. Cooke, P. 2004b. The regional innovation system in Wales: evolution or eclipse?”, içinde Cooke, P., Heidenreich, M., Braczyk, H. (ed.), Regional Innovation Systems, Routledge, London.
20. Cooke, P., Morgan, K., 1994. The regional innovation system in Baden-Wurtemberg, International Journal of Technology Management, 9(3-4):394-429.
21. Cooke, P., Uranga, M.G., Etxebarria, G. 1997. Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions, Research Policy, 26(4-5): 475–491.
22. Dodgson, M. Mathews, J., Kastelle, T., Hu, M. 2008. The evolving nature of Taiwan's national innovation system: the case of biotechnology innovation networks, Research Policy, 37(3): 430-445.
23. Doloreux, D. 2004. Regional innovation systems in Canada: a comparative study, Regional Studies, 38(5): 479-492.
24. Doloreux, D., Dionne, S. 2008. Is regional innovation system development possible in peripheral regions? Some evidence from the case of La Pocatière, Canada, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20(3): 259-283.
25. Doloreux, D., Parto, S. 2005. Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues, Technology in Society, 27(2): 133-153.
26. Dosi, G. 1998. The nature of innovative process, içinde Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R.R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (ed.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter Publishers, London.
27. Dulupçu, M.A., Sungur, O., Demirgil, H., Şentürk, C., Özkul, G., Sezgin, A. 2007. Yenilik, İşbirliği ve Girişimcilik: Batı Akdeniz Bölgesi (Antalya-Burdur-Isparta, İBBS TR61) KOBİ'lerinin Tutumlarının Değerlendirilmesi, TOBB Yayınları, Ankara.
28. Edquist, C. 1997. Systems of innovation approaches - their emergence and characteristics, içinde Edquist, C. (ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter Publishers, London.
29. Edquist, C. 2006. Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges, içinde Nelson, R.R., Mowery, D.C., Fagerberg, J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
30. Edquist, C., Eriksson, M., Sjogren, H. 2002. Characteristics of collaboration in product innovation in the regional system of innovation of East Gothia”, European Planning Studies, 10(5): 563-581.
31. Elçi, Ş., Karataylı, İ., Karaata, S. 2008. Bölgesel İnovasyon Merkezleri: Türkiye İçin Bir Model Önerisi, TÜSİAD Yayınları, İstanbul.
32. Fischer, M.M. 2001. Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation, The Annals of Regional Science, 35, 199-216.
33. Freeman, C. 1987. National Systems of Innovation: The Case of Japan, Technology, Policy and Economics Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter Publishers, London.
34. Freeman, C. 1991. The nature of innovation and the evolution of the productive system, içinde Technology and Productivity – The Challenge for Economic Policy, OECD, Paris.
35. Freeman, C. 1995. The 'national system of innovation' in historical perspective, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1): 5-24.
36. Fritsch, M. 2001. Co-operation in regional innovation systems, Regional Studies, 35(4): 297-307.
37. Garcia, R., Calantone, R. 2002. A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2): 110-132.
38. Malerba, F. 2005. Sectoral systems of innovation: a
39. Geels, F.W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory, Research Policy, 33(6-7): 897-920.
40. Göker, A. 2000. Ulusal inovasyon sistemi ve üniversite-sanayi işbirliği, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Geleneksel Bahar Paneli IV: Bilimsel Araştırmada Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği, 20 Nisan, Ankara.
41. Gregerson, B., Johnson, B. 1996. Learning economies, innovation systems and European integration, Regional Studies, 31(5): 479-490.
42. Güleş, H.K., Bülbül, H. 2003. İşletmelerde proaktif bir strateji olarak yenilikçilik: 500 büyük sanayi işletmesi üzerine bir uygulama, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1): 40-63.
43. Hall, A., Mytelka, L., Oyeyinka, B. 2005. Innovation systems: implications for agricultural policy and practice”, ILAC Brief, No: 2.
44. Hjalager, A. 2002. Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management , 23(5): 465-474.
45. İmamoğlu, S.Z. 2002. Küçük ve Orta Ölçekli İşletmelerde (KOBİ) Yenilik Çabaları ve KOBİ’lerde Ürün Yeniliği Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Doktora Tezi, Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
46. İraz, R. 2005. Yaratıcılık ve Yenilik Bağlamında Girişimcilik ve KOBİ’ler, Çizgi Kitabevi, Konya.
47. Jacobsson, S., Bergek, A. 2011. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: contributions and suggestions for research, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1): 41-57.
48. Josty, P. 2000. The Alberta innovation system, part 1: the main players and suggested research priorities, InnoCom Conference, 27-28 Nisan, Calgary.
49. Kanter, R. 2006. Innovation: the classic traps, Harward Business Review, 84(11): 73-83.
50. Kim, Y., Lee, K. 2008. Sectoral innovation system and a technological catch-up: the case of the capital goods industry in Korea, Global Economic Review, 37(2): 135- 155.
51. Kline, S.J., Rosenberg, N. 1986. An overview of innovation, içinde Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. (ed.), The Positive Sum Strategy, National Academy Press, Washington.
52. Kubeczko, K., Rametsteiner, E., Weiss, G. 2006. The role of sectoral and regional innovation systems in supporting innovations in forestry”, Forest Policy and Economics, 8(7): 704-715.
53. Liu, X., White, S. 2001. Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China's transitional context, Research Policy, 30(7): 1091-1114.
54. Lundvall, B. 1992. National Innovation Systems. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London.
55. Malerba, F. 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production, Research Policy, 31(2): 247-264.
56. Malerba, F. 2004. Sectoral Systems of Innovation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(1-2): 63-82.
57. Markard, J., Truffler, B. 2008. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework, Research Policy, 37(4): 596-615.
58. Nelson, R.R. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
59. Nelson, R.R., Rosenberg, N. 1993. Technical innovation and national systems, içinde Nelson, R.R. (ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
60. OECD 1997. National Innovation Systems, OECD, Fransa.
61. Roper, S., Love, J., Cooke, P., Clifton, N. 2006. The Scottish Innovation System, Actors, Roles and Actions, Aston Business School & Cardiff University.
62. Sandström, A., Pettersson, I., Nilsson, A. 2000. Knowledge production and knowledge flows in the Swedish biotechnology innovation system”, Scientometrics, 48(2): 179-201.
63. Savaşçı, İ, Kazançoğlu, Y. 2004. Firmaların yenilik yaratma sürecinde serbest bölgelerin rolü, 3. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi, 25-26 Kasım, Eskişehir.
64. Schumpeter, J. 1912. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
65. Smith, K. 1998. Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators: A Guide for Policy Makers, IDEA Working Paper Series No: 5.
66. Sungur, O. 2007. Bölgesel Ölçekte İnovasyon: NUTS 2 TR61 Düzeyi KOBİ'leri ile Yerel Paydaşların Bilgi Dinamikleri ve Ağbağları Üzerine Bir İnceleme, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
67. Suurs, R.A.A., Hekkert, M.P. 2009. Cumulative causation in the formation of a technological innovation system: the case of biofuels in the Netherlands”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(8): 1003-1020.
68. Suurs, R.A.A., Hekkert, M.P., Kieboom, S., Smits, R.E.H.M. 2010. Understanding the formative stage of technological innovation system development: The case of natural gas as an automotive fuel, Energy Policy, 38(1): 419-431.
69. Taymaz, E. 2001. Ulusal Yenilik Sistemi, Türkiye İmalat Sanayiinde Teknolojik Değişim ve Yenilik Süreçleri, TÜBİTAK/TTGV/DİE Yayınları, Ankara.
70. Tiryakioğlu, M. 2004. Yenilikçi rekabet stratejileri açısından türk imalat sanayii ve yenilikçilik, 3. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi, 25-26 Mayıs, Eskişehir.
71. Tödtling, F., Kaufmann, A. 1998. Innovation systems in regions of Europe - a comperative persperctive, 38th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, 28 Ağustos – 1 Eylül, Vienna.
72. Tödtling, F., Trippl, M. 2005. One size fits all?: towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach, Research Policy, 34(8): 1203-1219.
73. Verhees, F.J.H.M., Meulenberg, T.G. 2004. Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms, Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2): 134-154.
74. Yılmaz, A. 2001. Regional Innovation Systems: Literature Review and The Picture for Turkey, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, ODTÜ, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
75. Yiğit, S., Özyer, K. 2011. Sürdürülebilir rekabet üstünlüğü kaynağı olarak bilgi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi , 15(21): 333-358.
76. Zhu, D., Tann, J. 2005. A regional innovation system in a small-sized region: a clustering model in Zhongguancun science park, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(3): 375-390.
77. Sorumlu Yazar: Onur SUNGUR
78. [e-mail]
79. Geliş Tarihi : 13/01/2014
80. Kabul Tarihi : 10/6/2014