Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach

Year 2017, Volume: 25 Issue: 31, 127 - 148, 31.01.2017

Doğan Bakırtaş , Ahmet Aysu

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Innovation policies and national innovation systems are the main determinant of countries development level. Innovative public procurement is an exceptional role among innovation policies. In this study examined innovative public procurement in the context of institutional approach. According to institutional approach countries’ innovation capacities are affected by formal and informal institutions and innovative public procurement process can be understood as a set of institutions with a particular inter-relationship between governmental institutions as a buyer and private firms as a suppliers. Therefore, government should set the rules for innovative public procurement process. Government should establish the formal rules for legal infrastructure, tender methods awarded to the firms offering innovative solutions, lead to firms for adequate and more effective level of R&D activities and increase competition in the market. On the other hand, government should give the sufficient importance to innovative solutions in public procurement process.

Keywords

Innovation Institutions Innovative Public Procurement

References

  • Acemoglu, D. (2003), “Root Causes: A Historical Approach to Assessing the Role of Institutions in Economic Development”, Finance and Development, 40(2), 27-30.
  • Acemoglu, D. & S. Johnson & J. Robinson (2004), “Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of LongRun Growth”, NBER Working Paper, No. 10481, 1-111.
  • Aghion, P. & N. Bloom & R. Blundell & R. Griffith & P. Howitt (2005), “Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701- 728.
  • Aktan, C.C. & T. Vural (2006a), “Kurallar ve Kurumların Sosyolojik Temelleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Terminoloji ve Tipoloji”, Kurallar, Kurumlar ve Düzen: Kurallar ve Kurumların Sosyolojik Temelleri (1-15), Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu, Kurumsal Araştırmalar Serisi No: 1.
  • Aktan, C.C. & T. Vural (2006b), “Kurallar ve Kurumların Oluşumu. Kurallar, Kurumlar ve Düzen”, Kurallar ve Kurumların Sosyolojik Temelleri (63-77), Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu, Kurumsal Araştırmalar Serisi No: 1.
  • Aktan, C.C. & H. Çoban (2007), “Kamu Maliyesinde Güven ve Ekonomik Anayasa”, Çimento İşveren Dergisi, 6(21), 4-11.
  • Almeida, H. & H. Pinto & C. Nogueira (2014), “Social, Human Capital and Innovation: An Exploratory Study of European Atlantic Organisations”,
  • Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(4), 87-103.
  • Arrow, K. (1962), “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, in: P. Stephan & D. Audrestch (eds.), The Economics of Science and Innovation, 1(61-77) Edward Elgar, Cheltham.
  • Barbosa, N. & P.F. Faria (2011), “Innovation across Europe: How important are institutional differences?”, Research Policy, 40, 1157-1169.
  • Biber, A.E. (2010), “İktisadi Büyümede Kurumsal Faktörler ve Kurumsal Değişim”, Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 19, 1-24.
  • Blind, K. (2012), “The Influence of Regulations on Innovation: A Quantitative Assessment for OECD Countries”, Research Policy, 41(2), 391-400.
  • Blundell, R. & R. Griffith & J.V. Reenen (1999), “Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in A Panel of British Manufacturing Firms”, Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 529-55.
  • Borras, S. & C. Edquist (2013), “The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 1513-1522.
  • Boztosun, N.A. (2007), “Fikri Mülkiyet ve Küresel Rekabet”, TÜSİAD-Sabancı Üniversitesi Rekabet Forumu, REF 08/2007, 1-14
  • Buchanan, J.M. & A. Di Pierro (1980), “Cognition, Choice, and Entrepreneurship”, Southern Economic Journal, 46(3), 693-701.
  • Carden, W.A. (2007), “Christian Ethics, Formal Institutions, and Economic Growth”, American Review of Political Economy, 5(1), 34-53.
  • Carlsson, B. & S. Jacobsson (1997), “Diversity Creation and Technological Systems: A Technology Policy Perspective” in: C. Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter Publisher, London.
  • Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social Capital in the Creation of Human”, The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
  • Commons, J.R. (1931), “Institutional Economics”, American Economic Review, 21, 648-657.
  • Dakhli, M. & D.D. Clercq (2004), “Human Capital, Social Capital and Innovation: A Multi-Country Study”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(2), 107-128.
  • EC (2005), Public Procurement for Research and Innovation: Developing Procurement Practices Favourable to R&D and Innovation, <http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in research/pdf/download_en/edited_report_18112005_on_public_procurement_for_researc h_and_innovation.pdf>, 05.03.2016.
  • EC (European Commission) (1995), Green Paper on Innovation, <http://cordis.europa.eu/publication/rcn/361_en.html>, 01.03.2016.
  • Edquist, C. & L. Hommen (2000), “Public Technology Procurement and Innovation Theory”, in: C. Edquist & L. Hommen & L.J. Tsipouri (eds.), Public Technology Procurement and Innovation, Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 5-64.
  • Edquist, C. (2005), “Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges”, in: J. Fagerberg, et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 181-208.
  • Edquist, C. (2015), “Innovation-related Public Procurement as a Demand-oriented Innovation Policy Instrument”, Lund University, CIRCLE Working Paper, No 2015/28, 1-43.
  • Georghiou, L. & J. Edler & E. Uyarra & J. Yeow (2014), “Policy Instrument for Public Procurement of Innovation: Choice, Design and Assessment”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 86, 1-12.
  • Gimeno, J. & T.B. Folto & A.C. Cooper & C.Y. Woo (1997), “Survival of the Fittest? Human capital and the Persistence of Underperforming Firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750-783.
  • Globerman, S. (2012), “ Public Policies to Encourage Innovation and Productivity”, True North in Canadian Public Policy, The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, September, 1-19.
  • Gregersen, B. & B. Johnson (1996), “Learning Economies, Innovation Systems and European Integration”, Regional Studies, 31, 479-490.
  • Greif, A. (2006), Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, USA. Cambrigde University Press.
  • Hommen, L. & M. Rolfstam (2009), “Public Procurement and Innovation: Towards a Taxonomy”, Journal of Public Procurement, 9(1), 17-56.
  • Hwang, H. & W.W. Powell (2005), “Institutions and entrepreneurship”, in: S.A. Alvarez & R. Agarwal & O. Sorenson (eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: Disciplinary Perspectives, (201-232), New York: Springer.
  • Kapp, K.W. (1968), “In Defense of Institutional Economics”, The Swedish Journal of Economics, 70(1), 1-18
  • Kasper, W. & M.E. Streit (1998), “Institutional Economics, Social Order and Public Policy”, Cheltenham: The Locke Institute, Edward Elgar.
  • Kuhlmann, S. & E. Arnold (2001), RCN in the Norwegian Researh and Innovation System, <https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kd/vedlegg/forskning/rapporter/2001- rcn-eval/2001-rcn-evaluation-background-report-no-12.pdf?id=2248274>, 21.03.2016.
  • Lember, V. & R. Kattel & T. Kalvet (2014), “Public Procurement and Innovation: Theory and Practice”, in: Public Procurement, Innovation and Policy: International Perspectives, (eds.) V. Lember & R. Kattel & T. Kalvet, Springer Publications, 13-35.
  • Li, Y. (2013), Public Procurement as a Demand-side Innovation Policy in China - An Exploratory and Evaluative Study, <https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:222567>, 15.03.2016.
  • Lundvall, B. (1995), “Introduction”, in: B. Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation - Towards A Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Biddles, London, 1-19.
  • Mahendra, E. & U. Zuhdi & R. Muyanto (2015), “Determinants of Firm Innovation in Indonesia: The Role of Institutions and Access to Finance”, TMCD Working Paper, WP-64, 1-41.
  • Marsh, I. (2010), “Innovation and Public Policy: The Challenge of an Emerging Paradigm”, AIRC Working Paper Series, WP/0710, 1-44.
  • National ICT Research Directors Forum (2006), Pre-Commercial Procurement of Innovation: A Missing Link in The European Innovation Cycle, <ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/pcp/precommercial-procurement-ofinnovation_en.pdf>, 03.03.2016.
  • Neale, W.C. (1987), “Institutions”, Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3), 1177-1206.
  • Nelson, R.R. & N. Rosenberg (1993), “Technical Innovation and National Systems”, in: R. Nelson (ed.) National Innovation Systems - A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York, 3-21.
  • Nelson, R.R. (1993), “National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nelson, R.R. & K. Nelson (2002), “Technology, Institutions, and Innovation Systems”, Research Policy, 31, 265-272.
  • Nickell, S.J. (1996), “Competition and corporate performance”, Journal of Political Economy, 104(4), 724-746.
  • North, D.C. (2010), Kurumlar, Kurumsal Değişim ve Ekonomik Performans, Çev. Gül Çağalı Güven, Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul. OECD (1997), National Innovation Systems, <http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2101733.pdf>, 21.03.2016.
  • OECD (2001), “The Well-Beings of Nations, The Role of Human and Social Capital”, OECD Publications, 1-118.
  • OECD (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd ed. Luxembourg: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2011), “Demand-side Innovation Policies”, OECD Publishing, 1-190.
  • Putnam R.D. & R. Leonardi & R. Nanetti (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Rauf, M. (2009), “Innovations and Informal Institutions: An Institutionalist Approach to the Role of Social Capital for Innovation”, Journal of Academic Research in Economics, 1, 25-34.
  • Rolfstam, M. (2012a), “Understanding Public Procurement of Innovation: Definitions, Innovation Types and Interaction Modes”, Social Science Research Network, 1-16.
  • Rolfstam, M. (2012b), “An Institutional Approach to Research on Public Procurement of Innovation”, The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(3), 303-321.
  • Romer, P.M. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
  • Romer, P.M. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102.
  • Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York. Schumpeter, J.A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of The Capitalist Process, New York And London: Mcgraw-Hill.
  • Silve, F. & A. Plekhanov (2015), “Institutions, Innovation and Growth: Cross-country Evidence”, EBRD Working Paper/177, 1-30.
  • Solow, R.M. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.
  • Sowell, T. (1967), “The Evolutionary Economics of Thorstein Veblen”, Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 19(2), 177-198.
  • Srholec, M. (2011), “A Multilevel Analysis of Innovation in Developing Countries”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1539-1569.
  • Tebaldi, E. & B. Elmslie (2013), “Does Institutional Quality Impact Innovation? Evidence from Cross-Country Patent Grant Data”, Applied Economics, 45(7), 887-900.
  • Turanlı, R. & E. Sarıdoğan (2010), Bilim-Teknoloji-İnovasyon Temelli Ekonomi ve Toplum, İTO Yayını, Sayı 2010/13.
  • Veblen, T. (1909), “The Limitations of Marginal Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, 17(9), 620- 636.
  • Williams, L. Heidi (2010), “Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome”, NBER Working Paper, No. 16213, 1-9.

Kurumsal Yaklaşım Perspektifinden İnovasyon ve Yenilikçi Kamu Alımları

Year 2017, Volume: 25 Issue: 31, 127 - 148, 31.01.2017

Doğan Bakırtaş , Ahmet Aysu

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870
Cited By: 1

Abstract

İnovasyon politikaları ve ulusal inovasyon sistemleri ülkelerin gelişmişlik düzeyini belirleyen temel faktördür. Yenilikçi kamu alımları inovasyon politikaları arasında müstesna bir role sahiptir. Bu çalışmada yenilikçi kamu alımları kurumsal yaklaşım çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Kurumsal yaklaşıma göre ülkelerin inovasyon kapasiteleri formel ve enformel kurumlar tarafından etkilenmekte ve kamu alım süreci; devletin satın alıcı, firmaların ise tedarikçi olarak aralarında belirli bir etkileşimin olduğu kurumlardan oluşmaktadır. Dolayısıyla devlet, yenilikçi kamu alım sürecine ilişkin kuralları düzenlemelidir. Devlet, yenilikçi kamu alım süreçlerinin hukuki altyapısını, yenilikçi çözümler sunan firmaları ödüllendiren ihale yöntemlerini, firmaların yeterli ve daha etkin düzeyde Ar-Ge faaliyetlerine yöneltecek ve piyasadaki rekabeti artıracak formel kuralları oluşturmalıdır. Diğer taraftan devlet, kamu alım süreçlerinde yenilikçi çözümlere gereken önemi vermelidir.

Keywords

İnovasyon Kurumlar Yenilikçi Kamu Alımları

References

  • Acemoglu, D. (2003), “Root Causes: A Historical Approach to Assessing the Role of Institutions in Economic Development”, Finance and Development, 40(2), 27-30.
  • Acemoglu, D. & S. Johnson & J. Robinson (2004), “Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of LongRun Growth”, NBER Working Paper, No. 10481, 1-111.
  • Aghion, P. & N. Bloom & R. Blundell & R. Griffith & P. Howitt (2005), “Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701- 728.
  • Aktan, C.C. & T. Vural (2006a), “Kurallar ve Kurumların Sosyolojik Temelleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Terminoloji ve Tipoloji”, Kurallar, Kurumlar ve Düzen: Kurallar ve Kurumların Sosyolojik Temelleri (1-15), Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu, Kurumsal Araştırmalar Serisi No: 1.
  • Aktan, C.C. & T. Vural (2006b), “Kurallar ve Kurumların Oluşumu. Kurallar, Kurumlar ve Düzen”, Kurallar ve Kurumların Sosyolojik Temelleri (63-77), Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu, Kurumsal Araştırmalar Serisi No: 1.
  • Aktan, C.C. & H. Çoban (2007), “Kamu Maliyesinde Güven ve Ekonomik Anayasa”, Çimento İşveren Dergisi, 6(21), 4-11.
  • Almeida, H. & H. Pinto & C. Nogueira (2014), “Social, Human Capital and Innovation: An Exploratory Study of European Atlantic Organisations”,
  • Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(4), 87-103.
  • Arrow, K. (1962), “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, in: P. Stephan & D. Audrestch (eds.), The Economics of Science and Innovation, 1(61-77) Edward Elgar, Cheltham.
  • Barbosa, N. & P.F. Faria (2011), “Innovation across Europe: How important are institutional differences?”, Research Policy, 40, 1157-1169.
  • Biber, A.E. (2010), “İktisadi Büyümede Kurumsal Faktörler ve Kurumsal Değişim”, Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 19, 1-24.
  • Blind, K. (2012), “The Influence of Regulations on Innovation: A Quantitative Assessment for OECD Countries”, Research Policy, 41(2), 391-400.
  • Blundell, R. & R. Griffith & J.V. Reenen (1999), “Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in A Panel of British Manufacturing Firms”, Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 529-55.
  • Borras, S. & C. Edquist (2013), “The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 1513-1522.
  • Boztosun, N.A. (2007), “Fikri Mülkiyet ve Küresel Rekabet”, TÜSİAD-Sabancı Üniversitesi Rekabet Forumu, REF 08/2007, 1-14
  • Buchanan, J.M. & A. Di Pierro (1980), “Cognition, Choice, and Entrepreneurship”, Southern Economic Journal, 46(3), 693-701.
  • Carden, W.A. (2007), “Christian Ethics, Formal Institutions, and Economic Growth”, American Review of Political Economy, 5(1), 34-53.
  • Carlsson, B. & S. Jacobsson (1997), “Diversity Creation and Technological Systems: A Technology Policy Perspective” in: C. Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter Publisher, London.
  • Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social Capital in the Creation of Human”, The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
  • Commons, J.R. (1931), “Institutional Economics”, American Economic Review, 21, 648-657.
  • Dakhli, M. & D.D. Clercq (2004), “Human Capital, Social Capital and Innovation: A Multi-Country Study”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(2), 107-128.
  • EC (2005), Public Procurement for Research and Innovation: Developing Procurement Practices Favourable to R&D and Innovation, <http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in research/pdf/download_en/edited_report_18112005_on_public_procurement_for_researc h_and_innovation.pdf>, 05.03.2016.
  • EC (European Commission) (1995), Green Paper on Innovation, <http://cordis.europa.eu/publication/rcn/361_en.html>, 01.03.2016.
  • Edquist, C. & L. Hommen (2000), “Public Technology Procurement and Innovation Theory”, in: C. Edquist & L. Hommen & L.J. Tsipouri (eds.), Public Technology Procurement and Innovation, Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 5-64.
  • Edquist, C. (2005), “Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges”, in: J. Fagerberg, et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 181-208.
  • Edquist, C. (2015), “Innovation-related Public Procurement as a Demand-oriented Innovation Policy Instrument”, Lund University, CIRCLE Working Paper, No 2015/28, 1-43.
  • Georghiou, L. & J. Edler & E. Uyarra & J. Yeow (2014), “Policy Instrument for Public Procurement of Innovation: Choice, Design and Assessment”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 86, 1-12.
  • Gimeno, J. & T.B. Folto & A.C. Cooper & C.Y. Woo (1997), “Survival of the Fittest? Human capital and the Persistence of Underperforming Firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750-783.
  • Globerman, S. (2012), “ Public Policies to Encourage Innovation and Productivity”, True North in Canadian Public Policy, The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, September, 1-19.
  • Gregersen, B. & B. Johnson (1996), “Learning Economies, Innovation Systems and European Integration”, Regional Studies, 31, 479-490.
  • Greif, A. (2006), Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, USA. Cambrigde University Press.
  • Hommen, L. & M. Rolfstam (2009), “Public Procurement and Innovation: Towards a Taxonomy”, Journal of Public Procurement, 9(1), 17-56.
  • Hwang, H. & W.W. Powell (2005), “Institutions and entrepreneurship”, in: S.A. Alvarez & R. Agarwal & O. Sorenson (eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: Disciplinary Perspectives, (201-232), New York: Springer.
  • Kapp, K.W. (1968), “In Defense of Institutional Economics”, The Swedish Journal of Economics, 70(1), 1-18
  • Kasper, W. & M.E. Streit (1998), “Institutional Economics, Social Order and Public Policy”, Cheltenham: The Locke Institute, Edward Elgar.
  • Kuhlmann, S. & E. Arnold (2001), RCN in the Norwegian Researh and Innovation System, <https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kd/vedlegg/forskning/rapporter/2001- rcn-eval/2001-rcn-evaluation-background-report-no-12.pdf?id=2248274>, 21.03.2016.
  • Lember, V. & R. Kattel & T. Kalvet (2014), “Public Procurement and Innovation: Theory and Practice”, in: Public Procurement, Innovation and Policy: International Perspectives, (eds.) V. Lember & R. Kattel & T. Kalvet, Springer Publications, 13-35.
  • Li, Y. (2013), Public Procurement as a Demand-side Innovation Policy in China - An Exploratory and Evaluative Study, <https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:222567>, 15.03.2016.
  • Lundvall, B. (1995), “Introduction”, in: B. Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation - Towards A Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Biddles, London, 1-19.
  • Mahendra, E. & U. Zuhdi & R. Muyanto (2015), “Determinants of Firm Innovation in Indonesia: The Role of Institutions and Access to Finance”, TMCD Working Paper, WP-64, 1-41.
  • Marsh, I. (2010), “Innovation and Public Policy: The Challenge of an Emerging Paradigm”, AIRC Working Paper Series, WP/0710, 1-44.
  • National ICT Research Directors Forum (2006), Pre-Commercial Procurement of Innovation: A Missing Link in The European Innovation Cycle, <ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/pcp/precommercial-procurement-ofinnovation_en.pdf>, 03.03.2016.
  • Neale, W.C. (1987), “Institutions”, Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3), 1177-1206.
  • Nelson, R.R. & N. Rosenberg (1993), “Technical Innovation and National Systems”, in: R. Nelson (ed.) National Innovation Systems - A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York, 3-21.
  • Nelson, R.R. (1993), “National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nelson, R.R. & K. Nelson (2002), “Technology, Institutions, and Innovation Systems”, Research Policy, 31, 265-272.
  • Nickell, S.J. (1996), “Competition and corporate performance”, Journal of Political Economy, 104(4), 724-746.
  • North, D.C. (2010), Kurumlar, Kurumsal Değişim ve Ekonomik Performans, Çev. Gül Çağalı Güven, Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul. OECD (1997), National Innovation Systems, <http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2101733.pdf>, 21.03.2016.
  • OECD (2001), “The Well-Beings of Nations, The Role of Human and Social Capital”, OECD Publications, 1-118.
  • OECD (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd ed. Luxembourg: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2011), “Demand-side Innovation Policies”, OECD Publishing, 1-190.
  • Putnam R.D. & R. Leonardi & R. Nanetti (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Rauf, M. (2009), “Innovations and Informal Institutions: An Institutionalist Approach to the Role of Social Capital for Innovation”, Journal of Academic Research in Economics, 1, 25-34.
  • Rolfstam, M. (2012a), “Understanding Public Procurement of Innovation: Definitions, Innovation Types and Interaction Modes”, Social Science Research Network, 1-16.
  • Rolfstam, M. (2012b), “An Institutional Approach to Research on Public Procurement of Innovation”, The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(3), 303-321.
  • Romer, P.M. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
  • Romer, P.M. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102.
  • Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York. Schumpeter, J.A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of The Capitalist Process, New York And London: Mcgraw-Hill.
  • Silve, F. & A. Plekhanov (2015), “Institutions, Innovation and Growth: Cross-country Evidence”, EBRD Working Paper/177, 1-30.
  • Solow, R.M. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.
  • Sowell, T. (1967), “The Evolutionary Economics of Thorstein Veblen”, Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 19(2), 177-198.
  • Srholec, M. (2011), “A Multilevel Analysis of Innovation in Developing Countries”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1539-1569.
  • Tebaldi, E. & B. Elmslie (2013), “Does Institutional Quality Impact Innovation? Evidence from Cross-Country Patent Grant Data”, Applied Economics, 45(7), 887-900.
  • Turanlı, R. & E. Sarıdoğan (2010), Bilim-Teknoloji-İnovasyon Temelli Ekonomi ve Toplum, İTO Yayını, Sayı 2010/13.
  • Veblen, T. (1909), “The Limitations of Marginal Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, 17(9), 620- 636.
  • Williams, L. Heidi (2010), “Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome”, NBER Working Paper, No. 16213, 1-9.
There are 66 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Articles
Authors

Doğan Bakırtaş

Ahmet Aysu

Publication Date January 31, 2017
Submission Date April 1, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 25 Issue: 31

Cite

APA Bakırtaş, D., & Aysu, A. (2017). Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach. Sosyoekonomi, 25(31), 127-148. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870
AMA Bakırtaş D, Aysu A. Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach. Sosyoekonomi. January 2017;25(31):127-148. doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870
Chicago Bakırtaş, Doğan, and Ahmet Aysu. “Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach”. Sosyoekonomi 25, no. 31 (January 2017): 127-48. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870.
EndNote Bakırtaş D, Aysu A (January 1, 2017) Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach. Sosyoekonomi 25 31 127–148.
IEEE D. Bakırtaş and A. Aysu, “Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach”, Sosyoekonomi, vol. 25, no. 31, pp. 127–148, 2017, doi: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870.
ISNAD Bakırtaş, Doğan - Aysu, Ahmet. “Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach”. Sosyoekonomi 25/31 (January 2017), 127-148. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870.
JAMA Bakırtaş D, Aysu A. Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach. Sosyoekonomi. 2017;25:127–148.
MLA Bakırtaş, Doğan and Ahmet Aysu. “Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach”. Sosyoekonomi, vol. 25, no. 31, 2017, pp. 127-48, doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.288870.
Vancouver Bakırtaş D, Aysu A. Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach. Sosyoekonomi. 2017;25(31):127-48.

Cited By

SAVUNMA ALIMLARININ ÜLKE KALKINMASINA ETKİSİ VE ROLÜ
Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi
Göksel KORKMAZ
https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.646351
 Download Cover Image