KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2

Economic growth and technological progress in Turkey: An analysis of Schumpeterian mechanisms

M Aykut ATTAR
Sayfa
129–154
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Put differently, the formation of new enterprises in the horizontal dimension may not be a policy priority

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This paper studies a second-generation Schumpeterian model to understand the nature of technological progress and economic growth in Turkey.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Results show that both horizontal (product) and vertical (process) innovation channels operate as determined in theory.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Put differently, the formation of new enterprises in the horizontal dimension may not be a policy priority
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

This paper studies a second-generation Schumpeterian model to understand the nature of technological progress and economic growth in Turkey. It identifies some structural parameters numerically and tests whether certain Schumpeterian mechanisms work. Results show that both horizontal (product) and vertical (process) innovation channels operate as determined in theory. However, the pace at which vertical (process) innovation occurs is extremely low, implying that its contribution to long-run productivity growth is severely limited. Since the paper directly estimates the structural forms originating from the general equilibrium of the model economy, results do not carry any endogeneity bias. That the technological landscape very slowly expands in its vertical dimension explains why the Turkish economy did not converge to frontier economies. Since whether a firm should engage in vertical (process) innovation crucially depends on its size in theory, the most appropriate policy under resource constraints may be to strengthen the incumbent firms and support their growth. Put differently, the formation of new enterprises in the horizontal dimension may not be a policy priority

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ATTAR, M. A. (2017). Economic growth and technological progress in Turkey: An analysis of Schumpeterian mechanisms. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2, 129–154. https://ajindex.com/articles/291924

Kaynakça (33)

  1. AYERS, R.M. and R.A. COLLINGE (2005),
  2. Microeconomics, Enhanced Edition,
  3. Pearson, New Jersey. BASSETT, L. (1969), “Returns to Scale and Cost Curves”, Southern Economic Journal, 36(2), 189- 90. BAUMOL, W.J. and A.S. BLINDER (1986),
  4. Economics, Third Edition,
  5. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando. BEGG, D., S. FISCHER and R. DORNBUSCH (1997),
  6. Economics, Fifth Edition,
  7. Alkım, İstanbul.
  8. BELL, C.R. (1988), “Economies of, versus Returns to, Scale: A Clarification”, Journal of Economic Education, 19(4), 331-35.
  9. BELL, C.R. (1990), “Regions of the Production Function, Returns, and Economies of Scale: A Reply”, Journal of Economic Education, 21(4), 420-21.
  10. BULMUŞ, İ. (1998),
  11. Mikroiktisat, Dördüncü Baskı,
  12. Cantekin Matbaası, Ankara.
  13. CARLSON, S. (1939), A Study on the Pure Theory of Production, P.S. King and Sons, London. CASE, K.E. and R.C. FAIR (1994),
  14. Principles of Microeconomics, Third Edition,
  15. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. CHIANG, A.C. (1999), Matematiksel İktisadın Temel Yöntemleri, (Çev. O. Aydoğuş, M. Sarımeşeli), Dördüncü Baskı,
  16. Gazi, Ankara.
  17. COLANDER, D.C. (2006),
  18. Microeconomics, Sixth Edition,
  19. McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York. DONDURAN, M. (2013),
  20. İleri Mikro İktisat, Avcıol, İstanbul.
  21. EATON, B.C. and D.F. EATON (1988),
  22. Microeconomics, W.H. Freeman, New York. FERGUSON, C.E. (1969), The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution, Cambridge University, Cambridge. FORSUND, F.R. (1971), “Returns to Scale and the Average Cost Curve: Comment”, Swedish Journal of Economics, 73(2), 259-60.
  23. FRISCH, R. (1965),
  24. Theory of Production, D. Reidel, Dordrecht. GELLES, G.M. and D.W. MITCHELL (1996), “Returns to Scale and Economies of Scale: Further Observations”, Journal of Economic Education, 27(3), 259-61.
  25. GOULD, J.P. and C.E. FERGUSON (1980),
  26. Microeconomic Theory, Fifth Edition,
  27. R.D. Irwin, Homewood. HANOCH, G. (1975), “The Elasticity of Scale and the Shape of Average Costs”, American Economic Review, 65(3), 492-97.
  28. JEHLE, G.A. and P.J. RENY (2011),
  29. Advanced Microeconomic Theory, Third Edition,
  30. Pearson, Hampshire. JOHNSON, W.E. (1913), “The Pure Theory of Utility Curves”, Economic Journal, 23(92), 483-513.
  31. KING, J.T. and M.A. YANOCHIK (2013), “The Equivalence of Economies and Returns to Scale Revisited: Nonlinear Expansion Paths and the Definition of Scale”, Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 12(1), 74-80.
  32. KRUGMAN, P. and R. WELLS (2012), Mikro İktisat, (Çev. Ed. S. Işık, M. Aslan, C. Dişbudak vd.), Palme, Ankara.
  33. LANCASTER, K. (1974), Introduction to Modern Micr