Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım

Bu makalede bilgi üretimi ve yayılımını etkileyen örtük bilginin oyun teorisi kullanılarak incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Kamu malı olarak bilgi yaklaşımı bilgi üretiminde Pareto etkinlik için devlet müdahalesi veya fikri mülkiyeti gerekli görmektedir. Örtük bilgi varsayımı altında Pareto etkinlik herhangi bir müdahale olmadan sağlanabilmektedir. Joseph Schumpeter ve Friedrich Hayek gibi düşünürlerin de belirttiği gibi örtük bilginin üretilmesi ve yayılmasında girişimci asıl rolü üstlenmektedir. Oyun teorisini kullanarak örtük bilgiyi modelleyen yaklaşımların temel varsayımları tartışılırken bu yaklaşımların bilgi üretimine ilişkin ne tür politika önerileri çıkarmakta kullanılabileceği tartışılmaktadır. Makale hem örtük bilginin doğasının anlaşılmasına ilişkin oyun teorisi temelli bir çerçeve geliştirmekte, hem de bilgi üretimi ile ilgili aktörler ve kurumlar (üniversiteler, firmalar, girişimciler) arası ilişkileri incelememize olanak sağlayan stratejik bir bakış açısı sunmaktadır.

The Limits of Knowledge as a Public Good: A Strategic Approach to Tacit Knowledge

In this article, tacit knowledge, which is one of the factors that affects knowledge production and dissemination is examined by using game theory. Information as a public good approach advocates government intervention or intellectual property to achieve Pareto efficiency in information production. Under tacit knowledge, Pareto efficiency can be achieved without any intervention. As argued by researchers such as Joseph Schumpeter and Friedrich Hayek, the entrepreneur‘s function is important in the production and dissemination of tacit knowledge. While discussing the assumptions of approaches that model tacit knowledge, we also summarize the policy implications of them. The article develops a game theoretic framework to understand the nature of tacit knowledge, and provides a strategic perspective to examine the relationships between actors and institutions (universities, firms, and entrepreneurs) involved in knowledge production.

___

  • Allen, R. C. (1983). “Collective Invention”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 1-10.
  • Antonelli, C. (2007). “Technological knowledge as an essential facility”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17:4, 451-471.
  • Antonelli, C. (2008). Localised Technological Change: Towards the Economics of Complexity, London: Routledge.
  • Antonelli, C. (2017). Endogenous Innovation: The Economics of an Emergent System Property. Edward Elgar Publishing: London and New York.
  • Arrow, K. (1962). “Economic Welfare and the allocation of resources for invention,” içinde NBER The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, 609-626. Reprinted in Lamberton, D. M. (ed.) (1971) The Economics of Information and Knowledge, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 141-159.
  • Baldwin, C. and von Hippel, E. (2010). Modelling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation, (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1502864)
  • Basalla, G. (1988). The Evolution of Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Benkler, Y. (2002). “Coase’s penguin, or, Linux and the nature of the firm”, Yale Law Journal, 112:3.
  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Benner, C. (2003). “Learning Communities in a Learning Region: The soft Infrastructure of Cross-firm Learning Networks in Silicon Valley”, Environment and Planning A, vol.35, 1809-1830.
  • Besen S. M. and Raskind L. J. (1991). “An introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual property”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5:1, 3-27.
  • Boldrin, M. ve D. Levine. (2008). Against Intellectual Monopoly. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm Son erişim Tarihi: 12.05.2019
  • Boulding, K. (1966). “The Economics of Knowledge and the Knowledge of Economics”, American Economic Review, 56:2, 1-13.
  • Bowles, S. (2006). Microeconomics. Londra ve New York: Princeton Univ. Press.
  • Burke, P. (2017). Bilgi Tarihi Nedir? Islık Yayın.
  • Chang, H-J. (2001). “Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development: Historical lessons and emerging issues”, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 2-2, 287-309.
  • Chang, H-J. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder, London: Anthem.
  • Cohen W. M., Nelson, R. R. ve Walsh, J. P. (2000). “Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or not)”, NBER Working Paper, No: 7552. Corrado C., Hulten C.R., Sichel D.E. (2006). “Intangible Capital and Economic Growth”, NBER Working Paper, 11948.
  • Coriat, B. ve Orsi, F. (2002). “Establishing a New Intellectual Property Rights Regime in the United State: Origins, Content and Problem”, Research Policy, 31, 1491-1507.
  • Coriat, B. ve Weinstein, O. (2011). “Patent regimes and the Commodification of Knowledge”, LEM Working Paper Series, 2011/17.
  • Dasgupta, P. ve David, P. (1994). “Toward a New Economics of Science”, Research Policy, 23(5): 487-521.
  • Demsetz, H. (1969). “Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint,” Journal of Law and Economics, 12, 1-22. Reprinted in
  • Lamberton, D. M. (ed.) 1971. The Economics of Information and Knowledge, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 160-186.
  • David, P. A. (1993). “Intellectual Property Institutions and the Panda's Thumb: Patents, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets in Economic Theory and History”, in Global Dimension of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology,
  • Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation. Londra: Pinter Publishers.
  • Elkin-Koren and Salzberger E. (2004). Law, Economics and Cyberspace: The Effects of Cyberspace on the Economic Analysis of Law, US: Edward Elgar.
  • Elkin-Koren and Salzberger E. (2012). The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property in the Digital Age. Routledge: Londra ve New York.
  • Fallick, B., C. A. Fleischman ve J. B. Rebitzer. (2006). “Job-Hopping in Silicon Valley: Some Evidence Concerning the Microfoundations of a High-Technology Cluster”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 88:3, 472-481.
  • Fisk, C. L. (1998). “Removing the Fuel of Interest from the Fire of Genius: Law and The Employee-Inventor, 1830-1930”, University of Chicago Law Review, 65: 1127-1198.
  • Fisk, C. L. (2001). “Working Knowledge: Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants in Employment, and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual Property, 1800-1920”, Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, 441-535.
  • Fisk, C. L. (2014). Working Knowledge. The University of North Carolina Press.
  • Foray, D. (2004), Economics of Knowledge, The MIT Press.
  • Franko, A. M. and M. F. Mitchell. (2008). “Covenants not to Compete, Labor Mobility, and Industry Dynamics”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 17:3, 581-606.
  • Freeman, C. ve Soete, L. (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Londra ve New York: MIT Press.
  • Gilbert, R. (2011). “A World without Intellectual Property? A Review of Michele Boldrin and David Levine’s Against Intellectual Monopoly”, Journal of Economic Literature, 49:2, 421-432.
  • Gilson, R. (1999). “The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants not to Compete”, New York University Law Review, 74:3, 575-629.
  • Graham, Stuart J. H., R. Merges, P. Samuelson, and T. Sichelman. (2009). “High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24:4, 1255-1328.
  • Griliches, Z. (1979). “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth”, Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1): 92-116.
  • Hayek, F. (1937). “Economics and Knowledge”, Economica, 4(13): 33-54.
  • Hayek, F. (1945). “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, American Economic Review, 35:4, 519-530.
  • Hofbauer, J., ve K. Sigmund. (2003). “Evolutionary game dynamics”, Bulletin of the American mathematical society, 40.4 479-519.
  • Hyde, A. (1998). “Silicon Valley’s High-Velocity Labor Market”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 11:2, 28-37.
  • Hyde, A. (2003). “Working in Silicon Valley: Economic and Legal Analysis of a High-Velocity Labor Market”, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1511553.
  • Idris, K. (2004). Intellectual Property, World Intellectual Property Organization.
  • Jaffe, A., and Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and Its Discontents, Princeton University Press.
  • Kealey, T. ve M. Ricketts. (2014). “Modelling Science as a Contribution Good”, Research Policy, 1014-1024.
  • Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture, US: Penguin Press.
  • Lundavll, B. A. (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Londra: Pinter Publishers.
  • Machlup, F. ve Penrose, E. (1950). “The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of Economic History, 10:1, 1-29.
  • Merges, R. P. (1999). “The Law and Economics of Employee Innovations”, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 13(1): 1-53
  • Mokyr, J. (2002). The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford.
  • Mokyr, J. (2009). “Intellectual Property Rights, the Industrial Revolution, and the Beginnings of Modern Economic Growth”, American Economic Review, 99:2, 349-355.
  • Moody, G. (2001). Rebel Code: Inside Linux and the Open Source Revolution, Basic Books: New York.
  • Mynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and The Theory of Games. Londra: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Nelson, R. (1959). “Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research”, Journal of Political Economy, 67:3, 297-306.
  • Nelson, R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Institutional Analysis. Londra ve New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
  • Nelson, R. ve Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press.
  • Orsi, F. ve Coriat, B. (2006). “The New Role and Status of Intellectual Property Rights in Contemporary Capitalism”, Competition and Change, 10:2, 162-179.
  • Pagano, “U. (2008). “Organizational rights in knowledge-intensive firms”, Mimeo, Universita di Siena.
  • Pagano, U. (2012). “The Crisis of Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism”, Universita degli Studi di Siena, Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Working Paper, n.634.
  • Pagano, U. ve Rossi, M. A. (2004). “Incomplete Contracts, Intellectual Property and Institutional Complementarities”, European Journal of Law and Economics, 18:1, 55-76.
  • Pagano, U. ve Rossi M. A. (2011). “Property rights in the Knowledge Economy: An Explanation of the Crisis”, Universita degli Studi di Siena, Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Working Paper, n.586.
  • Pavitt, K. (1998). “The Social Shaping of the National Science Base”, Research Policy, 27, 793-805.
  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.
  • Polanyi, M. (1967). Tacit Dimension. Londra: Routledge.
  • Romer, P. (1986). “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 94(5): 1002-1037.
  • Rosenberg, N. ve R. R. Nelson. (1994). “American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry”, Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
  • Rossi, M. A. (2004). “Decoding the “Free/Open Source (F/OSS) Software Puzzle” a survey of theoretical and empirical contributions”, Universita degli Studi di Siena, Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Working Paper, n.424.
  • Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Salzberger, E. M. (2011). “The Dominant Law and Economics Paradigm Regarding “Intellectual Property” – a Vehicle or an Obstacle for Innovation, Growth and Progress?”, The Ratio Institute, Working Paper No. 177
  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Scotchmer, S. (1991). “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5:1, 29-41.
  • Scotchmer, S. (2004). Innovation and Incentives. Londra ve New York: MIT Press.
  • Schumpeter, J A. (1980 [1912]). Theory of Economic Development, Routledge Classics.
  • Solow, R. (1957). “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3): 312-320.
  • Stallman, R. M. (2002). Free Software Free Society, GNU Press: Boston.
  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Wootton, S. (2016). Bilimin İcadı. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Zuboff, S. (1989). In the Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books.

___

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { jyasar902290, journal = {Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi}, issn = {1305-970X}, address = {}, publisher = {Yaşar Üniversitesi}, year = {2022}, volume = {17}, number = {65}, pages = {173 - 188}, doi = {10.19168/jyasar.902290}, title = {Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım}, key = {cite}, author = {Gürpınar, Erkan and Aydoğmuş, Özgür Hakan} }
APA Gürpınar, E. & Aydoğmuş, Ö. H. (2022). Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım . Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi , 17 (65) , 173-188 . DOI: 10.19168/jyasar.902290
MLA Gürpınar, E. , Aydoğmuş, Ö. H. "Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım" . Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 17 (2022 ): 173-188 <
Chicago Gürpınar, E. , Aydoğmuş, Ö. H. "Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım". Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 17 (2022 ): 173-188
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım AU - ErkanGürpınar, Özgür HakanAydoğmuş Y1 - 2022 PY - 2022 N1 - doi: 10.19168/jyasar.902290 DO - 10.19168/jyasar.902290 T2 - Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 173 EP - 188 VL - 17 IS - 65 SN - 1305-970X- M3 - doi: 10.19168/jyasar.902290 UR - Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım %A Erkan Gürpınar , Özgür Hakan Aydoğmuş %T Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım %D 2022 %J Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi %P 1305-970X- %V 17 %N 65 %R doi: 10.19168/jyasar.902290 %U 10.19168/jyasar.902290
ISNAD Gürpınar, Erkan , Aydoğmuş, Özgür Hakan . "Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım". Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 17 / 65 (Ocak 2022): 173-188 .
AMA Gürpınar E. , Aydoğmuş Ö. H. Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi. 2022; 17(65): 173-188.
Vancouver Gürpınar E. , Aydoğmuş Ö. H. Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi. 2022; 17(65): 173-188.
IEEE E. Gürpınar ve Ö. H. Aydoğmuş , "Kamu Malı Olarak Bilginin Sınırları: Örtük Bilgiye Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım", , c. 17, sayı. 65, ss. 173-188, Oca. 2022, doi:10.19168/jyasar.902290