EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics

GÖNDERBİLGİ
EnglishTürkçe

Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470    Tam Metin (PDF)

İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği

Umut Akduğan, Nilhun Doğan

İnovasyon, ülkelerin küresel ekonomiye entegre olabilmesinde kilit rol oynamaktadır. Bu da inovasyon ikliminin oluşturulmasını ve sürdürülebilirliğini gerekli kılmaktadır. Ülkeler daha çok inovasyon yaratarak ekonomik ve sosyal açıdan olumlu gelişmeler sağlamakta, özellikle küresel rekabette önemli bir avantaj elde etmektedir. Dolayısıyla inovasyonu etkileyen faktörler önem kazanmakta ve araştırmaların odağında yer almaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı; inovasyonu etkileyen faktörlerin, Panel VAR modelinin seçilmiş OECD ülkelerine ilişkin panel veri seti kullanılarak tahmin edilmesiyle araştırılmasıdır. Bu bağlamda; 1981-2019 dönemi için, yerli patent sayısı, GSYH, ticari dışa açıklık, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, Ar-Ge harcamaları ve eğitim harcamaları değişkenlerine ait yıllık veriler kullanılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda tahmin edilen panel VAR modeline dayanarak panel Granger nedensellik testi ve varyans ayrıştırma analizi yapılmıştır. Buna ilaveten etki-tepki fonksiyonları da yorumlanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, incelenen dönem ve örneklem ile kullanılan yöntemler kapsamında değerlendirildiğinde; GSYH, ticari dışa açıklık, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve Ar-Ge harcamalarının inovasyonu etkileyen faktörler olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: İnovasyon, Panel VAR, Granger Nedenselliği, OECD Ülkeleri
DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470    Tam Metin (PDF)

Factors Affecting Innovation in OECD Countries

Umut Akduğan, Nilhun Doğan

Innovation has a key role in countries’ ability to integrate into the global economy, thereby necessitating the creation and sustainability of a national innovation climate. Countries generate positive economic and social development by promoting increased innovation, particularly in terms of significant advantages in global competition. Therefore, the factors affecting innovation gain importance and rank at the center of economic research. This study endeavors to investigate the factors affecting innovation by estimating a panel VAR model with a dataset of selected OECD countries. Annual data on the number of domestic patents, GDP, trade openness, foreign direct investment, R&D, and education expenditure were used for the 1981-2019 period. A panel Granger causality test and variance decomposition analysis were conducted based on the panel VAR results, and impulse-response functions were further interpreted. Findings revealed that GDP, trade openness, foreign direct investment, and R&D expenditures are the key factors affecting innovation.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Innovation, Panel VAR, Granger Causality, OECD Countries

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


In contemporary economic inquiry and public policy, the concept of innovation has gained more significance compared with previous years. One reason for this is countries’ efforts to leverage the phenomenon of globalization in their interests. Countries can integrate into the global economy and increase gross national income through innovation that will turn globalization to their favor. Innovation is of substantial significance for businesses’ growth and longevity. It is one of the primary factors required for business survival and sustained development in the global economy. Because of globalization, companies must be more creative and exploratory in the face of increasing competition and scientific and technological development. Companies’ survival now depends on their level of innovation and technological development. Innovation activities have a crucial impact on countries’ economic growth and development. It is at the heart of economic growth and development and has strategic importance for policymakers and business leaders to increase national global competitiveness, welfare, and quality of life.

Reviewing previous empirical studies on innovation and the factors affecting innovation, a limited number of studies have used multivariate models. Although many studies examine the relationship between innovation and various variables, multivariate linear regression models are predominantly used in these limited studies.

This study aims to investigate the factors affecting innovation. A panel VAR model was estimated using a panel dataset for selected OECD countries for the period 1981–2019. The model was estimated using the sample countries’ annual data on the number of domestic patents as the dependent variable and independent variables of GDP, trade openness, foreign direct investment, R&D, and education expenditure. Based on the predicted panel VAR model, a panel Granger causality test and variance decomposition analysis were performed, and impulse-response functions were interpreted.

The findings of the VAR analyses were threefold: i) The Granger causality test between a causal relationship from the variables of trade openness, foreign direct investment, and R&D and the number of patents. ii) Impulse-response functions indicated that the variables of GDP, trade openness, and R&D expenditure positively affect the number of patents in the short run. iii) A variance decomposition analysis demonstrated that the most crucial variable affecting the number of patents is GDP.

According to these findings, GDP, trade openness, foreign direct investment, and R&D expenditure are the primary factors affecting innovation.

Considering the results, an increased demand for the innovation process and innovative applications positively affect innovation. Because increased income is measured using GDP, rising foreign trade volume and foreign direct investment inflow are the most significant variables for the increasing innovation demand. The positive effect of increased GDP on innovation is also quite significant in terms of facilitating innovation and R&D financing and support and expanding purchasing power. R&D expenditure was revealed to be the primary mechanism of countries’ innovation level. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Akalın, Ş. H. (2007). Innovation, inovasyon: Yenileşim. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türk Dili Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, XCIII (666), 483-486. google scholar
  • Akın, Ö., & Reyhanoğlu, M. (2014). İşletme büyüklükleri bağlamında Türkiye’nin inovasyon portresi (2002-2008 dönemi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), 23-51. google scholar
  • Akram, K., Siddiqui, S. H., Nawaz, M. A., Ghauri, T. A., & Cheema, A. K. H. (2011). Role of knowledge management to bring innovation: An integrated approach. International Bulletin of Business Administration, 11, 121-134. google scholar
  • Altın, O., & Kaya A. A. (2009). Türkiye’de ar-ge harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensel ilişkinin analizi. Ege Akademik Bakış/Ege Academic Review, 9(1), 251-259. google scholar
  • Altıntaş, F. F. (2020). İnovasyonun ekonomik büyümeyi etkilemesine yönelik bir yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulaması: G20 grubu ülkeleri örneği. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal (BMIJ), 8(4), 723-763. google scholar
  • Anderson, T. W., & Hsiao, C. (1981). Estimation of dynamic models with error components. Journal of the American statistical Association, 76(375), 598-606. google scholar
  • Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 465-476. google scholar
  • Apak, S., Sarıdoğan, E., & Uçak, A. (2008). Macroeconomic determinants of innovation. International Conference Patent and Innovation (December 19-20), Applied Econometric Association. Tokyo-Japan. google scholar
  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-97. google scholar
  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51. google scholar
  • Balaban, G. (2018). İnovasyon ve pazarlama. İstanbul: Eftalya Kitap. google scholar
  • Baldwin, J., Hanel, P., & Sabourin, D. (2002). Determinants of innovative activity in Canadian manufacturing firms: The role of intellectual property rights. Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen (Ed.), Innovation and firm performance. London. google scholar
  • Barutçugil, İ. (2020). Stratejik inovasyon yönetimi (1.Baskı). İstanbul: Kariyer Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Bassanini, A., & Scarpetta, S. (2001). The driving forces of economic growth: panel data evidence for the OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies, 33(2), 9-56. google scholar
  • Benavente, J. M. (2002). The Role of Research and Innovation in Promoting Productivity in Chile. Department of Economics, University of Chile, http://emlab.berkeley.edu/bhall/EINT/ Benavente.pdf. google scholar
  • Bilen, M., Yılancı, V., & Eryüzlü, H. (2017). Tourism development and economic growth: A panel Granger causality analysis in the frequency domain, Current Issues in Tourism, 20(1), 27-32. google scholar
  • Bloom, N., Draca, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Trade induced technical change? The impact of Chinese imports on innovation, IT and productivity. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 87-117. google scholar
  • Boubtane, E., Coulibaly, D. & Rault, C. (2013). Immigration, growth, and unemployment: Panel VAR evidence from OECD countries. Labour, 27(4), 399-420. google scholar
  • Cainelli, G., De Liso, N., Monducci, R., & Perani, G. (2001). Technological innovation and firm performance in Italian traditional manufacturing sectors, Innovation and enterprise creation: statistics and indicators içinde (ss.164-170). Eurostat publication. google scholar
  • Castellacci, F., & Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579-594. google scholar
  • Cheung, K. Y., & Lin, P. (2004). Spillover effects of FDI on innovation in china: Evidence from the provincial data. China Economic Review, 15(1), 25-44. google scholar
  • Ciarreta, A., & Zarraga, A. (2010). Economic growth-electricity consumption causality in 12 european countries: A dynamic panel data approach. Energy Policy, 28, 3790-3796. google scholar
  • Çakırer, M. A. (2020). İç girişimcilik ve inovasyon. Osman Yılmaz (Ed.), İnovasyon yönetimi içinde (1.Baskı, ss.113-127). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Çakmak, U., & Tanrıverdi, A. (2021). İnovasyon sürecinde Türkiye’nin konumuna ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 56(1), 470-494. google scholar
  • Danylenko, Yu. A. (2018). Characteristics and classification of innovation and innovation process. Science and Innovation, 14(3), 14-26. google scholar
  • De Mel, S., McKenzie, D. J., & Woodruff, C. M. (2009). Innovative firms or innovative owners? Determinants of innovation in micro, small, and medium enterprises. Determinants of Innovation in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (May 1, 2009). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 4934. google scholar
  • Erbaşlar, G. (2019). İnovasyon yönetimi (1. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Erdil, T. S., Aydoğan, S., Ayar, B., Güvendik, Ö., Diler, S., & Gusinac, K. (2018). İnovasyon performansının rekabet gücü, firma performansı ve ihracat performansı üzerindeki etkisi: Birleşme ve satın alma işlemleri üzerine bir araştırma. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 40(2), 137-166. google scholar
  • Elverdi, S., & Atik, H. (2020). Türkiye’de inovasyon ölçümüne yönelik bir değerlendirme. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Özel Sayı, 695-712. google scholar
  • Fikirli, Ö., & Çetin, A. K., (2017). İktisadi doktrinde schumpeteryan yaratıcı yıkımdan yaratıcı birikime. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 6(1), 27-64. google scholar
  • Fu, X., & Yang, Q. G. (2009). Exploring the cross-country gap in patenting: A stochastic frontier approach. Research Policy, 38(7), 1203-1213. google scholar
  • Fu, X., & Gong, Y. (2011). Indigenous and foreign innovation efforts and drivers of technological upgrading: Evidence from china. World development, 39(7), 1213-1225. google scholar
  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899-933. google scholar
  • Genç, M. C., & Atasoy Y. (2010). Ar-Ge harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Panel veri analizi. The Journal of Knowledge Economy & Knowledge Management/Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, V(II), 27-34. google scholar
  • Göçer, İ. (2013). Ar-Ge harcamalarının yüksek teknolojili ürün ihracatı, dış ticaret dengesi ve ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkileri. Maliye Dergisi, 165, 215-240. google scholar
  • Grego-Planer, D., & Kus, A. (2020). Determinants of innovation activities in small enterprises: A model approach. European Research Studies Journal, XXIII(Special 1), 137-148. google scholar
  • Grossmann, A., Love, I., & Orlov, A. G. (2014). The dynamics of exchange rate volatility: A panel VAR approach. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 33, 1-27. google scholar
  • Guerello, C. (2014). The cost of deviating from the optimal monetary policy: A panel VAR analysis. Journal of Financial Stability, 15, 210-229. google scholar
  • Güler, E. Ö., & Veysikarani, D. (2018). OECD ülkelerinin inovasyon göstergeleri açısından çok değişkenli istatistiksel analizlerle karşılaştırılması. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 157-168. google scholar
  • Gülmez, A., & Yardımcıoğlu, F. (2012). OECD ülkelerinde ar-ge harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Panel eşbütünleşme ve panel nedensellik analizi (1990-2010). Maliye Dergisi, 163, 335-353. google scholar
  • Gülmez, A., & Akpolat A. G. (2014). Ar-Ge & İnovasyon ve ekonomik büyüme: Türkiye ve AB örneği için dinamik panel veri analizi. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(2), 1-17. google scholar
  • Güloğlu, B., & Tekin, B. (2012). A panel causality analysis of the relationship among research and development, innovation, and economic growth in high-income OECD Countries. Eurasian Economic Review, 2(1), 32-47. google scholar
  • Güloğlu, B., Tekin, R. B., & Sarıdoğan, E. (2012). Economic determinants of technological progress in G7 countries: A re-examination. Economic Letters, 116, 604-608. google scholar
  • Hartwig, J. (2010). Is health capital formation good for long-term economic growth?-Panel Granger-causality evidence for OECD countries. Journal of Macroeconomics, 32(1), 314-325. google scholar
  • Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., & Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data, Econometrica, 56(6), 1371-1395. google scholar
  • Hu, M., & Mathews, J. A. (2005). National innovative capacity in east asia, Research Policy, 34, 1322-1349. google scholar
  • Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. google scholar
  • Işık, N., & Kılınç, E. C. (2016). İnovasyon-temelli ekonomi: Seçilmiş ülkeler üzerine bir uygulama. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 13-27. google scholar
  • Janjic, I., & Radenovic, T. (2019). The importance of managing innovation in modern enterprises. EKOHOMHKA, 65(3), 45-54. google scholar
  • Jefferson, G. H, Huamao, B., Xiajing, G., & Xiaoyun, Y. (2002). R and D performance in chinese industry, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1-47. google scholar
  • Kırılmaz, S. K. (2020). İnsan kaynakları yönetiminin inovasyona etkileri. Osman Yılmaz (Ed.), İnovasyon yönetimi içinde (1.Baskı, ss.21-51). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Kotsemir, M. N., Abroskin, A. S., & Dirk, M. (2013). Innovation concepts and typology-an evolutionary discussion. national research university higher school of economics, Basic Research Program Working Papers, Series: Science, Technology and Innovation WP BRP 05/ STI/2013. google scholar
  • Krammer, S. M. (2009). Drivers of national innovation in transition: Evidence from a panel of eastern european countries. Research Policy, 38(5), 845-860. google scholar
  • Lebel, P. (2008). The role of creative innovation in economic growth: Some international comparisons. Journal of Asian Economics, 19, 334-347. google scholar
  • Lee, C. (2003). Determinants of innovation in the malaysian manufacturing sector: An econometric analysis of the firm level, Centre on Regulation and Competition Working Paper Series, 60. google scholar
  • Lee, S., Nam, Y., Lee, S., & Son, H. (2016). Determinants of ICT innovations: A cross-country empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 71-77. google scholar
  • Leeuwen, G., & Klomp, L. (2001). On the contribution of innovation to multi-factor productivity growth, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Department for Science and Technology Statistics. google scholar
  • Levin, A., Lin, C., & Chu, C. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. google scholar
  • Lin, E. S., & Ali, H. E. (2009). Military spending and inequality: Panel granger causality test. Journal of Peace Research, 46(5), 671-685. google scholar
  • Loof, H., & Heshmati, A. (2002). On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis, SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, 446, 1-36. google scholar
  • Love, I., & Zicchino, L. (2006). Financial development and dynamic investment behavior: Evidence from panel VAR. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 46, 190-210. google scholar
  • Malik, S. (2019). Macroeconomic determinants of innovation: Evidence from asian countries. Global Business Review, 1-15. google scholar
  • Mutlu, B., & Er, A. (2003). Design innovation: Historical and theoretical perspectives on product innovation by design. 5th European Academy of Design Conference, Barcelona, http://www. ub.edu/5ead/PDF/1/MutluEr.pdf, 18.02.2022, 1-22. google scholar
  • O’Connell, P. (1998). The overvaluation of purchasing power parity. Journal of International Economics, 44, 1-19. google scholar
  • Oğuztürk, B. S., & Özaslan, A. (2018). Kalkınma ve inovasyon ilişkisi: Türkiye, Almanya, İngiltere, Çin, Güney Kore, Japonya ve Singapur üzerine bir araştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 79-96. google scholar
  • Oktay, F., Çetin, M., & Demirbilek, M. (2020). İnovasyon yönetiminde kavramsal bir çerçeve. Münevver Çetin & İsmail Karsantık (Ed.), İnovasyon Yönetiminde Stratejiler ve Süreçler içinde (1.Basım, ss.1-28.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, Third Edition, Paris, https:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5889925/OSLO-EN.PDF, 19.02.2022. google scholar
  • Özbay, F., Arıcan, M., & Oğuztürk, B. S. (2021) Çin rüyasının gerçekleşmesinde inovasyonun önemi: Büyüme ve inovasyon ilişkisi üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 413-437. google scholar
  • Özbek, H., & Atik, H. (2013). İnovasyon göstergeleri bakımından Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri arasındaki yeri: İstatistiksel bir analiz. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 42, 193-210. google scholar
  • Özdemir, N. (2020). İnovasyon yönetiminin psikolojik temelleri. Münevver Çetin & İsmail Karsantık (Ed.), İnovasyon yönetiminde stratejiler ve süreçler içinde (1.Basım, ss.91-106). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Özer, M. & Çiftçi, N. (2009). Ar-Ge tabanlı içsel büyüme modelleri ve ar-ge harcamalarının ekonomik büyüme üzerine etkisi: OECD ülkeleri panel veri analizi. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(16), 219-240. google scholar
  • Park, W. G. (1995). International R&D spillovers and OECD economic growth, Economic Inquiry, 33(4), 571-591. google scholar
  • Pece, A. M., Simona, O. E. O., & Salisteanu, F. (2015). Innovation and economic growth: An empirical analysis for CEE countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 461-467. google scholar
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2003). A simple panel root test in the presence of cross section dependence, CWPE, 0346. google scholar
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper, 1229, Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich. google scholar
  • Popp, David (2002). Induced innovation and energy prices. The American Economic Review, 92(1), 160-180. google scholar
  • Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Hall, J. H., & Nair, M. (2016). Innovation, financial development and economic growth in eurozone countries. Applied Economics Letters, 23(16), 1141-1144. google scholar
  • Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Research Policy, 31(7), 1053-1067. google scholar
  • Sadraoui, T., & Zina, N. B. (2009). A dynamic panel data analysis for R&D cooperation and economic growth. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 5(4), 218-233. google scholar
  • Saidi, K., & Mbarek, M. B. (2016). Nuclear energy, renewable energy, CO2 emissions, and economic growth for nine developed countries: Evidence from panel granger causality tests. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 88, 364-374. google scholar
  • Saraç, T. B. (2009). Araştırma-geliştirme harcamalarının ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: Panel veri analizi. Anadolu International Conference in Economics. Eskişehir. google scholar
  • Schneider, P. H. (2005). International trade, economic growth and intellectual property rights: A panel data study of developed and developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 78, 529-547. google scholar
  • Sylwester, K. (2001). R&D and economic growth. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 13(4), 71-84. google scholar
  • Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK) (2022). İnovasyon, https://sozluk.gov.tr/,18.02.2022. google scholar
  • Tüylüoğlu, Ş., & Saraç, Ş. (2012). Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde inovasyonun belirleyicileri: ampirik bir analiz. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 7(1), 39-74. google scholar
  • Uzkurt, C. (2017). Yenilik (inovasyon) yönetimi ve yenilikçi örgüt kültürü (kültürel, yönetimsel ve makro yaklaşım) (2. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta Basım. google scholar
  • Varsakelis, N. C. (2006). Education, political institutions and innovative activity. Research Policy, 35, 1083-1090. google scholar
  • Wang, C., & Kafouros, M. I. (2009). What factors determine innovation performance in emerging economies? Evidence from china. International Business Review, 18(6), 606-616. google scholar
  • Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2017). Panel zaman serileri analizi-stata uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Akduğan, U., & Doğan, N. (2022). İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(36), 111-136. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470


AMA

Akduğan U, Doğan N. İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 2022;0(36):111-136. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470


ABNT

Akduğan, U.; Doğan, N. İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 36, p. 111-136, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Akduğan, Umut, and Nilhun Doğan. 2022. “İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği.” EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 36: 111-136. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470


Chicago: Humanities Style

Akduğan, Umut, and Nilhun Doğan. “İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği.” EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 36 (Sep. 2024): 111-136. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470


Harvard: Australian Style

Akduğan, U & Doğan, N 2022, 'İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği', EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 36, pp. 111-136, viewed 16 Sep. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Akduğan, U. and Doğan, N. (2022) ‘İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği’, EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(36), pp. 111-136. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470 (16 Sep. 2024).


MLA

Akduğan, Umut, and Nilhun Doğan. “İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği.” EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 36, 2022, pp. 111-136. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470


Vancouver

Akduğan U, Doğan N. İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics [Internet]. 16 Sep. 2024 [cited 16 Sep. 2024];0(36):111-136. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470 doi: 10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470


ISNAD

Akduğan, Umut - Doğan, Nilhun. “İnovasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği”. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0/36 (Sep. 2024): 111-136. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.1102470



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim12.04.2022
Kabul26.04.2022
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma07.06.2022

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.