SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Türkiye’de sanayi bölgelerinin özellikleri ve ekonomik performansı arasındaki ilişkiler: İmalat sanayi örneği

Relationship between economic performance and characteristics of industrial districts: The case study of manufacturing industry

Özer KARAKAYACI
Pages
115–139
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

As the result of this study, it is confirmed that there is a positive relation between economic performance of manufacturing industry and economic and non-economic characteristics of the manufacturing industry

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In economic geography literature, there is a consensus that qualitative concentration of economic activities in a region does not contribute solely to the economic performance of the region and that spatial and social factors are also effective as well as qualitative concentration of economic activities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the study depends on the assumption that “there is a positive relation between economic performance of manufacturing industry and economic and non-economic characteristics of the manufacturing industry”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As the result of this study, it is confirmed that there is a positive relation between economic performance of manufacturing industry and economic and non-economic characteristics of the manufacturing industry
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In economic geography literature, there is a consensus that qualitative concentration of economic activities in a region does not contribute solely to the economic performance of the region and that spatial and social factors are also effective as well as qualitative concentration of economic activities. In this context, the study depends on the assumption that “there is a positive relation between economic performance of manufacturing industry and economic and non-economic characteristics of the manufacturing industry”. The aim of this study is to examine whether a relation between economic performance of manufacturing industry and economic and non-economic characteristics of the manufacturing industry in the case study of a statistical region called NUT 1 in Turkey. In this context, the performance of manufacturing industry in Turkey is evaluated in terms of economic value added. In this study, the relation between economic performance and characteristics of the manufacturing industry are analyzed by using statistical methods. As the result of this study, it is confirmed that there is a positive relation between economic performance of manufacturing industry and economic and non-economic characteristics of the manufacturing industry

Özet

Ekonomik coğrafya yazınında; bölgedeki ekonomik faaliyetlerin niteliksel olarak yoğunlaşmasının, bölgenin ekonomik performansına tek başına pozitif katkı sağlamayacağı ve niteliksel olarak yoğunlaşmanın yanı sıra mekânsal ve sosyal faktörlerin de etkili olacağı konusunda bir fikir birliği söz konusudur. Bu bağlamda çalışma, “imalat sanayinin ekonomik performansı ile imalat sanayinin ekonomik ve ekonomik olmayan özellikleri arasında pozitif ilişki vardır” varsayımına dayandırılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de Nuts I düzeyindeki istatistikî bölgelerin imalat sanayi performansı ile özellikleri arasındaki ilişkilerin, istatistikî analiz-yöntem teknikleriyle belirlemektir. Bu kapsamda; Türkiye’de imalat sanayi performansı imalat sanayide elde edilen katma değer açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada, Türkiye’de bulunan 81 bölgenin imalat sanayi ekonomik performansı ile özellikleri arasındaki ilişkiler istatistikî analiz-yöntem teknikleriyle incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, Türkiye’de imalat sanayi ekonomik performans ile özellikler arasında pozitif yönlü bir ilişkinin olduğunu tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKAYACI, Ö. (2022). Türkiye’de sanayi bölgelerinin özellikleri ve ekonomik performansı arasındaki ilişkiler: İmalat sanayi örneği. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 115–139. https://ajindex.com/articles/480836

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. AKGÜNGÖR, Sedef and Pınar FALCIOĞLU (2005), “Türkiye’de İmalat Sanayinde Bölgesel Uzmanlaşma ve Sanayi Kümeleri”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Kentsel Ekonomik Araştırmalar Sempozyumu’05, Denizli. AMIN, Ash (1999), “An Institutionalist Perspective on Regional Economics Development”, International Journal Urban and Regional Research, Vol 23; 365-378. Anonim, (2006), “Bölgesel Kalkınma Araştırma Raporu”, KOSGEB, Ankara. Anonim, (2010), “OSB Mevzuatı”, Organize Sanayi Bölgeleri Derneği Yayınları,
  2. Ankara.
  3. ARMSTRONG, Harvey and Jim TAYLOR (2000),
  4. Regional Economics and Policy, Wiley-Blackwell Publications, London. BARBER, William J. (2007),
  5. History Of Economic Thought, Wesleyan University Press,
  6. Middletown. BECATTINI, Giacomo and Gabi Dei OTTATI (2005), “The Performance of Italian Industrial Districts and Large Enterprise Areas in the 1990s”,
  7. European Planning Studies, Vol 14; 1139-1162.
  8. BENDAVID-VAL, Avrom (1991), Regional and Local Economic Analysis for Practitioners, Fourth Edition Praeger Press,
  9. London. BENNEWORTH, Paul and Nick HENRY (2004), “Where is the Value Added in the Cluster Approach? Hermeneustic Theorising Economic Geography and Clusters as a Multiperspectival Approach”, Urban Studies, Vol 41; 1011-1023.
  10. BOSCHMA, Ron and Anet WETERINGS (2004), “The Effect of Regional Differences on the Performance of Software Firms in the Netherlands”, Paper prepared for the European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Congress 25-29 August 2004,
  11. Porto. CUMBERS, Andrew; Danny MACKINNON and Robert MCMASTER (2003), “Institutions, Power and Space; Assessing the Limits to Institutionalism in Economic Geography”, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol 10; 325-342.
  12. ECERAL, Tanyel (2006), “Ekonomik Coğrafya Kurumsal Yaklaşım: Denizli Örneği”, in Değişen Mekan: Mekansal Süreçlere İlişkin Tartışma ve Araştırmalara Toplu Bakış: 1923-2003 (derleyen: A. Eraydın), Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara; 458-480.
  13. ELSNER, Wolfram (2000), “An Industrial Policy Agenda 2000 and Beyond: Experience, Theory and Policy”, in Industrial Policies after 2000 (Edt. W. Elsner and J. Groenewegen), Kluwer Academic Publications, London; 411-486
  14. ERAYDIN, Ayda and Bernard FINGLETON (2006), “Network Relations and Local Economic Development: Some Causes of Differentiated Network Structures and Intensities Among Turkish Industrial Firms”, Environment and Planning A, Vol 38; 1171-1186.
  15. ERAYDIN, Ayda (1992), Post Fordizm ve Değişen Mekansal Öncelikler, ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları,
  16. Ankara.
  17. ERAYDIN, Ayda (19