SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 1

Determinants of employment for Turkey: NUTS-2 district level spatial analysis application

Türkiye için istihdamın belirleyicileri: İBBS-2 bölge düzeyi, mekânsal analiz uygulaması

Tuğba GÜL GÖKDOĞAN
Pages
105–135
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)

This study forward that spatial neighborhood affects the growth of employment in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to identify the determinants of employment for regions at NUTS2 level in Turkey by analyzing how the growth rate of employment is affected by the spatial neighborhood.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data set covers the 2004 and 2008 period for 26 regions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study forward that spatial neighborhood affects the growth of employment in Turkey.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the determinants of employment for regions at NUTS2 level in Turkey by analyzing how the growth rate of employment is affected by the spatial neighborhood. The data set covers the 2004 and 2008 period for 26 regions. The findings suggest that the quality of education level of human capital has a positive effect on employment growth. Innovation performance of firms was also found to have a positive effect on employment. This study forward that spatial neighborhood affects the growth of employment in Turkey.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de düzey 2 bölgeleri için istihdamın belirleyicilerini tespit etmek amacıyla, mekânsal komşuluk ilişkisinin istihdamın büyümesi üzerine etkisi araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan veri seti yıllık olup, 2004-2008 yılları arasını kapsamaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, beşeri sermayenin eğitim düzeyinin kalitesi ve girişimcilik potansiyeli istihdamın büyümesine pozitif etki göstermektedir. Firmaların yenilik düzeylerinin geliştirilmesinin, istihdama olumlu etkisi olduğu; sonuç olarak Türkiye’de istihdam büyümesinin, mekânsal komşuluk ilişkisinden etkilendiği belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖKDOĞAN, T. G. (2022). Determinants of employment for Turkey: NUTS-2 district level spatial analysis application. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 1, 105–135. https://ajindex.com/articles/490539

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. ANDERSSON, E., ANDERSTIG, C., HARSMAN, B. (1990), “Knowledge and Communications Infrastructure and Regional Economic Growth”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 20(3), 359-376.
  2. ANSELIN, L. (1988),
  3. Spatial Econometrics, Methods and Models, Studies in Operational Regional Science, Kluwer Acedemic Publishers,
  4. Netherlands. ANSELIN, L. (2001), “Spatial Econometrics”, A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics Blackwell. ANSELIN, L. (2003), “Spatial Externalities, Spatial Multipliers and Spatial Econometrics”, International Regional Science Review, 26(2),153‐166. ANSELIN, L., BERA, A. (1998), “Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics”, Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics, (Ed. A. Ullah, D. E. Giles), Marcel Dekker, New York. ANSELIN, L., REY, S. (1991), “Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models”, Geographical Analysis, 23(2), 112-131.
  5. ANSELIN, L., VARGA, A., ACS, Z. (1997), “Local Geographic Spillovers Between University Research and High Technology Innovations”, Journal of urban economics, 42(3), 422-448.
  6. ARSLAN, K. (2005), “Bölgesel Kalkınma Farklılıklarının Giderilmesinde Etkin Bir Araç: Bölgesel Planlama ve Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(7), 275-294.
  7. AUDRETSCH, D., FELDMAN, M. (1996), “R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production”, The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630-640.
  8. AUDRETSCH, D., KEILBACH, M. (2004), “Entrepreneurship and Regional Growth: an Evolutionary Interpretation”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 605-616.
  9. AUDRETSCH, D., KEILBACH, M. (2005), “Entrepreneurship Capital and Regional Growth”, The Annals of Regional Science, 39(3), 457-469.
  10. BARRO, R. (2001), “Human Capital and Growth”, The American Economic Review, 91(2), 12-17.
  11. BOSMA, N., LEVIE, J. (2009), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Executive Report”, http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/265, (15.01.2014).
  12. BRAUNERHJELM, P., BORGMAN B. (2004), “Geographical Concentration, Entrepreneurship and Regional Growth: Evidence from Regional Data in Sweden, 1975-99”, Regional Studies, 38(8), 929-948.
  13. ÇELEBİOĞLU, F., DALL'ERBA, S. (2010), “Spatial Disparities Across the Regions of Turkey: an Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis”, The Annals of Regional Science, 45(2), 379-400. DOMÉNECH, R. (2006), “Human Capital in Growth Regressions: How Much Difference Does Data Quality Make?”, Journal of the European Economic, 4(1), 1-36. EBERTS,