Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?

Elif Ayşe ŞENGÜN, (Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
CETIN ONDER (Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi
1 0
Yıl: 2009 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 5 - 34 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?

Öz:
Ekonomik faaliyetlerin coğrafi yoğunlaşması üzerine yazına bakıldığında endüstriyel kümelerdeki firmalar arasında türdeşlik (homojenlik) mi farklılaşma (heterojenlik) mı olduğuna ilişkin bir tartışmanın süregittiği görülmektedir. Bazı yazarlar küme firmalarının türdeş olduğunu varsaysa da diğerleri bazı firmaların kümelenmeden diğerlerine göre daha fazla fayda sağlayabileceğinin altını çizmektedirler. Bu çalışmada endüstriyel kümelerdeki firmaların değer zinciri içerisindeki konumlarının ve bununla ilintili diğer firma özelliklerinin kümelenmenin sağladığı yenilikçilik avantajlarından faydalanmak açısından firmalar arasında anlamlı bir farklılaşmaya etki edip etmediği araştırılmaktadır. Araştırma bulguları değer zincirinin alt aşamalarında konumlanmış olan satıcı firmaların değer zincirinin üst aşamalarında konumlanmış olan imalatçı firmalara göre kümenin sağladığı yenilikçi avantajlardan daha fazla faydalandığını ortaya koymaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime: kümelenme yenilikçilik firmalar

Innovativeness in industrial cluster: Do firm characteristics matter?

Öz:
There is continuing debate over intra-cluster homogeneity versus heterogeneity in the literature on geographical agglomeration of economic activity. Whereas some authors have assumed internal homogeneity, others have emphasized intra-cluster differences and argued that some firms may benefit more from the advantages of clustering compared to others. This study investigates whether firm’s position in the value chain and related firm characteristics explain heterogeneity between firms within a cluster with respect to benefiting from the innovative potential of clustering. Study results show that retailers, positioned downstream the value-chain, are more advantageous compared to manufacturers, positioned upstream the value-chain, in terms of benefiting from the innovative potential provided by clustering.
Anahtar Kelime: clustering innovativeness firms

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • Amin, A. 1994. The difficult transition from informal economy to Marshallian industrial district. Area, 26(1): 13-24.
  • Appleyard, M. M. 1996. How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 137-154.
  • Audetsch, D. ve Feldman, M. 1996. Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3): 630-640.
  • Baptista, R. ve Swann, P. 1998. Do clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27: 525-540.
  • Barney, J. B. ve Hesterly, W. S. 2008. Strategic management and competitive advantage. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2nd Ed..
  • Bellandi, M. 1989. The industrial district in Marshall E. Goodman, J. Bamford, ve P. Saynor (Der.), Small firms and industrial districts in Italy: 136-152. London: Routledge.
  • Beerepoot, N. 2008. Diffusion of knowledge and skills through labor markets: Evidence from the furniture cluster in Metro Cebu. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20: 67-88.
  • Berg, Bruce. L. 1998. Qualitative research methods for social sciences. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
  • Brusco, S. 1996. Global systems and local systems. F. Cossentino, F. Pyke, ve W. Sengenberger (Der.). Local and regional response to global pressure: The case of Italy and its industrial districts: 145-158. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
  • Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. ve Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative performance. Technovation, 24: 29-39.
  • Coffrey, A. ve Atkinson, P. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Cohen, S. S. ve Fields, G. 1999. Social capital and capital gains in Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 41, 108-30.
  • Cohen, W. M. ve Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.
  • Dayasindhu, N. 2002. Embeddedness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness: A case of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22: 551-560.
  • Dei Ottai, G. 2003. Trust, interlinking transactions and credit in the industrial district. M. Becattini, G. Dei Ottai, ve F. Sforzi (Der.), From industrial districts to local development: 108-130. UK: Edward Elgar.
  • Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K. ve Lazslo, T. 2004 Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 428-442.
  • Dierickx, I. ve Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1511.
  • Dyer, J. H. ve Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 345-367.
  • Dyer, J. H. ve Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660-679.
  • Eraydın, A. ve Armatlı-Köroğlu, B. 2005. Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: The characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial cluster. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17: 237-266.
  • Geenhuizen, M. ve Reyez-Gonzales, L. 2007. Does a clustered location matter for high technology companies’ performance? The case of biotechnology in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74: 1681-1696.
  • Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B. ve Viaene, J. 2007. Innovation in food firms: Contribution of regional networks within the international business context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19: 209-226.
  • Giuliani, E. ve Bell, M. 2005. The micro determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34: 47-68.
  • Helmsing, A. H. J. 2001. Externalities, learning and governance: New perspectives on local economic development. Development and Change, 32: 277-308.
  • Hill, E. W. ve Brennan, F. F. 2000. A methodology for identifying the drivers of industrial clusters: The foundation of regional competitive advantage. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1): 65-96.
  • Ibrahim, S. ve Fallah, M. H. 2005. Drivers of innovation and influence of technological clusters. Engineering Management Journal, 17(3): 33-41.
  • Inkpen, A. C. ve Tsang, E. W. K. 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 146-165.
  • Kale, P., Singh, H. ve Perlmutter, H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217-237.
  • Keeble, D. ve Wilkinson, F. 1998. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies, 33: 295-303.
  • Khan, J. H. ve Ghani, J. A. 2004. Clusters and entrepreneurship: Implications for innovation in a developing economy. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(3): 221-238.
  • Knorriga, P. 1999. Agra: An old cluster facing the new competition. World Development, 27(9): 1587-1604.
  • Krugman, P. 1991. Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kukalis, S. 2010. Agglomeration economies and firm performance: The case of industry clusters. Journal of Management, 36(2): 453-481.
  • Lawson, C. 1997. Territorial clustering and high technology innovation: From industrial districts to innovative milieu. ESRC Centre for Business Research Working Paper 54, University of Cambridge.
  • Lawson, C. 1999. Towards a competence theory of the region. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23: 151-166.
  • Lawson, C. ve Lorenz, E. 1999. Collective learning, tacit knowledge, and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33: 305-317.
  • Lazaric, N., Mangolte, P. A. ve Massue, M. L. 2003. Articulation and codification of collective know-how in the steel industry: Evidence from blast furnace control in France. Research Policy, 32: 1829-1847.
  • Lazerson, M. H. ve Lorenzoni, G. 1999. The firms that feed industrial districts: A return to the Italian source. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(2): 235-266.
  • Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of economics. Londra: MacMillan.
  • Marshall, A. 1952. Principles of economics. Londra: Macmillan.
  • McEvily, B. ve Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 1133-1156.
  • Miller, N. J., Besser, T. ve Malshe, A. 2007. Strategic networking among small businesses in small US communities. International Small Business Journal, 25(6): 631-665.
  • Molina-Morales, F. X. ve Martinez-Fernandez, M. T. 2004. How much difference is there between industrial district firms? A net value creation approach. Research Policy, 33: 473-486.
  • Molina-Morales, F. X. ve Martinez-Fernandez, M. T. 2006. Industrial districts: Something more than a neighbourhood. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18: 503-524.
  • Nadvi, K. 1996. Small firm industrial districts in Pakistan. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Sussex Üniversitesi, Brighton.
  • Nunnally, J. L. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Öz, Ö. 2004. Clusters and competitive advantage: The Turkish experience. Londra: Routledge.
  • Özen, Ş., Işık, N. E., Uysal, Ö. Ö., Şengün, A. E., Aksoy, B., Çakar, M. ve Akış, B. 2007. İş kültürü ve örgütler arası ilişkilerin örgütsel performansa etkileri: Ankara Mobilyacılar Sitesi Örneği. Yayımlanmamış TÜBİTAK destekli araştırma projesi raporu (SOBAG 105K168). Ankara.
  • Parker, R. ve Tamaschke, L. 2005. Explaining regional departures from national patterns of industry specialization: Regional institutions, policies and state coordination. Organization Studies, 26(12): 1787-1807.
  • Pavitt, K. 1987. On the nature of technological spillovers. NBER Working paper #4423, Cambridge MA, National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
  • Porter, M. (1998). On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School.
  • Pouder, R. ve St. John, C. (1996). Hot spots and blind spots: Geographic clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1192-1225.
  • Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Rabelotti, R. ve Schmitz, H. 1999. The internal heterogeneity of industrial districts in Italy, Brazil and Mexico. Regional Studies, 33(2): 97-108.
  • Romijn, H. ve Albaladejo, M. 2002. Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in Southeast England. Research Policy, 31: 1053-1067.
  • Sabel, C. ve Zeitlin, J. 1985. Historical alternatives to mass production: Politics, markets and technology in the nineteenth century industrialization. Past and Present, 108: 133-176.
  • Schmitz, H. (1995). Collective efficiency: Growth path for a small-scale industry. Journal of Development Studies, 31(4): 529-561.
  • Schmitz, H. 1999. Collective efficiency and increasing returns. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23: 465-483.
  • Shaver, J. M. ve Flyer, F. 2000. Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1175-1193.
  • Shin, N., Kraemer, K. ve Dedrick, J. 2009. R&D, value chain location and firm performance in the global electronics industry. Industry and Innovation, 16(3): 315-330.
  • Spencer, J. W. 2003. Firms’ knowledge sharing strategies in the global innovation system: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 217-233.
  • Staber, U. 1998. Inter-firm co-operation and competition in industrial districts. Organization Studies, 19(4): 701-724.
  • Storper, M. 1993. Regional ‘words’ of production: Learning and innovation in the technology districts of France, Italy, and the USA. Regional Studies, 27: 433-455.
  • Storper, M. 1995. The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3): 191-221.
  • Şengün, A. E. ve Çakar, M. 2009. Trust, knowledge sharing and innovation in horizontal inter-firm exchanges: Evidence from an industrial district context. 25th EGOS Colloquium, 2-4 Temmuz, Barselona, İspanya.
  • Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61: 674-698.
  • von Hippel, E. 1978. Successful industrial products from customer ideas. Journal of Marketing, 1: 39-49.
  • Weeravardena, J. 2003. The Role of Marketing Capability in Innovation-Based Competitive Strategy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11: 15-35.
  • Weeravardena, J., O’Cass, A. ve Julian, C. 2006. Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research, 59: 37-45.
  • Wöhrl, R., Hüsig, S. ve Dowling, M. 2009. The interaction of R&D intensity and firm age: Empirical evidence from technology-based growth companies in the German “Neuer Markt”. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 20: 19-30.
  • You, J. I. ve Wilkinson, F. 1994. Competition and cooperation: Toward understanding industrial districts. Review of Political Economy, 6: 259-278.
APA ŞENGÜN E, ONDER C (2009). Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. , 5 - 34.
Chicago ŞENGÜN Elif Ayşe,ONDER CETIN Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. (2009): 5 - 34.
MLA ŞENGÜN Elif Ayşe,ONDER CETIN Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. , 2009, ss.5 - 34.
AMA ŞENGÜN E,ONDER C Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. . 2009; 5 - 34.
Vancouver ŞENGÜN E,ONDER C Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. . 2009; 5 - 34.
IEEE ŞENGÜN E,ONDER C "Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?." , ss.5 - 34, 2009.
ISNAD ŞENGÜN, Elif Ayşe - ONDER, CETIN. "Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?". (2009), 5-34.
APA ŞENGÜN E, ONDER C (2009). Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 5 - 34.
Chicago ŞENGÜN Elif Ayşe,ONDER CETIN Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi 9, no.1 (2009): 5 - 34.
MLA ŞENGÜN Elif Ayşe,ONDER CETIN Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol.9, no.1, 2009, ss.5 - 34.
AMA ŞENGÜN E,ONDER C Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2009; 9(1): 5 - 34.
Vancouver ŞENGÜN E,ONDER C Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2009; 9(1): 5 - 34.
IEEE ŞENGÜN E,ONDER C "Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?." Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9, ss.5 - 34, 2009.
ISNAD ŞENGÜN, Elif Ayşe - ONDER, CETIN. "Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?". Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi 9/1 (2009), 5-34.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 15:43

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları