SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 33 Sayı: 64

The Role of Absorptive Capacity in R&D Firms’ Location Choice

Ar-Ge Firmalarının Yerleşim Seçiminde Özümseme Kapasitesinin Rolü

Büşra Akın(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9857-7371
Ümit K. Seyfettinoğlu(AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4782-0108
Pages
131–158
Publication Date
2025-04-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicate that R&D firms in Türkiye tend to be located in regions with intense knowledge spillovers and favourable demand conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the location choice behaviour of firms engaged in R&D activities in Türkiye.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The TurkStat Research and Development Activities Survey (2019) Micro Data Set is the primary data source.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicate that R&D firms in Türkiye tend to be located in regions with intense knowledge spillovers and favourable demand conditions.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Yerleşim Seçimi · Firma Yerleşimi · Özümseme Kapasitesi

Abstract

This study investigates the location choice behaviour of firms engaged in R&D activities in Türkiye. The primary objective is to analyse the effect of firm absorptive capacity on location choice. The empirical analysis is based on a firm-oriented approach, considering location as a source of knowledge-based competitive advantage. The TurkStat Research and Development Activities Survey (2019) Micro Data Set is the primary data source. The cross-sectional data set, created for 2019, includes data on 5,871 firms in the Micro Data Set. The geographical scope of the sample is NUTS Level 1 regions, where the headquarters of the R&D firm is located. The estimation method is the Nested Logit model. Results indicate that R&D firms in Türkiye tend to be located in regions with intense knowledge spillovers and favourable demand conditions. This results in an uneven distribution of R&D firms across regions. It is clear from the study's evidence that policymakers should consider the unique competencies and objectives of firms and regions in designing regional development and industrial policies.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de Ar-Ge faaliyeti yürüten firmaların yerleşim seçim davranışını araştırmaktadır. Birincil amaç, firma özümseme kapasitesinin yerleşim seçimi üzerindeki etkisini analiz etmektir. Çalışmanın ampirik analizi, firma-odaklı bir yaklaşıma dayanmakta ve yerleşimin bilgiye dayalı rekabetçi güç kaynağı olmasını göz önüne almaktadır. Temel veri kaynağı, TÜİK Mali ve Mali Olmayan Şirketler Araştırma-Geliştirme Faaliyetleri Araştırması (2019) Mikro Veri Setidir. 2019 yılı için oluşturulan yatay kesit veri seti İBBS Düzey 1 bölgelerinde Ar-Ge faaliyetinde bulunan 5 bin 871 firmayı içermektedir. Tahmin yöntemi, Nested Logit modeldir. Sonuçlara göre Türkiye’deki Ar-Ge firmaları, bilgi ortamı ve talep koşulları bakımından elverişli yerleri seçme eğilimindedir. Bu eğilim, Ar-Ge firmalarının bölgeler arasında eşitsiz dağılmasıyla sonuçlanmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, politika yapıcıların bölgesel kalkınma ve sanayi politikaları tasarlarken firmaların ve bölgelerin yetenekleri ve hedeflerini dikkate alması elzemdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akın, B., Seyfettinoğlu, Ü. K. (2025). The Role of Absorptive Capacity in R&D Firms’ Location Choice. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 64, 131–158. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.02.06

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (101)

  1. Akbaşoğulları, N. & H.E. Duran (2020), “Firm Size and Location Choice of Food Industry: İzmir/Turkey Case”, Regional Science Inquiry, XII(2), 123-132.
  2. Akın, B. & Ü.K. Seyfettinoğlu (2022), “Factors Determining the Location Decision: Analysis of Location Choice Preferences of the ICI-1000 Companies with the Nested Logit Model”, Central Bank Review, 22(1), 57-75.
  3. Alamá-Sabater, L. et al. (2011), “Industrial Location, Spatial Discrete Choice Models and the Need to Account for Neighbourhood Effects”, The Annals of Regional Science, 47(2), 393-418.
  4. Alañón-Pardo, Á. & J.-M. Arauzo-Carod (2013), “Agglomeration, Accessibility and Industrial Location: Evidence from Spain”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(3-4), 135-173.
  5. Alcacer, J. & M. Delgado (2012), “Spatial Organization of Firms: Internal and External Agglomeration Economies and Location Choices Through the Value Chain”, US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, CES-WP-12-33, Washington, DC.
  6. Alguacil, M. et al. (2023), “Firms’ Characteristics and Their International Location Strategy: Micro-Level Evidence from European Countries”, International Review of Economics & Finance, 83(January), 97-113.
  7. Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. & M.C. Antolín (2004), “Firm Size and Geographical Aggregation: An Empirical Appraisal in Industrial Location”, Small Business Economics, 22, 299-312.
  8. Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. et al. (2010), “Empirical Studies in Industrial Location: An Assessment of Their Methods and Results”, Journal of Regional Science, 50(3), 685-711.
  9. Artz, G.M. et al. (2016), “Does Agglomeration Matter Everywhere?: New Firm Location Decisions in Rural and Urban Markets”, Journal of Regional Science, 56(1), 72-95.
  10. Audretsch, D.B. & M. Belitski (2020), “The Role of R&D and Knowledge Spillovers in Innovation and Productivity”, European Economic Review, 123(April),1-24.
  11. Audretsch, D.B. & M.P. Feldman (1996), “R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production”, The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630-640.
  12. Audretsch, D.B. et al. (2004), “University Spillovers and New Firm Location”, Max Plant Institute, Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, 0204, 1-24, Jena, Germany.
  13. Baltas, G. (2007), “Econometric Models for Discrete Choice Analysis of Travel and Tourism Demand”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 25-40.
  14. Barrios, S. et al. (2006), “Multinationals' Location Choice, Agglomeration Economies, and Public Incentives”, International Regional Science Review, 29(1), 81-107.
  15. Basile, R. et al. (2008), “Location Choices of Multinational Firms in Europe: The Role of EU Cohesion Policy”, Journal of International Economics, 74(2), 328-340.
  16. Ben-Akiva, M. & M. Bierlaire (1999), “Discrete Choice Methods and Their Applications to Short Term Travel Decisions”, in: R.W. Hall (ed.), Handbook of Transportation Science (International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Book Series (ISOR) (23, 5-33), Boston: Springer.
  17. Berkoz, L. & S.S. Turk (2005), “Factors Influencing the Choice of FDI Locations in Turkey”, 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: “Land Use and Water Management in a Sustainable Network Society”, 23-27 August 2005, Amsterdam.
  18. Berkoz, L. & S.S. Turk (2009), “Locational preferences of FDI firms in Turkey: A detailed examination of regional determinants”, European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1243-1256.
  19. Bottazzi, G. & U. Gragnolati (2015), “Cities and Clusters: Economy-wide and Sector-specific Effects in Corporate Location”, Regional Studies, 49(1), 113-129.
  20. Brülhart, M. et al. (2007), “Do Agglomeration Economies Reduce the Sensitivity of Firm Location to Tax Differentials?”, The Economic Journal, 122(563), 1069-1093.
  21. Campi, M.T. et al. (2004), “The Location of New Firms and The Life Cycle of Industries”, Small Business Economics, 22(3/4), 265-281.
  22. Chen, H.C. & Y.W. Yu (2008), “Using a Strategic Approach to Analysis the Location Selection for High-tech Firms in Taiwan”, Management Research News, 31(4), 228-244.
  23. Chin, J.T. (2013), “The Effects of Regional and Neighborhood Conditions on Location Choice of New Business Establishments”, PhD diss., The Ohio State University.
  24. Cohen, W.M. & D.A. Levinthal (1990), “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
  25. Council of Higher Education of Türkiye (2024), Universities: Our Universities,, 09.06.2023.
  26. Deakins, D. & J. Bensemann (2019), “Does a Rural Location Matter for Innovative Small Firms? How Rural and Urban Environmental Contexts Shape Strategies of Agri-Business Innovative Small Firms”, Management Decision, 57(7), 1568-1588.
  27. Deichmann, J. et al. (2003), “Foreign Direct Investment in Turkey: Regional Determinants”, Applied Economics, 35(16), 1767-1778.
  28. Deichmann, U. et al. (2005), “Agglomeration, Transport and Regional Development in Indonesia”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, WPS 3477, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
  29. Demirbag, M. et al. (2010), “Institutional and Transaction Cost Determinants of Turkish MNEs’ Location Choice”, International Marketing Review, 27(3), 272-294.
  30. Devereux, M.P. et al. (2007), “Firm Location Decisions, Regional Grants and Agglomeration Externalities”, Journal of Public Economics, 91(3/4), 413-435.
  31. Eurostat (2022), Eurostat Indicators on High-tech Industry and Knowledge Intensive Services (htec),, 07.11.2023.
  32. Feldman, M.P. (1999), “The New Economics of Innovation, Spillovers and Agglomeration: A review of Empirical Studies”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8(1-2), 5-25.
  33. Ferreira, J.J. et al. (2016), “Entrepreneur Location Decisions Across Industries”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 985-1006.
  34. Fosfuri, A. & J.A. Tribó (2008), “Exploring the Antecedents of Potential Absorptive Capacity and Its Impact on Innovation Performance”, Omega, 36(2), 173-187.
  35. Fotopoulos, G. & H. Louri (2000), “Location and Survival of New Entry”, Small Business Economics, 14(4), 311-321.
  36. Fujita, M. et al. (1999), The Spatial Economy Cities, Regions, and International Trade, London: The MIT Press.
  37. Gertler, M.S. (1995), “‘Being there’: Proximity, Organization, and Culture in the Development and Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies”, Economic Geography, 71(1), 1-26.
  38. Gómez Antonio, M. & S. Sweeney (2021), “Testing the Role of Intra Metropolitan Local Factors on Knowledge Intensive Industries’ Location Choices”, The Annals of Regional Science, 66(3), 699-728.
  39. Greene, W.H. (2008), Econometric Analysis, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  40. Guimarães, P. et al. (2004), “Industrial Location Modeling: Extending the Random Utility Framework”, Journal of Regional Science, 44(1), 1-20.
  41. Hansen, E.R. (1987), “Industrial Location Choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil: A Nested Logit Model”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 17(1), 89-108.
  42. Hart, S.L. et al. (1989), “A Contingency Approach to Firm Location: The Influence of Industrial Sector and Level of Technology”, Policy Studies Journal, 17(3), 599-623.
  43. Henderson, J.V. (1991), Urban Development: Theory, Fact, and Illusion, New York: Oxford University Press.
  44. Hensher, D.A. & W.H. Greene (1999), “Specification and Estimation of Nested Logit Models”, The Institute of Transport Studies Working Paper, ITS-WP-99-4, Sydney & Monash, Australia,, 21.12.2019.
  45. Hensher, D.A. et al. (2005), Applied Choice Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Hoover, E.M. (1937), Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  47. Hoover, E.M. (1948), The Location of Economic Activities, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  48. Jo, Y. & C.Y. Lee (2014), “Technological Capability, Agglomeration Economies and Firm Location Choice”, Regional Studies, 48(8), 1337-1352.
  49. Jofre-Monseny, J. et al. (2011), “The Mechanisms of Agglomeration: Evidence from the Effect of Inter-Industry Relations on the Location of New Firms”, Journal of Urban Economics, 70(2-3), 61-74.
  50. Karahasan, B.C. (2010), “Dynamics and Variation of Regional Firm Formation-Case of Turkey”, PhD diss., Marmara University, İstanbul.
  51. Karahasan, B.C. (2015), “Dynamics of Regional New Firm Formation in Turkey”, Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 27(1), 18-39.
  52. Kayam, S.S. et al. (2011), “Spoilt for Choice: Explaining the Location Choice of Turkish Transnationals”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 39150, 1-21, Munich.
  53. Kohlhase, J.E. & X. Ju (2007), “Firm Location in a Polycentric City: The Effects of Taxes”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(5), 671-691.
  54. Lafuente, E. et al. (2010), “Location Decisions of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurs: Why Some Catalan KISAs Choose to be Rural?”, Technovation, 30(11-12), 590-600.
  55. Lall, S.V. & S. Chakravorty (2004) “Industrial Location and Spatial Inequality: Theory and Evidence from India”, World Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper No. 2004/49, United Nations University, Helsinki.
  56. Launhardt, W. (1882), “Die Bestimmung des zweckmassigsten Standortes elner gewerlichen Anlage”, Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutscher, 26, 106-115.
  57. Li, M. et al. (2016), “Location Determinants of High-Growth Firms”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 97-125.
  58. Li, Y. & K. Zhu (2017), “Spatial Dependence and Heterogeneity in the Location Processes of New High-Tech Firms in Nanjing, China”, Papers in Regional Science, 96(3), 519-535.
  59. Liviano, D. & J.-M Arauzo-Carod (2014), “Industrial Location and Spatial Dependence: An Empirical Application”, Regional Studies, 48(4), 727-743.
  60. MacKinnon, D. et al. (2002), “Learning, Innovation and Regional Development: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Debates”, Progress in Human Geography, 26(3), 293-311.
  61. Maggioni, M.A. (1999), “Clustering Dynamics and the Location of High-Tech Firms”, PhD diss., University of Warwick.
  62. Malecki, E.J. (1984), “High Technology and Local Economic Development”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(3), 262-269.
  63. Malecki, E.J. (1985), “Industrial Location and Corporate Organization in High Technology Industries”, Economic Geography, 61(4), 345-369.
  64. Manjón-Antolín, M.C. & J.-M. Arauzo-Carod (2011), “Locations and Relocations: Determinants, Modelling, and Interrelations”, The Annals of Regional Science, 47(1), 131-146.
  65. Maskell, P. & A. Malmberg (1999a), “Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167-185.
  66. Maskell, P. & A. Malmberg (1999b), “The Competitiveness of Firms and Regions: 'Ubiquitification' And the Importance of Localized Learning”, European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 9-25.
  67. McFadden, D. (1974), “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior”, in: P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (105-142), New York: Academic Press.
  68. Ministry of Industry and Technology (2024), İstatistikler / İstatistiki Bilgiler,, 22.04.2024.
  69. Mowery, D.C. et al. (1996), “Strategic Alliances and Interfirm Knowledge Transfer”, Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special Issue), 77-91.
  70. OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  71. Park, S. et al. (2023), “The Interaction Effect of Absorptive Capacity and Partner Types on Product Innovation in SMEs”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22(4), 418-429.
  72. Porter, M.E. (2000), “Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy”, Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15-34.
  73. Ramaul, N.K. & P. Ramaul (2018), “Regional Incentives and Location Choice of New Firms in India: A Nested Logit Model”, Journal of Quantitative Economics, 16(2), 501-525.
  74. Rossi, F. (2019), “Identifying Factors Relevant for Firms’ Location and Relocation: The Case of Ticino”, in: P. Capik & M. Dej (eds.), Relocation of Economic Activity (109-123), New York: Springer Cham.
  75. Sanchez-Reaza, J. (2018), “The Determinants of Firm Location in Tanzania”, The World Bank, Jobs Working Paper No. 21, Washington, DC.
  76. Seçkin, B. (2015), “Firm Level Absorptive Capacity and The Success of International Technology Transfer: The Case of Aerospace Industry in Turkey”, PhD diss., Middle East Technical University.
  77. Siedschlag, I. et al. (2013), “What Determines the Location Choice of Multinational Firms in The Information and Communication Technologies Sector?”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(6), 581-600.
  78. Sridhar, K.S. & G. Wan (2010), “Firm Location Choice in Cities: Evidence from China, India, and Brazil”, China Economic Review, 21(1), 113-122.
  79. Tatoglu, E. & K.W. Glaister (1998), “Western MNCs' FDI in Turkey: An Analysis of Location Specific Factors”, Management International Review, 38(2), 133-159.
  80. Townroe, P.M. (1969), “Locational Choice and the Individual Firm”, Regional Studies, 3(1), 15-24.
  81. Train, K.E. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  82. TurkStat (2020), “Financial and Non-Financial Corporations Research and Development Activities Survey Micro Data Set, 2019”, Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara.
  83. TurkStat (2024a), Research and Development Activities Survey Statistics,, 22.04.2024.
  84. TurkStat (2024b), Income Distribution Statistics: Income and Living Conditions Survey,, 23.04.2024.
  85. TurkStat (2024c), Regional Statistics Database,, 26.04.2024.
  86. Van Den Bosch, F.A. et al. (1999), “Coevolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities”, Organization Science, 10(5), 551-568.
  87. Von Thünen, J.H. (1826), Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie, Hamburg: Perthes.
  88. Weber, A. (1909), Ueber den Standort der Industrien, Tübingen: JCB Mohr.
  89. Weterings, A. & J. Knoben (2013), “Footloose: An analysis of the Drivers of Firm Relocations Over Different Distances”, Papers in Regional Science, 92(4), 791-809.
  90. Wooldridge, J.M. (2001), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, London: The MIT Press.
  91. Xiao, S.S. et al. (2023), “Double-Edged Sword of Open Innovation for Business Failure in the Post-Pandemic Era: The Moderating Roles of Industrial Embeddedness and Absorptive Capacity”, Industrial Marketing Management, 115, 378-394.
  92. Yavan, N. (2006), “Türkiye'de Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Lokasyon Seçimi Üzerine Uygulamalı Bir Araştırma”, PhD diss., Ankara University.
  93. Yavan, N. (2010), “The Location Choice of Foreign Direct Investment Within Turkey: An Empirical Analysis”, European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1675-1705.
  94. Zahra, S.A. & G. George (2002), “Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension”, The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
  95. Council of Higher Education of Türkiye (2024), Universities: Our Universities,, 09.06.2023.
  96. Eurostat (2022), Eurostat Indicators on High-tech Industry and Knowledge Intensive Services (htec),, 07.11.2023.
  97. Hensher, D.A. & W.H. Greene (1999), “Specification and Estimation of Nested Logit Models”, The Institute of Transport Studies Working Paper, ITS-WP-99-4, Sydney & Monash, Australia,, 21.12.2019.
  98. Ministry of Industry and Technology (2024), İstatistikler / İstatistiki Bilgiler,, 22.04.2024.
  99. TurkStat (2024a), Research and Development Activities Survey Statistics,, 22.04.2024.
  100. TurkStat (2024b), Income Distribution Statistics: Income and Living Conditions Survey,, 23.04.2024.
  101. TurkStat (2024c), Regional Statistics Database,, 26.04.2024.