TÜRKİYE'DE BÖLGESEL İNOVASYON EKOSİSTEMİ: ÜÇLÜ-SARMAL MODELİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

İnovasyon olgusu farklı iktisadi aktörlerin ekonomideki rolleriyle paralel bir şekilde ele alına gelmiştir. Türkiye'de ise kamu kesimi, devlet üniversiteleri ve uygulanan inovasyon politikaları aracılığıyla inovasyon sürecinin önemli bir parçası sayılmaktadır. Birçok noktada ulusal düzeyde anlamlı ve etkin olduğu literatürdeki çalışmalarca gösterilen kamu-üniversite-özel sektör işbirliği, bölgesel düzeyde istenilen sonuçları verememektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye'deki bölgesel inovasyon ekosistemlerinin verimliliği, kamu-üniversite-özel sektör üçlü-sarmal modeli yaklaşımıyla 81 il ve 2011-2015 dönemi baz alınarak incelenmiştir. Yapılan dayanıklı (robust) regresyon tahmini sonucunda üniversitelerin katkısının ve kamusal teşviklerin bölgesel düzeyde farklılaştığı, özel sektör niteliklerinin ve ekonomik gelişmişliğin en belirleyici faktörler olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara dayanarak bölgesel inovasyon ekosisteminin geliştirilmesi için özellikle ekonomik gelişmişliğin düşük olduğu illerde özel sektör niteliklerine ve arayüz ortaklıklarına yönelik politika önerilerinde bulunulmuştur. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnovasyon Politikası,Yenilik Sistemleri,Üçlü-Sarmal Modeli,Türkiye

REGIONAL INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM IN TURKEY: AN EVALUATION FROM TRIPLE-HELIX MODEL PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

The phenomenon of innovation has been addressed in parallel with economic actors' roles in economy. In Turkey, the state is considered as a key part of innovation process through public universities and innovation policies. Although studies in literature show the efficiency of government-industry-university collaboration at national level from many points, sub-national/regional level analyses indicate undesirable results. In this study, the efficiency of regional innovation ecosystems is analyzsed within the framework of Triple-Helix Model for 81 province and 2011-2015 period for Turkey. According to the results, the contribution of universities and public supports differ at regional level. Private sector characteristics and the level of economic development are the most decisive factors at regional innovation. Based on empirical findings, we proposed several policies for enhancement of regional innovation ecosystems.

Keywords

• Innovation Policy,Innovation Systems,Triple-Helix Model,Turkey.

Kaynakça

1. • ACS, Z. J. AND AUDRETSCH, D. B., (1989), Patents as a Measure of Innovative Activity, Kyklos, 42, 171-180.
2. • ARAP, S. K., (2010), Türkiye Yeni Üniversitelerine Kavuşurken: Türkiye'de Yeni Üniversiteler ve Kuruluş Gerekçeleri, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 65 (1), 1-29.
3. • ASHEIM, B., (2007), Differentiated Knowledge Bases and Varieties of Regional Innovation Systems, Innovation, 20 (3), 223-241.
4. • ASHEIM, B., (2012), The Changing Role of Learning Regions in the Globalizing Knowledge Economy: A Theoretical Re-examination, Regional Studies, 46 (8), 993-1004.
5. • AYDOĞAN, S. U., ERDİL, E. VE PAMUKÇU, M. T., (2016), "Türkiye Bilim, Teknoloji ve Yenilik Politikasının 1980 Sonrası Tarihçesi ve Gelişimi", syf. 667-700, İçinde (Edit.) İbrahim Semih Akçomak, Erkan Erdil, Mehmet Teoman Pamukçu ve Murad Tiryakioğlu., Bilim, Teknoloji ve Yenilik: Kavramlar, Kuramlar ve Politika, İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
6. • BILBAO-OSORIO, B. AND RODRIGUEZ-POSE, A. (2004), From R&D to Innovation and Economic Growth in the EU, Growth and Change, 35 (4), 434-455.
7. • BRAMWELL, A. AND WOLFE, D. A., (2008), Universities and Regional Economic Development: The Entrepreneurial University of Waterloo, Research Policy, 37, 1175-1187.
8. • BROWN, R., (2016), Mission Impossible? Entrepreneurial Universities and Peripheral Regional Innovation Systems, Industry and Innovation, 23 (2), 189-205.

9. • BUESA, M., HEIJS, J., PELLITERO, M. M. AND BAUMERT, T., (2006), Regional Systems of Innovation and the Knowledge Production Function: The Spanish Case, Technovation, 26, 463-472.
10. • BTYK, (2016), "Bilim ve Teknoloji Yüksek Kurulu Kararları ve Gelişmeleri", Kaynak: https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/kurumsal/bilim-ve-teknoloji-yuksek-kurulu/icerik-toplantilar (Erişim Tarihi: 08.10.2018).
11. • DANELL, R. AND PERSSON, O., (2003), Regional R&D Activities and Interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix, Scientometrics, 58 (2), 205-218.
12. • ELÇİ, Ş., (2016), "Ar-Ge ve Yeniliğin Fonlanması", syf. 129-152, İçinde (Edit.) İbrahim Semih Akçomak, Erkan Erdil, Mehmet Teoman Pamukçu ve Murad Tiryakioğlu, Bilim, Teknoloji ve Yenilik: Kavramlar, Kuramlar ve Politika, İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
13. • ETZKOWITZ, H., (1993), Enterprises from Science: The Origins of Science-based Economic Development, Minerva, 31 (3), 326-360.
14. • ETZKOWITZ, H., (1998), The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University–Industry Linkages, Research Policy, 27, 823–33.
15. • ETZKOWITZ, H., (2003), Research Groups as ‘Quasi-Firms’: The Invention of the Entrepreneurial University, Research Policy, 32, 109–21.
16. • ETZKOWITZ, H. AND LEYDESDORFF, L., (1998), The Endless Transition: A "Triple Helix" of University-Industry-Government Relations, Minerva, 36 (3), 203-208.
17. • ETZKOWITZ, H. AND LEYDESDORFF, L., (2000), The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations, Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123.
18. • FREEMAN, C., (1987), Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London: Frances Pinter.
19. • FRITSCH, M. AND STEPHAN, A., (2005), Regionalization of Innovation Policy - Introduction to the Special Issue, Research Policy, 34 (8), 1123-1127.
20. • FLORIDA, R., (1995), Toward the Learning Region, Futures, 27 (5), 527-536.
21. • GRILLICHES, Z., (1990), Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth, The Bell Journal of Economics, 10 (1), 92-116.
22. • GRILLICHES, Z., (1990), Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661-1707.
23. • GUJARATI, D. N., (2004), Basic Econometrics, New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
24. • GULBRANDSEN, M. AND SLIPERSATER, S., (2007), The Third Mission and the Entrepreneurial University Model, In (Edit.) Andrea Bonaccorsi and Cinzia Daraio, Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation: Specialization and Performance in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 112-143.
25. • GUNASEKARA, C., (2006), Reframing the Role of Universities in the Development of Regional Innovation Systems, Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 101-113.
26. • GÜL, T. G. VE ÇAKIR, S., (2014), Teknoparklar ve Teknoloji Üretimi: İzmir Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgesi Örneği, Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 9 (1), 79-90. • GÜLBAŞ, S. Y., (2011), İnovasyon: Teknopark Modeli, ANKEM Dergi, 25 (2), 139-145.
27. • GÜNAY, D. VE GÜNAY, A., (2011), 1933'den Günümüze Türk Yükseköğretiminde Niceliksel Gelişmeler, Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1 (1), 1-22.
28. • HALL, B. H. AND LERNER, J., (2010), The Financing of R&D and Innovation, UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series, Maastricht: United Nations University.
29. • HAUKNES, J. AND NORDGREN, L., (1999), Economic Rationales of Government Involvement in Innovation and the Supply of Innovation-Related Services, STEP Report, Oslo: Step Group.
30. • JUDSON, R. A. AND OWEN, A. L., (1999), Estimating Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide for Macroeconomists, Economics Letters, 65, 9-15.
31. • KALKINMA AJANSLARI KANUNU, (2006, 25 Ocak), Resmi Gazete (Sayı: 26074), Erişim Adresi: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2006/02/20060208-1.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 16.08.2018).
32. • LARANJA, M., UYARRA, E. AND FLANAGAN, K., (2008), Policies for Science, Technology and Innovation: Translating Rationales into Regional Policies in a Multi-Level Setting, Research Policy, 37, 823-835.
33. • LAREDO, P., (2007), Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a Renewed Categorization of University Activities?, Higher Education Policy, 20, 441-456.
34. • LAWSON, C. AND LORENZ, E., (1999), Collective Learning, Tacit Knowledge and Regional Innovative Capacity, Regional Studies, 33 (4), 305-317.
35. • LENGER, A. AND TAYMAZ, E., (2006), To Innovate or to Transfer? A Study on Spillovers and Foreign Frims in Turkey, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16, 137-153.
36. • LEYDESDORFF, L., (2006), The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, Florida: Universal Publishers.
37. • LEYDESDORFF, L. AND ETZKOWITZ, H., (1996), Emergence of a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Science and Public Policy, 23, 279–286.
38. • LONG, J. S. AND FREESE, J., (2014), Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, Third Edition, Texas: Stata Press.
39. • MARQUES, J. P. C., CARAÇA, J. M. G. AND DIZ, H., (2006), How Can University–Industry–Government Interactions Change the Innovation Scenario in Portugal? The Case of the University of Coimbra, Technovation, 26, 534-542.
40. • MARTIN, S. AND SCOTT, J. T., (2000), The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation, Research Policy, 29, 437-447.
41. • METCALFE, J. S., (2005), Systems Failure and the Case for Innovation Policy, In: Llerena P., Matt M. (eds), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy, Berlin: Springer.
42. • MORGAN, K., (1997), The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal, Regional Studies, 31, 491-503.
43. • NELSON, R. R., (1993), National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. • O'BRIEN, R. M., (2007), A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors, Quality&Quantity, 41, 673-690.
45. • OECD, (1997), National Innovation Systems, Paris: OECD Publishing.
46. • PARK, H. W., HONG, H. D. AND LEYDESDORFF, L., (2005), A Comparison of the Knowledge-Based Systems in the Economies of South Korea and the Netherlands Using Triple Helix Indicators, Scientometrics, 65 (1), 3-27.
47. • RANGA, M. AND TEMEL, S., (2018), From a Nascent to a Mature Regional Innovation System: What Drives the Transition?, In Meissner, D., Erdil, E. and Chataway, J. (Eds.), Innovation and the Entrepreneurial University, London: Springer, 213-242.
48. • ROPKE, J., (1998), The Entrepreneurial University, Innovation, Academic Knowledge Creation and Regional Development in a Globalized Economy, Working Paper, Department of Economics, Philipps Universität Marburg, Germany.
49. • SAAD, M., ZAWDIE, G. AND MALAIRAJA, C., (2008), The Triple Helix Strategy for Universities In Developing Countries: The Experiences in Malaysia and Algeria, Science and Public Policy, 35 (6), 431-443.
50. • SARGIN, S., (2007), Türkiye'de Üniversitelerin Gelişim Süreci ve Bölgesel Dağılımı, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3 (5), 133-150.
51. • SHIN, J. C., LEE, S. J. AND KIM, Y., (2012), Knowledge-Based Innovation and Collaboration: A Triple-Helix Approach in Saudi Arabia, Scientometrics, 90, 311-326.
52. • SLEUWAEGEN, L. AND BIOARDI, P., (2014), Creativity and Regional Innovation: Evidence from EU Regions, Research Policy, 43, 1508-1522.
53. • T. C. SANAYİ VE TEKNOLOJİ BAKANLIĞI, (2015), "Kamu-Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği Stratejisi ve Eylem Planı (2015-2018)", Kaynak: https://kusip.gov.tr/kusip/yonetici/hakkindaEkGoster.htm?id=6 (Erişim Tarihi: 16.08.2018).
54. • T. C. SANAYİ VE TEKNOLOJİ BAKANLIĞI, (2018), "Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri: İstatistikler", Kaynak: https://teknopark.sanayi.gov.tr/ (Erişim Tarihi: 12.07.2018).
55. • TAKALO, T. AND TANAYAMA, T., (2008), Adverse Selection and Financing of Innovation: Is There a Need for R&D Subsidies?, Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers, Helsinki: Bank of Finland.
56. • TEKNECİ, P. D. VE M. CANSIZ, (2016), Dünyada ve Türkiye'de Girişimci Üniversiteler ve Akademik Girişimciliğin Gelişimi, syf. 615-639, İçinde (Edit.) İbrahim Semih Akçomak, Erkan Erdil, Mehmet Teoman Pamukçu ve Murad Tiryakioğlu, Bilim, Teknoloji ve Yenilik: Kavramlar, Kuramlar ve Politika, İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
57. • TEMEL, S. AND DURST, S., (2018), Driving Factors for Converting Teaching-Oriented Universities into Entrepreneurial Universities: A Turkish Case Study, International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), 7 (3), 34-53.
58. • TODTLING, F. AND TRIPPL, M., (2005), One Size Fits All? Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach, Research Policy, 34, 1203-1219.
59. • TRENCHER, G., YARIME, M., MCCORMICK, K. B., DOLL, C. N. H. AND KRAINES, S. B., (2014), Beyond the Third Mission: Exploring the Emerging University Function of Co-creation for Sustainability, Science and Public Policy, 41, 151-179.
60. • TÜBİTAK, (2010), Ulusal Bilim, Teknoloji ve Yenilik Stratejisi 2011-2016, Ankara: TÜBİTAK.
61. • TÜBİTAK, (2018), "Girişimci ve Yenilikçi Üniversite Endeksi Sıralaması", Kaynak: https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/1095/2017_gyue_siralama.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 08.10.2018).
62. • TÜİK, (2018), "Araştırma Geliştirme Faaliyetleri Araştırması", Kaynak: http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1082 (Erişim Tarihi: 08.10.2018).
63. • VERSPAGEN, B., (1995), R&D and Productivity: A Broad Cross-Section Cross-Country Look, The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 6, 117-135.
64. • VOGEL, J.. (2015), The Two Faces of R&D and Human Capital: Evidence from Western European Regions, Papers in Regional Science, 94 (3), 525-551.
65. • WALLSTEN, S. J., (2000), The Effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, The RAND Journal of Economics, 31 (1), 82-100.
66. • WOOLTHUIS, R. K., LANKHUIZEN, M. AND GILSING, V., (2005), A System Failure Framework for Innovation Policy Design, Technovation, 25, 609-619.
67. • YÖK, (2018), "Yükseköğretim Bilgi Sistemi", Kaynak: https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ (Erişim Tarihi: 08.10.2018).
68. • ZHOU, C., (2008), Emergence of the Entrepreneurial University in Evolution of the Triple Helix: The case of Northeastern University in China, Journal of Technology Management in China, 3 (1), 109-126.