Vol. 8 No. 4 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

IMPLEMENTATION OF A STRUCTURAL EQUALITY MODEL TOWARDS INNOVATION AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH: G20 GROUP COUNTRIES EXAMPLE

PDF (Turkish)
  • Furkan Fahri ALTINTAŞ
Furkan Fahri ALTINTAŞ
Dr,

Published 2020-12-10

Keywords

  • Keywords: Innovation, Global Innovation Index, Economic Growth, Influence
  • İnovasyon,
  • Küresel İnovasyon Endeksi,
  • Ekonomik Büyüme,
  • Etkileme

How to Cite

IMPLEMENTATION OF A STRUCTURAL EQUALITY MODEL TOWARDS INNOVATION AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH: G20 GROUP COUNTRIES EXAMPLE. (2020). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(4), 723-763. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i4.1582

Copyright (c) 2020 Business & Management Studies: An International Journal

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

IMPLEMENTATION OF A STRUCTURAL EQUALITY MODEL TOWARDS INNOVATION AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH: G20 GROUP COUNTRIES EXAMPLE. (2020). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(4), 723-763. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i4.1582

Abstract

  1. LITERATURE

1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT                                  

Schumpeter (1943) states that with the theory of "creative destruction", old technologies will be replaced by new technologies and this can provide economic growth. The new Schumpeterist view, which revises Schumpeter's relationship between innovation and economic growth, confirms the positive relationship between innovation and economic growth, and explains that this relationship does not always have a linear structure. In addition, the new Schumpeterist view thinks that the steps of the states in the fields of science, technology and industry will add more quality to the relationship between innovation and economic growth (Verspagen, 2004).

Within the scope of neoclassical or exogenous growth model, it is explained in Solow's (1956) growth theory that innovation affects economic growth. Because in this theory, it is stated that innovation can be taken as an external variable and technical development and economic growth can be achieved in a stable way thanks to innovation. In this context, Solow (1956) considered the technological dimension as an external factor and thought that the part of labor and capital variables that cannot meet or explain economic growth is achieved by technological development.

Romer (1986), which has an important role in the development of endogenous growth models, states that the drivers of economic growth are innovation activities, especially those related to R&D studies. Romer (1986) emphasized the necessity and importance of technological innovation activities especially for long-term growth.

In addition, Aghion and Howitt (1992) stated that in terms of endogenous growth theories, the R&D dimension in the relationship between innovation and economic growth is the main function of economic growth within the scope of innovation activities. Especially Aghion and Howitt (1992) states that vertical innovations developed in a competitive environment provide economic growth. Because with the vertical innovations realized, patents and a new product formation emerge in the competitive environment. With the innovations obtained in question, subsequent innovation activities will be encouraged more meaningfully. This will increase the momentum for innovation and consequently the sustainability of economic growth and development will be achieved.

Accordingly, countries should take into account their innovation activities in order to have economically sound structures. Because innovation functions for countries to increase their ability to endure the competitive environment and to gain competitive advantage. In this context, countries will be able to achieve economic growth by achieving competitive advantage, and consequently, countries will be able to increase their employment, society's quality of life, living standards and human development levels. The main reason for this is that innovation has a structure that ensures efficiency. Therefore, innovation provides economic growth and indirectly the formation of other economic structures and social developments.

1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE       

The purpose of the study is to determine the impact value of the innovation dimension on economic growth, the most sensitive indicator (variable) in the impact of the innovation dimension on economic growth, and the significance values ​​of the indicators (contribution values ​​to the effective structure) within the scope of the literature-supported innovation dimension affecting the economic growth model.

When the national and international literature is evaluated, there is no study that explains the relationship between the global innovation index indicators and economic growth indicators within the scope of G20 countries with structural equation modeling in the 2008-2019 time period. Therefore, this research is the first study found in the literature that complies with the specified features.

1.3. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE     

This study has contributed to the literature within the scope of empirical findings showing that innovation, which has a theoretical background, provides economic growth like other studies identified. In addition, by determining the contribution values ​​of the indicators or variables in the effective structure between the economic growth dimension of the innovation, it will be possible to determine which innovation or economic growth indicators should be given importance or which innovation or economic growth indicators to increase their performance in order to make the impact of innovation on economic growth more meaningful. Apart from these, the findings determined as a result of the research are a data set for researchers.

  1. DESIGN AND METHOD

2.1. RESEARCH TYPE                                                                               

In this study, the effect of the innovation dimension on economic growth within the scope of the values ​​belonging to the components or variables representing the global innovation index of the G20 countries and economic growth for the year 2020 was examined by structural equation modeling.

2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS                                                           

The problem of the study is the structure of innovation affecting economic growth, the level of contribution to the relationship structure of indicators between innovation and economic growth, and the sensitivity values ​​of indicators in the relationship structure in question.      

2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD                                               

The data set of the research was created from the global innovation indices of the G20 group countries in the relevant reports between the years 2008-2019 and the values ​​of the indicators that determine the economic growth. Country data for the economic growth factor was obtained from the website www.data.imf.org.

2.4. QUANTITATIVE / QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS                 

Findings determined within the scope of the aims of the research were determined by the method of structural equation model.

2.5. RESEARCH MODEL

The model of the research was created within the scope of the effect of the innovation dimension on the economic growth dimension, based on the values ​​of the global innovation index and economic growth indicators of the G20 group countries between the years 2008-2019. In this framework, the indicators used in the research are shown in Table 1 and the model of the research is shown in Figure 1.

Table 1. Indicators Used in the Study

Global Innovation Index (GII)

Economic Growht (EG)

Indicators

Abbreviations

Indicators

Abbreviations

Institutions

INS

Nominal Gross Domestic Product

NGDP

Human Capital and Resarch

HCR

Infrastructure

INF

Market Sophistication

MS

Real Gross Domestic Product

RGDP

Business Sophistication

BS

Knowledge and Technology Output

KTO

Creative Output

CO

 

  1. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. FINDINGS as a RESULT of ANALYSIS                           

Firstly, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to test the conformity of the model to the structure. It was evaluated that the confirmatory factor analysis most suitable for the said structure was primary level confirmatory factor analysis. According to the findings, it was observed that the innovation dimension (global innovation index) had a high impact on economic growth and the model created was confirmed. In the study, it was concluded that the most sensitive indicator for the effect of innovation dimension on economic growth for G20 countries is BS (Business Sophistication). Because, as the innovation dimension affects economic growth, it has been determined that the unit change in the innovation dimension changes the innovation indicator BS more than the other innovation indicators. This is due to the fact that qualified employees and knowledge concentration have a structure that will ensure economic growth. Accordingly, G20 countries primarily focused more on business development, which is one of the fundamentals of economic development in achieving economic growth.

According to G20 countries, it has been determined that the most important innovation indicators in the impact of the innovation dimension on economic growth are INS and HCR. Because, compared to the G20 countries, INS and HCR innovation indicators have created more qualified change in economic growth, and they have contributed more than other innovation indicators in affecting and ensuring the economic growth of these indicators. In this sense, the innovation indicators INS (institutions: political environment, regulatory environment and business environment) and HCR (Human Capital and Research: Education, higher education, research and development) in G20 countries to achieve economic growth, by providing more qualified changes in economic growth than other innovation indicators. They have ensured that the current order and stability in economic growth turn into a different order and stability. Therefore, G20 countries have attached more importance to the innovation indicators INS and HCR compared to other innovation indicators in changing the core of economic growth. This may be due to the fact that these indicators have more basic and priority structures compared to other innovation indicators.   .  

3.2. DISCUSSING the FINDINGS with the LITERATURE        

The research showed consistency with the results of other researchers, except for Shukla (2017), which is mentioned in the literature, within the framework of its significant and positive effects on innovation and economic growth. In this context, this study has contributed to the literature within the scope of empirical findings that innovation provides economic growth, like other studies identified.

 

 

 

  1. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS

4.1. RESULTS of the ARTICLE                                                         

According to the results of the research, it has been determined that the innovation dimension has a significant, positive and high effect on the economic growth dimension. In the research, it was also found that the most sensitive indicator of the effect of innovation dimension on economic growth dimension is BS (Business Sophistication). It has been determined that the indicators that contribute the most to the relational structure between innovation and economic growth dimensions are INS (Institutions) and HCR (Human Capital and Research).

4.2. SUGGESTIONS BASED on RESULTS                                        

G20 countries can further ensure the stability and order of economic growth and economic growth by increasing the relationships and complementarity activities between innovation indicators. Accordingly, G20 countries can raise the high impact of innovation on economic growth to higher levels by primarily increasing the Information and Technology Output (KTO), Creative Output (CO) and Market Sophistication (MS) and other innovation indicators. In this way, G20 countries will be able to work more intensely on innovation, specialize in innovation and ensure that innovation systems, strategies, methods and practices are healthier. In this way, G20 countries will be able to work more intensively on innovation, specialize in innovation and ensure that innovation systems, strategies, methods and practices are healthier. In this sense, the innovation dimension is not only economic growth, but also different (economic development, competitive advantage, economic development) and indirectly affected areas (science, technology, art, sports, medicine, quality of life, welfare level, living standard) will be able to contribute to their development in a healthy way.

Except for the countries in the G20 group, other countries should first take actions to positively increase the relational structure between innovation indicators in order to achieve their overall economic growth. Later, countries, just like the G20 countries, can create activities that will improve the performance of other innovation indicators of INS and HCR innovation dimensions, which have a basic and prioritized structure for the innovation dimension to affect economic growth, and that will concern economic growth.

It may be suggested for researchers to compare the effects of the innovation dimension on the economic dimension by using other indices or metrics that measure the innovation performance of countries. Thus, the nature of innovation indicators for economic growth can be discussed within the framework of causality analysis. In addition, in measuring the innovation performance of countries, the number of indicators can be increased or indicators specific to each country can be created. In this way, more realistic results can be achieved in determining the impact of innovation on economic growth by evaluating the innovation capabilities, capacities and potentials of countries in a multidimensional way.

4.3. LIMITATIONS of the ARTICLE                                                    

The data set of the research was created from the global innovation indices of the G20 group countries in the relevant reports between the years 2008-2019 and the values ​​of the indicators that determine the economic growth. The first report of the global innovation index was published in 2007. However, the 2007 global innovation index report could not be included in the scope of the study, since only the innovation indicators of certain countries were included in the 2007 report. Currently, there is the latest global innovation index report for 2019.

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Acaravcı Kekilli, S., Ural, T. ve Karaömer, Y. (2018). Hisse senedi getirisi ve sermaye yapısı ilişkisine etki eden faktörlerin yapısal eşitlik modelleme ile analizi. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 26-38.
  2. Aghion, P. ve Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growht through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323-351.
  3. Akça, H. S. (2018). Ekonomik büyüme ve inovasyon ilişkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, KTO Karatay Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
  4. Aktuğ, S. (2010). Kavramsal açıdan ekonomik büyüme, ekonomik kalkınma ve bölüşüm ilişkileri. (Eylül 2020 tarihinde www.sosyalpolitikainfo.files.wordpress.com adresinden alındı).
  5. Alataş, S. (2014). Ekonomik kalkınmayı belirleyen faktörler: Ampirik bir analiz, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Aydın.
  6. Aras, G., Tezcan, N., Kutlu Furtuna, Ö. ve Aybars, A. (2014). Firmaların Ar-Ge ve inovasyon performansının stratejik analizi. İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası Özkaracan Matbaacılık.
  7. Ay Türkmen, M., ve Aynaoğlu, Y. (2017). Küresel rekabet endeksi göstergelerin küresel inovasyon üzerine etkisi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 5(4), 257-282.
  8. Aydoğdu, A. (2013). Örgüt kültürünün inovasyon yapısına etkisi ve bir araştırma, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstütüsü, İstanbul.
  9. Ballı, E. (2017). Teknoloji, inovasyon ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Üst ve üst orta gelir gruplarındaki ülkeler üzerine bir inceleme. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 15-28.
  10. Ballı, E. ve Güreşçi, G. (2017). İnovasyon ve ekonomik büyüme: Üst ve üst-orta gelirli ülkeler örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Özel Sayı 1, 99-112.
  11. Barro, H. J. (1990). Goverment spending in the simple model of endogenous growht. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 103-125.
  12. Başer, F. ve Gökten, S. (2019). Paths of economic development: A global evidence for the mediating role of human capital. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(8), 996-1018.
  13. Bilir, B. Ö. ve Gökdemir, T. (2018). Kalkınma göstergeleri çerçevesinde yaşam beklentisinin yapısal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Özel Sayı, 163-167.
  14. Bozan, T. (2019). İnovasyon ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: G7 ülkeleri üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  15. Brouwer, M. T. (2000). Entrepreneurship and uncertaintly: Innovation and competition among the many. Small Business Economics, 15(2), 149-160.
  16. Burmaoğlu, S. (2012). Ulusal inovasyon göstergeleri ile ulusal lojistik perofrmansı arasındaki ilişki: AB ülkeleri üzerine bir araştırma. Ege Akademik Bakış, 12(2), 193-208.
  17. Büyükyılmaz, O. ve Fidan, Y. (2017). Algılanan örgütsel desteğin örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı üzerindeki etkisinde örgütsel güvenin aracılık rolü. Business & Management Studias: An International Journal, 5(3), 500-524.
  18. Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R. ve Savona, M. (2004). The impact of innovation on economic performance in services. The Service Industries Journal, 24(1), 116-130.
  19. Cameron, G. (1996). Innovation and economic growth. London: Centre for Economic Performance London School of Economics and Political Science.
  20. Capello, R. ve Lenzi, C. (2012). Knowledge, innovation and economic growth: Spatial heterogeneity in Europe.
  21. Cesaratto, S. (1999). Savings and economic growth in neoclassical theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 771–793.
  22. Cornell University, INSEAD ve WIPO. (2019). Global Inovation Index Report (2019).
  23. Çimen, A. ve Sağlam, Y. (2019). Ar-Ge harcamalarının sektörel performansının karşılaştırılması: İnovasyona dayalı ekonomik büyüme analizi. Journal of Yasar University, Special Issue, 58-68.
  24. Dal, M. M. ve Yıldız, B. (2016). BRICS-TM ülkelerinde AR-GE ve inovasyonun ekonomik büyüme üzerine etkisi: Ekonometrik bir analiz. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 220-236.
  25. Didero, M., Gareis, K., Marques, P. ve Ratzke, M. (2008). İnovasyon kültürünün hizmet inovasyonu performansına etkisi: Bitlis ili hizmet sektöründe bir araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 32(2), 351-366.
  26. Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation, Harvard Business Review.
  27. Elverdi, S. ve Atik, H. (2020). Girişimcilik ve ekonomik büyüme: Avrupa ve Kuzey avrupa ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(69), 1170-1179.
  28. Esmer, Y., Yüksel, M. ve Şaylan, O. (2019). Yerel yönetimlerde inovasyon uygulamalarına yönelik bir değerlendirme. Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 175-189.
  29. Evcim, N. (2017). AR-GE ve inovasyon faaliyetleri ile büyüme ilişkisi, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli.
  30. Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M. ve Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation and economic development. The Working Papers on Innovation Studies, 20090723, 1-62.
  31. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal and Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  32. Galindo, M. A. ve Mendez, M. T. (2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation, are feedback effects at work ? Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 825-829.
  33. Gerguri, S., ve Ramadani, V. (2010). The impact of innovation into the economic growht. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 22270, 1-21.
  34. Giunchiglia, F. (2013). Innovatione sociale la fuora frontiora. Department Information Engineering and Computer Science, DISI ‐ Via Sommarive 5 ‐ 38123 Povo. Trento: University of Trento.
  35. Grossman, G. M. ve Helpman, E. (1991). Inovation and growht in the global economy. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  36. Gülmez, A. ve Akpolat, A. G. (2014). AR-GE inovasyon & ekonomik büyüme. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(2), 1-17.
  37. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Essex: Pearson Education.
  38. Hancıoğlu, Y. (2016). Küresel inovasyon endeksini oluşturan inovasyon girdi ve çıktı göstergeleri arasındaki ilişkinin kanonik korelasyon ile incelenmesi:OECD örneği. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(4), 131-157.
  39. Hunady, J., ve Orviska, M. (2014). The impact of research and development expenditures on innovation pereformance and economic growht of the country-the empirical evidence. CBU International Conference on Innovation, Technology Transfer and Education , Prague, 119-125.
  40. INSEAD. (2007). The world's top ınnovators. France: The world business/INSEAD Global Innovation Index.
  41. INSEAD and WIPO. (2011). Global inovation index report (2011).
  42. Işık, N. (2017). Banka Kredisi, İnovasyon, Ekonomik Büyüme İlşkilerinin Analizi: G20 Örneği. Bankacalık ve Sermaye Piyasa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 53-66.
  43. Işık, N. ve Kılınç, e. c. (2012). inovasyon-güdümlü kalkınma: Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri ve türkiye Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 1(1), 31-68.
  44. Jankowska, B., Matysek, A., Jedrych, K. ve Mroczek, D. (2017). Efficiency of national innovation systems – Poland and Bulgaria in the context of the global innovation index. Comparative Economic Research, 20(3), 77-94.
  45. Karaata, E. S. (2012). İnovasyonun ölçümünde yeni arayışlar. İstanbul: TÜSİAD-Sabancı Üniversitesi Rekabet Forumu.
  46. Kılıç, F. (2018). Açık inovasyon kavramı ve etkileri üzerine bir uygulama, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli.
  47. Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-42.
  48. Maradana, R. P., Pradhan, R. P., Dash, S., Gaurav, K., Jayakumar, M. ve Chatterjee, D. (2017). Does ınnovation promote economic growth? evidence from European countries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 1-23.
  49. Marquis, D. G. (1969). The anotomy of successfull innovation. Innovation, 1, 28-37.
  50. Meydan, C. H. ve Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi amos uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  51. Mytelka , L. ve Farinelli, F. (2000). Local clusters, ınnovation systems and sustained competitiveness. Maastricht: United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies.
  52. OECD ve Eurostat. (2005). Oslo klavuzu: Yenilik verilerinin toplanması ve yorumlanması için ilkeler, Ankara: TÜBİTAK.
  53. Özel, H. A. (2012). Ekonomik büyümenin teorik temelleri. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 63-72.
  54. Özkul, G. ve Örün, E. (2016). Girişimcilik ve inovasyonun ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: Ampirik bir araştırma. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 5(2), 17-51.
  55. Özyakışır, D. (2011). Beşeri sermayenin ekonomik kakınma sürecindeki rolü: Teorik bir değerlendirme. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 6(11), 46-71.
  56. Pece, A. M., Simona, O. E. ve Salisteanuc, F. (2015). Innovation and economic growth: An empirical analysis for CEE countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 461-467.
  57. Pessoa, A. (2007). Innovation and economic growth: What is the actual importance of R&D ? FEP Working Papers, 254, 1-19.
  58. Porter, M. (1990). Competitive advantage of nations, Harvard Business Review, 73-91.
  59. Prasetyo, E. P. (2019). Role of entrepreneurial culture as the driver of economic growth. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 9(3), 237-243.
  60. Roberta, C. ve Camilla, L. (2013). Territorial patterns of innovation and economic growth in European regions. Growth and Change, 44(2), 195-227.
  61. Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002-1037.
  62. Rosenberg, N. (2004). Innovation and Economic Growht. Organization for economic cooperation and development, Unpublisched Working Paper, 1-6.
  63. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: an ınquiry into profits, capital, credit, ınterest, and the business cycle. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
  64. Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London and New York: George Allen & Unwin.
  65. Shukla, S. (2017). Innovation and economic growth: A Case of India. Humanities & Social Science Reviews, 5(2), 64-70.
  66. Siverekli Demircan, E. (2003). Vergilendirmenin ekonomik büyümeye ve kalkınmaya etkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 97-116.
  67. Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economic, 70(1), 65-94.
  68. Soylu, A., Ceylan, S. ve Özdipçiner, N. S. (2019). Turizmde deneyim inovasyonu: Doğu ekspresi örneği. SETSCI Conference Proceedings, 4(8), 231-235.
  69. Szirmai, A., Naudé, W. ve Goedhuys, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development: An Overview. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  70. Şahinoğlu, K. T. ve Yakut, S. G. (2019). Yapısal eşitlik modeli ile özgürlüklerin ekonomik performansa etkisi üzerine bir inceleme. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 30, 1-20.
  71. Şimşit, Z. T., Arıoğlu Akan, Ö. M., Saniye, Ü. ve Fırat, O. (2014). Küresel rekabet ve inovasyon çerçevesinde Türkiye'nin lojistik performansının değerlendirilmesi . 3. Ulusal Lojistik ve Tedarik Zinciri Kongeresi, Trabzon, 1-10.
  72. Taş, S. (2017). İnovasyon, eğitim ve küresel inovasyon endeksi. Bilge Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 99-123.
  73. Tebaldi, E. ve Elmslie, B. (2008). Institutions, innovation and economic growth. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 9683, 1-32.
  74. Thompson, M. (2018). Social capital, innovation and economic growt. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 73, 46-52.
  75. Tunçbilek, M. M. ve Bayrakçı, S. (2017). Üniversitelerde algılanan liderlik, vizyon ve örgüt yapısının inovasyon yönetimine etkisi: Karabük Üniversitesi örneği. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi, 28(83), 49-84.
  76. Uca, N. (2016). Ülkelerin yolsuzluk algısının, lojistik performansının, dış ticaret hacminim ve küresel rekabet ilişkisinin yapısal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi: Kavramsal model önerisi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Maltepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  77. Uppenberg, K. (2009). Innovation and economic growth. EIB Papers, 14(1), 11-35.
  78. Uzgören, E. (1999). Bilgi toplumunda uluslararası rekabetedebilirlik avantajının yaratılmasına yönelik stratejik yaklaşım: Devingen yaratıcılık (innovation). Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1, 165-176.
  79. Ünsal, E. M. (2016). İktisadi büyüme. Ankara: BB101 Yayınları.
  80. Verspagen, B. (2004). Structural change and technology. A Long View. Revue Economique, Presses de Sciences-Po, 55(6), 1099-1125.
  81. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P. ve Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24, 335-350.
  82. www.data.imf.org
  83. Yorulmaz, Ö. (2017). The relationship between socio-economic development, corruption and health indicators: Application of partial least squares structural equation modeling. The Journal of Operations Research, Statistics, Econometrics and Management Information Systems, 5(2), 191-205.
  84. Yülek, M. A. (1997). İçsel büyüme teorileri gelişmekte olan ülkeler kamu politikaları üzerine. Hazine Dergisi, 6, 1-15.