SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE BASED ECONOMIC GROWTH APPROACH: THE CASE OF TURKEY

BİLGİ ODAKLI EKONOMİK BÜYÜME YAKLAŞIMININ AMPİRİK ANALİZİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Murat ÇETİN
Çiler YAKUT IŞIK
Pages
370–389
Publication Date
2019-04-01
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 addition, these results presented important policy implications for Turkey

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to analyze the link between knowledge economy and economic growth in Turkey for the period of 1975-2016.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Here, patent number was used as a determinant of knowledge economy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, these results presented important policy implications for Turkey
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bilgi Ekonomisi · Ekonomik Büyüme · Patent Sayısı

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the link between knowledge economy and economic growth in Turkey for the period of 1975-2016. Here, patent number was used as a determinant of knowledge economy. Three different regression equations were constituted for analyses. The unit root analyses of the variables were conducted by the ADF, PP and KPSS tests. The presence of cointegration between the variables was examined through the ARDL bounds test. The causal linkages between the variables were determined by using Toda-Yamamoto causality method. Empirical findings taken from the analyses supported that knowledge economyoriented economic growth approach is valid for Turkish economy. In addition, these results presented important policy implications for Turkey

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, bilgi ekonomisi ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi Türkiye ekonomisinde 1975-2017 dönemi için analiz etmektir. Burada, bilgi ekonomisinin bir belirleyicisi olarak patent sayısı kullanılmıştır. Analizler için üç farklı regresyon denklemi kurulmuştur. Değişkenlerin birim kök analizleri ADF, PP ve KPSS testleriyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki eşbütünleşmenin varlığı, ARDL sınır testi ile incelenmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri, Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik metodu kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Analizlerden elde edilen ampirik bulgular, Türkiye ekonomisi için bilgi ekonomisi odaklı ekonomik büyüme yaklaşımının geçerli olduğunu kanıtlamıştır. Ayrıca, bu sonuçlar Türkiye için önemli politika önerileri sunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇETİN, M., IŞIK, Ç. Y. (2019). EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE BASED ECONOMIC GROWTH APPROACH: THE CASE OF TURKEY. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 370–389. https://ajindex.com/articles/169680

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Agenor, P. R. & Neanidis, K. C. (2015). Innovation, public capital, and growth. Journal of Macroeconomics, 44, 252-275.
  2. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323-351.
  3. Akcomak, I. S. & Weel, B. (2009). Social capital, innovation and growth: Evidence from Europe. European Economic Review, 53(5), 544-567.
  4. Aksu, L. (2018). Türkiye’de bilim ve teknoloji ile iktisadi büyüme ilişkilerinin sosyal, ekonomik ve stratejik analizi. Sosyal Bilimler Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(20), 2635-2670.
  5. Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29(3) Barro, R. (1990). Goverment spending in a sample model for endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(S5), 103-124.
  6. Blind, K. & Jungmittag, A. (2008). The impact of patents and standards on macroeconomic growth: A panel approach covering four countries and 12 sectors. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 29(1), 51-60.
  7. Chang, H. (1995). Patent scope, antitrust policy and cumulative innovation. Rand Journal of Economics, 26(1), 34-57.
  8. Crosby, M. (2000). Patents, innovation and growth. The Economic Record, 16(23), 255-262.
  9. DeBrock, L. M. (1985). Market structure, innovation and optimal patent life. Journal of Law and Economics, 28(1), 223-44.
  10. Denison, E. F. (1967). Why growth rates differ: Postwar experience in nine Western countries. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Frietsch, R., Neuhäusler, P., Jung, T., & Looy, B. V. (2014). Patent indicators for macroeconomic growth- the value of patents estimated by export volume. Technovation, 34, 546-558.
  11. Futagamia, K. & Iwaisako, T. (2007). Dynamic analysis of patent policy in an endogenous growth model. Journal of Economic Theory, 132, 306-334.
  12. Galindo, M. A. & Mendez, M. T. (2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work? Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 825-829.
  13. Gelgeç, G. & Hatırlı, A. A. (2018). Bilgi ekonomisi ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 97-122.
  14. Ghosh, S. & Kanjilal, K. (2014). Long-term equilibrium relationship between urbanization, energy consumption and economic activity: Empirical evidence from India. Energy, 66(1), 324-331.
  15. Gould, D. & Gruben, W. (1996). The role of intellectual property rights in economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, 48(2), 323-350.
  16. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economi