Journals / İşletme ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Explaining Competitiveness of OECD Countries by Instituional and Mixed Models

OECD Ülkelerinin Rekabet Gücünü Açıklayıcı Kurumsal ve Karma Modeller

Pages
109–130
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)

Mixed models developed by including theoretical variables into instituional models are found explaining OECD’s competitivess around 63%-90%

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to explain competitiveness of OECD countries through developing institutional and mixed models.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In these models, the data of 2007 are used to avoid the global crisis effects of 2008.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Mixed models developed by including theoretical variables into instituional models are found explaining OECD’s competitivess around 63%-90%
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims to explain competitiveness of OECD countries through developing institutional and mixed models. In these models, the data of 2007 are used to avoid the global crisis effects of 2008. As a result of predictions, instituional models developed with the indicators formed to show the institutional, political and socio-cultural structures of the countries by some organizations are found functional in explaining competetiveness of OECD. It is found that factors thought to have been defining the national competitiveness depending on institutional models explain WEF measures of OECD’s competitiveness along 47 % – 56 %, IMD meausures of OECDS’s competitiveness along 74% -84 %. Mixed models developed by including theoretical variables into instituional models are found explaining OECD’s competitivess around 63%-90%

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı OECD ülkelerinin rekabet gücünü kurumsal ve karma modeller geliştirerek açıklamaktır. Modellerde 2008 küresel krizin etkilerinden kaçınmak maksadıyla 2007 yılına ait veriler kullanılmıştır. Tahminler sonucunda, bazı kuruluşlar tarafından ülkelerin kurumsal, politik ve sosyo-ekonomik yapılarını ortaya koymak maksadıyla oluşturulan göstergeleri dikkate alarak geliştirilen kurumsal modellerin işlevsel olduğu bulunmuştur. WEF rekabet gücü göstergesine dayalı kurumsal modellerin rekabet gücünü %47 ila %56 arası, IMD rekabet gücü göstergesine dayalı kurumsal modellerin rekabet gücünü %74 ila %84 arasında açıkladığı bulunmuştur. Teorik değişkenlerin de ilave edilerek kurulan karma modeller, kurumsal modellerin açıklama gücünü artırmış, karma modellerin rekabeti açıklayıcı gücü %63 ila %90 arasında olduğu bulunmuştur

🔖

Cite This Article

KABASAKAL, A., AKAL, M., GÖKMENOĞLU, S. M. (2022). Explaining Competitiveness of OECD Countries by Instituional and Mixed Models. İşletme ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 109–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/556670

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Aiginger, Karl (2006), “Competitiveness: From a Dangerous Obsession to a Welfare Creating Ability with Positive Externaties”, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 6, s.161- 177. Berber, Metin ve Serdar KURT (2008), “Türkiye’de Dışa Açıklık ve Ekonomik Büyüme”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 22, Sayı 2, s.57-80.
  2. Berber, Metin ve Seyfettin ARTAN (2004), “Enlasyon ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Turkish Economic Association Discussion Paper 2004/21. Cho, Dong-Sung, H.Moon, M. Young (2009), “Does One Size Fit All? A Dual Double Diamond Approach to Country-Specific Advantages”, Asian Business & Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, s.83-102.
  3. Cho, Dong-Sung (1994), “A Dynamic Approach To İnternational Competitiveness: The Case Of Korea”, Journal of Far Eastern Business, Vol. 1, No. 1, s.17–36. CPI (Corruption Perceptions Index), Transparency International, (2009), “Methodological B r i e f ”, h t t p: / / w w w. t r a n s p a r e n c y k a z a k h s t a n. o r g / U s e r F i l e s / f i l e / CPI_2009_methodology_eng.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi, 06 Eylül 2010). ____, Transparency International, (2008), “Press Kit”, http://www.transparency.org/content/ download/36589/575262, (Erişim Tarihi, 06 Eylül 2010).
  4. Davies, Howard ve P. Ellis (2000), “Porter’s Competitive Advantage Of Nations: Time For The Final Judgement?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 8, December, s.1189- 1213. Dunning, John H. ve Sarianna M. Lundan (1998), “The Geographical Sources of Competitiveness of Multinational Enterprises: An Econometric Analysis”, International Business Review, Vol.7, s.115-133.
  5. Dunning, John H. (1992), “The Competitive Advantage of Countries and The Activities of Transnational Corporations”, Transnational Corporations,Vol. 1, No.1, s.135-168. European Commıssıon, (2009), “European Competitiveness Report”, http://ec.europa.eu/ enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5715, (Erişim Tarihi, 18 Kasım 2010). EFW (Economic Freedom of World), (2010), “Annual Report”, Fraser Institute http:// www.freetheworld.com/2010/reports/world/EFW2010_BOOK.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi, 23 Ocak 2011). _____,(2009), “Annual Report”, Fraser Institute, http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/ reports/world/EFW2009_BOOK.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi, 21 Haziran 2010). _____,(2001), “Annual Report”, Fraser Institute, http://www.fraserinstitute.org/ publicationdisplay.aspx?id=12996, (Erişim Tarihi, 21 Haziran 2010).
  6. Grilo, Isabel ve Gert Jan Koopman (2006), “Productivi