KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3

Yaratıcı Yıkım Teorisi Çerçevesinde Avrupa Birliği’nde Yenilik: 2008 Küresel Krizi Sonrasına Bir Bakış

Innovation in The European Union Within The Framework of The Theory of Creative Destruction: An Overview After The Global Financial Crisis 2008

Altuğ Günar(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8094-624X
Seyhun Doğan(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3450-0612
Sayfa
682–705
Yayın Tarihi
2020-12-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Çalışma sonucunda Avrupa Birliği’nde yenilik faaliyetlerinin yaratıcı yıkım etkisini tam olarak gerçekleştiremediği ve AB üyesi ülkelerde iktisadi yapılar bakımından ciddi bir doku uyuşmazlığı olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Ekonomik gelişme için yenilikler hayati önem taşımaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Yenilik faaliyetlerine ünlü iktisat düşünürü Schumpeter dikkati çekerek, kapitalizmin yenilikler yolu ile kalkınmayı gerçekleştiren bir yapıya sahip olduğunu ortaya koyan ilk düşünür olmuştur. 2000’li yıllar ile birlikte Avrupa Birliği Schumpeteryan bir yaklaşım benimseyerek Lizbon stratejisini kabul etmiş, ancak strateji çeşitli nedenlerle başarılı olamamıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Çalışma sonucunda Avrupa Birliği’nde yenilik faaliyetlerinin yaratıcı yıkım etkisini tam olarak gerçekleştiremediği ve AB üyesi ülkelerde iktisadi yapılar bakımından ciddi bir doku uyuşmazlığı olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2000 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Schumpeter · Yaratıcı Yıkım · Yenilik

Özet

Ekonomik gelişme için yenilikler hayati önem taşımaktadır. Yenilik faaliyetlerine ünlü iktisat düşünürü Schumpeter dikkati çekerek, kapitalizmin yenilikler yolu ile kalkınmayı gerçekleştiren bir yapıya sahip olduğunu ortaya koyan ilk düşünür olmuştur. 2000’li yıllar ile birlikte Avrupa Birliği Schumpeteryan bir yaklaşım benimseyerek Lizbon stratejisini kabul etmiş, ancak strateji çeşitli nedenlerle başarılı olamamıştır. Bu bağlamda Schumpeteryan “yaratıcı yıkım” teorisi Avrupa Birliği’nde yenilik faaliyetlerini değerlendirmek için oldukça uygundur. Çalışmanın temel amacı; Schumpeter tarafından ortaya konulan “yaratıcı yıkım” teorisi bağlamında Avrupa Birliği’ndeki yenilik faaliyetlerinin, araştırma ve geliştirme harcamaları, işletme araştırma ve geliştirme harcamaları ve patent başvuru sayıları ile analiz edilmesidir. Bu bağlamda Eurostat’tan elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda 2008 ile 2018 yılları arasında Avrupa Birliği’nin Schumpeteryan yenilik kapasitesinin gösterilmesine gayret edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda Avrupa Birliği’nde yenilik faaliyetlerinin yaratıcı yıkım etkisini tam olarak gerçekleştiremediği ve AB üyesi ülkelerde iktisadi yapılar bakımından ciddi bir doku uyuşmazlığı olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Abstract

Innovations are vital for economic development. Schumpeter, the famous economic theorist who drew attention to the innovation activities, was the first to reveal that capitalism has a structure that realizes development through innovations. Along with the 2000s, the European Union adopted a Schumpeterian approach and launched the Lisbon Strategy, however, this strategy has not been successful for various reasons. In this context, the Schumpeterian theory of “creative destruction” is well suited for evaluating innovation activities in the European Union. The main purpose of the study is to analyze the innovation activities in the European Union through research and development expenditures, business research and development expenditures, and the numbers of patent applications in the context of the theory of “creative destruction” put forward by Schumpeter. In this context, it was tried to reveal the Schumpeterian innovation capacity of the European Union between 2008 and 2018 in line with the data obtained from Eurostat. As a result of the study, it was concluded that innovation activities in the European Union could not fully realize the creative destruction effect and that there is a serious texture incompatibility in terms of economic structures within the EU member countries.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Günar, A., Doğan, S. (2020). Yaratıcı Yıkım Teorisi Çerçevesinde Avrupa Birliği’nde Yenilik: 2008 Küresel Krizi Sonrasına Bir Bakış. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 682–705. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.822774

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (55)

  1. Acs, Z. J. and Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Handbook of entrepreneurship research an interdisciplinary survey and introduction (2. Ed.). New York: Springer.
  2. Aghion, P. (2008). Schumpeterian growth and growth policy design. In S. Durlauf and L. E. Blume (Eds.), Economic growth the new palgrave economics collection (pp. 229-236). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323-351. doi:10.3386/w3223
  4. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U. and Howitt, P. (2013). What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory? (NBER Working Paper Series No. 18824). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w18824
  5. Alada, D. (2001). İktisadi düşünce tarihinde girişimcilik kavramı üzerine notlar. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 0(23-24), 47-52. Andersen, E. S. (2002). Railroadization as Schumpeter’s standard sase: An evolutionary-ecological account. Industry and Innovation, 9(1-2), 41-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710220123617
  6. Andersen, E. S., Dahl, M. S., Lundvall, B.-A. and Reichstein, T. (2006). Schumpeter’s process of creative destruction and the scandinavian systems: a tale of two effects. Paper presented at the DRUID Conference on Knowledge, Innovation and Competitiveness. Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/schumpeter39s-process-of-creative-destruction-and-thescandinavia
  7. Braunnerhjelm, P. and Svensson, R. (2007). The inventor’s role: was Schumpeter right? (Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation No. 78). Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/hhscesisp/0078.htm
  8. Cipolla, C. M. (2005). Before the industrial revolution European society and economy 1000-1700 (3. Ed.). New York: Routledge.
  9. Corriveau, L. (1994). Entrepreneurs, growth and cycles. Economica, 61(241), 1-15. doi:10.2307/2555046
  10. Ebner, A. (2000 June-July). Schumpeterian theory and the sources of economic development: endogenous, evolutionary or entrepreneurial? Paper presented at the International Schumpeter Society Conference on ‘Change Development and Transformation: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on the Innovation Process’. Manchester, United Kingdom
  11. Erixon, F. (2010). The Europe 2020 strategy: time for Europe to think again. European View, 9(1), 29- 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-010-0120-8
  12. European Commission (2010a). Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/archives/growthandjobs_2009/
  13. European Commission. (2010b). Communication from the commission Europe 2020. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC2020&from=en
  14. European Commission. (2010c). Commission staff working document lisbon strategy evaluation document. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/archives/growthandjobs_2009/pdf/lisbon_strategy_evaluation_en.pdf
  15. Eurostat (2013). Glossary: Lisbon strategy. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Glossary:Lisbon_Strategy
  16. Eurostat. (2020a). Europe 2020 overwiev. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/europe-2020- indicators#:~:text=The%20Europe%202020%20strategy%20is,a%20sustainable%20social%20
  17. Eurostat. (2020b) Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/t2020_20/default/table?lang=en
  18. Eurostat. (2020c). Europe 2020 headline indicators. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Europe_2020_headline_indicators#Gross_domestic_expenditure_on_resear ch_and_development_.28R.26D.29
  19. Eurostat. (2020d). Business expenditure on r&d (BERD) by NACE Rev. 2 activity [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/rd_e_berdindr2/default/table?lang=en
  20. Eurostat. (2020e). Patent applications to the european patent office [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_09_40/default/table?lang=en
  21. Fabricant, S. (1954). Economic progress and economic change (NBER Annual Report No. 34). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/economic-progress-and-economicchange/economic-progress-and-economic-change
  22. Foders, F. and Vogelsang, M. M. (2014). Why is Germany’s manufacturing industry so competitive (Kiel Policy Brief No. 69). Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkpb/69.html
  23. Godin, B. (2008). In the shadow of Schumpeter: W. Rupert Maclaurin and the study of technological innovation. Minerva, 46, 343-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-008-9100-4
  24. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661-1707. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
  25. Günar, A. (2017). Past failure, new future: An analysis of the European Union development strategiesfrom Lisbon to Europe 2020. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Eds.), Handbook of research on global enterprise operations and opportunities (pp. 244-264). USA: IGI Global
  26. Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 883-896. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/5.3.883
  27. Hart, S. L. and Milstein, M. B. (1999). Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(1), 23-33. Retrieved from https://go.gale.com/
  28. Hartshorn, J., Micheal, M., Crooks, J., Stahl, R. and Bond, Z. (2005). Creative destruction: building toward sustainability. Canada Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1139/l04-119
  29. Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  30. Hébert, R. F. and Link, A. N. (1989). In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 1(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389915
  31. Kirzner, I. M. (1999). Creativity and/or alertness: a reconsideration of the Schumpeterain entrepreneur. Review of Austrian Economics, 11, 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007719905868
  32. Kuznets, S. (1940). Schumpeter’s business cycles. The American Economic Review, 30(2), 257-271. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
  33. Ledeen, M. (2007). The war against the terror masters: Why it happened where we are now how we’ll win. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  34. Masfield, E. (1972). Contribution of R&D to economic growth in the united states. Sciences, 175(4021), 477-486. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
  35. Merriam-Webster. (2020). Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/innovation
  36. Moloi, T. and Marvala, T. (2020). Artificial intelligence in economics and finance theories. Switzerland: Springer.
  37. Moran, N. (2006). Patents are engine of economic growth, says wipo. Sciens Business. Retrieved from https://sciencebusiness.net/news/73133/Patents-are-engine-of-economic-growth%2C-saysWIPO#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20patent%20applications,of%20some%205.6%20per%2 0cent market%20economy.
  38. Nadiri, M. I. (1993). Innovations and technological spillovers (NBER Working Paper No. w4423). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=227322
  39. Natali, D. (2010). The Lisbon strategy europe 2020 and the crisis in between (European Social Observatory Deliverable No. 4). Retrieved from http://www.ose.be/files/publication/2010/Natali_2010_Lisbon%20StrategyEU2020&Crisis.pdf
  40. Page, M. (2001). Creative destruction of manhattan 1900-1940. United States of America: University of Chicago Press.
  41. Reinert, E. S. (2006). European integration innovation and uneven economic growth: challenges and problems of EU 2005 (The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics No. 05). Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tth/wpaper/05.html
  42. Reinert, E. S. (2013). Primitivization of the EU periphery: the loss of relevant knowledge. (The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics No. 48). Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tth/wpaper/48.html
  43. Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles a theoretical, historical, and statistical of the capitalist process (vol. 1). United States of America: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  44. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 7(2), 149-159. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org
  45. Schumpeter, J. A. (1951). Theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  46. Schumpeter, J. A. (2006). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Routledge.
  47. Segerstrom, P. S., Anant, T. C. A. and Dinopoulos, E. (1990). A Schumpeterian model of product life cycle. The American Economic Review, 80(5), 1077-1091. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
  48. Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312-320. doi:10.2307/1926047
  49. Swedberg, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: The view of the young Schumpeter. In C. Steyaert and D. Hjort (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as social change a third movements in entrepreneurship book (pp. 21-34). UK: Edward Elgar.
  50. Sweezy, P. M. (1943). Professor Schumpeter’s theory of innovation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 25(1), 93-96. doi:10.2307/1924551
  51. Temin, P. (2002). The golden age of European growth reconsidered. Europan Review of Economic History, 6(1), 3-22. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
  52. Thurik, R. and Wennekers, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000410519173
  53. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P. and Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24, 335-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2000-1
  54. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2019). The geography of innovation: local hotspots, global networks. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_944_2019.pdf
  55. Alada, D. (2001). İktisadi düşünce tarihinde girişimcilik kavramı üzerine notlar. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 0(23-24), 47-52.