Journals / İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

The Effect of Government Subsidies on Innovation Activities of Medical SMEs in Turkey

Türkiye’de Medikal Sektörde Yer Alan KOBİ’lerin Ar-Ge ve Yenilik FaaliyetlerindeDevlet Desteklerinin Etkisi

Pages
2607–2622
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

It has concluded that SMEs will be more innovative with the regulations anddevelopments regarding government supports.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose – The study aims to examine the effect of government support in innovation (R&D) andresearch and development activities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in themedical sector and producing medical products and to what extent they benefit from governmentsupport.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The significant results that emergedwithin the scope of the study are that financial resources are crucial for innovation and R&D activities,resources are limited in achieving innovation and competitive advantage, government supports are notsufficient, and they have not benefited sufficiently from the government supports due to bureaucraticprocedures and slowness.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It has concluded that SMEs will be more innovative with the regulations anddevelopments regarding government supports.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose – The study aims to examine the effect of government support in innovation (R&D) andresearch and development activities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in themedical sector and producing medical products and to what extent they benefit from governmentsupport. Design/methodology/approach – In the study, we reached seven SMEs operating in the medical sectorin Ankara and Istanbul. The data were analyzed by applying multiple case analyses, which is one of thequalitative research methods. In order to obtain detailed information about the main problem of thestudy, the interview method was used by interviewing the business managers/owners to collect the datain the study. Findings – Based on the data obtained from the study, which proposed suggestions with a generalevaluation regarding the government supports offered to SMEs. The significant results that emergedwithin the scope of the study are that financial resources are crucial for innovation and R&D activities,resources are limited in achieving innovation and competitive advantage, government supports are notsufficient, and they have not benefited sufficiently from the government supports due to bureaucraticprocedures and slowness. It has concluded that SMEs will be more innovative with the regulations anddevelopments regarding government supports. Discussion – As a result, the study has concluded that government support and incentives are crucialfor businesses that tend to make R&D and innovation, access the resources they need, and be moreinnovative.

Özet

Amaç – Çalışma, Türkiye’de medikal sektörde faaliyet gösteren, medikal ürün üreten küçük ve ortaölçekli işletmelerin (KOBİ) yenilik (Ar-Ge) ve araştırma-geliştirme faaliyetlerinde devlet desteklerininetkisini ve devlet desteklerinden ne derece faydalandıklarını ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem – Çalışmada, Ankara ve İstanbul’da medikal sektörde faaliyet gösteren yedi küçük ve ortaölçekli işletmeye ulaşılmıştır. Veriler, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan “çoklu durum analizi”uygulanılarak incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın temel problemine ilişkin detaylı bilgi elde edebilmek içinçalışmada verilerin toplanması için işletme yöneticileri/sahipleri ile görüşülerek görüşme yöntemikullanılmıştır.Bulgular – Yapılan çalışmadan elde edilen verilere dayanarak, KOBİ’lere sunulan devlet yardımlarınailişkin genel bir değerlendirme ile önerilerde bulunulmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında ortaya çıkan önemlisonuçlar, yenilik ve Ar-Ge faaliyetleri için finansal kaynakların önemli olduğu, yenilik ve rekabetüstünlüğü elde etmede kaynakların sınırlı olması, devlet desteklerinin yeterli olmadığı, bürokratikprosedür fazlalığı ve yavaşlık sebebiyle devlet desteklerinden yeterince yararlanamamalarıdır. Devletdesteklerine getirilecek düzenlemeler ve geliştirmeler ile birlikte KOBİ’lerin daha yenilikçi olacaklarısonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Tartışma – Sonuç olarak, Ar-Ge ve yenilik yapma eğiliminde olan işletmelerin ihtiyaç duyduklarıkaynaklara erişebilmeleri ve daha yenilikçi olabilmeleri adına devlet destek ve teşviklerinin önemliolduğu ortaya konmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

YALÇIN, A., ÇETİN, B. (2022). The Effect of Government Subsidies on Innovation Activities of Medical SMEs in Turkey. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 2607–2622. https://ajindex.com/articles/556400

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Almus, M. and Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms' innovation activities: The case of Eastern Germany. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21(2), 226-236. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500103288618918 Antonia,J. and Zamora,C.(2000). Investment in health and Economic Growth: A Perpective From Latin America and the Caribbean. XXXV.Meeting of the Advisory Committe on health Research, Havana, Cuba. Auer, A. and Jarmai, K. (2018). Implementing responsible research and innovation practices in SMEs: Insights into drivers and barriers from the Austrian medical device sector. Sustainability, 10(17), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010017
  2. Baldwin, J. R. and Johnson, J. (1995). Human capital development and innovation the case of training in small and medium sized firms. Statistics Canada Working Paper, 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3138
  3. Bergsland, J., Elle, O. J. and Fosse, E. (2014). Barriers to Medical Device Innovation. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 7, 205-209. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S43369 Bérubé, C. and Mohnen, P. (2009). Are firms that receive R&D subsidies more innovative?. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 42(1), 206-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.01505.x
  4. Bronzini, R. and Piselli, P. (2016). The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), 442- 457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.008
  5. Claire, R.B. (2004). Thanks to new technology, the medical instruments industry produces a wealth of products. The Daily Record, February, 1. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. M. Bütün and SB Demir, Çev.(Eds.). İstanbul:
  6. Siyasal Kitapevi. Daiberl, C. F., Oks, S. J., Roth, A., Möslein, K. M. and Alter, S. (2019). Design principles for establishing a multisided open innovation platform: Lessons learned from an action research study in the medical technology industry. Electronic Markets, 29(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0325-2
  7. Davey, S.M., Brennan M., Meenan B.J. and McAdam,R. (2011). Innovation in the medical device sector: An open business model approach for high-tech small firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(8), 807-824. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2011.604152
  8. De Jong, J. P. and Marsili, O. (2006). The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 213-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242606069268
  9. Deloitte (2021). Digital R&D: Transforming The Future of Clinical Development.