KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Yasar University / 2022 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 65

The Limits of Knowledge as a Public Good: A Strategic Approach to Tacit Knowledge

Erkan GÜRPINAR
Özgür H. AYDOĞMUŞ
Sayfa
173–188
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
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)

The article develops a game theoretic framework to understand the nature of tacit knowledge, and provides a strategic perspective to examine the relationships between actors and institutions (universities, firms, and entrepreneurs) involved in knowledge production.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In this article, tacit knowledge, which is one of the factors that affects knowledge production and dissemination is examined by using game theory.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Information as a public good approach advocates government intervention or intellectual property to achieve Pareto efficiency in information production.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The article develops a game theoretic framework to understand the nature of tacit knowledge, and provides a strategic perspective to examine the relationships between actors and institutions (universities, firms, and entrepreneurs) involved in knowledge production.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

In this article, tacit knowledge, which is one of the factors that affects knowledge production and dissemination is examined by using game theory. Information as a public good approach advocates government intervention or intellectual property to achieve Pareto efficiency in information production. Under tacit knowledge, Pareto efficiency can be achieved without any intervention. As argued by researchers such as Joseph Schumpeter and Friedrich Hayek, the entrepreneur‘s function is important in the production and dissemination of tacit knowledge. While discussing the assumptions of approaches that model tacit knowledge, we also summarize the policy implications of them. The article develops a game theoretic framework to understand the nature of tacit knowledge, and provides a strategic perspective to examine the relationships between actors and institutions (universities, firms, and entrepreneurs) involved in knowledge production.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GÜRPINAR, E., AYDOĞMUŞ, Ö. H. (2022). The Limits of Knowledge as a Public Good: A Strategic Approach to Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Yasar University, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 65, 173–188. https://ajindex.com/articles/568805

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (18)

  1. Allen, R. C. 1983. “Collective Invention.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1: 1-10.
  2. Antonelli, C. 2007. “Technological knowledge as an essential facility.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(4): 451-471.
  3. Antonelli, C. 2008. Localised Technological Change: Towards the Economics of Complexity, London: Routledge. Antonelli, C. 2017. Endogenous Innovation: The Economics of an Emergent System Property. Edward Elgar Publishing: London and New York. Arrow, K. 1962. “Economic Welfare and the allocation of resources for invention” in Lamberton, D. M. ed. 1971. The Economics of Information and Knowledge, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 141-159.
  4. Baldwin, C., von Hippel, E. 2010. “Modelling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1502864.
  5. Basalla, G. 1988.
  6. The Evolution of Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Benkler, Y. 2002. “Coase‟s penguin, or, Linux and the nature of the firm.” Yale Law Journal, 112:3. Benkler, Y. 2006.
  8. The Wealth of Networks, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  9. Benner, C. 2003. “Learning Communities in a Learning Region: The Soft Infrastructure of Cross-firm Learning Networks in Silicon Valley.” Environment and Planning A, 35: 1809-1830.
  10. Besen S. M., Raskind L. J. 1991. “An introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual property.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 3-27.
  11. Boldrin, M., Levine, D. 2008. Against Intellectual Monopoly. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm. EriĢim tarihi: 12.05.2019.
  12. Boulding, K. 1966. “The Economics of Knowledge and the Knowledge of Economics.” American Economic Review, 56(2): 1-13.
  13. Bowles, S. 2006. Microeconomics. London and New York: Princeton Univ. Press.
  14. Boyd, R., Richerson, P. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press.
  15. Burke, P. 2017. Bilgi Tarihi Nedir? Islık Yayınları.
  16. Bush, V. 1945. Science the Endless Frontier. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office Chang, H-J. 2001. “Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development: Historical Lessons and Emerging Issues.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 2(2): 287-309.
  17. Chang, H-J. 2002.
  18. Kicking Away the Ladder, London: Anthem. Cohen W. M., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. 2000. “Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or not).” NBER Working Paper, No: 7552. Corrado C., Hulten C.R., Sichel D.E. 2006. “Intangible