İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 151 - 165 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 26-05-2021
İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ
Öz: Dünya Ticaret Örgütü verilerine göre 2018 yılında dünya toplam ticaretinin % 28’ini (5,6 trilyon $) telekomünikasyon, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri sektörü oluşturmaktadır. Küresel ekonominin motoru haline gelen bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri sektörünün hızla büyümesinin temelinde ise inovasyon vardır. İnovasyonun temelinde ise bilgiye erişmek ve onun öğrenme süreçleriyle ürüne dönüştürülmesi yatmaktadır. Bu çalışma, inovasyonun temeli olan bilgi ve öğrenme süreçleri ile bu sürecin önemli kolaylaştırıcısı olarak görülen yakınlık türleri arasındaki ilişkinin yapısını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma literatür analizine dayanmaktadır. Buna göre, kodlanmış bilgiden, örtük bilgiye geçildikçe ve bireysel öğrenmeden örgütsel ve toplu öğrenmeye geçildikçe aktörler arasındaki mesafe de azalmakta; ilişkiler formelden enformel boyuta taşınmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime: The Geography of Innovation: The Effect of Geographical and Relational Proximities on Knowledge Diffusion and Learning Processes
Öz: According to the data of World Trade Organization, telecommunication, information and communication Technologies sectorconstitutes 28% of the world trade (5.6 trillion$) in 2018. Innovation is the basic reason of the rapid growth of those informationand communication technologies which have become the engine of the global economy. The basis of innovation lies in accessing information of knowledge and transforming it into products through learning processes. This study aims to evaluate the structure ofthe relationship between knowledge and learning processes, which are the basis of innovation, and the types of affinity that areseen as important facilitators of this process. The study is based on literature analysis. Accordingly, as knowledge production andlearning are localized, the geographical distance between actors decreases and the relations turn into more informal structure.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- Altuğ, F. 2019. İnovasyonun coğrafyası: Bilgi türleri ile bilgi yayılma kanalları arasındaki yapısal ilişkiler. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 17(1), 1-24.
- Altuğ, F., Yılmaz, M. 2018. Farklı bilgi tabanlarına sahip sektörlerde yakınlık türlerinin bilgi, öğrenme ve yenilik/inovasyon süreçlerine etkisi: Eskişehir örneği". Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 58(1), 844-881.
- Altuğ, F. 2017a. Evrimsel ekonomik coğrafya perspektifinden bölgesel ekonomik gelişme: Yol bağımlılığı ve kilitlenme yaklaşımı. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, (36), 97-110.
- Altuğ, 2017b. Yakınlık türlerinin farklı bilgi tabanlarına sahip sektörlerde bilgi, öğrenme ve yenilik süreçlerine etkisi: Eskişehir örneği. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, 395 Sayfa
- Asheim, B., Coenen, L., Vang, J. 2007. Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(5), 655-670.
- Asheim, B. T., Parrilli, M. D. 2012. Introduction: Learning and ınnovation. In B., Asheim, M., D., Parrilli (eds.) Interactive Learning for Innovation,Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
- Asheim, B., Gertler, M. S. 2005. The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J., Fagerber, D., C.,
- Mowery, R., R., Nelson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford Universy Press, London/New York.
- Asheim, B. T., ve Isaksen A. 2002. Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer 27, 77–86.
- Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Frenken, K. 2015. Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907-920.
- Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., Maskell, P. 2004. Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31-56.
- Belussi, F., Caldari, K. 2009. At the origin of the industrial district: Alfred Marshall and the Cambridge School. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(2), 335-355.
- Boschma, R. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
- Boschma R. A. Frenken, K. 2010. The spatial evolution of innovation networks. A proximity perspective. In R., A.,
- Boschma ve R., Martin (eds.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
- Boschma, R., Marrocu, E., Paci, R. 2016. Symmetric and asymmetric effects of proximities. The case of M&A deals in Italy. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(2), 505-535.
- Boschma, R., Minondo, A., Navarro, M. (2013). The emergence of new industries at the regional level in Spain: A proximity approach based on product relatedness. Economic Geography, 89(1), 29-51.
- Broekel, T., ve Boschma, R. 2012. Knowledge networks in the Dutch Aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433.
- Capello, R., Faggian, A. 2005. Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes. Regional Studies, 39(1), 75-87.
- Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),128-152.
- Cohendet, P., Steinmueller, E. W. 2000. The codification of knowledge: A conceptual and empirical exploration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 195-209.
- Crossan, M. M. Lane, H. W., White, R. E. 1999. An Organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537.
- Curado, C. 2006. Organisational learning and organisational design. The Learning Organization 13(1), 25-48.
- Edquist, C., Rees, G. M., Lorenzen, M., Vincent-Lancrin, S. 2001. Cities and regions in the new learning economy. OECD Publishing, Paris.
- Feldman, M. P., Kogler, D. F. 2010. Stylized facts in the geography of innovation. In R., Hall, Rosenberg, N., (eds.), Handbook of The Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, Oxford
- Foray, D., Lundvall, B.-ä. 1998. The knowledge-based economy: From the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. In D., Neef, A., Siesfield, J., Cefola (eds.) The Economic Impact of Knowledge, ButterworthHeinemann, Boston.
- Gertler, M. S. 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 75-99.
- Gilly, J. P., Wallet, F. 2001. Forms of proximity, local governance and the dynamics of local economic spaces: The case of industrial conversion processes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(3), 553-570.
- Gregersen, B., Johnson, B. 1997. Learning economies, innovation systems and European integration. Regional Studies, 31(5), 479-490.
- Grimaldi, R., ve Torrisi, S. (2001). Codified-tacit and general-specific knowledge in the division of labour among firms: A study of the software industry. Research Policy, 30(9), 1425-1442.
- Guta, C. W. 2011. Effects of Learning and innovation on development: The case of malawi. PhD Thesis University of Manchester The Faculty of Humanities. 442 pp.
- Haggett, P. 1965. Locational Analysis in Human Geography. London: Edward Arnold Publishers
- Hansen, T. 2015. Substitution or overlap? The relations between geographical and non-spatial proximity dimensions in collaborative innovation projects. Regional Studies, 49(10), 1672-1684.
- Healy, A., Morgan. K. 2012. Spaces of innovation: Learning, proximity and the ecological turn. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1041-1053.
- Heijs, J. 2012. Innovation capabilities and learning: Virtuous and vicious circles. In B., Asheim, M., D., Parrilli (eds.) Interactive Learning for innovation, A Key Driver within Clusters and Innovation Systems, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
- Holste, J. S., Fields D. 2010. Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14 (1), 128 – 140.
- Howells, J. R. 2002. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5-6), 871-884.
- Huber, F. 2012. On the role and interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity: Personal knowledge relationships of R&D workers in the Cambridge Information Technology Cluster. Regional Studies, 46(9), 1169- 1182.
- Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.-Å., Lundvall, B. 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680-693.
- Jonsson, O. 2002. Innovation processes and proximity: The case of IDEON firms in Lund, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 10(6), 705-722.
- Kaygalak, İ. 2013. Kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımı: Tanımı, kavramsal çerçevesi ve içeriği, Prof.Dr.Asaf Koçman’a Armağan (Editör: Ertuğ Öner), Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, No 180 İzmir, 347-360.
- Keeble, D., Wilkinson, F. 1999 Collective learning and knowledgedevelopment in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies, 33(4), 295-303
- Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., Wilkinson, F. 1999. Collective learning processes, networking and ‘institutional thickness' in the Cambridge Region. Regional Studies, 33(4), 319-332.
- Keeble, D., Wilkinson, F. 1999. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies, 33(4), 295-303.
- Kirat, T., Lung Y. 1999. Innovation and proximity: Territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 27-38.
- Knoben, J., Oerlemans, L. A. 2006. Proximity and inter‐organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89.
- Lagendijk, A., Lorentzen, A. 2007. Proximity, Knowledge and innovation in peripheral regions. on the intersection between geographical and organizational proximity. European Planning Studies, 15(4), 457-466.
- Larsson, J. P. (2017). Non-routine activities and the within-city geography of jobs. Urban Studies, 54(8), 1808-1833.
- Lawson, C., Lorenz, E. 1999. Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33(4), 305-317.
- Leppälä, S. 2018. Theoretical perspectives on localized knowledge spillovers and agglomeration. Papers in Regional Science, 97(3), 467-484.
- Lundvall, B.-ä., Johnson, B. 1994. The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23-42.
- Lyons, D. 2000. Embeddedness, milieu, and innovation among high-technology firms: A Richardson, Texas, case study. Environment and Planning A, 32(5), 891-908.
- Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
- Martin, R. 2012. Knowledge Bases and the Geography of Innovation. Centre for Innovation. Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE): Lund University.
- Martin, R., Moodysson, J. 2013. Comparing knowledge bases: On the geography and organization of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania. Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2), 170-187.
- Maskell, P. Malmberg, A. 1999. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167-185.
- Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
- Nonaka, I. Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York:
- North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Nooteboom, B. (1999). Inter-firm Alliances. Analysis and Design. Routledge, London.
- Parjanen, S. Hyypiä, M. 2018. Innovation platforms as a solution to the proximity paradox. European Planning Studies, 26(7), 1312-1329.
- Porter, M. E. 1998. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, Boston.
- Rallet, A., Torre, A. 1999. Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal, 49(4), 373-380.
- Ranucci, R. A. Souder, D. 2015. Facilitating tacit knowledge transfer: Routine compatibility, trustworthiness, and integration in M & As. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 257-276.
- Reiffenstein, T. 2006. Codification, patents and the geography of knowledge transfer in the electronic musical instrument industry. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 50(3), 298-318.
- Saxenian, A. L. 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
- Scott, A. J. 2006. Geography and Economy: Three Lectures. OUP Catalogue. Oxford University Press,
- Shaver, M. J. Flyer, F. 2000. Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1175-1193.
- Shaw, A. T., Gilly, P. J. 2000. On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34(2), 169-180.
- Staber, U. 2001. Spatial proximity and firm survival in a declining industrial district: The case of knitwear firms in BadenWurttemberg. Regional Studies, 35(4), 329-341.
- Torre, A., Rallet, A. 2005. Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59.
- Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1)35-67.
- Van Oort, F. (2002). Innovation and agglomeration economies in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(3), 344-360.
- Vissers, G. Dankbaar, B. 2013. Knowledge and proximity. European Planning Studies, 21(5), 700-721.
| APA | ALTUĞ F (2020). İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. , 151 - 165. |
| Chicago | ALTUĞ Fatih İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. (2020): 151 - 165. |
| MLA | ALTUĞ Fatih İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. , 2020, ss.151 - 165. |
| AMA | ALTUĞ F İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. . 2020; 151 - 165. |
| Vancouver | ALTUĞ F İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. . 2020; 151 - 165. |
| IEEE | ALTUĞ F "İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ." , ss.151 - 165, 2020. |
| ISNAD | ALTUĞ, Fatih. "İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ". (2020), 151-165. |
| APA | ALTUĞ F (2020). İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. EGE COĞRAFYA DERGİSİ, 29(1), 151 - 165. |
| Chicago | ALTUĞ Fatih İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. EGE COĞRAFYA DERGİSİ 29, no.1 (2020): 151 - 165. |
| MLA | ALTUĞ Fatih İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. EGE COĞRAFYA DERGİSİ, vol.29, no.1, 2020, ss.151 - 165. |
| AMA | ALTUĞ F İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. EGE COĞRAFYA DERGİSİ. 2020; 29(1): 151 - 165. |
| Vancouver | ALTUĞ F İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ. EGE COĞRAFYA DERGİSİ. 2020; 29(1): 151 - 165. |
| IEEE | ALTUĞ F "İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ." EGE COĞRAFYA DERGİSİ, 29, ss.151 - 165, 2020. |
| ISNAD | ALTUĞ, Fatih. "İNOVASYONUN COĞRAFYASI: COĞRAFİ VE İLİŞKİSEL YAKINLIKLARIN BİLGİ YAYILMASI VEÖĞRENME SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ". EGE COĞRAFYA DERGİSİ 29/1 (2020), 151-165. |
