EVOLUTION OF THE FIRM SIZE DISTRIBUTION IN TURKEY

Year 2020, Volume: 15 Issue: 53, 123 - 146, 28.01.2020

Yiğit Aydoğan

https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.676735

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Evolution in economics has been
treated mainly as a theoretical journey. The methodological difficulties reside
in strict assumptions in order to maintain a tractable model for firm dynamics.
Agent-Based Computational modeling could be an important breakthrough for
evolutionary applications. However, these models rely on deep interpretations
of the complete data. In this study, in depth analysis of Turkish firm level
data has been presented with an evolutionary point of view using the method of
density estimations. The comprehensiveness of the data is unique to the
literature. For
modeling purposes, Turkish firms could be seen as representing their birth era. The stagnant nature
of firms could also be considered as linked to the lack of managerial
delegation in underdeveloped economies.

Keywords

Evolution, Selection, Firm Dynamics, Firm Size Distribution

TÜRKİYE’DE FİRMA BÜYÜKLÜK DAĞILIMININ EVRİMİ

Abstract

Ekonomi literatüründe evrim genellikle teorik yaklaşımlarla değerlendirilir. Firma dinamiklerinin modellenmesinde karşılaşılan yöntemsel zorluklar işlevsel modeller oluşturmak için kullanılan sıkı varsayımlardan kaynaklanmaktadır. Ajan Bazlı Kompütasyonel modeller evrimsel uygulamalarda yeni bir atılım oluşturabilir. Ancak bu modeller bütüncül verilerin derinlemesine incelenmesi ve açıklanmasına dayanır. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’deki firmaların büyüklük dağılımları evrimci literatüre uygun şekilde yoğunluk tahmin modellemeleri ile detaylı olarak incelenmiştir. Veri büyüklüğü ve kapsayıcılığı açısından literatürde örneği bulunmamaktadır. Modelleme açısından Türk firmalarının kuruldukları dönemin doğasını yansıtıyor olabileceği ya da dönemsel firma karakteristiklerinin muhtemel olduğu gösterilmiştir. Firmaların süreklilik arz eden doğaları gelişmemiş ekonomilerde gözlenen yönetimsel delegasyon eksikliğine de bağlanabilir.

Keywords

Evrim, Seçilim, Firma Dinamikleri, Firma Büyüklük Dağılımı.

References

• Acemoglu, D. (2012). Introduction to economic growth. Journal of Economic Theory. 147(2), 545-550.
• Adelino, M., Ma, S. & Robinson, D. (2017). Firm age, investment opportunities, and job creation. The Journal of Finance. 72(3), 999–1038.
• Akcigit, U., Alp, H. & Peters, M. (2016). Lack of selection and limits to delegation: firm dynamics in developing countries. National Bureau of Economic Research. No: 21905. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21905.
• Angelini, P., & Generale, A. (2008). On the evolution of firm size distributions. American Economic Review. 98(1), 426-438.
• Audretsch, D. & Mahmood, T. (1994). Firm selection and industry evolution: the post-entry performance of new firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 4(3), 243–260.
• Audretsch, D. & Mata, J. 1995. The post-entry performance of firms: Introduction. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 13(4), 413–419.
• Axtell, R. (2001). Zipf distribution of U.S. firm sizes. Science. 293 (5536), 1818–1820.
• Aydogan, Y. & Donduran, M. (2018). Estimations on the firm size distribution in Turkey. Journal of European Theoretical and Applied Studies. 6(2), 35-51.
• Ayyagari, M., Juarros, P., Martinez Peria, M. & Singh, S. (2016). Access to finance and job growth: firm-level evidence across developing countries. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No: 7604. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/804781467990954208/pdf/WPS7604.pdf
• Beck, T. & Demirguc-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a growth constraint. Journal of Banking & Finance. 30(11), 2931–2943.
• Box, M. (2008). The death of firms: Exploring the effects of environment and birth cohort on firm survival in Sweden. Small Business Economics. 31 (4), 379-393.
• Cabral, L. & Mata, J. (2003). On the evolution of the firm size distribution: Facts and theory. American Economic Review. 93(4), 1075–1090.
• Capelleras, J. & Rabetino, R. (2008). Individual, organizational and environmental determinants of new firm employment growth: evidence from Latin America. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 4(1), 79-99.
• Cefis, E., Ciccarelli, M. & Orsenigo, L. (2002). From Gibrat’s legacy to Gibrat’s fallacy. A Bayesian Approach to Study the Growth of Firms. Working papers at the Hyman Minsky Department of Economic Studies. 19.
• Daunfeldt, S.O. & Elert, N. (2013). When is Gibrat’s law a law? Small Business Economics. 41(1), 133–147.
• Delli Gatti, D., Desiderio, S., Gaffeo, E., Cirillo, P. & Gallegati, M. (2011). Macroeconomics from the Bottom-up. Milan: Springer.
• Evans, D. (1987a). The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. The Journal Of Industrial Economics. 35(4), 567–581.
• Evans, D. (1987b). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy. 95(4), 657–674.
• Evans, D. & Leighton, L. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review. 79(3), 519–535.
• Galor, O. & Michalopoulos, S. (2012). Evolution and the growth process: Natural selection of entrepreneurial traits. Journal of Economic Theory. 147(2), 759-780.
• Geroski, P.A., Mata, J. & Portugal, P. (2010). Founding conditions and the survival of new firms. Strategic Management Journal. 31(5), 510-529.
• Gibrat, R. (1931). Les Inegalites Economiques. Paris: Sirey.
• Harris, R. & Trainor, M. (2005). Plant-level analysis using the ARD: Another look at Gibrat’s law. Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 52(3), 492–518.
• Henrekson, M. & Johansson, D. (1999). Institutional effects on the evolution of the size distribution of firms. Small Business Economics. 12(1), 11-23.
• Huergo, E. & Jaumandreu, J. (2004). How does probability of innovation change with firm age? Small Business Economics. 22(3), 193–207.
• Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica. 50(3), 649–670.
• Kılıçaslan, Y. & Taymaz, E. (2009). Labor market institutions and industrial performance: an evolutionary study. Cantner U., Gaffard J.L. & Nesta L. (Ed.) Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth. (pp.207-222). Berlin: Springer.
• Lucas, R. (1978). On the size distribution of business firms. The Bell Journal of Economics. 9(2), 508–523.
• Pek, C. (2012). Firm size distribution and exporting behaviour: an empirical analysis of power-law behaviour of Turkish firms. (Unpublished master’s thesis). L’Universite de Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, Paris.
• Piketty, T. (2000). Review of the book economic inequality and income distribution, by D. G. Champernowne & F. A. Cowell. Economica. 67 (267),461-462.
• Reisenbichler, A. & Morgan, K. (2012). From “sick man” to “miracle”: Explaining the robustness of the German labor market during and after the financial crisis 2008-09. Politics and Society. 40(4), 549–579.
• Serrasqueiro, Z., Nunes, P., Leitão, J. & Armada, M. (2010). Are there non-linearities between SME growth and its determinants? A quantile approach. Industrial and Corporate Change. 19(4), 1071–1108.
• Tang, A. (2015). Does Gibrat’s law hold for Swedish energy firms? Empirical Economics. 49(2), 659–674.