Journals / Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 644

Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Ekosistemi ve Akış Diyagramları

Pages
77–100
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)

In this context, it is aimed to design NEG Approach Ecosystem Flow Diagrams in order to explain the principle assumptions of the NEG Approach in today’s conditions and to understand the internal and external dynamics more easily.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years, changes in the structure of production and consumption due to the effects of globalization and technological developments have affected the distribution of economic activities among regions and caused these activities to agglomerate in certain regions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the 1990s, first generation NEG models, based on simple centre-periphery model, have undergone many transformations over time.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, it is aimed to design NEG Approach Ecosystem Flow Diagrams in order to explain the principle assumptions of the NEG Approach in today’s conditions and to understand the internal and external dynamics more easily.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In recent years, changes in the structure of production and consumption due to the effects of globalization and technological developments have affected the distribution of economic activities among regions and caused these activities to agglomerate in certain regions. Traditional economic theories have fallen behind to explain the effects of this change. Under the leadership of Paul Krugman, a group of economists emphasized the importance of geography in economic theories and explain this change by imperfect competition, increasing returns to scale, factor mobility and dynamic equilibrium models so New Economic Geography (NEG) emerged in international trade. In the 1990s, first generation NEG models, based on simple centre-periphery model, have undergone many transformations over time. In this context, it is aimed to design NEG Approach Ecosystem Flow Diagrams in order to explain the principle assumptions of the NEG Approach in today’s conditions and to understand the internal and external dynamics more easily.

Özet

Son yıllarda küreselleşmenin ve teknolojik gelişmelerin etkisiyle üretim ve tüketim yapısında meydana gelen değişiklikler ekonomik faaliyetlerin bölgeler arasındaki dağılımını etkileyerek bu faaliyetlerin belirli bölgelerde yığınlaşmasına neden olmuştur. Yaşanan bu değişimin etkilerini açıklamada geleneksel iktisat teorilerinin yetersiz kaldığı görülmüştür. Paul Krugman’ın öncülüğünde bir grup iktisatçının iktisat teorilerinde coğrafyanın önemini vurgulaması ve yaşanan değişimi eksik rekabet koşulları, ölçeğe göre artan getiri, faktör mobilitesi ve dinamik denge modelleri ile açıklamasıyla uluslararası ticarette Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya yaklaşımı ortaya çıkmıştır. 1990’lı yıllarda basit merkez çevre modeline dayanan birinci nesil Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Modelleri yapılan çalışmalar ile zaman içerisinde pek çok dönüşüm geçirmiştir. Bu kapsamda, çalışmada Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya yaklaşımının temel varsayımlarının günümüz koşullarında açıklanabilmesi ve içsel ve dışsal dinamiklerin daha kolay anlaşılabilmesi için Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Yaklaşımı Ekosistemi akış diyagramlarının oluşturulması amaçlanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇALIŞKAN, E. T., KAYA, A. A. (2018). Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Ekosistemi ve Akış Diyagramları. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 644, 77–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/159529

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. BARCA, F; (2009), “An Agenda for A Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Placed Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations”, Independent Report Prepared at the Request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Danuta Hubner, European Commission, Brussels. BEHRENS, K. ve THISSE, J.F.; (2007), “Regional Economics: A New Economic Geography Perspective”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37, pp. 457-465.
  2. BODE, E ve MUTL J.; (2010), “Testing Nonlinear New Economic Geography Models”. Kiel Institute for World Economy Working Papers. No: 1605, https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ ifwkwp/1605.html, 10.08.2014.
  3. BOSCHMA, R ve FRENKEN, K.; (2011).; “The Emerging Emprics of Evolutionary Economic Geography”. Journal of Economic Geography, 11, pp. 295-307.
  4. BRAKMAN, S., GARRETSEN, H. ve SCHRAMM, M.; (2002), “New Economic Geography: Testing The Helpman-Hanson Model”. HWWA Discussion Paper, 172. BRAKMAN, S ve GARRETSEN, H.; (2003), “Rethinking the “New” Geographical Economics” Regional Studies, 37(6/7), pp. 637-648.
  5. BRAKMAN, S., GARRETSEN, H., GORTER, J., HORST, A. ve SCHRAMM, M.; (2004), “New Economic Geography, Emprics, and Regional Policy”. CPB Netherlands Breaufor Economic Policy Analysis. http//:www.cpb.nl BRAKMAN, S. ve GARRETSEN, H.; (2007), “From Theory to Estimation and Back the Emprical Relevance of New Economic Geography”, In B. Fingleton (ed) New Directions in Economic Geography: pp.98-129,
  6. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. BRÜLHART, M. ve TORSTENSSON, J.; (1998), “Regional Integration, Scale Economies and Industry Location in the European Union”, CEPR discussion paper, No 1435, http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=1435, 10.08.2014.
  7. COMBES, P.-P. ve OVERMAN, H.; (2003), “The Spatial Distribution of Economic Activities in the European Union”, Centre for Economic Performance, Discussion Paper. COMBES, P.-P., DURANTON, G. ve OVERMAN, H.; (2005), “Agglomeration and the Adjustment of the Spatial Economy”. Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper. No. 689. DİNLER, Z.; (2004),
  8. Mikro Ekonomi. Ekin Kitabevi,
  9. Bursa. DIXIT, A.K. ve STIGLITZ, J.; (1977), “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity”, American Economic Review, 67 (3), pp. 297-308.
  10. ENGLMANN, F. ve WALZ, U.; (1995), “Industrial Centers and Regional Growth in the Presence of Local Inputs”, Journal of Regional Science, 35 (1), pp. 3-27.
  11. FUJITA, M.; (1993), “Monopolistic Competititon and Urban Systems”, European Economic Review, Elsevier, 37, pp.