Türk İmalat Sanayinde Performans, İnovasyon ve Rekabet Arasındaki İlişki

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 39 - 59, 20.04.2018

Aykut Karakaya , Seymur Ağazade , Selçuk Perçin

https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.396907

Cited By: 5

Öz

Performans ve inovasyon ilişkisi literatürde en
yaygın biçimde neoklasik iktisat teorisi ve Shumpeteryen görüşte ortaya konulur. Neoklasik teori inovasyonun rekabetçi piyasalarda,
Shumpeteryen görüş ise daha çok aksak rekabet piyasalarında ortaya çıkacağını
öngörür. Bu çalışmada Türk İmalat Sanayii endüstri kollarının 2008-2013
dönemine ait verileri kullanılarak performans ile innovasyon ve rekabet düzeyi
arasındaki ilişki araştırılmıştır. Performans
değişkenleri net kar marjı, aktif karlılık oranı ve öz sermaye karlılık
oranlarıdır. İnovasyon değişkeni ar-ge yoğunluğudur. Endüstri rekabeti Herfindahl-Hirsckman Endeksi ile ölçülmüştür.
Tahmin sonucunda aynı dönem ar-ge yoğunluğunun performansı pozitif, bir dönem
gecikmesinin ise negatif yönde etkilediği bulunmuştur. Rekabetteki
yoğunlaşmanın performansı artırdığı tespit edilmiştir. Aynı döneme ait
ar-ge’nin pozitif etkiye sahip olması inovasyonun rekabet üstünlüğü sağlayıcı
özelliğe sahip olduğunu desteklemektedir. Ar-ge’nin gecikmeli etkisinin negatif
olması ise fikri mülkiyet haklarının korunmasına ilişkin sorunlara işaret eder.
Bu, inovasyon faaliyetlerinin yaklaşık bir dönem sonra taklit edildiği anlamına
gelebilir. Rekabetteki yoğunlaşmanın pozitif etkisi ise Schumpeteryen görüş
öngörüsünü destekleyici niteliktedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İmalat Sanayi, İnovasyon, Rekabet, Panel Veri Analizi

The Relationship between Performance, Innovation and Competition in Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Öz

The relationship between
performance and innovation is covered most extensively in neoclassical economic
theory and Schumpeterian approach. The neoclassical theory predicts that
innovation emerges in competitive markets while Schumpeterian approach predicts
it will emerge in imperfect competitive markets. Using data for the period
2008-2013, this study investigates the relationship between innovation and
competition level in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Performance variables of the study are net profit margin, return on
assets and return on equity. R&D intensity is innovation indicator.
Industrial competition level is measured by Herfindahl-Hirsckman Index.
The results of Two-Step System Generalized Method of Moments analysis show that
R&D intensity affects positively performance variables in contrast one lag
of R&D effects negatively. Furthermore, competition intensity also improves
performance. Positive coefficient of R&D variable supports the view of
innovation has the characteristics of providing competitive advantage. The
negative coefficient of R&D lag indicates the problems related to the
protection of intellectual property right. This finding can be interpreted that
innovation operations are imitated approximately after a period. The positive
effect of competition intensity supports the prediction of Schumpeterian
approach. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Manufacturing Industry, Innovation, Competition

Kaynakça

• Aghion. P.. N. Bloom. R. Blundell, R. Griffith ve P. Howitt. 2002, Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship”, The Institute For Fiscal Studies, Wp02/04.
• 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. 1962, “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, A Report of the National Bureau of Economic Research, ss.609-625.
• Avlonitis, GJ., ve H. Salavou. 2007, “Entrepreneurial Orientation of SMEs, Product Innovativeness, and Performance”, Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 566–575.
• Baltagi, B. H. 2005, Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, England: John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.
• Bessen, J., ve E. Maskin. 2009, “Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation”, The RAND Journal of Economics, 40(4), 611–35.
• Blundell R., ve Bond S. 1998, “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115-143.
• Blundell, R. ve 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.
• Branch, B. 1974, “Research and Development Activity and Profitability: A Distributed Log Analysis”, Journal of Political Economy, 82(5), 999–1011.
• Cainelli, G., R. Evangelista ve M. Savona. 2006, “Innovation and Economic Performance in Services: A Firm-Level Analysis”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(3), 435–458.
• D’Angelo, A. 2012, “Innovation and Export Performance: A Study of Italian High-Tech SMEs”, Journal of Management and Governance, 16, 393–423.
• Erickson, G. ve R. Jacobson. 1992, “Gaining Comparative Advantage Through Discretionary Experience: The Returns to R&D and Advertising”, Management Science, 38(9), 1264-1279.
• Forsman, H., ve S. Temel. 2011 “Innovation and Business Performance in Small Enterprises, An Enterprise-Level Analysis”, International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 641–665.
• Freel, MS. 2000, “Do Small Innovating Firms Outperform Non-innovators?”, Small Business Economics, 14(3), 195–210.
• Hansen, L.P. 2002, “Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators”, Econometrica, 50, 1029-1054.
• Harris, R., ve Q. C. Li. 2009, “Exporting, R&D, and Absorptive Capacity in UK Establishments”, Oxford Economic Papers, 61(1), 74–103.
• Hart, O. D. 1983, “The Market Mechanism as An Incentive Scheme”, Bell Journal of Economics,14(2), 366–382.
• Hartmann, G. C., M. B. Myers ve R. S. Rosenbloom. 2006, “Planning Your Firm’s R&D Investment”, Research Technology Management, 49(2), 25–36.
• Heunks, FJ. 1998, “Innovation, Creativity and Success”, Small Business Economics, 10(3), 263–272.
• Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Ireland, R. D., ve Harrison, J. S. 1991, “Effects of Acquisitions on R&D Inputs and Outputs”, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 693–706.
• Holmstrom, B. 1982, “Moral Hazard in Teams”, Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 392–415.
• Hsiao, C. 2003, Analysis of Panel Data, Second Edition, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
• Huergo, E ve J. Jaumandreu. 2004, “Firms’ Age, Processes Innovation and Productivity Growth”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 541–559.
• Jaffe, A.B. 1986, “Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D”, American Economic Review, 76(5), 984-1001.
• Kamien, M. I. ve N. L. Schwartz 1975, “Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, 13(1), 1-37.
• Kannebley, S Jr., JV Sekkel ve BC Araujo. 2010, “Economic Performance of Brazilian Manufacturing Firms: A Counterfactual Analysis of Innovation Impacts”, Small Business Economy, 34(3), 339–353.
• Kim,W.J., ve J.D. Lee. 2009, “Measuring The Role of Technology-Push and Demand-Pull in The Dynamic Development of Semiconductor Industry: The Case of The Global DRAM Market”, Journal of Applied Economics ,7(1), 83–108.
• Levin, R. C., W. M. Cohen ve D. C. Mowery. 1985, “R & D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses”, The American Economic Review,75(2), 20-24.
• Lopez Rodriguez, J., ve Garcia Rodriguez, R. M. 2005, “Technology and Export Behaviour: A Resourcebased View Approach”, International Business Review, 14(5), 539–557.
• Nassimbeni, G. 2001, “Technology, Innovation Capacity, and The Export Attitude of Small Manufacturing Firms: A Logit/Tobit Model”, Research Policy, 30(2), 245–262.
• Nickell, S., D. Nicolitsas ve N. Dryden 1997, “What Makes Firms Perform Well”, European Economic Review, 41(3-5), 783–796.
• McCutchen Jr, W. W. ve Swamidass, P. M. 1996, “Effect of R&D Expenditures and Funding Strategies on the Market Value of Biotech Firms”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12(4), 287–299.
• Oh, C., Y. Cho ve W. Kim. 2015, “The Effect of A Firm’s Strategic Innovation Decisions on Its Market Performance”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(11), 39-53.
• Özçelik, E., ve Taymar, E. 2004, “Does Innovativeness Matter for International Competitiveness in Developing Countries”, Research Policy, 33(3), 409–424.
• Pegels, C. C., ve Thirumurthy, M. V. 1996, “The Impact of Technology Strategy on Firm Performance”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(4), 246–249.
• Pesaran, M. H. 2004, “General Diagnostic Tests for Croos Section Dependence in Panels”, Universty of Cambridge, Fakulty of Economics, Cambridge WP 0435 in Economics.
• Pesaran, M. H. 2007, “A Sample Panal Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22 (2), 265-312.
• Rochina-Barrachina, ME., JA. Mañez ve JA. Llopis. 2010, “Process Innovations and Firm Productivity Growth”, Small Business Economics, 34(2), 147–166.
• Rogers, M. 2004, “Competition, Agency and Productivity”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 11(3), 349-367.
• Roodman, D. 2009, “How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata,” The Stata Journal , 9(1), 86–136.
• Souare, M. 2013, “Canada–US Productivity Gap: The Role of Competition Intensity Differential”, International Review of Applied Economics, 27(3), 404–428.
• Sung, N. 2014, “Market Concentration and Competition in OECD Mobile Telecommunications Markets”, Applied Economics, 46(25), 3037–3048.
• Tassey, G. 1983, “Competitive Strategies and Performance in Technology-Based Industries”, Journal of Economic Business, 35 (1), 21–40.
• Tsao, S-M. ve G-Z, Chen. 2015, “The Impact of Internationalization on Performance and Innovation: The Moderating Effects of Ownership Concentration”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 617-642.
• Verhees, F, M Meulenberg ve J Pennings. 2010, “Performance Expectations of Small Firms Considering Radical Product Innovation”, Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 772–777.
• 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.
• Wooldridge, J. M. 2002, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, England: The MIT Press.
• Yerdelen Tatoğlu, Ferda. 2017, Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi, İstanul: Beta Yayınları.