Advertisement

How to Address the Turkish Paradox of Innovation to Build a Competitive Economy?

  • Lale Gumusluoglu
  • Şirin Elçi
Part of the International Studies In Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 21)

Abstract

The ability to innovate has become a crucial prerequisite of strong organizations as well as economies. Theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrates that developing countries with effective innovation policies and well-functioning national innovation systems are better positioned to close the development gap and improve their competitiveness. Turkey started discussing the innovation subject from the policy perspective in the mid-1990s, during the same time as the EU, where—at that time—a wide-ranging debate was stimulated by the “Green Paper on Innovation,” and the government defined its main objective in this topic as “the establishment of the National Innovation System that would enable systematic operation of the whole institutions and mechanisms required to carry out scientific and technological research and development activities and to transform the results of those activities into economic and social benefit.” However, until today, this goal has not been fully achieved and the innovation performance remained below the desired level. Although innovation performance is low, demand for innovative products/services, one of the prime drivers of innovation, is very high in Turkey. Departing from this paradox, this chapter discusses how to increase the innovative capabilities of the Turkish firms in favor of a competitive economy.

Keywords

Gross Domestic Product Venture Capital Innovation Performance Knowledge Creation Innovation Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Schumpeter J. A. (1990) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. In: Casson M. (ed) Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, Hants.Google Scholar
  2. Drucker P. F. (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile T. M. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  4. World Bank (2006) Turkey Country Economic Memorandum Promoting Sustained Growth and Convergence with the European Union http://www.worldbank.org.tr/ cem2006 Cited 10 Sep 2007.
  5. OECD (2001) A New Economy? The Changing Role of Innovation and Information Technology in Growth. OECD, Paris http://www.oecd.org/document/ 62/0,3343,en_2649_33703_2675198 _1_1_1_1,00.html.
  6. Lundvall B. A. (2000) Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. In: Edquist C and M McKelvey (Eds), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  7. World Bank (1993) The making of the East Asia miracle http://www.worldbank.org/ html/dec/Publications/Bulletins/PRBvol4no4.html. Cited 10 Sep 2007.
  8. Hobday M. (1995) Innovation in East Asia: The Challenge to Japan. Edward Elgar Publishing, Hants.Google Scholar
  9. Stiglitz J. (1996) Some Lessons from the East Asian Miracle. http://wbro.\break oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/151 Cited 10 Sep 2007.
  10. Cakmakci U. M. (2005) The context of innovation and the role of the state. In: Trott P. (ed) Innovation Management and New Product Development, 3rd edn. Pearson Education Limited, England.Google Scholar
  11. OECD (2004) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Turkey: Issues and Policies. Small and Medium Enterprises Outlook, OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/5/11/31932173.pdf. Cited 10 Sep 2007.
  12. Gurel E., Gumuşluoglu L., Guney S. (2003) An Analysis of Entrepreneurship by Demographics and Sectoral Composition in Turkey and A Comparison with the European Union. Boğaziçi Journal 17(1): 75–104.Google Scholar
  13. Elci, S. (2004) European Trend Chart on Innovation: Annual Innovation Policy for Turkey, September 2003-August 2004. European Commission. http://www. proinno-europe.eu/docs/reports/documents/Country_Report_Turkey_2006.pdf Cited 10 Sep 2007.
  14. The Economist, June 7, 2007 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm? story_id=9302662. Cited 5 August 2007.
  15. Niosi, J. (2002) National systems of innovations are “x-efficient” (and x-effective): Why some are slow learners. Research Policy 31: 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elci, S. (Forthcoming report) INNO-Policy TrendChart - Policy Trends and Appraisal Report: Turkey, 2007. European Commission http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=country.showCountry&topicID=263&parent ID=52&ID=41.
  17. Porter M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. EC (2005) Population Innovation Readiness Study: Innobarometer http://www. eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1125061030_innovation_readiness_final_2005.pdf. Cited 10 August 2007.
  19. Turkish Daily News, October 13, 2007 http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr. Cited 16 Oct 2007.
  20. Turkey Financial News, April 13, 2007 http://www.turkeyfinancial.com/news/2007. Cited 20 Sep 2007.
  21. UN (2006) Information Economy Report. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/sdteecb20061_en.pdf. Cited 11 Oct 2007.
  22. Lemoine F., Ünal-Kesenci D (2003) Trade and Technology Transfers: A Comparative Study of Turkey, India and China. CEPII, Working Paper, No. 2003 – 16 http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/workpap/pdf/2003/wp03-16.pdf. Cited 9 Sep 2007.
  23. EC (2007) Key Figures 2007 On Science, Technology and Innovation: Towards A European Knowledge Area. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/ pdf/kf_2007_prepub_en.pdf. Cited 15 Sep 2007.
  24. OECD (2005) Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2005. OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard. Cited 12 Sep 2007.
  25. EC (2006) European Innovation Scoreboard 2006: Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance Pro Inno Europe Inno Metrics. http://www.proinno-europe.eu/doc/EIS2006_final.pdf. Cited 1 Sep 2007.
  26. World Bank (2007) Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM). http://www. worldbank.org/kam. Cited 10 Sep 2007.
  27. Goldberg I., Trajtenberg M., Jaffe A. et al (2006) Public Financial Support For Commercial Innovation: Europe and Central Asia Knowledge Economy Study Part I. Europe and Central Asia Chief Economist’s Regional Working Paper Series vol 1, no.1 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/ KE_Study_Final.pdf. Cited 3 Sep 2007.
  28. WEF (2006–2007) Global Competitiveness Index, 2006–2007, World Economic Forum http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness %20Report/PastReports /index.htm.
  29. 8th Five Year Development Plan of Turkey. The State Planning Organization, June 2000 http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/viii/plan8.pdf. Cited 5 Oct 2007.
  30. Oral G. (2006) Creativity of Turkish Prospective Teachers. Creativity Research Journal 18(1): 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. TrendChart Newsletter, June 2006, European Commission http://www.proinno- europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wiw.informations&page=detail&ID=1646 Cited 10 Oct 2007.
  32. EC (2006) 2006 Innobarometer on clusters’ role in facilitating innovation in Europe: Analytical Report. http://cordis.europa.eu/innovation-policy/studies/ gen_study17.htm. Cited 8 August 2007.
  33. Elci S. (2007) Assessment of Venture Capital Environment in Turkey. Report to the World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lale Gumusluoglu
    • 1
  • Şirin Elçi
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Technopolis Group Turkey CyberparkCyberplazaAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations