Correlation of Relatedness and Complexity with Patent Applications: A Regional Analysis from Türkiye

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 57 Sayı: 1, 73 - 84, 31.01.2023

Sedef Akgüngör Mert Abay

https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1060389

Cited By: 1

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to test the hypothesis that regional innovativeness is positively correlated with the two main building variables of smart specialization: relatedness density (a region’s potential to develop new technologies compatible with existing capabilities) and knowledge complexity (a region’s potential to develop unique and hard-to-imitate technologies).

Methodology: Analysis are made over a panel regression model, using data from OECD-REGPAT database for the years 1978–2017 covering Türkiye’s NUTS-3 regions. The dependent variable is innovativeness, and the independent variables are the average relatedness density and knowledge complexity indices for each region. Per capita income, number of universities, number of technoparks, Turkish Patent Institute, Türkiye-EU Customs Union agreement, and lagged value of the dependent variable are the control variables.

Findings: The results confirm that innovativeness and a region’s potential to develop new technologies that are compatible with existing technological portfolios (relatedness density) are correlated, while the variable that measures a region’s potential to develop unique technologies (knowledge complexity) is not statistically significant.

Originality: The originality of this work is that we demonstrate relatedness to be one of the building blocks of smart specialization as correlated with regional innovativeness; complexity, the other building block, is not correlated. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Relatedness, Complexity, Smart Specialization, Regional Innovativeness

İlişkililik ve Karmaşıklık ile Patent Başvuruları Arasındaki Korelasyon: Türkiye için Bölgesel Bir Analiz

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, bölgesel yenilikçiliğin akıllı uzmanlaşmanın iki temel boyutu ile arasında pozitif bir korelasyon olduğu hipotezini test etmektir. Akıllı uzmanlaşmanın iki temel boyutu, ilişkililik yoğunluğu (bölgenin mevcut yeteneklerine uygun yeni teknolojileri kendine çekebilme potansiyeli) ve bilgi karmaşıklığıdır (bölgenin benzersiz ve taklit edilmesi güç teknolojileri yaratma potansiyeli).

Yöntem: Analizler panel regresyon modeli kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın verilerini Türkiye'nin İBB-3 düzey bölgeleri için 1978–2017 yılları kapsamında OECD-REGPAT veri tabanı oluşturmaktadır. Bağımlı değişken yenilikçilik ve bağımsız değişkenler bölgenin ilişkililik yoğunluğu ve bilgi karmaşıklığı indeksleridir. Kontrol değişkenleri olarak kişi başına gelir, üniversite sayısı, iki kukla değişken (Türk Patent Enstitüsü ile Türkiye-AB Gümrük Birliği anlaşması) ve bağımlı değişkenin gecikmeli değeri kullanılmıştır.

Bulgular: Sonuçlar, bölgesel yenilikçilik ile bölgenin mevcut teknoloji portföyü ile uyumlu yeni teknolojileri çekme potansiyeli arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymakta, ancak bölgenin benzersiz olma potansiyeli ile istatistiksel olarak bir bağlantı olmadığını doğrulamaktadır.

Özgünlük: Makalenin özgünlüğü, akıllı uzmanlaşmanın iki temel bileşeninden biri olan ilişkililik boyutunun bölgesel yenilikler ile bağlantılı olduğunu, diğer bileşeni olan karmaşıklık boyutunun ise yenilikler üzerinde bir etkisinin olmadığını göstermesidir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

İlişkililik, Karmaşıklık, Akıllı Uzmanlaşma, Türkiye, Bölgesel Yenilikçilik

Kaynakça

• Abay, M., Akgüngör, S. and Akyıldız, Y.T. (2021). “Innovation, Relatedness and Complexity in Turkey: A Regional Analysis for 1978-2017”, Ekonomi-tek, 10(3), 135-171.
• Akgüngör, S. and Abay, M. (2022). “İzmir’de Teknolojik Yeniliklerin Gelişimi ve İzmir İçin Bir Akıllı Uzmanlaşma Önerisi”, Presentation in the Panel on Kurtuluşunun 100. Yilinda İzmir'in Ekonomisi ve Ticareti, May, 26.2022.
• Akgüngör, S. and Abay, M. (2021). “Knowledge Space, Relatedness and Complexity: A Regional Analysis in Turkey”, Yildiz Social Science Review, 7(2), 123-136.
• Atalay, M., Anafarta, N. and Sarvan, F. (2013). “The Relationship Between innovation and firm Performance: An Empirical Evidence from Turkish Automotive Supplier Industry”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75, 226-235.
• Atmaca, S. (2011). “Patents from the Academe: A Methodology Research for the Analysis of University Patents and Preliminary Findings for Turkey”, TEKPOL Working Paper Series, 11/01.
• Autant-Bernard, C. (2001). “The Geography of Knowledge Spillovers and Technological Proximity”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 10, 237-254.
• Balland, P.A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J. and Rigby, D. (2019). “Smart Specialization Policy in the European Union: Relatedness, Knowledge Complexity and Regional Diversification”, Regional Studies, 53(9), 1252-1268.
• Balland, P.A., Rigby, D. and Boschma, R. (2015). “The Technological Resilience of US Cities”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(2), 167-184. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsv007
• Baltagi, B. H. (2008). “Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (Vol. 4)”, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
• Boschma, R. and Frenken, K. (2018). “Evolutionary Economic Geography”, Oxford Handbooks Online Editors: Clark, G. L., Feldman, M.P., Gertler, M.S., and Wójcik, D., 213-229.
• Boschma, R., Balland, P.A. and Kogler, D.F. (2014). “Relatedness and Technological Change in Cities: The Rise and Fall of Technological Knowledge in US Metropolitan Areas from 1981 to 2010”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1), 223-250.
• Bozkurt, C. (2015). “R&D Expenditures and Economic Growth Relationship in Turkey”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(1), 188.
• Camagni, R.P. (1991). “Technological Change, Uncertainty and Innovation Networks: Towards a Dynamic Theory of Economic Space”, Regional Science, Editor: Boyce D. E., Nijkamp P., and Shefer D., Berlin, Germany: Springer, 211-249.
• Cooke, P. (2001). “Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945-974.
• Crespo, J., Balland, P.A., Boschma, R. and Rigby, D. (2017). “Regional Diversification Opportunities and Smart Specialization Strategies”, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
• Davies, B. and Maré, D.C. (2021). “Relatedness, Complexity and Local Growth”, Regional Studies, 55(3), 479-494.
• Ejermo, O. (2005). “Technological Diversity and Jacobs’ Externality Hypothesis Revisited”, Growth and Change, 36, 167-195.
• Encaoua, D., Guellec, D. and Mart, C. (2006). “Patent Systems for Encouraging Innovation: Lessons from Economic Analysis”, Research Policy, 35, 1423-1440.
• Erdil, E., and Çetin, D. (2019). “Smart Specialization and R&I Policy Framework in Turkey”, Smart Specialization Strategies and the Role of Entrepreneurial Universities, 209-233, IGI Global.
• Falcioğlu, P. and Akgüngör, 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), 303-323.
• Fernandes, T.F., Balland, P.A., Morrison, A. and Boschma, R. (2019). “What Drives the Geography of Jobs in the US? Unpacking Relatedness”, Industry and Innovation, 26(9), 988-1022.
• Fleming, L. and Sorenson, O. (2001). “Technology as a Complex Adaptive System: Evidence from Patent Data”, Research Policy, 30(7), 1019-1039.
• Foray, D. (2018). “Smart Specialization Strategies as a Case of Mission-Oriented Policy—A Case Study on the Emergence of New Policy Practices”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 817-832.
• Foray, D., David, P.A. and Hall, B. (2009). “Smart Specialisation – The Concept”, Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, No: 9.
• Frenken, K. and Boschma, R. (2015). “Geographic Clustering in Evolutionary Economic Geography”, Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Economic Geography, Edward Elgar Publishing, 291-302.
• Gezici, F., Müderrisoğlu, B., Salihoğlu, G. and Başarır, G. (2021). “What is The Role of Techno-Parks on Regional Innovation in Turkey?”, Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning. Gazi University, 9(1), 43-59.
• Güngör, D.Ö. and Gözlü, S. (2012). “Influencing Factors of Innovation for Turkish Companies”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 4(4), 374-386.
• Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J. and Peters, B. (2006). “Innovation and Productivity Across Four European Countries”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), 483-498.
• Hidalgo, C.A. and Hausmann, R. (2009). “The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10570-10575.
• Karaca, O. (2018). “50 Years of Regional Convergence in Turkey: New Data Set and Analysis for the Period 1960-2010”, Sosyoekonomi, 26(35), 207-228.
• Karaca, Z. (2021). “İllerin Patent Sayısını Etkileyen Faktörler Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(3), 1179-1192.
• Kaygalak, İ. (2018). “Localization and Specialization Tendency of Manufacturing in Turkey”, International Journal of Geography and Geography Education, 38, 171-186.
• Kogler, D.F., Essletzbichler, J. and Rigby, D.L. (2017). “The Evolution of Specialization in the EU15 Knowledge Space”, Journal of Economic Geography, 17(2), 345-373.
• Kogler, D.F., Rigby, D.L. and Tucker, I. (2013). “Mapping Knowledge Space and Technological Relatedness in US Cities”, European Planning Studies, 21(9), 1374-1391.
• Kuştepeli, Y., Gülcan, Y. and Akgüngör, S. (2013). “The Innovativeness of the Turkish Textile Industry Within Similar Knowledge Bases Across Different Regional Innovation Systems”, European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2), 227-242.
• Maraut, S., Dernis, H., Webb, C., Spiezia, V. and Guellec, D. (2008). “The OECD REGPAT Database: A Presentation”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers (2008/02).
• Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2010). “The Place of Path Dependence in an Evolutionary Perspective on the Economic Landscape”, The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• McCann, P. and Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). “Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy”, Regional studies, 49(8), 1291-1302.
• Mewes, L. (2019). Quality “Dimensions of Knowledge and Regional Development: Relatedness, Complexity, Novelty, and Impact of Knowledge”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University.
• Mohnen, P. and Hall, B.H. (2013). “Innovation and Productivity: An update”, Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47-65.
• Nelson, R.R. and Winter., S.G. (1982). “An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change”, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• O’hUallachain, B. and Lee, D-S. (2011). “Technological Specialization and Variety in Urban Invention”, Regional Studies, 45(1), 67-88.
• OECD. (2020). REGPAT database, January 2020.
• Paci, R. and Usai, S. (1999). “Externalities, Knowledge Spillovers and the Spatial Distribution of Innovation”, GeoJournal, 49, 381-390.
• Park, H.M. (2011). “Practical Guides to Panel Data Modeling: A Step-by-step Analysis Using Stata”, Public Management and Policy Analysis Program, Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, 12, 1-52.
• Pintar, N. and Scherngell, T. (2018). “Grasping the Complexity of Regional Knowledge Production: Evidence on European regions”, STI 2018 Conference Proceedings, 1266-1278. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Industry and Technology. (2021). “Technology Development Zones”, http://www.sanayi.gov.tr/istatistikler/istatistiki-bilgiler/mi0203011501, (Access Date: 15.01.2022).
• Rocchetta, S., Ortega-Argilés, R. and Kogler, D.F. (2021). “The Non-Linear Effect of Technological Diversification on Regional Productivity: Implications for Growth and Smart Specialisation Strategies”, Regional Studies, 1-16.
• Rosenberg, N. and Nathan, R. (1994). “Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics, and History”, Cambridge University Press.
• Santos, A., Edwards, J. and Neto, P. (2022). “Does Smart Specialisation Improve Any Innovation Subsidy Effect on Regional Productivity? The Portuguese Case”, European Planning Studies, 1-22.
• Schmoch, U. (2008). “Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparisons (Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Organisation - WIPO)”.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”, New York: Harper & Row.
• Solow, R.M. (1956). “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, 70(1), 65-94.
• Torres-Reyna, O. (2007). “Panel Data Analysis Fixed and Random Effects Using Stata (v. 4.2)”, Data & Statistical Services, Princeton University, 112.
• Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2005). “One Size Fits All? Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach”, Research Policy, 34(8), 1203-1219.
• Van Ark, B. (2009). “"Whose Lessons to be Learned?” Reflections on New Orientations in US and European İnnovation Policies”, Knowledge for Growth: Prospects for Science, Technology and Innovation, Editor: Foray, D., David, P., and Hall, B., 50-53.
• Varga, A., Sebestyén, T., Szabó, N. and Szerb, L. (2018). “Estimating the Economic Impacts of Knowledge Network and Entrepreneurship Development in Smart Specialization Policy”, Regional Studies.