Journals / Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

The Relationship between Export and Innovation in Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Türk İmalat Sanayinde İhracat ve İnovasyon Arasındaki İlişki

Pages
85–103
Publication Date
2017-10-20
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)

Causality test results show that there is unidirectional causal relationship from R&D intensity to export intensity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Posner’s (1961) “technological gap theory” and Vernon’s (1966) “product life cycle theory” predicts that innovation causes market power and facilitates export.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using Two-Step System Generalized Moments of Method this study investigates causality relationship between export intensity and R&D intensity for the period 2008-2013 in Turkish Manufacturing Industry.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Causality test results show that there is unidirectional causal relationship from R&D intensity to export intensity.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2008-2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İmalat Sanayi · İnovasyon · İhracat

Abstract

Posner’s (1961) “technological gap theory” and Vernon’s (1966) “product life cycle theory” predicts that innovation causes market power and facilitates export. In other side export encourages firms and provides more affirmative environment for innovative processes. These theoretical approaches have different predictions regarding the direction of causality between export and innovation. Using Two-Step System Generalized Moments of Method this study investigates causality relationship between export intensity and R&D intensity for the period 2008-2013 in Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Causality relationship was modeled within two different equations and analyzed by Wald Test. First equation models export intensity as function of R&D intensity and real exchange rate. In the second equation R&D intensity estimated as a function of export intensity and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index as competition variable. Causality test results show that there is unidirectional causal relationship from R&D intensity to export intensity. This finding supports the predictions of Posner’s (1961) “technological gap theory” and Vernon’s (1966) “product life cycle theory” related to the innovation and export relationship in Turkish Manufacturing Industry.

Özet

Posner’in (1961) “teknoloji açığı teorisi” ve Vernon’un (1966) “ürün dönemleri teorisi” inovasyonun piyasa gücüne neden olduğunu ve ihracatı kolaylaştırdığını öngörür. Diğer yönden ihracatçı firmalar, performanslarını artırıcı yönde etkileyen inovasyon sürecine daha yoğun şekilde maruz kalırlar. Bu teorik yaklaşımlar ihracat ve inovasyon arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisinin yönü hakkında farklı öngörülerde bulunurlar. Bu araştırma 2008-2013 dönemleri itibariyle Türk İmalat Sanayii endüstri kolları için ihracat yoğunluğu ve ar-ge yoğunluğu arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Araştırma analiz yöntemi İki Aşamalı Sistem Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodudur. Araştırmada nedensellik ilişkisi iki modelle ifade edilmiş ve Wald Testine dayanarak incelenmiştir. Birinci model olan ihracat modelinin bağımsız değişkenleri ar-ge yoğunluğu ve reel döviz kuru endeksidir. Ar-ge modelinin bağımsız değişkenleri ise, ihracat yoğunluğu ve rekabet düzeyini gösteren Herfindahl-Hirsckman Endeksidir. Elde edilen bulgular sonucunda ar-ge yoğunluğundan ihracat yoğunluğuna doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu sonuç Posner’in (1961) “teknoloji açığı teorisi” ile Vernon’un (1966) “ürün dönemleri teori”lerinin inovasyon ve ihracata ilişkin öngörülerinin Türk İmalat Sanayi’nde geçerli olduğunu desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karakaya, A., Ağazade, S., Perçin, S. (2017). The Relationship between Export and Innovation in Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 85–103. https://ajindex.com/articles/417297

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Aghion, Philippe ve Peter Howitt. (1992), “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction”, Econometrica, 60 (2), 323-351.
  2. Anderson, T. W., ve Hsiao, C. (1981), “Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 375, 598-606.
  3. 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.
  4. Arrow, K. J. (1962), “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, The Review of Economic Studies, 29 (3), 155-173.
  5. Aw, B. Y., M. J. Roberts, ve D. Yi Xu. (2011), “R&D Investment, Exporting, and Productivity Dynamics”, American Economic Review, 101(4), 1312-44.
  6. Baltagi, B. H. (2005),
  7. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, John Wiley&Sons, Ltd., England. Bernard, A. B. ve B. Jensen, J. (1999), “Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both?”, Journal of International Economics, 47, 1-25.
  8. Blalock, G., ve P. J. Gertler. (2004), “Learning from Exporting Revisited in A Less Developed Setting”, Journal of Development Economics 75 (2), 397–416. Blundell R., and Bond S. (1998), “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115-143.
  9. Blundell, R. and S. Bond. (2000), “GMM Estimation with Persistent Panel Data: An Application to Production Functions”, Econometric Reviews 19, 321–340.
  10. Bond, S. (2002), “Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice”, CEMMAP Working Paper, No: Cwp0209, 1-36.
  11. Brouwer, E. ve Kleinknecht, A. (1996), “Determinants of Innovation: A Microeconometric Analysis of Three Alternative Innovation Output Indicators”, In: Kleinknecht, A. (ed.). Determinants of Innovation. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 99–125.
  12. Choi, I. (2001), “Unit root tests for panel data”, Journal of International Money and Finance 20, 249–272.
  13. Çavuşgil, S. T. (1980), “On the Internationalisation Process of Firms”, European Research, 8(6), 273–281. D’Angelo, A. (2012), “Innovation and export performance: a study of Italian high-tech SMEs”, Journal of Management and Governance 16, 393–423.
  14. Greenaway, D., ve R. Kneller. (2007), “Industry