YENİLİĞİ ETKİLEYEN UNSURLAR VE TOPLUMSAL REFAH İLİŞKİSİ

Yıl 2008, Sayı: 1, 0 - , 14.05.2015

Nihat Batmaz Abdulvahap Özcan

Öz

Küreselleşme ve bilgi ekonomisi rekabet anlayışını da değiştirmiştir. Rekabette yeni yaklaşımlardan biri de yenilik rekabetidir. Yeniliğin bir rekabet aracı haline gelmesi, yeniliği etkileyen unsurları da ön plana çıkarmıştır. Piyasa yapısının rekabetçi bir piyasa veya aksak rekabet piyasası olması, firmanın büyük ya da küçük ölçekli olması ve firmanın bir ağ içinde olup olmamasına göre yenilik yapma oranı değişmekte-dir. Söz konusu bu unsurlar yeniliği etkileyerek firmaların rekabet güçlerini artırmaktayken piyasadaki bir diğer aktör olan tüketicilerin de refahı üzerinde etkide bulunmaktadır. Piyasanın aksak rekabet piyasa-sı olması veya firmanın KOBİ nitelikli olması, yenilikler üzerinde her zaman olumsuz etkisi bulunmaz-ken, tüketici refahını da olumlu etkileyebilmektedir. Firmanın ağ içinde yer alması, yeniliği olumlu etki-lerken kimi zaman toplumsal refahı olumsuz etkileyebilmektedir. Bu nedenle çalışmada, yeniliği etkile-yen unsurların neler olduğu açıklandıktan sonra yenilik ve toplumsal refah ilişkisi üzerinde durularak yeniliğin toplumsal refahı ne şekilde etkilediğinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

• ABBOTT, Alden F. ve Gordon L. BRADY (1991), “Welfare Gains From Innovations-Induced Rent Seeking”, Cato Journal, 11(1), Spring/Summer, ss.89-97.
• ACS, Zoltan J. ve David B. AUDRETSCH (1987), “Innovation, Market Structure and Firm Size”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, ss. 567-575.
• ACS, Zoltan J. ve David B. AUDRETSCH (1991), “R&D, Firm Size and Innovative Activity”, in Z.J. Acs and D.B. AUDRETSCH (eds.), Innovation and Technological Change. An International Comparison, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
• AGHION, Philippe, Nicholas BLOOM, Richard BLUNDELL, Rachel GRIFFITH, ve Peter HOWITT (2005), “Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), ss.701–728.
• ALMEIDA, Paul ve Bruce KOGUT (1997), “The Exploration of Technological Diversity and the Geographic Localization of Innovation”, Small Business Economics, 9(1), ss.21–31.
• AUSTIN, David ve Molly MACAULEY (2000), “Estimating Future Consumer Welfare Gains from Innovation: The Case of Digital Data Storage”, Resources for the future (RFF) Discussion Paper, No: 00-13, March, ss.1-54.
• BARNETT, Thomas O. (2007), “Maximizing Welfare Through Technological Innovation”, 11th Annual Symposium on Antitrust, George Mason University Law Review Washington, DC, ss.1-24.
• BERGSON, Abram (1973). “On Monopoly Welfare Losses”, American Economic Review, 63, ss.853-870.
• BHOOVARAGHAVAN, Sriraman, Ashok VASUDEVAN ve Rajan CHANDRAN (1996), “Resolving the Process vs. Product Innovation Dilemma: A Consumer Choice Theoretic Approach”, Management Science, 42(2), Feb., ss. 232–246.
• BONE, Jan (2000), “Competitive Pressure: The Effects on Investments in Product and Process Innovation”, The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(3), Autumn, ss. 549–569.
• BOUND, John., Clint. CUMMINS, Zvi GRILICHES, Bronwyn H. HALL ve Adam JAFFE (1984), “Who does R&D and Who Patents?”, in Z. GRILICHES (ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• COHEN, Wesley ve Steven KLEPPER (1996), “Firm Size and Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D, Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), May, ss. 232–243.
• DARBY, Michael R. ve Lynne G. ZUCKER (2006), “Innovation, Competition, and Welfare-Enhancing Monopoly”, NBER Working Paper, 12094, Cambridge, March, ss.1-43.
• DOUGHERTY, Deborah ve Cynthia HARDY (1996), “Sustained Product Innovation in Large, Mature Organizations: Overcoming Innovation-to-Organization Problems”, The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), October, ss. 1120–1153.
• DURAK, İbrahim, Mehmet CİHANGİR ve Mehmet GÜLTEKİN (2006), “Üretimde Mekan Boyutunun Önemi ve Bilgi Toplumu Açısından Değerlendirilme-si”, Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 21(1), ss. 527-534.
• DURNA, Ufuk (2002), Yenilik Yönetimi, Nobel Yay., No:381-112, 1.Baskı, İstanbul.
• ESWARAN, Mukesh ve Nancy GALINI (1996), “Patent Policy and the Direction of Technological Change”, The RAND Journal of Economics, 27(4), Winter, ss.722–746.
• ETTLIE, John E. ve Ernesto M. REZA (1992), “Organizational Integration and Process Innovation”, The Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), October, ss. 795–827.
• FELDMAN, Maryan P. (1994), “Knowledge Complementarity and Innovation”, Small Business Economics, 6(3), ss.363-372.
• GEROSKI, Paul A. (1990), “Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure”, Oxford Economic Papers, 42, ss. 586-602.
• GÖKER, Aykut (2000), “Bilgiye Dayalı Ekonomi ve Türkiye Açısından Du-rum”, 8 Eylül 2000, İnternet Adresi: http://www.inovasyon.org/html/AYK.ODTU
• verim.top.Eylul00.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 16.04.2003.
• GÜRAK, Hasan (2004), Emek-Teknolojik Yenilik ve Büyüme, Değişim Yay., İstanbul.
• HARBERGER, Arnold C. (1954), “Monopoly and Resource Allocation”, American Economic Review, 44, ss.77-87.
• HASHMI, Aamir Rafique ve Johannes Van BIESEBROECK (2007), “Mar-ket Structure and Innovation: A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Automobile Industry”, MPRA Paper, No. 1787, February, ss. 1-54.
• HUGHES, James W., Michael J. MOORE ve Edward A. SNYDER (2002), “Napsterizing” Pharmaceuticals: Access, Innovation, and Consumer Welfare” NBER Working Paper, No: 9229, September, ss. 1-47.
• KAMERSCHEN, David R. (1966), “An Estimation of the Welfare Losses from Monopoly in the American Economy”, Western Economic Journal, 4, ss. 221-236.
• KARLSSON, Charlie ve Ola OLSSON (1998), “Product Innovation in Small and Large Enterprises”, Small Business Economics, 10(1), ss.31–46.
• KELTON, Christina M.L., ve Robert P. REBELEIN (2003), “A Static Gene-ral-Equilibrium Model in Which Monopoly is Superior to Competition, 2003, ss.1-25, İnternet Adresi: http://irving.vassar.edu/faculty/rr/Research/monopoverCE.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 17.04.2008.
• KLEIN, Pau (2004), “Firm Size and Innovation Emprical Research: Micro-soft Innovation”, Advanced Economic Seminer 327, CBS, İnternet Adresi: http://www.geocities.com/pauklein/size.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 04.10.2004.
• KRAFT, Kornelius (1989), “Market Structure, Firm Characteristics and Innovative Activity”, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 37(3), ss. 329–336.
• LEIBENSTEIN, Harvey (1966), “Allocative Efficiency vs. "x-efficiency",” American Economic Review, 56, ss.392-415.
• LOURY, Glenn C. (1979), “Market Structure and Innovation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93(3), ss. 395-410.
• LOVE, James ve Stephen ROPER (1999), “The Determinants of Innovation: R&D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects”, Review of Industrial Organisation, 15, ss.43–64.
• LUNN, John E. (1986), “An Empirical Analysis of Process and Product Patenting: A Simultaneous Equation Framework”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, ss.319-330.
• MACPHERSON, Alan D. (1997), “A Comparison of Within-Firm and External Sources of Product Innovation”, Growth and Change,28, ss.289–308.
• PAVITT, Keith, Michael ROBSON ve Joe TOWNSEND (1987), “The Size Distribution of Innovating Firms in The UK: 1945- 1983”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, ss. 297-316.
• ROGERS, Mark (2004), “Networks, Firm Size and Innovation”, Small Business Economics, 22(2), ss.141–153.
• ROTHWELL, Roy (1994), “Innovation and Size of Firm”, The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Edit: Mark Dodgson and Roy Rothwell, Edward Elgar Pub. UK. İçinde, ss. 310–324.
• SCHERER, Frederic M. (1965a), “Size of Firm, Oligopoly and Research: A Comment”, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 3(1), ss. 256-266.
• SCHERER, Frederic M. (1965b), “Firm Size, Market Structure, Opportunity, and The Output of Patented Inventions”, American Economic Review, 55, ss. 1097-1125.
• SHEPHERD, A. Ross (1972), “The Social Welfare Loss Due to Monopoly: Comment” Southern Economic Journal, 38, ss. 421-424.
• SHEPHERD, William, G. (1997), The Economics of Industrial Organization, Analysis, Markets, Policies, Prentice-Hall International Inc., Fourth Edition, USA.
• SCOTT, John T. (1984), “Firm Versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity”, in Z. GRIlLICHES (ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• SEPPO, Marge (2007), “The Role of Business Networks in The Internationalization of Estonian Chemical Industry Enterprises”, Estonian Science Foundation Grant Projects No. 6853 and No. 5840, Tartu University Pres No:7, ss.1-46.
• SOETE, Luc LG. (1979), “Firm Size and Inventive Activity: The Evidence Reconsidered”, European Economic Review, 12, ss. 319-340.
• SU, Kemal Tahir (2003), Rekabet Hukukunda Teşebbüslerin Hâkim Duru-munun Belirlenmesinde Pazar Gücünün Ölçülmesi, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Te-zi, No:0094; Ankara.
• WORCESTER, Jr., Dean A. (1973), “New Estimates of The Welfare Loss to Monopoly, United States: 1956-1969”, Southern Economic Journal, 40, ss. 234-245.
• YILMAZ, Hilal (2003), Yenilik (İnovasyon), Yeni Ekonomi ve Rekabet, Re-kabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, No:0130, Ankara.