Journals / Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

The Relationship between Performance, Innovation and Competition in Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Türk İmalat Sanayinde Performans, İnovasyon ve Rekabet Arasındaki İlişki

Pages
39–59
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)

The positive effect of competition intensity supports the prediction of Schumpeterian approach.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The relationship between performance and innovation is covered most extensively in neoclassical economic theory and Schumpeterian approach.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using data for the period 2008-2013, this study investigates the relationship between innovation and competition level in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The positive effect of competition intensity supports the prediction of Schumpeterian approach.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008-2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İmalat Sanayi · İnovasyon · Rekabet

Abstract

The relationship between performance and innovation is covered most extensively in neoclassical economic theory and Schumpeterian approach. The neoclassical theory predicts that innovation emerges in competitive markets while Schumpeterian approach predicts it will emerge in imperfect competitive markets. Using data for the period 2008-2013, this study investigates the relationship between innovation and competition level in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Performance variables of the study are net profit margin, return on assets and return on equity. R&D intensity is innovation indicator. Industrial competition level is measured by Herfindahl-Hirsckman Index. The results of Two-Step System Generalized Method of Moments analysis show that R&D intensity affects positively performance variables in contrast one lag of R&D effects negatively. Furthermore, competition intensity also improves performance. Positive coefficient of R&D variable supports the view of innovation has the characteristics of providing competitive advantage. The negative coefficient of R&D lag indicates the problems related to the protection of intellectual property right. This finding can be interpreted that innovation operations are imitated approximately after a period. The positive effect of competition intensity supports the prediction of Schumpeterian approach.

Özet

Performans ve inovasyon ilişkisi literatürde en yaygın biçimde neoklasik iktisat teorisi ve Shumpeteryen görüşte ortaya konulur. Neoklasik teori inovasyonun rekabetçi piyasalarda, Shumpeteryen görüş ise daha çok aksak rekabet piyasalarında ortaya çıkacağını öngörür. Bu çalışmada Türk İmalat Sanayii endüstri kollarının 2008-2013 dönemine ait verileri kullanılarak performans ile innovasyon ve rekabet düzeyi arasındaki ilişki araştırılmıştır. Performans değişkenleri net kar marjı, aktif karlılık oranı ve öz sermaye karlılık oranlarıdır. İnovasyon değişkeni ar-ge yoğunluğudur. Endüstri rekabeti Herfindahl-Hirsckman Endeksi ile ölçülmüştür. Tahmin sonucunda aynı dönem ar-ge yoğunluğunun performansı pozitif, bir dönem gecikmesinin ise negatif yönde etkilediği bulunmuştur. Rekabetteki yoğunlaşmanın performansı artırdığı tespit edilmiştir. Aynı döneme ait ar-ge’nin pozitif etkiye sahip olması inovasyonun rekabet üstünlüğü sağlayıcı özelliğe sahip olduğunu desteklemektedir. Ar-ge’nin gecikmeli etkisinin negatif olması ise fikri mülkiyet haklarının korunmasına ilişkin sorunlara işaret eder. Bu, inovasyon faaliyetlerinin yaklaşık bir dönem sonra taklit edildiği anlamına gelebilir. Rekabetteki yoğunlaşmanın pozitif etkisi ise Schumpeteryen görüş öngörüsünü destekleyici niteliktedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKAYA, A., AĞAZADE, S., PERÇİN, S. (2018). The Relationship between Performance, Innovation and Competition in Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 39–59. https://ajindex.com/articles/339587

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Aghion. P. N. Bloom. R. Blundell, R. Griffith ve P. Howitt. 2002, Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship”, The Institute For Fiscal Studies, Wp02/04. Anderson, T. W., ve Hsiao, C. 1981, “Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76(375), 598-606.
  2. Anderson, T. W., ve Hsiao, C. 1982, “Formulation and Estimation of Dynamic Models Using Panel Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 18, 47-82. Arellano M., ve Bond, S. 1991, “Some Tests of Specification for Panel: Monte Carlo Evidence and An Application to Employment Equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297. Arellano M., ve Bover, O. 1995, “Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29-51.
  3. Arrow, K. 1962, “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, A Report of the National Bureau of Economic Research, ss.609-625.
  4. Avlonitis, GJ., ve H. Salavou. 2007, “Entrepreneurial Orientation of SMEs, Product Innovativeness, and Performance”, Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 566–575.
  5. Baltagi, B. H. 2005,
  6. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, England: John Wiley&Sons, Ltd. Bessen, J., ve E. Maskin. 2009, “Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation”, The RAND Journal of Economics, 40(4), 611–35. Blundell R., ve Bond S. 1998, “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115-143.
  7. Blundell, R. ve S. Bond. 2000, “GMM Estimation with Persistent Panel Data: An Application to Production Functions”, Econometric Reviews, 19, 321–340.
  8. Bond, S. 2002, “Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice”, CEMMAP Working Paper, No: Cwp0209, 1-36.
  9. Branch, B. 1974, “Research and Development Activity and Profitability: A Distributed Log Analysis”, Journal of Political Economy, 82(5), 999–1011.
  10. Cainelli, G., R. Evangelista ve M. Savona. 2006, “Innovation and Economic Performance in Services: A Firm-Level Analysis”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(3), 435–458. D’Angelo, A. 2012, “Innovation and Export Performance: A Study of Italian High-Tech SMEs”, Journal of Management and Governance, 16, 393–423.
  11. Erickson, G. ve R. Jacobson. 1992, “Gaining Comparative Advantage Through Discretionary Experience: The Returns to R&D and Advertising”, Management Science, 38(9), 1264-1279.
  12. Forsman, H., ve S. Temel. 2011 “In