Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Ekosistemi ve Akış Diyagramları
Son yıllarda küreselleşmenin ve teknolojik gelişmelerin etkisiyle üretim ve tüketim yapısında meydana gelen değişiklikler ekonomik faaliyetlerin bölgeler arasındaki dağılımını etkileyerek bu faaliyetlerin belirli bölgelerde yığınlaşmasına neden olmuştur. Yaşanan bu değişimin etkilerini açıklamada geleneksel iktisat teorilerinin yetersiz kaldığı görülmüştür. Paul Krugman’ın öncülüğünde bir grup iktisatçının iktisat teorilerinde coğrafyanın önemini vurgulaması ve yaşanan değişimi eksik rekabet koşulları, ölçeğe göre artan getiri, faktör mobilitesi ve dinamik denge modelleri ile açıklamasıyla uluslararası ticarette Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya yaklaşımı ortaya çıkmıştır. 1990’lı yıllarda basit merkez çevre modeline dayanan birinci nesil Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Modelleri yapılan çalışmalar ile zaman içerisinde pek çok dönüşüm geçirmiştir. Bu kapsamda, çalışmada Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya yaklaşımının temel varsayımlarının günümüz koşullarında açıklanabilmesi ve içsel ve dışsal dinamiklerin daha kolay anlaşılabilmesi için Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Yaklaşımı Ekosistemi akış diyagramlarının oluşturulması amaçlanmıştır.
In recent years, changes in the structure of production and consumption due to the effects of globalization and technological developments have affected the distribution of economic activities among regions and caused these activities to agglomerate in certain regions. Traditional economic theories have fallen behind to explain the effects of this change. Under the leadership of Paul Krugman, a group of economists emphasized the importance of geography in economic theories and explain this change by imperfect competition, increasing returns to scale, factor mobility and dynamic equilibrium models so New Economic Geography (NEG) emerged in international trade. In the 1990s, first generation NEG models, based on simple centre-periphery model, have undergone many transformations over time. In this context, it is aimed to design NEG Approach Ecosystem Flow Diagrams in order to explain the principle assumptions of the NEG Approach in today’s conditions and to understand the internal and external dynamics more easily.
___
BARCA, F; (2009), “An Agenda for A Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Placed Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations”, Independent Report Prepared at the Request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Danuta Hubner, European Commission, Brussels.BEHRENS, K. ve THISSE, J.F.; (2007), “Regional Economics: A New Economic Geography Perspective”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37, pp. 457-465.
BODE, E ve MUTL J.; (2010), “Testing Nonlinear New Economic Geography Models”. Kiel Institute for World Economy Working Papers. No: 1605, https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ ifwkwp/1605.html, 10.08.2014.
BOSCHMA, R ve FRENKEN, K.; (2011).; “The Emerging Emprics of Evolutionary Economic Geography”. Journal of Economic Geography, 11, pp. 295-307.
BRAKMAN, S., GARRETSEN, H. ve SCHRAMM, M.; (2002), “New Economic Geography: Testing The Helpman-Hanson Model”. HWWA Discussion Paper, 172.
BRAKMAN, S ve GARRETSEN, H.; (2003), “Rethinking the “New” Geographical Economics” Regional Studies, 37(6/7), pp. 637-648.
BRAKMAN, S., GARRETSEN, H., GORTER, J., HORST, A. ve SCHRAMM, M.; (2004), “New Economic Geography, Emprics, and Regional Policy”. CPB Netherlands Breaufor Economic Policy Analysis. http//:www.cpb.nl
BRAKMAN, S. ve GARRETSEN, H.; (2007), “From Theory to Estimation and Back the Emprical Relevance of New Economic Geography”, In B. Fingleton (ed) New Directions in Economic Geography: pp.98-129, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
BRÜLHART, M. ve TORSTENSSON, J.; (1998), “Regional Integration, Scale Economies and Industry Location in the European Union”, CEPR discussion paper, No 1435, http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=1435, 10.08.2014 .
COMBES, P.-P. ve OVERMAN, H.; (2003), “The Spatial Distribution of Economic Activities in the European Union”, Centre for Economic Performance, Discussion Paper.
COMBES, P.-P., DURANTON, G. ve OVERMAN, H.; (2005), “Agglomeration and the Adjustment of the Spatial Economy”. Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper. No. 689.
DİNLER, Z.; (2004), Mikro Ekonomi. Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
DIXIT, A.K. ve STIGLITZ, J.; (1977), “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity”, American Economic Review, 67 (3), pp. 297-308.
ENGLMANN, F. ve WALZ, U.; (1995), “Industrial Centers and Regional Growth in the Presence of Local Inputs”, Journal of Regional Science, 35 (1), pp. 3-27.
FUJITA, M.; (1993), “Monopolistic Competititon and Urban Systems”, European Economic Review, Elsevier, 37, pp. 308-315.
FUJITA, M. ve KRUGMAN, P.; (2004), “The New Economic Geography: Past, Present and Future”. Papers in Regional Science. 83, pp. 139-164.
GRAJEDA, R. ve ARIAS, M.; (2009), “Spatial Implications of International Trade Under The New Economic Geography Approach”, MPRA Paper, No: 18076.
HAALAND, J., KIND, H., MIDELFART-KNARVIK, K. ve TORSTENSSON, J.; (1999), “What Determines The Economic Geography of Europe”. CEPR Discussion Paper, No: 2072.
HEAD, K ve MAYER, T.; (2003), “The Emprics of Agglomeration and Trade”. CEPII Working Paper Series, No: 2003-15 October.
KRUGMAN, P.; (1991a), Geography and Trade. MIT press.
KRUGMAN, P.; (1991b), “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”. The Journal of Political Economy. 99 (3).
KRUGMAN, P. ve VENABLES, A.; (1995), “Globalization and The Inequality of Nations”; NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper, No: 5098, https://www.nber.org/papers/w5098, 11.11.2013.
KRUGMAN, P. ve VENABLES, A.; (1996), “Integration, Specialization, and Adjustment”, European Economic Review, 40, pp. 959-967.
KRUGMAN, P. ve ELIZONDO, R.L.; (1996), “Trade Policy and The Third World Metropolis”, Journal of Development Economics, 49, pp. 137-150.
KRUGMAN, P.; (1998a), “What’s New About New Economic Geography”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), pp. 7-17.
KRUGMAN, P.; (1998b), “The Role of Geography in Development”. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Washington.
MARTIN, R. ve SUNLEY, P.; (1996), “Paul Krugman’s Geographical Economics and Its Implications for Regional Development Theory: A Critical Assesment”, Economic Geography, 72 (3), pp. 259-292.
MARTIN, R ve OTTAVIANO, G.; (2001), “Growth and Agglomeration”. International Economic Review, 42 (4), pp. 947-968.
MARTIN, R. ve SUNLEY, P.; (2006), “Path Dependence and Regional Economic Evolution”. Journal of Economic Geography, 6, pp. 395-437.
MARTIN, R.; (2010), “The New Economic Geography “Credible Models of The Economic Landscape?””, Sage Handbook of Economic Geography, pp. 53-73.
MIDELFART-KNARVIK, K., OVERMAN, H. ve VENABLES, A..; (2001), “Comparative Advantage and Economic Geography: Estimating The Determinants of Industrial Location in the EU”. LSE Research Online.
NEARY, P.; (2001), “Of Hype and Hyperbolas: Introducing NEG”, Journal of Economic Literature, 39, pp. 563-561.
OECD.; (2009a), “How Regions Grow? Trend and Analysis”.
OECD.; (2009b), “Regions Matter: Economic Recovery, Innovation and Economic Growth”.
OTTAVIANO, G.; (1997), “Integration, Geography and the Burden of History”, Bologna University Working Paper, No:1327, CEPR .
OTTAVIANO, G ve PUGA, D.; (1997), “Agglomeration in The Global Economy: A Survey of The New Economic Geography”. CEPR Discussion Paper. Discussion Paper No: 356.
OTTAVIANO, G.; (2011), “”New” New Economic Geography: Firm Heterogeneity and Agglomeration Economies”, Journal of Economic Geography, pp. 231-240.
PUGA, D ve VENABLES, A.; (1996), “The Spread of Industry: Spatial Agglomeration in Economic Development”. CEPR Discussion Paper. Discussion Paper No. 279.
PUGA, D.; (1998), “Urbanization Patterns: European vs. less Developed Countries”, CEPR Discussion Paper, Discussion Paper No: 350.
PUGA, D.; (1999), “The Rise and Fall of Regional Inequalities”, European Economic Review, 43, pp. 303-334.
REDDING, S.; (2009), “The Emprics of New Economic Geography” CEPR.
SCHMUTZLER, A.; (1999), “The New Economic Geography”, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol 13, 4, pp. 355-379.
SCOTT, A.; (2004), “A Perspective of Economic Geography”, Journal of Economic Geography, 4, pp. 479-499.
STORPER, M.; (1999), “Globalization, Localization and Trade”. A Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford University Press.
TABUCHI, T ve THISSE, J.; (2011), “A New Economic Geography Model of Central Places”. Journal of Urban Economics. Vol 69: pp.240-252.
VANBERGEN, B.; (2005), “Dynamics of Some New Economic Geography Models”. Catholic University of Leuven Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics Master of Science Research Paper.
VENABLES, A.; (1996), “Equilibrium Locations of Vertically Linked Industries”, International Economic Review, Vol. 37, No 2: pp.341-359.
VENABLES, A.; (1998), “The Assesments: Trade and Location”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 14: pp.1-6.
VENABLES, A.; (2005), “Economic Geography: Spatial Interactions in the World Economy”. CEPR.: pp.1-20.
WORLD BANK.; (2009), “Reshaping Economic Geography”. World Development Report. Washington DC.
YAVAN, N.; (2013), “Küresel Kriz Sonrası Bölgesel Kalkınma Politikalarında Yeni Yaklaşımlar: Dünya Bankası, Avrupa Birliği ve OECD’nin Yaklaşımları”. Coğrafyacılar Derneği Yıllık Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı. Fatih Üniversitesi. İstanbul.
- ISSN: 1307-7112
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 1963
- Yayıncı: İSTANBUL OKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
Stokastik Baskınlık Testi İle Oluşturulmuş BIST-30 Portföylerinin Performansının Değerlendirilmesi
OKTAY TAŞ, UMUT UĞURLU, Kutlay URUN
Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Ekosistemi ve Akış Diyagramları
ELİF TUNALI ÇALIŞKAN, AYTEN AYŞEN KAYA
Girdi Çıktı Analizi ile Otomotiv Sektörünün Konumu
Kamu Nakit Yönetiminin Modernizasyon Sürecine Teorik Yaklaşım