Kurumlarin Esnekliği: Endüstri 4.0 ve 5.0 Açisindan Bir Değerlendirme

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 233 - 247, 30.12.2022

Hülya Derya

Öz

Kurumlar, yasal ve yasal olmayan yollarla yenileşme sürecini düzenlemektedir. Kurumların esnek olması Schumpeter’e göre “yıkıcı yaratıcı” yenilik; ekonominin dinamik gelişim sürecini, ulusal yenileşme sistemini, iktisadi ve kurumsal yapının bütün yönlerini etkilemektedir. İktisadi bilimlerde kurumsal dönüşümün ilerlemesi için kurumların kırılmaları kaçınılmaz olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Kurumların kırılması için kurumlar esnek olmalıdır. Kurumların katılığı ise ülkelerin durağan olmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışma ise farklı bir argümandan yola çıkmıştır. Burada geçerli olan “katılık sonucu durağanlık ve tıkanıklık” anlayışı yerine “katılık sonucu dinamiklik ve yaratıcılık” anlayışıdır. Amacımız kurumların katılığının dönüşümün çeşitli varyasyonlarını sunarak, adaptasyon için bir dezavantaj teşkil etmediğini kanıtlamaktır. Yöntem olarak yeni ve ski yazılmış yabancı kaynaklar taranmıştır. Çalışmada kurumların katılığını ve esnekliğini etkileyen faktörler (kültür, grup, ömür boyu istihdam, işbölümü, güven) çerçevesinde Japonya, ABD ile kıyaslanmıştır. Ayrıca, Japonya’nın katı ve ABD’nin esnek kurumlarının Endüstri 4.0 ve 5.0’da bu ülkelerden hangisini geride bıraktığı sorusuna cevap aranmıştır. Yapılan incelemeler neticesinde kurumların katılığının (sağlamlığının) Japonya’yı, Endüstri 4.0 ve 5.0’da ABD’den geride bırakmadığı görülmüştür

Anahtar Kelimeler

Endüstri 4.0, Endüstri 5.0, Kurumlar, Japonya, ABD

Flexibility of Institutions: An Assessment in Terms of Industry 4.0 and 5.0

Öz

Institutions regulate the innovation process through legal and illegal means. The flexibility of institutions, according to Schumpeter, is “destructive and creative” innovation; It affects the dynamic development process of the economy, the national innovation system, and all aspects of the economic and institutional structure. For the progress of institutional transformation in economic sciences, the breaking of institutions is considered inevitable. Institutions must be flexible for institutions to break. The rigidity of institutions causes countries to be stagnant. This study, on the other hand, started from a different argument. What is valid here is the understanding of "dynamism and creativity as a result of rigidity" instead of the understanding of "stagnation and congestion as a result of rigidity". Our aim is to prove that the rigidity of institutions is not a disadvantage for adaptation by presenting various variations of transformation. As a method, new and previously written foreign sources were scanned. In the study, Japan was compared with the USA within the framework of the factors affecting the rigidity and flexibility of institutions (culture, group, lifetime employment, division of labor, trust). In addition, the answer to the question of which of these countries is left behind by the rigid institutions of Japan and the flexible institutions of the USA in Industry 4.0 and 5.0 has been sought. As a result of the examinations, it was seen that the rigidity of the institutions did not leave Japan behind the USA in Industry 4.0 and 5.0.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Industry 4.0, Industry 5.0, Institutions, Japan, USA, Endüstri 4.0, Kurumlar, Japonya, ABD

Kaynakça

• Antoni, K. (1992). Tradition und „Traditionalismus” im modernen Japan—ein kulturanthropologischer Versuch. Japanstudien, 3(1), 105-128..
• Baecker, D. (2000). Gesellschaft als Kultur oder Warum wir beschreiben müssen, wenn wir erkennenwollen, in: Birger P. Priddat (Ed.), Kapitalismus, Krisen, Kultur, Marburg.
• Bauernhansl, T. (2014). Die Vierte Industrielle Revolution. Der Weg in ein wertschaffendes Produktionsparadigma. In (Th. Bauernhansl, M. ten Hompel, B. Vogel-Heuser Ed.): Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik, Wiesbaden: Springer.
• Befu, H. & Josef K. (1992). Othernesses of Japan: Historical and Cultural Influences on Japanese Studies in Ten Countries (Monographien aus dem Deutschen Institut für Japanstudien der Philipp- Franz-von-Siebold-Stiftung), München.
• Blattel-Mink, B. (1995). Nationale Inovationssysteme Vergleichende Fallstudie. Forschungsreihe der Abteilung fur Soziologie: Studentische Arbeiten, 111995.
• Crome, P. (1985). Konfuzius & Co., In: Geo, H 10/ Hamburg: Gruner.
• Der Spiegel (1989) H. 45, Hamburg: Spiegel-Verlag,174.
• Dünya Bankası (2021). Ülke İstatistikleri.
• EU Kommission (2019). European Commission adopts adequacy decision on Japan, creating the world’s largest area of safe data flows.
• Fritsch, M, (2000). Ansatzpunkte und möglickeiten zur Verbesserung regionaler Inovationsbedingungen –Ein Überblick über den stand der Forschung In Hirsch-Kreinsen u.a.(Ed.) Standtorrtbindungen, Berlin.
• Genschel, P. (1996). Variationen des Wandels. Institutionelle Evolution in der Telekommunikation und im Gesundheitssystem. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 7, 1.
• Gowdy, J. M. (1992). Higher selection processes in evolutionary economic change in. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2, 1.
• Granrath, J., (2019): Connected Industries–Japan’s approach to Industry 4.0 on the way to Society 5.0.
• Heilmann, D., Eickemeyer, L., Kleibrink, J. (2016). Industrie 4.0 im internationalen Vergleich – Vergleich der Industrie 4.0 – Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Chinas, Deutschlands, Japans und der USA.
• Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2007). Wissenschaft und Kultur als Kräfte gesellschaftlicher Ordnung während der Transformation”, Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, Otto Schlecht und Horst-Friedrich.
• Hirschmeier, J. (1964). The Origins of Entrepreneurship in Meiji Japan. Harvard University Press.
• Kagermann, H. (2016). Anderl, Reiner; Gausemeier, Jürgen; Schuh, Günther; Wahlster, W. (Ed.): Industrie 4.0 im globalen Kontext – Strategien der Zusammenarbeit mit internationalen Partnern (acatech STUDIE), München: Herbert Utz Verlag.
• Karel V. W. (1989). Vom Mythos der Unbesiegbaren: Anmerkungen zur Weltmacht Japan. München: Droemer Knaur.
• Kinzley, W.D. (1991). Industrial harmony in modern Japan, Routledge.
• Kirchhoff, U. & Schiebe, T. (2017). The Reform of the Japanese Act on Protection of Personal Information. From the Practitioner’s Perspective, ZJapanR.
• Lageman, B., Bauer, T.K., Dürig, W., Kambeck, R., Kluve, J., Neumann, U. & Schmidt, C. M. (2005). Strukturwandel ohne Ende? Aktuelle Vorschläge zur Revitalisierung des Ruhrgebiets und ihre Bewertung. Essen: RWI (RWI: Materialien, 20).
• Lundvall, B. (1992). National systems of innovation towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning, London
• Makino T. (1999). Nihonteki rôshi kankei no shindankai” (Neue Entwicklungen im japanischen Beschäftigungssystem), in: Keizai Shûshi (Nihon Daigaku), 70, 3.
• METI (2020). コネクテッド・インダストリーズ税制廃止 (übersetzt: Connected Industries Abschaffung des Steuersystems),14.Janaur.
• MOF (2016). Trade Statistics, Value of Exports and Imports November.
• Morgan Stanley. (2020). Sustainability Report. (Erişim: 17 07.2022), https://www.morganstanley.com/content/dam/msdotcom/sustainability/Morgan-Stanley_2020-Sustainability-Report_Final.pdf
• Pascha, W. & Katrin H. (1994). Slogans als Instrument der japanischen Unternehmens- und Wirtschaftspolitik”, in: Jahrbuch des Deutschen Instituts für Japanstudien der Philipp-Franz-von- Siebold-Stiftung, München.
• Pascha, W. (2002). Wirtschaftspolitische Reformen in Japan–Kultur als Hemmschuh?.
• Priddat, B. P. (1994). Die Zeit der Institutionen. Elemente einer Theorie der Institutionen in der Ökonomie, Diskussionspapier 6, Juli, Universität Witten/Herdecke.
• Ritter, W. (1993). Allgemeine Wirtschaftsgeographie, München
• Schatzel, L. (1996). Wirtschaftsgeographie 1 Theorie, Paderborn
• Schöning, H. & Dorchain, M. (2014). Data Mining und Analyse. [Buchverf.] Michael ten Hompel, Birgit VogelHeuser, (Ed.) Thomas Bauernhansl. Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik. Wiesbaden. Springer Verlag.
• Schubert, V. (1992). Die Inszenierung der Harmonie. Erziehung und Gesellschaft in Japan (WB-Edition), Darmstadt.
• Schumpeter, J, (1935). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, 4.Auflage, Leibzig
• Sôgô Seikatsu Kaihatsu Kenykûsho, (Hrsg.) (2000) . Gendai Nihon no corporate governance (Unternehmensführung in Japan heute), Tôkyô.
• Storz, C. (2002). Standards und Kommunikation, Diskussionspapier, Universität Witten/Herdecke. (erscheint 2002a).
• Wada, K. (1984). ‘Junsuichoku tôgôgata soshiki’ no keisei” (Die Genese integrierter, quasi-vertikaler Organisationsstrukturen), in: Keizai Keiei Gakuhen (Akademia), Juni