Change in firm population and spatial variations: The case of Turkey



Although there have always been small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in each
development period of trade and industry, as Humphrey (1995) argues, for a long time they
were "an inefficient part of the manufacturing industry and if they were supported the
grounds were more social than economic" (p.22). However, rapid technological
developments, growth of the service sector, growth of the third world competition and
declining international competitiveness, crisis in raw materials and energy prices, changes in
the expectations of people from mass standardised goods to crafted ones (Storey 1995) have
questioned the understanding of large firms dominating of the “Fordist” production system,
as the most effective tool for development.

All these developments resulted in a new production structure, flexible production that is
based on continuous innovation (Japanese
kaizen system) and more participation of multi-
skilled workers at each production process (Kaplinsky 1995), the requirements of which
were seemed to be met by the SMEs in terms of their flexibility in size and operations. For
the first time, David Birch, coining the term of "job generation" has claimed that small firms
created most of the jobs in the USA (1979). Consequently, after the 1970s they become a
focal point of scientific and policy interest. The following revival of role of SMEs has been
stimulated either through horizontal linkages among them benefiting from the external
economies or through vertical linkages with large firms, subcontracting.

However, in Turkey, the recognition of importance of SMEs took 20 years for both policy
and scientific manners. Although from the establishment of republic in 1923, "state
capitalism was seen as a supplementary agent for industrial accumulation and private
business development" (Ozcan 1995, p.51), the implementation of government schemes to
stimulate the development of private sector is the major continuous policy from the 1960s.
However, they were far from neither in a sectoral concentration nor size classes. After the
1990s, there emerged some schemes that are directly oriented to SMEs. Mainly, 1996 was
dedicated to SMEs and to increase the efficiency of SMEs, the government launched
different incentive programs changing from research and development to participation in
international fairs. Leaving the development of these policy approaches in one side, for the
scientific manners it can be said that most of the academic studies are focused on micro
economic issues. The description of their roles in macro economics and regional
development as well as their spatial characteristics have not been well documented.



More intriguing information

1. LIMITS OF PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION
2. The name is absent
3. Three Strikes and You.re Out: Reply to Cooper and Willis
4. SOME ISSUES IN LAND TENURE, OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN DISPERSED VS. CONCENTRATED AGRICULTURE
5. Computational Batik Motif Generation Innovation of Traditi onal Heritage by Fracta l Computation
6. Insurance within the firm
7. Accurate, fast and stable denoising source separation algorithms
8. BILL 187 - THE AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROTECTION ACT: A SPECIAL REPORT
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. The Clustering of Financial Services in London*
13. Perceived Market Risks and Strategic Risk Management of Food Manufactures: Empirical Results from the German Brewing Industry
14. Reversal of Fortune: Macroeconomic Policy, International Finance, and Banking in Japan
15. THE USE OF EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY SIMULATION MODEL
16. Cyclical Changes in Short-Run Earnings Mobility in Canada, 1982-1996
17. Improving the Impact of Market Reform on Agricultural Productivity in Africa: How Institutional Design Makes a Difference
18. Commitment devices, opportunity windows, and institution building in Central Asia
19. THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURE
20. The name is absent