Türk İmalat Sanayinde İhracat ve İnovasyon Arasındaki İlişki

Year 2017, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 85 - 103, 20.10.2017

Aykut Karakaya , Seymur Ağazade , Selçuk Perçin

https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.326740

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Posner’in
(1961) “teknoloji açığı teorisi” ve Vernon’un (1966) “ürün dönemleri teorisi”
inovasyonun piyasa gücüne neden olduğunu ve ihracatı kolaylaştırdığını öngörür.
Diğer yönden ihracatçı firmalar, performanslarını artırıcı yönde etkileyen
inovasyon sürecine daha yoğun şekilde maruz kalırlar. Bu teorik yaklaşımlar
ihracat ve inovasyon arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisinin yönü hakkında farklı
öngörülerde bulunurlar. Bu araştırma 2008-2013 dönemleri itibariyle Türk İmalat
Sanayii endüstri kolları için ihracat yoğunluğu ve ar-ge yoğunluğu arasındaki
ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Araştırma analiz yöntemi İki Aşamalı Sistem
Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodudur. Araştırmada nedensellik ilişkisi iki
modelle ifade edilmiş ve Wald
Testine dayanarak incelenmiştir. Birinci
model olan ihracat modelinin bağımsız değişkenleri ar-ge yoğunluğu ve reel
döviz kuru endeksidir. Ar-ge modelinin bağımsız değişkenleri ise, ihracat
yoğunluğu ve rekabet düzeyini gösteren Herfindahl-Hirsckman Endeksidir.
Elde edilen bulgular sonucunda ar-ge yoğunluğundan ihracat yoğunluğuna doğru
tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu sonuç Posner’in (1961) “teknoloji açığı teorisi” ile Vernon’un
(1966) “ürün dönemleri teori”lerinin inovasyon ve ihracata ilişkin
öngörülerinin Türk İmalat Sanayi’nde geçerli olduğunu desteklemektedir.  

Keywords

İmalat Sanayi, İnovasyon, İhracat, Panel Veri Analizi

The Relationship between Export and Innovation in Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Abstract

Posner’s (1961) “technological
gap theory” and Vernon’s (1966) “product life cycle theory” predicts that
innovation causes market power and facilitates export. In other side export
encourages firms and provides more affirmative
environment for innovative processes. These theoretical approaches have
different predictions regarding the direction of causality between export and
innovation. Using Two-Step System Generalized Moments of Method this study
investigates causality relationship between export intensity and R&D
intensity for the period 2008-2013 in Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Causality
relationship was modeled within two different equations and analyzed by Wald
Test. First equation models export intensity as function of R&D intensity
and real exchange rate. In the second equation R&D intensity estimated as a
function of export intensity and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index as competition variable.
Causality test results show that there is unidirectional causal relationship
from R&D intensity to export intensity. This finding supports the
predictions of Posner’s (1961) “technological gap theory” and Vernon’s (1966)
“product life cycle theory” related to the innovation and export relationship
in Turkish Manufacturing Industry.

Keywords

Manufacturing Industry, Innovation, Export

References

• Aghion, Philippe ve Peter Howitt. (1992), “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction”, Econometrica, 60 (2), 323-351.
• Anderson, T. W., ve Hsiao, C. (1981), “Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 375, 598-606.
• Anderson, T. W., ve Hsiao, C. (1982), “Formulation and Estimation of Dynamic Models Using Panel Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 18, 47-82.
• Arellano M., ve Bond, S. (1991), “Some Tests of Specification for Panel: Monte Carlo Evidence and An Application to Employment Equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297.
• Arellano M., ve Bover, O. (1995), “Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29-51.
• Arrow, K. J. (1962), “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, The Review of Economic Studies, 29 (3), 155-173.
• Aw, B. Y., M. J. Roberts, ve D. Yi Xu. (2011), “R&D Investment, Exporting, and Productivity Dynamics”, American Economic Review, 101(4), 1312-44.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2005), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, John Wiley&Sons, Ltd., England.
• Bernard, A. B. ve B. Jensen, J. (1999), “Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both?”, Journal of International Economics, 47, 1-25.
• Blalock, G., ve P. J. Gertler. (2004), “Learning from Exporting Revisited in A Less Developed Setting”, Journal of Development Economics 75 (2), 397–416.
• Blundell R., and Bond S. (1998), “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115-143.
• Blundell, R. and S. Bond. (2000), “GMM Estimation with Persistent Panel Data: An Application to Production Functions”, Econometric Reviews 19, 321–340.
• Bond, S. (2002), “Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice”, CEMMAP Working Paper, No: Cwp0209, 1-36.
• Brouwer, E. ve Kleinknecht, A. (1996), “Determinants of Innovation: A Microeconometric Analysis of Three Alternative Innovation Output Indicators”, In: Kleinknecht, A. (ed.). Determinants of Innovation. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 99–125.
• Choi, I. (2001), “Unit root tests for panel data”, Journal of International Money and Finance 20, 249–272.
• Çavuşgil, S. T. (1980), “On the Internationalisation Process of Firms”, European Research, 8(6), 273–281.
• D’Angelo, A. (2012), “Innovation and export performance: a study of Italian high-tech SMEs”, Journal of Management and Governance 16, 393–423.
• Greenaway, D., ve R. Kneller. (2007), “Industry Differences in the Effect of Export Market Entry: Learning by Exporting?”, Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 143(3), 416-432.
• Grossman, G. M. ve E. Helpman. (1991), “Endogenous Product Cycles”, The Economic Journal, 101 (408), 1214-1229.
• Gourlay, A.R. ve Seaton, J.S. (2004), “UK Export Behaviour at the Firm Level”, Economic Issues, 9(2), 3–19.
• Friedman, M. (1937), “The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicity in the Analysis of Variance”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32, 675-701.
• Hansen, L.P. (2002), “Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators”, Econometrica,50, 1029-1054.
• Harris, R., ve Li, Q. C. (2009), “Exporting, R&D, and absorptive capacity in UK establishments”, Oxford Economic Papers, 61(1), 74–103.
• Hirsch, S., ve Bijaoui, I. (1985), “R&DIntensity and Export Performance: A Micro View”, Review ofWorld Economics, 121, 238–251.
• Hsiao, C. (2003), Analysis of Panel Data, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
• Im, K. S., M. H. Pesaran ve Y. Shin. (2003), “Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels”, Journal of Econometrics 115, 53–74.
• Kirbach, M., ve C. Schmiedeberg. (2008), “Innovation and Expert Performance: Adjustment and Remaining Differences in East and West German Manufacturing”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17:5, 435-457. Krugman, P. (1979), “A Model of Innovation, Technology Transfer, and the World Distribution of Income”, Journal of Political Economy, 87 (2), 253-266.
• Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., ve Samieec, S. (2002), “Marketing Strategy Determinants of Export Performance: A Meta-Analysis”. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 51–67.
• Lopez Rodriguez, J., ve Garcia Rodriguez, R. M. (2005), “Technology and Export Behaviour: A Resourcebased View Approach”, International Business Review, 14(5), 539–557.
• Melitz, M. J. (2003), “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity”, Econometrica,. 71 (6), 1695-1725.
• Nassimbeni, G. (2001), “Technology, Innovation Capacity, and the Export Attitude of Small Manufacturing Firms: A Logit/Tobit Model”, Research Policy, 30(2), 245–262.,
• Özçelik, E., ve Taymar, E. (2004), “Does Innovativeness Matter for International Competitiveness in Developing Countries”, Research Policy, 33(3), 409–424.
• Posner, M. V. (1961), “International Trade and Technical Change”, Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 13 (3), 323-341.
• Ramaswamy, K., Kroeck, K. G., ve Renforth, W. (1996), “Measuring the Degree of Internationalisation of A Firm: A Comment”, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(1), 167–177.
• Rasiah, R. (2003), “Foreign Ownership, Technology and Electronics Exports from Malaysia and Thailand”, Journal of Asian Economics, 14(5), 785–811.
• Romer, P. M. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), Part 2, S71-S102.
• Roodman, D. (2009), “How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata,” The Stata Journal , 9, Number 1, pp. 86–136.
• Yerdelen Tataoğlu, F. (2012), İleri Panel Veri Analizi Stata Uygulamalı, Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
• Vernon, R. (1966), “International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190-207.
• Walkelin, K. (1998), “Innovation and Export Behaviour at The Firm Level”, Research Policy 26, 829–841.
• Wignaraja, G, (2007), “Foreign Ownership, Technological Capabilities and Clothing Exports in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Asian Economics, 19(1), 29–39.
• Windmeijer F. (2005), “A Finite Sample Correction for The Variance of Linear Efficient Two-Step GMM Estimator”, Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25-51.
• Wolff, J. A., ve Pett, T. L. (2000), “Internationalisation of Small Firms: An Examination of Export Competitive Patterns, Firm Size, and Export Performance”. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(2), 34–47.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, The MIT Press, England.
• Zhao, H., ve Li, H. (1997), “R&D and Export: An Empirical Analysis of Chinese Manufacturing Firms”, Journal of High Technology Management Research,.8(1), 89–106.
• Zucchella, A., Palamara, G., ve Denicolai, S. (2007), “The Drivers of The Early Internationalisation of The Firm”, Journal of Word Business, 42(3), 268–280.