SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2017 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 31

Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach

Kurumsal Yaklaşım Perspektifinden İnovasyon ve Yenilikçi Kamu Alımları

Doğan BAKIRTAŞ
Ahmet AYSU
Pages
127–148
Publication Date
2017-01-31
DOI
—
🏛️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)

On the other hand, government should give the sufficient importance to innovative solutions in public procurement process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Innovation policies and national innovation systems are the main determinant of countries development level.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, government should give the sufficient importance to innovative solutions in public procurement process.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İnovasyon · Kurumlar · Yenilikçi Kamu Alımları

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAKIRTAŞ, D., AYSU, A. (2017). Innovation and Innovative Public Procurement from the Perspective of Institutional Approach. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 31, 127–148. https://ajindex.com/articles/139758

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2003), “Root Causes: A Historical Approach to Assessing the Role of Institutions in Economic Development”, Finance and Development, 40(2), 27-30.
  2. Acemoglu, D. & S. Johnson & J. Robinson (2004), “Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of LongRun Growth”, NBER Working Paper, No. 10481, 1-111.
  3. 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:
  4. 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:
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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)
  8. Edward Elgar, Cheltham. Barbosa, N. & P.F. Faria (2011), “Innovation across Europe: How important are institutional differences?”, Research Policy, 40, 1157-1169.
  9. Biber, A.E. (2010), “İktisadi Büyümede Kurumsal Faktörler ve Kurumsal Değişim”, Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 19, 1-24.
  10. Blind, K. (2012), “The Influence of Regulations on Innovation: A Quantitative Assessment for OECD Countries”, Research Policy, 41(2), 391-400.
  11. 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.
  12. Borras, S. & C. Edquist (2013), “The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 1513-1522.
  13. Boztosun, N.A. (2007), “Fikri Mülkiyet ve Küresel Rekabet”, TÜSİAD-Sabancı Üniversitesi Rekabet Forumu, REF 08/2007, 1-14
  14. Buchanan, J.M. & A. Di Pierro (1980), “Cognition, Choice, and Entrepreneurship”, Southern Economic Journal, 46(3), 693-701.
  15. Carden, W.A. (2007), “Christian Ethics, Formal Institu