SavedAdd your journal

Journals / JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy / 2025 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

The Development of Innovation Policies: A Comparison Through Neo-Classical and Evolutionary Theories

Yenilik Politikalarının Gelişimi: Neo-Klasik ve Evrimci Kuramlar Üzerinden Bir Karşılaştırma

Yiğit Kaymak(NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1140-062X
Özcan Karahan(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1179-2125
Pages
326–347
Publication Date
2025-12-19
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)

We expect that the comparative analysis made based on these two basic economic theories will make significant contributions to the understanding of policy making processes, which provides policy flexibility for different structural contexts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Regarding innovation policy debates, the dichotomy between neo-classical and evolutionary approaches has been widely accepted.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study presents that the evolutionary-based policies, which aim at improving of systemic and institutional dynamics that shape the innovation process, could yield more effective outcomes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We expect that the comparative analysis made based on these two basic economic theories will make significant contributions to the understanding of policy making processes, which provides policy flexibility for different structural contexts.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Teknoloji · İnovasyon · İnovasyon Politikası

Abstract

Regarding innovation policy debates, the dichotomy between neo-classical and evolutionary approaches has been widely accepted. In this context, the goal of this study is to analyze the policy designs at the theoretical level based on two approaches and reveal the differences in policy orientation between them. We see that the innovation analysis and policy recommendations of evolutionary approach that view innovation process as matter of effective system and institutional structure differ greatly from neo-classical approach that focuses on a linear innovation model overlooking the interrelationships between system components. This study presents that the evolutionary-based policies, which aim at improving of systemic and institutional dynamics that shape the innovation process, could yield more effective outcomes. We expect that the comparative analysis made based on these two basic economic theories will make significant contributions to the understanding of policy making processes, which provides policy flexibility for different structural contexts.

Özet

Yenilik politikası (veya inovasyon politikası) tartışmalarında temelde neo-klasik ve evrimci yaklaşım dikotomisinin yaygın olduğu görülür. Bu doğrultuda, çalışmanın amacı politika tasarımlarının bu iki ana yaklaşım üzerinden kuramsal düzlemde analiz edilmesi ve aralarındaki politika yönelim farkının ortaya konmasıdır. Yenilik sürecini etkin çalışan bir sistem ve kurumsal yapı meselesi olarak gören evrimci iktisadın teknoloji ve inovasyon çözümlemeleri ve oluşturduğu politika önerilerinin doğrusal yenilik modeline odaklanarak sistem bileşenleri arasındaki ilişkileri göz ardı eden neo-klasik yaklaşımdan oldukça farklı olduğu görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada, teknolojik gelişim ve inovasyon sürecini biçimlendiren sistemsel ve kurumsal dinamikleri iyileştirmeyi hedefleyen evrimci tabanlı politikaların daha etkin sonuçlar üretebileceği ortaya koyulmaktadır. Bu iki temel iktisadi kuram üzerinden yapılan karşılaştırmalı analizin politika yapım süreçlerinin anlaşılmasına ve farklı yapısal bağlamlara yönelik politika esnekliği sağlanmasına önemli katkılar yapması beklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kaymak, Y., Karahan, Ö. (2025). The Development of Innovation Policies: A Comparison Through Neo-Classical and Evolutionary Theories. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 326–347. https://ajindex.com/articles/1504120

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (147)

  1. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Barrage, L., & Hemous, D. (2023). Climate change, directed innovation, and energy transition: The long-run consequences of the shale gas revolution. NBER Working Paper, No: w31657.
  2. Akçomak, İ. S. (2014). Teknoloji, inovasyon ve ekonomik büyüme. İçinde: A. Faruk ve D. Dumludağ (Ed.), Kalkınmada yeni yaklaşımlar (s.473-493) Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
  3. Akçomak, İ. S. (2016). Bilim, teknoloji ve yenilik politikalarının kuramsal çerçevesi. İçinde: S. Akçomak vd., (Ed.), Bilim, teknoloji ve yenilik: Kavramlar, kuramlar ve politika (s.509-528), İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  4. Akçomak, İ. S., & Kalaycı, E. (2016). Ar-Ge ve yeniliğin ölçümü ve Ar-Ge yenilik anketi verilerinin araştırmada kullanılması İçinde: S. Akçomak vd., (Ed.), Bilim, teknoloji ve yenilik: Kavramlar, kuramlar ve politika (s.107-126), İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  5. Akyos, M. (2023). Türkiye ulusal yenilik sisteminin yeniden inşası. SODEV Politika Raporu, 2023/1.
  6. Akyüz, Y. (1980). Sermaye, bölüşüm, büyüme. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
  7. Alchian, A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1086/256940.
  8. Alçın, S. (2010). Teknolojik determinist kalkınma aracı olarak teknoekonomi politikaları. İstanbul: Tarem Yayınları.
  9. Ansal, H. (2004). Geçmiş ve gelecekte ekonomik gelişmede teknolojinin rolü. İçinde Teknoloji (s.35-58). Ankara: TMMOB 50. Yıl Yayınları.
  10. Archibugi, D., & Michie, J. (1998). Technical change, growth and trade: New departures in institutional economics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(3), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00058.
  11. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.),The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (s.609-626), Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  12. Aslanoğlu, E. (2001). Ulusal yenilenme sistemleri çerçevesinde Türkiye’de teknoloji politikaları. Mülkiye Dergisi, 25(230), 119-152.
  13. Baldwin, R. (2021). Büyük yakınsama: Bilgi teknolojisi ve yeni küreselleşme. Kemal Akın (Çev.). Ankara: Efil Yayınevi.
  14. Balzat, M. (2006). An economic analysis of innovation extending the concept of national innovation systems. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  15. Basalla, G. (2000). Teknolojinin evrimi. (Cem Soydemir, Çev.). Ankara: TÜBİTAK Yayınları.
  16. Bergek, A., Hellsmark, H. K., & Karltorp, K. (2023). Directionality challenges for transformative innovation policy: Lessons from implementing climate goals in the process industry. Industry and Innovation, 30(8), 1110-1139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2163882.
  17. Bleda, M., & del Rio, P. (2013). The market failure and systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems. Research Policy, 42(5), 1039-1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.008.
  18. Bloom, N., Van Reenen, J., & Williams, H. (2019). A toolkit of policies to promote innovation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(3), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2019-10-5-31
  19. Borràs, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(8), 1513-1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.002.
  20. Bryan, K., & Williams, H. (2021). Innovation: Market failures and public policies. NBER Working Paper, 29173, Cambridge, MA.
  21. Cantner, U., & Vannuccini, S. (2018). Elements of a Schumpeterian catalytic research and innovation policy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 833-850. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty028.
  22. Carlsson, B., & Jacobsson, S. (1997). In search of useful public policies: Key lessons and issues for policy makers. In B. Carlsson (Ed.), Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics (s.299-315). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  23. Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2006). Rationales for public policy intervention from a systems of innovation approach: The case of VINNOVA. Circle Working Paper, 2006(4).
  24. Chang, Y.C., & Chen, M.H. (2004). Comparing approaches to systems of innovation: The knowledge perspective. Technology in Society, 26(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2003.10.002.
  25. Colander, D., Holt, R., & Rosser, B. (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy, 16(4), 485-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953825042000256702.
  26. Cooke P., Uranga, M., & Etexbarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organizational dimension. Reserach Policy, 26(4-5), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5.
  27. Coombs, R., Saviotti, P., & Walsh, V. (1987). Economics and technological change. London: Macmillan Press.
  28. Demir, Ö. (1996). Kurumcu iktisat. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
  29. Dixit, A. (1988). A general model of R&D competition and policy. The RAND Journal of Economics, 19(3), 317-326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555659.
  30. Dosi, G. (1988). The nature of the innovative process. In G. Dosi vd. (Ed.), Technical change and economic theory (s.221-238). Pinter Publishers.
  31. Dosi, G., & Orsenigo, L. (1988), Coordination and transformation: An overview of structures, behaviour and change in evolutionary environments. In G. Dosi vd. (Ed.), Technical change and economic theory (s.13-37), Pinter Publishers.
  32. Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. (1994). An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4(3), 153-172. https:// doi:10.1007/BF01236366.
  33. Drucker, P. (2007). Management, tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Truman Taley Boks / E.P. Dutton.
  34. Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997), Institution and organizations in systems of innovation system of innovation. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (s.41-63), London: Pinter. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357620
  35. Edquıst, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in society, 21(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(98)00037-2.
  36. Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & Mc Kelvey, M. (2001). Innovation and employment: Process versus product innovation. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar:
  37. Eren, E. (2015). (Makro) İktisatta gelişmeler: Yeni bir (Makro) iktisada doğru mu? Yildiz Social Science Review, 1(1), 1-35.
  38. Eser, U. (1993). Türkiye’de sanayileşme. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  39. European Commission (1995). Green paper on innovation. Bulletin of the European Union Supplement, 95(688), Brussels.
  40. Fagerberg, J. (2003). Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: An appraisal of the literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(2), 125-159. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00191-003-0144-1.
  41. Freeman, C. (1988). Japan: A new institutional system of innovation? In G. Dosi vd. (Ed.), Technical change and economic theory (s.330-348). New York: Pinter.
  42. Freeman, C. (1990). Yeni teknoloji ve yetişme sorunu. Aykut Göker (Çev.), Mühendis ve Makine, 31(368), 1-16.
  43. Frischmann, B (2000) Innovation and institutions: Rethinking the economics of U.S. science and technology policy. Vermont Law Review, 24, 347-416.
  44. Galli, R., & Teubal, M. (1997). Paradigmatic shifts in national innovation systems. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (s.342-370). London: Pinter. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357620.
  45. Genç, S.Y., & Yardımcı, E. M. (2016). Neoklasik iktisadi düşünceye eleştirel bir bakış: Thorstein Bunde Veblen. Balkan Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 106-114.
  46. Ghazınoory, S., Narimani, M., & Tatina, S. (2017). Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: Convergence of policy implications. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27(3), 555-583. https:// doi:10.1007/s00191-017-0490-z.
  47. Göker, A. (2000). Niçin bilim ve teknoloji politikası, niçin ulusal: Tarihsel gelişim ülke örnekleri ve Türkiye. Sosyal Demokrasi Derneği Söyleşileri, Ankara.
  48. Göker, A. (2004). Pazar ekonomilerinde bilim ve teknoloji politikaları ve Türkiye. İçinde Teknoloji (ss.123-219), Ankara: TMMOB 50. Yıl Yayınları.
  49. Gürkan, C. (2007). Veblen, Schumpeter ve teknoloji. İçinde: E. Özveren (Ed.), Kurumsal iktisat (s.237-281), Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
  50. Han, F. H., & Matthews, R.C.O. (1964). The theory of economic growth: A survey. The Economic Journal, 74(296), 779-902. https://doi.org/10.2307/2228848.
  51. Hanusch, H., & Pyka, A. (2007). Principles of neo-schumpeterian economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(2), 275-289. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel018.
  52. Hauknes, J., & Nordgren, L. (1999). Economic rationales of government involvement in innovation and the supply of innovation-related services. STEP Report, 08(1999).
  53. Hodgson, G. (1992). Thorstein Veblen and post-darwinian economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 16(3), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035205.
  54. Hodgson, G. (1996). The challenge of evolutionary economics. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152(4), 697-706.
  55. Hodgson, G. (1998). On the evolution of Thorstein Veblen's evolutionary economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22(4), 415-431. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a013726.
  56. Intarakumnerd, P., & Chaminade, C. (2007). Strategy versus practice in innovation systems policy: The case of Thailand. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 15(2), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2007.9668643.
  57. Isaksen, A., Martin, R., & Trippl, M. (2018). New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems and Policy. In A. Isaksen et al. (Ed.), New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems – Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons, (ss. 1-19), Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71661-9.
  58. Jamison, A. (1989). Technology's theorists: Conceptions of innovation in relation to science and technology policy. Technology and Culture, 30(3), 505-533. https://doi.org/10.2307/3105949.
  59. Janssen, M., Torrens, J., Wesseling, J., & Wanzenböck, I. (2021). The promises and premises of mission-oriented innovation policy-A reflection and ways forward. Science and Public Policy, 48(3), 438-444. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa072.
  60. Karahan, Ö. (2019). Türkiye’de inovasyon politikası uygulamasının gelişimi. İçinde: K. Korlu ve R. Korlu (Ed.), Ekonomi ve siyaset üzerine yazılar (s.127-145). Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
  61. Karahan, Ö., & Gök, M. (2018). Türkiye’deki inovasyon politikası tasarım sürecinin analizi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(18), 247-254. https://dx.doi.org/10.18506/anemon.452811.
  62. Karahan, Ö., & Yılgör, M. (2018). Ulusal yenilik sistemi içerisinde kamu ile özel sektör Ar-
  63. Ge faaliyetlerinin etkileşimi. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi, 55(640), 49-62.
  64. Karataş, A., & Bozkurt, K. (2022). Ekonomik büyüme ve teknolojik gelişmeler: Bir nedensellik analizi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 29(2), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1055411.
  65. Karlson, N., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K. (2020). Bureaucrats or markets in innovation policy? A critique of the entrepreneurial state. The Review of Austrian Economics-Springer, 34(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-020-00508-7.
  66. KatteL, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty032.
  67. Kaymak, Y., & Erçakar, M. (2024). The new paradigm shifts in innovatıon policies and the changing role of the state. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 22(4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1542086.
  68. Kaymak, Y. (2025). Teknolojik gelişme ve inovasyon sürecinin içselleştirilmesi: Evrimci dinamikler üzerinden bir değerlendirme. Uygulamalı Ekonomi ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 22-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.46959/jeess.1640748.
  69. Kazgan, G. (1994). Yeni ekonomik düzende Türkiye’nin yeri. İstanbul: Altın Kitaplar Yayınevi.
  70. Kazgan, G. (2000). Küreselleşme ve ulus devlet: Yeni ekonomik düzen. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  71. Kemp R., & Oltra, V. (2011). Research insights and challenges on eco-innovation dynamics. Industy and Innovation, 18(3), 249-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2011.562399.
  72. Kırım, A. (1990). Türkiye imalat sanayinde teknolojik değişim. Ankara: TOBB Yayınları, 145.
  73. Kibritçioğlu, A. (1998). İktisadi büyümenin belirleyicileri ve yeni büyüme modellerinde beşeri sermayenin yeri. A.Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi. 53(1-4), 207-230. https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000001947.
  74. Kim, L. (1998). Technology policies and strategies for developing countries: Lessons from the Korean experience. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(3), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524319.
  75. Lall, S., & Teubal, M. (1998). Market-stimulating technology policies in developing countries: A framework with examples from East Asia. World Development, 26(8), 1369-1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00071-0.
  76. Lall, S. (2000). Selective industrial and trade policies in developing countries: Theoretical and empirical issues. QEH Working Paper Series, 48.
  77. Lenger, A. (2006). Bölgesel yenilik sistemleri ve devletin rolü: Türkiye’deki kurumsal yapı ve devlet üniversiteleri. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 6(3),141-155.
  78. Lenger, A. (2007). Kurumsal İktisat ve Eleştirel Gerçeklik. İçinde: E. Özveren (Ed.), Kurumsal iktisat (s.339-364), Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
  79. Lipsey, R. (2002). Some implications of endogenous technological change for technology policies in developing countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(4-5), 321-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590200000003.
  80. Lipsey, R., & Carlaw, K. (1998). Technology policy in neo-classical and structuralist evolutionary model. STI Review, 22, 31-74.
  81. Llerena, P., & Matt, M. (2000). Technology policy and cooperation: a paradigmatic approach. DRUID Working Paper, 00-2,1-29.
  82. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). Introduction. In B.A, Lundvall (Ed.), National Systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning, London: Pinter.
  83. Lundvall, B. A., & Borràs, S. (2004). Science, technology and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg vd. (Ed.), Handbook of innovation (s.559-631), New York: Oxford University Press.
  84. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl012.
  85. Mazzucato, M. (2015). The creative state. RSA Journal, 161 (5562), 12-17.
  86. Mazzucato, M. (2016). From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 140-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146124.
  87. Mazzucato, M. (2021). Girişimci devlet: Kamu sektörü-özel sektör karşıtlığı masalının çürütülmesi. Esin Soğancılar (Çev.). İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  88. McKelvey, M. (1998). Evolutionary innovations: Learning, entrepreneurship and the dynamics of the firm. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8(2),157-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001910050060.
  89. Metcalfe, J. S. (1994). Evolutionary economics and technology policy. The Economic Journal, 104(425), 931-944. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234988.
  90. Metcalfe, J. S. (1995). Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035307.
  91. Metcalfe, J. S. (1997). Science policy and technology policy in a competitive economy. International Journal of Social Economics, 24(7/8/9), 723-740. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068299710178801.
  92. Metcalfe, J. S., & Georghiou, L. (1998). Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of technology policy. STI Review, 22, 75-100. https://dx.doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v2i1.8648870.
  93. Metcalfe, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary concepts in relation to evolutionary economics. In K. Dopfer (Ed.), The evolutionary foundations of economics (s.391-430), New York: Cambridge University Press.
  94. Molas-Gallart, J., & Davies, A. (2006). Toward theory-led-evaluation: the experience of European science, technology and innovation policies. The American Journal of Evaluation, 27(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005281.
  95. Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1991). Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. Cambridge: CUP.
  96. Mowery, D. (1994). Science and technology policy in interdependent economies. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  97. Nelson, R. (1959). Simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1086/258177.
  98. Nelson, R. R. (1981). Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: Dead ends and new departures. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(3), 1029-1064.
  99. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1974). Neoclassical vs evolutionary theories or economic growth: critique and prospectus. The Economic Journal, 84(336), 886-905. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230572.
  100. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1977). In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6(1), 36-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(77)90029-4.
  101. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  102. Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (s.3-21), New York: Oxford University Press.
  103. Nelson, R. R., & Nelson, K. (2002). Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research Policy, 31(2), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00140-8.
  104. OECD (1997). The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities: Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Oslo Manual, Paris.
  105. OECD (1998). Technology, productivity and job creation. Best Policy Practices, Paris.
  106. Oltra V., & Saint Jean, M. (2009). Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: an application to the French automotive industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 567-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.025.
  107. Özveren, E. (1998). An institutionalist alternative to neoclassical economics? Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 21(4), 469-530.
  108. Pala, C. (1995). N. Kaldor’un teknik ilerleme fonksiyonu ve içerilmiş teknik ilerlemenin büyüme teorisine giriş. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 6(17), 65-84. doi:10.5455/ey.10203.
  109. Parasız, İ. (2011). Modern makro ekonominin temelleri. Bursa: Ezgi Kitapevi.
  110. Robert, V., & Yoguel, G. (2022). Exploration of trending concepts in innovation policy. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, 3(2), 259-292. doi: 10.1007/s43253-022-00064-9.
  111. Rohe, S., & Mattes, J. (2021). What about the regional level? Regional configurations of technological innovation systems. Papers in Economic Geography and Innovation Studies (PEGIS), No: 2021/1, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
  112. Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth‐generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(1),7-31.https://doi.org/10.1108/02651339410057491
  113. Rosa, A. B., Kimpeler, S., Schirrmeister, E., & Warnke, P. (2021). Participatory foresight and reflexive innovation: Setting policy goals and developing strategies in a bottom-up, mission-oriented, sustainable way. European Journal of Futures Research, 9(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-021-00171-6.
  114. Rutherford, M. (1984). Thorstein Veblen and the process of institutional change. History of Political Economy, 16(3), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-16-3-331.
  115. Saviotti, P. P., & Metcalfe, J. S. (1991). Present development and trends in evolutionary economics. In P. P. Saviotti ve J. S. Metcalfe (Ed.), Evolutionary Theories of Economic and Technological Change Present Status and Future Prospects (s.1-31), Harwood Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351127707.
  116. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: r&d, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
  117. Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  118. Shulin, G. (1999). Implications of national innovation systems for developing countries: Managing change and complexity in economic development. UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series, 9903.
  119. Smith, K. (1994). Interactions in knowledge systems: Foundations, policy implications and empirical methods. STEP Report Series, 10 (1994).
  120. Smith, K. (2000). Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: Rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies, 1(1), 73-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/146324400363536.
  121. Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1-2), 4-32. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2004.004621.
  122. Solow, R. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926047.
  123. Soyak, A. (1995). Teknolojik gelişme: Neoklasik ve evrimci kuramlar açısından bir değerlendirme. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 6(15), 93-107. doi: 10.5455/ey.10192
  124. Soyak, A. (1996). Teknolojik gelişme ve özelleştirme. İstanbul: Kavram Yayınları.
  125. Soyak, A. (2006). Ulusaldan uluslarüstüne iktisadi planlama ve Türkiye deneyimi. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
  126. Soyak, A. (2011). Teknoekonomi. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
  127. Steinmueller, W. E. (2010). Economics of technology policy. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation, (s.1181-1218), Elsevier-North Holland Publishing.
  128. Stiglitz, J. (1996). Some lessons from the East Asian miracle. The World Bank Research Observer, 11(2), 151-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/11.2.151.
  129. Stock, T., & Seliger, G. (2016). Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 40, 536-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129.
  130. Stoneman, P. (1983). The economic analysis of technological change. New York: Oxford University Press.
  131. Stoneman, P., & Vickers, J. (1988). The assessment: The economics of technology policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4(4), 1-16.
  132. Taymaz, E. (1993). Sanayi ve teknoloji politikaları: Amaçlar ve araçlar. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 20(4), 549-580.
  133. Taymaz, E. (2001). Ulusal yenilik sistemi: Türkiye imalat sanayiinde teknolojik değişim ve yenilik süreçleri. Ankara: TÜBİTAK/TTGV/DİE.
  134. Terzioğlu, M. K., Yücel, M. A., Demirkıran, S., & Acaroğlu, D. (2020). Kentsel inovasyonun kentleşme üzerine mekânsal etkisi. Kent Araştırmaları Dergisi, 30(11), 592-620. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.683583.
  135. Terzioğlu, M. K., Yücel, M. A., & Gençler, A. (2021). Sosyal inovasyon ve artımsal inovasyon çerçevesinde iç-göç olgusunun dinamik mekânsal etkileşimi. Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 11(1), 69-94. https://doi.org/10.32331/sgd.952548.
  136. Tidd, J. (2006). A review of innovation models. Science and Technology Policy Research Unit University of Sussex Discussion Paper, 1(1).
  137. Tosunoğlu, Ş. (2016). Kamu inovasyon destekleri: Türkiye’de inovasyon odaklı kamu politikaları. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitapevi.
  138. Turanlı, R., & Sarıdoğan, E. (2010). Bilim-teknoloji-inovasyon temelli ekonomi ve toplum. İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2010/13.
  139. Uyarra, E., Ribeiro, B., & Dale-Clough, L. (2019). Exploring the normative turn in regional innovation policy: responsibility and the quest for public value. European Planning Studies, 27(12), 2359-2375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1609425.
  140. Walker, D. (1977). Thorstein Veblen's economic system. Economic Inquiry, 15(2), 213-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1977.tb00467.x.
  141. Weber, K., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.
  142. Wittman, F., Hufnagl, M., Lindner, R., Roth, F., & Edler, J. (2020). Developing a typology for mission-oriented innovation policies. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis, No 64.
  143. Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.002.
  144. Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12 (4), 373-397. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882952.
  145. Veblen, T. (1961). The place of science in modern civilization and other essays. New York: Russell &Russell.
  146. Verspagen, B. (2004). Innovation and economic growth. In J. Fagerberg vd. (Ed.), Handbook of innovation (s.487-513), New York: Oxford University Press.
  147. Yücel, İ. H. (1997). Bilim-teknoloji politikaları ve 21. yüzyılın toplumu. Ankara: DPT.