Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 108 - 137, 30.06.2023

Fatih Çelik

https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.1088189

Öz

Küresel ekonomide faktör maliyetine dayalı rekabet üstünlüğünün yerini yeniliklere dayalı rekabet üstünlüğü almıştır. Bu gelişmeler üzerine yenilik politikaları geliştirilmiştir. Yenilik konusunda ulusal, bölgesel ve sektörel düzeyde yenilik sistemleri kurulmuştur. Avrupa Birliği (AB), yenilik politikalarının gelişmesine önemli bir katkıda bulunmuştur. Bölgeler arası gelişmişlik farklılıklarını azaltmak için Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi (BYSt) geliştirmiştir. Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi, kısaca yeniliklere dayalı bölgesel kalkınmanın dinamiklerini harekete geçirmeye yönelik bir eylem planıdır. Avrupa Birliği, yapısal fonlarla desteklediği Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’ni uygulama konusunda da Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları’na (BKA’lar) öncülük görevini vermiştir.
Türkiye’de de kimi Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları, Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi geliştirmiştir. Bunlardan ilki, İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı’dır (İZKA). Bu çalışmada, İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı’nın 2012 yılında geliştirdiği İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi (İzmir BYSt), nitel araştırma yöntemleri ile incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin genel olarak Avrupa Birliği’ndeki Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejileri ile benzer aşamalarda geliştirildiği; ancak Avrupa deneyimlerine kıyasla bazı eksiklikleri olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bölgesel Yenilik Sistemi (BYS) Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi (BYSt) İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı (İZKA) İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi (İzmir BYSt)

Kaynakça

  • Asheim, B. T. and Isaksen, A. (1996). Location, Agglomeration and Innovation: Towards Regional Innovation Systems in Norway? The STEP Group, Norway, Report No: 13, 52 p.
  • Benneworth, P. and Dassen, A. (2011). Strengthening Global-Local Connectivity in Regional Innovation Strategies: Implications for Regional Innovation Policy, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 70 p.
  • Brown, R. (2000). Cluster Dynamics in Theory and Practice with Application to Scotland, 30 p.
  • Camagni, R. and Capello, R. (2012). Regional Innovation Patterns and the EU Regional Policy Reform: Towards Smart Innovation Policies, 52. ERSA Conference, 25 p.
  • Charles, D. R. (2006). Universities as Key Knowledge Infrastructures in Regional Innovation Systems. Innovation, 19 (1), 117-130.
  • Charles, D. R., Nauwelaers, C., Mouton, B. and Bradley, D. (2000). Assessment of The Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructers (RITTS) Scheme. CURDS (The University of Newcastle) and MERIT(The University of Maastricht), 106 p.
  • Cooke, P. (2001). From Technopoles to Regional Innovation Systems: The Evolution of Localised Technology Development Policy, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 24, 21-40.
  • Cooke, P. (2004). The Role of Research in Regional Innovation Systems: New Models Meeting Knowledge Economy Demands, International Journal of Technology Management, 28, 507-533.
  • Cooke, P. and Memedoviç, O. (2003). Strategies for Regional Innovation Systems: Learning Transfer and Applications, UNIDO World Industrial Development Report, 25 p.
  • Cooke, P., Roper, S., Wylie, P. (2002). Developing a Regional Innovation Strategy for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Economic Council Occasional Paper No: 14. 79 p.
  • Çelik, F. (2015). Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının Yeniliklere Katkıları: Teori, Deneyimler ve Türkiye Uygulamalarının Değerlendirilmesi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Kayseri.
  • Çelik, F. (2016). İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı (İZKA) Örneğinde Kalkınma Kurulu’nun Gündem Belirleme Faaliyetlerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6 (2), 45-67.
  • Çelik, F. (2017a). Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansı (BKA) Deneyimlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi: İngiltere ve Türkiye Örnekleri, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19 (2), 145-171.
  • Çelik, F. (2017b). İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı (İZKA) Kalkınma Kurulu’nun Etkinliğini Artırma Girişimleri, Süleyman Demirel Ün. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2 (27), 55-80.
  • Çelik, F. (2018a). Shannon Kalkınma Ajansı’nın (İrlanda) Yenilikçilik Faaliyetleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9 (2), 14-36.
  • Çelik, F. (2018b). Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları’nın Etki Analizi: İZKA ve ÇKA Örnekleri, Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16 (4), 1-22.
  • Çelik, F. (2018c). İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı Örneğinde Kalkınma Kurulu’nun Yönetişim Yaklaşımı İle Analizi, Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Der., 8 (2), 364-386.
  • Çelik, F. (2019a). Yerel Kalkınmada Teknopark Modeli: Emilia-Romagna (İtalya) ve Shannon (İrlanda) Bölgeleri Örnekleri, Afyon Kocatepe Ün. Sosyal Bilimler Der., 21 (4), 1112-1129.
  • Çelik, F. (2019b). Styria Kalkınma Ajansı’nın (SFG) Yenilikçilik Faaliyetleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 74 (3), 875-893.
  • Çelik, F. (2019c). Emilia-Romagna Bölgesi (İtalya) Yenilik Stratejisi’nin (PRRIITT) Değerlendirilmesi, Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 19 (37), 1-25.
  • Çelik, F. (2019d). Yerel Kalkınmada Üniversite-Kalkınma Ajansı İşbirliği: Türkiye (İzmir) Örneği, Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (1), 41-62.
  • Çelik, F. (2019e). Emilia-Romagna Bölgesi’ne (İtalya) Özgü Ekonomik Kalkınma Modeli: Emilian Modeli, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (2), 45-55.
  • Çelik, F. (2020). Styria Bölgesi (Avusturya) Yenilik Sistemi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11 (2), 81-96.
  • Dick, J. and Payne, D. (2005). Regional Sectoral Support: A Review of The Construction Industry, SMEs and Regional Innovation Strategies Across Europe, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 9, 55-63.
  • Doloreux, D. and Parto, S. (2005). Regional Innovation Systems: Current Discourse and Unresolved Issues, Technology in Society, 27 (2), 133-153.
  • Dulupçu, M. A. (2004). Bölgesel Yenilik (İnovasyon) Stratejileri: Türkiye’de Bölgesel Gelişme İçin Alternatif Olabilir mi? 2004 Türkiye İktisat Kongresi içinde, 39-66.
  • EC (European Commission) (2002). Regional Innovation Strategies Under The European Regional Development Fund Innovative Actions 2000-2002, 133 p.
  • EC (2007a). Innovative Strategies and Actions: Results from 15 Years of Regional Experimentation, 30 p.
  • EC (2007b). Innovation Clusters in Europe: A Statistical Analysis and Overview of Current Policy Support, 63 p.
  • EC (2011). Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, 43 p.
  • Eren, B. S. (2020). Bölgesel Yenilik Sistemlerinde İşletmelerin Finansman Kaynakları: İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Sistemleri Örneği, Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7 (1), 96-112.
  • Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development, EASST Review, 14, 14-19.
  • EUA (European University Association) (2019). The Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems. (Ed.: Dr. Sybille Reichert), 102 p.
  • EURADA (European Association of Development Agencies) (1999). Creation, Development and Management of RDAs. Does it have to be so difficult?, 169 p.
  • Hughes, J. T. (1998). The Role of Development Agencies in Regional Policy: An Academic and Practitioner Approach, Urban Studies 35 (4), 615-626.
  • Isaksen, A. and Trippl, M. (2014). Regional Industrial Path Development in Different Regional Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis. Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Lund University, Sweden.
  • İZKA (İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı) (2010). İzmir Bölge Planı 2010-2013, 161 s.
  • İZKA (2011). İzmir’de Ar-Ge ve Yenilik Ekosistemi Mevcut Durum Analizi, 52 s.
  • İZKA (2012a). İzmir Bölgesel Ar-Ge ve Yenilik Kapasitesi Analizi, 123 s.
  • İZKA (2012b). İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi, 110 s.
  • İZKA (2012c). İzmir’de Ar-Ge ve Yenilik Ekosisteminin Mevcut Durumu, 52 s.
  • İZKA (2016). İzmir Yenilik Göstergeleri ve Yenilik Ekosisteminin Analizi, 203 s.
  • İZKA (2018). İzmir Yenilik Ekosistemi İzleme Raporu, 8 s.
  • İZKA (2019a). İzmir Yenilik Ekosistemi İzleme Raporu, 16 s.
  • İZKA (2019b). 2018 Faaliyet Raporu, 116 s.
  • İZKA (2020). 2020 Çalışma Programı. 84 s.
  • Lagendijk, A. and Rutten, R. (2003). Associational Dilemmas in Regional Innovation Strategy Development: Regional Innovation Support Organisations and the RIS/RITTS Programmes. Economic Geography of Higher Education (Ed.: R. Rutten, F. Boekema and E. Kuijpers), 204-226.
  • Landabaso, M. (1997). The Promotion of Innovation in Regional Policy: Proposals for a Regional Innovation Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9, 1-24.
  • Landabaso, M., Oughton, C. and Morgan, K. (1999). Learning Regions in Europe: Theory, Policy and Practice Through The RIS Experience, 3rd International Conference on Technology and Innovation Policy: Global Knowledge Partnerships, Creating Value for the 21st Century, USA, 24 p.
  • Landabaso, M. and Reid, A. (1999). Developing Regional Innovation Strategies: The European Commission as Animateur, in Regional Innovation Strategies. Eds. Morgan, K. and Nauwelaers, C., Regional Studies Association, 18-38.
  • Landabaso, M. and Youds, R. (1999). Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS): The Development of a Regional Innovation Capacity, SIR-Mittleilungen und Berichte, Salzburg (Austria).
  • Landabaso, M. and Mouton, B. (2005). Towards a New Regional Innovation Policy: Eight Years of European Experience Through Innovative Actions. European Commission - DG Regional Policy, Bruxelles, 30 p.
  • Metin, H. (2010). Social and Institutional Impacts of Mersin Regional Innovation Strategy: Stakeholders’ Perspective, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Ankara.
  • Morgan, K. (2016). Nurturing Novelty: Regional Innovation Policy in The Age of Smart Specialisation, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 1-15.
  • Morgan, K. and Nauwelaers, C. (1999). A Regional Perspective on Innovation: From Theory to Strategy, in Regional Innovation Strategies. (Eds. Morgan, K. and Nauwelaers, C.) Regional Studies Association, 1-17.
  • Morisson, A. and Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional Innovation Governance and Place-based Policies: Design, Implementation and Implications, Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6 (1), 101-116.
  • OECD (2011). Regions and Innovation Policy, 315 p.
  • Oughton, C., Landabaso, M. and Morgan, K. (2002). The Regional Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27 (1), 97-110.
  • Park, S. O. (2001). Regional Innovation Strategies in the Knowledge-Based Economy, GeoJournal, 53 (1), 29-38.
  • Pietrobelli, C. and Rabelloti, R. (2002). Business Development Service Centres in Italy, An Empirical Analysis of Three Regional Experiences: Emilia Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto, United Nations ECLAC, 84 p.
  • Pino, R. M. and Ortega, A. M. (2018). Regional Innovation Systems: Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for Future Research, Cogent Business & Management, 5 (1).
  • Porter, M. (2000). Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy, Economic Development Quarterly, 15-34.
  • Raines, P. (2001). Local or National Competitive Advantage? The Tensions in Cluster Development Policy, European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde, 31 p.
  • Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in The Knowledge Society, Industry and Higher Education, 27 (3), 237-262.
  • Ranga, M. and Temel, S. (2018). From a Nascent to a Mature Regional Innovation System: What Drives the Transition?. In Innovation and the Entrepreneurial University, 213-242.
  • Schrempf, B., Kaplan, D. and Schroeder, D. (2013). National, Regional, and Sectoral Systems of Innovation - An overview, Report for FP7 Project “Progress”.
  • Tiryakioglu, M. and Alcin, S. (2012). Regional Innovation Strategies: Europe and Turkey. in Regional Development: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Application (Ed.: Mehdi Khosrow), 209-225.
  • Tödtling, F. (2001). Industrial Clusters and Cluster Policies in Austrian Regions. Cluster Policies-Cluster Development? Ed.: A. Mariussen. Stockholm, 59-78.
  • Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2005). One Size Fits All? Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach, Research Policy, 34, 1203-1219.
  • Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2018). Regional Innovation Policies for New Path Development - beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views, European Planning Studies, 26 (9), 1779-1795.
  • Trippl, M., Sinozic, T. and Smith, H. L. (2012). The “Third Mission” of Universities and The Region: Comparing the UK, Sweden and Austria, 52nd Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Bratislava, Slovakia, 24 p.
  • Trippl, M., Sinozic, T. and Smith, H. L. (2014). The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in The UK, Sweden and Austria.
  • Uyarra, E. (2008). What is Evolutionary About ‘Regional Systems of Innovation’? Implications for Regional Policy, Manchester Business School Working Paper, 23 p.
  • Uyarra, E. and Haarich, S. N. (2002). Evaluation, Foresight and Participation as New Elements For Regional Innovation Policy Practice: Lessons From The Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS), ERSA Conference Dortmund, 20 p.
  • Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K. (2009). From Regional Innovation Systems to Regions as Innovation Policy Spaces, Openloc Working Papers Series, 18 p.
  • Vecchio, P. D. (2008). Regional Innovation Strategies in Europe A Comparative Study of Emilia-Romagna and Friuli-Venezia-Giulia. 47 p.

A General Evaluation Of Izmir Regional Innovation Strategy

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 108 - 137, 30.06.2023

Fatih Çelik

https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.1088189

Öz

In the global economy, competitive advantage based on factor cost has been replaced by competitive advantage based on innovations. Innovation policies have been developed on these developments. Innovation systems have been established at the national, regional and sectoral level. The European Union (EU) has made a significant contribution to the development of innovation policies. A Regional Innovation Strategy (RISt) has been developed to reduce the development disparities between regions. The Regional Innovation Strategy is an action plan to activate the dynamics of regional development based on innovation. The EU has given the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) the lead role in implementing the Regional Innovation Strategy which it supports with structural funds.
In Turkey some Regional Development Agencies have developed a Regional Innovation Strategy. The first of these is Izmir Development Agency (IZKA). In this study the Izmir Regional Innovation Strategy (Izmir BYSt) that was developed by Izmir Development Agency in 2012 was examined with qualitative research methods. As a result of the analysis it was concluded that Izmir Regional Innovation Strategy was generally developed at similar stages with the Regional Innovation Strategies in the European Union; however it has been determined that there are some deficiencies when compared with the European experiences.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Regional Innovation System (RIS) Regional Innovation Strategy (RISt) Izmir Development Agency (IZKA) Izmir Regional Innovation Strategy (Izmir RISt)

Kaynakça

  • Asheim, B. T. and Isaksen, A. (1996). Location, Agglomeration and Innovation: Towards Regional Innovation Systems in Norway? The STEP Group, Norway, Report No: 13, 52 p.
  • Benneworth, P. and Dassen, A. (2011). Strengthening Global-Local Connectivity in Regional Innovation Strategies: Implications for Regional Innovation Policy, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 70 p.
  • Brown, R. (2000). Cluster Dynamics in Theory and Practice with Application to Scotland, 30 p.
  • Camagni, R. and Capello, R. (2012). Regional Innovation Patterns and the EU Regional Policy Reform: Towards Smart Innovation Policies, 52. ERSA Conference, 25 p.
  • Charles, D. R. (2006). Universities as Key Knowledge Infrastructures in Regional Innovation Systems. Innovation, 19 (1), 117-130.
  • Charles, D. R., Nauwelaers, C., Mouton, B. and Bradley, D. (2000). Assessment of The Regional Innovation and Technology Transfer Strategies and Infrastructers (RITTS) Scheme. CURDS (The University of Newcastle) and MERIT(The University of Maastricht), 106 p.
  • Cooke, P. (2001). From Technopoles to Regional Innovation Systems: The Evolution of Localised Technology Development Policy, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 24, 21-40.
  • Cooke, P. (2004). The Role of Research in Regional Innovation Systems: New Models Meeting Knowledge Economy Demands, International Journal of Technology Management, 28, 507-533.
  • Cooke, P. and Memedoviç, O. (2003). Strategies for Regional Innovation Systems: Learning Transfer and Applications, UNIDO World Industrial Development Report, 25 p.
  • Cooke, P., Roper, S., Wylie, P. (2002). Developing a Regional Innovation Strategy for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Economic Council Occasional Paper No: 14. 79 p.
  • Çelik, F. (2015). Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının Yeniliklere Katkıları: Teori, Deneyimler ve Türkiye Uygulamalarının Değerlendirilmesi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Kayseri.
  • Çelik, F. (2016). İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı (İZKA) Örneğinde Kalkınma Kurulu’nun Gündem Belirleme Faaliyetlerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6 (2), 45-67.
  • Çelik, F. (2017a). Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansı (BKA) Deneyimlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi: İngiltere ve Türkiye Örnekleri, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19 (2), 145-171.
  • Çelik, F. (2017b). İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı (İZKA) Kalkınma Kurulu’nun Etkinliğini Artırma Girişimleri, Süleyman Demirel Ün. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2 (27), 55-80.
  • Çelik, F. (2018a). Shannon Kalkınma Ajansı’nın (İrlanda) Yenilikçilik Faaliyetleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9 (2), 14-36.
  • Çelik, F. (2018b). Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları’nın Etki Analizi: İZKA ve ÇKA Örnekleri, Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16 (4), 1-22.
  • Çelik, F. (2018c). İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı Örneğinde Kalkınma Kurulu’nun Yönetişim Yaklaşımı İle Analizi, Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Der., 8 (2), 364-386.
  • Çelik, F. (2019a). Yerel Kalkınmada Teknopark Modeli: Emilia-Romagna (İtalya) ve Shannon (İrlanda) Bölgeleri Örnekleri, Afyon Kocatepe Ün. Sosyal Bilimler Der., 21 (4), 1112-1129.
  • Çelik, F. (2019b). Styria Kalkınma Ajansı’nın (SFG) Yenilikçilik Faaliyetleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 74 (3), 875-893.
  • Çelik, F. (2019c). Emilia-Romagna Bölgesi (İtalya) Yenilik Stratejisi’nin (PRRIITT) Değerlendirilmesi, Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 19 (37), 1-25.
  • Çelik, F. (2019d). Yerel Kalkınmada Üniversite-Kalkınma Ajansı İşbirliği: Türkiye (İzmir) Örneği, Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (1), 41-62.
  • Çelik, F. (2019e). Emilia-Romagna Bölgesi’ne (İtalya) Özgü Ekonomik Kalkınma Modeli: Emilian Modeli, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (2), 45-55.
  • Çelik, F. (2020). Styria Bölgesi (Avusturya) Yenilik Sistemi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11 (2), 81-96.
  • Dick, J. and Payne, D. (2005). Regional Sectoral Support: A Review of The Construction Industry, SMEs and Regional Innovation Strategies Across Europe, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 9, 55-63.
  • Doloreux, D. and Parto, S. (2005). Regional Innovation Systems: Current Discourse and Unresolved Issues, Technology in Society, 27 (2), 133-153.
  • Dulupçu, M. A. (2004). Bölgesel Yenilik (İnovasyon) Stratejileri: Türkiye’de Bölgesel Gelişme İçin Alternatif Olabilir mi? 2004 Türkiye İktisat Kongresi içinde, 39-66.
  • EC (European Commission) (2002). Regional Innovation Strategies Under The European Regional Development Fund Innovative Actions 2000-2002, 133 p.
  • EC (2007a). Innovative Strategies and Actions: Results from 15 Years of Regional Experimentation, 30 p.
  • EC (2007b). Innovation Clusters in Europe: A Statistical Analysis and Overview of Current Policy Support, 63 p.
  • EC (2011). Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, 43 p.
  • Eren, B. S. (2020). Bölgesel Yenilik Sistemlerinde İşletmelerin Finansman Kaynakları: İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Sistemleri Örneği, Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7 (1), 96-112.
  • Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development, EASST Review, 14, 14-19.
  • EUA (European University Association) (2019). The Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems. (Ed.: Dr. Sybille Reichert), 102 p.
  • EURADA (European Association of Development Agencies) (1999). Creation, Development and Management of RDAs. Does it have to be so difficult?, 169 p.
  • Hughes, J. T. (1998). The Role of Development Agencies in Regional Policy: An Academic and Practitioner Approach, Urban Studies 35 (4), 615-626.
  • Isaksen, A. and Trippl, M. (2014). Regional Industrial Path Development in Different Regional Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis. Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Lund University, Sweden.
  • İZKA (İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı) (2010). İzmir Bölge Planı 2010-2013, 161 s.
  • İZKA (2011). İzmir’de Ar-Ge ve Yenilik Ekosistemi Mevcut Durum Analizi, 52 s.
  • İZKA (2012a). İzmir Bölgesel Ar-Ge ve Yenilik Kapasitesi Analizi, 123 s.
  • İZKA (2012b). İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi, 110 s.
  • İZKA (2012c). İzmir’de Ar-Ge ve Yenilik Ekosisteminin Mevcut Durumu, 52 s.
  • İZKA (2016). İzmir Yenilik Göstergeleri ve Yenilik Ekosisteminin Analizi, 203 s.
  • İZKA (2018). İzmir Yenilik Ekosistemi İzleme Raporu, 8 s.
  • İZKA (2019a). İzmir Yenilik Ekosistemi İzleme Raporu, 16 s.
  • İZKA (2019b). 2018 Faaliyet Raporu, 116 s.
  • İZKA (2020). 2020 Çalışma Programı. 84 s.
  • Lagendijk, A. and Rutten, R. (2003). Associational Dilemmas in Regional Innovation Strategy Development: Regional Innovation Support Organisations and the RIS/RITTS Programmes. Economic Geography of Higher Education (Ed.: R. Rutten, F. Boekema and E. Kuijpers), 204-226.
  • Landabaso, M. (1997). The Promotion of Innovation in Regional Policy: Proposals for a Regional Innovation Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9, 1-24.
  • Landabaso, M., Oughton, C. and Morgan, K. (1999). Learning Regions in Europe: Theory, Policy and Practice Through The RIS Experience, 3rd International Conference on Technology and Innovation Policy: Global Knowledge Partnerships, Creating Value for the 21st Century, USA, 24 p.
  • Landabaso, M. and Reid, A. (1999). Developing Regional Innovation Strategies: The European Commission as Animateur, in Regional Innovation Strategies. Eds. Morgan, K. and Nauwelaers, C., Regional Studies Association, 18-38.
  • Landabaso, M. and Youds, R. (1999). Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS): The Development of a Regional Innovation Capacity, SIR-Mittleilungen und Berichte, Salzburg (Austria).
  • Landabaso, M. and Mouton, B. (2005). Towards a New Regional Innovation Policy: Eight Years of European Experience Through Innovative Actions. European Commission - DG Regional Policy, Bruxelles, 30 p.
  • Metin, H. (2010). Social and Institutional Impacts of Mersin Regional Innovation Strategy: Stakeholders’ Perspective, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Ankara.
  • Morgan, K. (2016). Nurturing Novelty: Regional Innovation Policy in The Age of Smart Specialisation, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 1-15.
  • Morgan, K. and Nauwelaers, C. (1999). A Regional Perspective on Innovation: From Theory to Strategy, in Regional Innovation Strategies. (Eds. Morgan, K. and Nauwelaers, C.) Regional Studies Association, 1-17.
  • Morisson, A. and Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional Innovation Governance and Place-based Policies: Design, Implementation and Implications, Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6 (1), 101-116.
  • OECD (2011). Regions and Innovation Policy, 315 p.
  • Oughton, C., Landabaso, M. and Morgan, K. (2002). The Regional Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27 (1), 97-110.
  • Park, S. O. (2001). Regional Innovation Strategies in the Knowledge-Based Economy, GeoJournal, 53 (1), 29-38.
  • Pietrobelli, C. and Rabelloti, R. (2002). Business Development Service Centres in Italy, An Empirical Analysis of Three Regional Experiences: Emilia Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto, United Nations ECLAC, 84 p.
  • Pino, R. M. and Ortega, A. M. (2018). Regional Innovation Systems: Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for Future Research, Cogent Business & Management, 5 (1).
  • Porter, M. (2000). Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy, Economic Development Quarterly, 15-34.
  • Raines, P. (2001). Local or National Competitive Advantage? The Tensions in Cluster Development Policy, European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde, 31 p.
  • Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in The Knowledge Society, Industry and Higher Education, 27 (3), 237-262.
  • Ranga, M. and Temel, S. (2018). From a Nascent to a Mature Regional Innovation System: What Drives the Transition?. In Innovation and the Entrepreneurial University, 213-242.
  • Schrempf, B., Kaplan, D. and Schroeder, D. (2013). National, Regional, and Sectoral Systems of Innovation - An overview, Report for FP7 Project “Progress”.
  • Tiryakioglu, M. and Alcin, S. (2012). Regional Innovation Strategies: Europe and Turkey. in Regional Development: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Application (Ed.: Mehdi Khosrow), 209-225.
  • Tödtling, F. (2001). Industrial Clusters and Cluster Policies in Austrian Regions. Cluster Policies-Cluster Development? Ed.: A. Mariussen. Stockholm, 59-78.
  • Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2005). One Size Fits All? Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach, Research Policy, 34, 1203-1219.
  • Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2018). Regional Innovation Policies for New Path Development - beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views, European Planning Studies, 26 (9), 1779-1795.
  • Trippl, M., Sinozic, T. and Smith, H. L. (2012). The “Third Mission” of Universities and The Region: Comparing the UK, Sweden and Austria, 52nd Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Bratislava, Slovakia, 24 p.
  • Trippl, M., Sinozic, T. and Smith, H. L. (2014). The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in The UK, Sweden and Austria.
  • Uyarra, E. (2008). What is Evolutionary About ‘Regional Systems of Innovation’? Implications for Regional Policy, Manchester Business School Working Paper, 23 p.
  • Uyarra, E. and Haarich, S. N. (2002). Evaluation, Foresight and Participation as New Elements For Regional Innovation Policy Practice: Lessons From The Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS), ERSA Conference Dortmund, 20 p.
  • Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K. (2009). From Regional Innovation Systems to Regions as Innovation Policy Spaces, Openloc Working Papers Series, 18 p.
  • Vecchio, P. D. (2008). Regional Innovation Strategies in Europe A Comparative Study of Emilia-Romagna and Friuli-Venezia-Giulia. 47 p.
Toplam 76 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Fatih Çelik 0000-0002-4486-5722

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Haziran 2023
Kabul Tarihi 19 Haziran 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Çelik, F. (2023). İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1), 108-137. https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.1088189
AMA Çelik F. İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi. ASED. Haziran 2023;7(1):108-137. doi:10.38122/ased.1088189
Chicago Çelik, Fatih. “İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi”. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 7, sy. 1 (Haziran 2023): 108-37. https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.1088189.
EndNote Çelik F (01 Haziran 2023) İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 7 1 108–137.
IEEE F. Çelik, “İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi”, ASED, c. 7, sy. 1, ss. 108–137, 2023, doi: 10.38122/ased.1088189.
ISNAD Çelik, Fatih. “İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi”. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 7/1 (Haziran 2023), 108-137. https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.1088189.
JAMA Çelik F. İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi. ASED. 2023;7:108–137.
MLA Çelik, Fatih. “İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi”. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, c. 7, sy. 1, 2023, ss. 108-37, doi:10.38122/ased.1088189.
Vancouver Çelik F. İzmir Bölgesel Yenilik Stratejisi’nin Genel Bir Değerlendirmesi. ASED. 2023;7(1):108-37.
 Kapak Resmi İndir