Cilt , Sayı 56, Sayfalar 117 - 153 2017-07-14

TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ
THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE

Mehmet Cansız [1] , M. Demet Ulusoy [2]

97 113

Bilgi toplumuna dönüşüm ile birlikte yenilik, ihracat ve istihdam kaynağı olan teknoloji tabanlı girişimciliğin önemi giderek artmıştır. Böylelikle girişimcilik ülkelerin rekabet ve kalkınma yaklaşımlarında kullandıkları en önemli politika nesnelerinden birisi haline gelmiştir. Bu yüzden yenilikçi girişimciliğin başarısı için gerek kamu gerekse akademik alanda çeşitli çalışmalar yapılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın temel sorunsalını girişimcilerin başarılarında etkili olan sermaye türleri oluşturmaktadır. Bu çerçevede çalışmada girişimcinin sermayesi olarak kavramsallaştırılan ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel ve beşeri sermaye ile girişimcilerin faaliyet gösterdikleri ekosistemin özelliklerini içeren yapısal sermayenin etkisi incelenmiştir. Anket ile toplanan veriler probit regresyon ile modellenmiş ve marjin analiz ile değerlendirişmiştir. Yapılan analizlerde girişimcilerin annelerinin çalışmasının, ailede başarılı girişimcilerin, çalışma tecrübesinin, işleri kolaylaştıran bir iş çevresinin ve ortağının olmasının girişimci başarısını pozitif yönde etkilediği; diğer taraftan okul öncesi eğitimin, ailenin girişimcilik sürecinde maddi desteğinin, işleri kolaylaştıran siyasi çevre ve diğer girişimcilere güvenin girişimciliği negatif yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçta yenilikçi girişimciliğin sanayi tipi girişimcilikten farklılaştığı ve bu bağlamda girşimciliği desteklemeye yönelik politikaların ekonomik parametreler kadar sosyal ve kültürel parametreleri de dikkate alması gerekliliği görülmüştür.
With the transformation to the information society, technology-based entrepreneurship, which is a source of innovation, exports, and employment, is becoming increasingly important. Thus, entrepreneurship has become one of the most important policy subjects that countries focus on in their approaches to competition and development. As such, various studies on innovative entrepreneurship have been conducted both in the public and academic domains. In this context, the main focus of this study is the types of capital that influence the success of entrepreneurs. This study examined the influence of economic, social, cultural, and human capital conceptualized as “entrepreneur capital”. This was executed in conjunction with exploring the influence of structural capital covering the characteristics of the ecosystem in which entrepreneurs situate and operate. Data were collected via a questionnaire, modeled by probit regression, and evaluated by margin analysis. Results suggest that having a working mother, successful entrepreneurs in the family, work experience, an effective work environment, and a business partner all have a positive effect on the success of the entrepreneur. On the other hand, pre-school education, financial support of family, an effective political environment, and trust in other entrepreneurs all have a negative effect on the success of entrepreneurs. Lastly, it is seen that innovative entrepreneurship has been differentiated from industrial entrepreneurship. In this vein, policies designed to support entrepreneurship need to take social and cultural parameters into account as well as economic parameters.
  • Aldrich, H., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987). The impact of social capital networks on business foundings and profit. In N. Churchill, J. Hornaday, O. J. Krasner, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 154-168). Wellesley, MA: Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
  • Anderson A. R., & Miller, C. J. (2003). Class matters: Human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 17-36.
  • Baker, W. (1990). Market networks and corporate behaviour. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 589-625.
  • Baron R. A., & Markman G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41-60.
  • Bates, T. (1995). Self employment entry across industry groups. Journal Business Venturing, 10, 143-156.
  • Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Belfield, C. R., Nores, M., Barnett, S., & Schweinhart, L. (2006). The high/scope Perry preschool program: Cost-benefit analysis using date from the age-40 follow up. The Journal of Human Resources, 41, 162-190.
  • Bellu, R., Davidsson, P., & Goldfarb, C. (1990). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial behavior: Empirical evidence from Israel, Italy, and Sweden. Entrepreneurship Regional Development, 2(2), 195-209.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2013). Seçilmiş metinler (L. Ünsaldı, Çev.) Ankara: Heretik Yayınları.
  • Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (2015). Yeniden üretim-eğitim sistemine ilişkin bir teorinin ilkeleri (A. Sümer, L. Ünsaldı, Ö. Akkaya, Çev.) Ankara: Heretik Yayıncılık.
  • Borooah, V. K. (2002). Logit and probit: Ordered and multinomial models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The networked business incubator—leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265-290.
  • Brüderl J., & Preisendorfer P. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Business Economics, 10, 213-225.
  • BSTB, (2016). http://btgm.sanayi.gov.tr/sayfa.html?sayfaId=312fb1e1-4886-4088-9ed8-7fe6e190b6fd adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-352.
  • Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal Business Venturing, 1, 107-117.
  • Brush, C. G., & Hisrich, R. D. (1991). Antecedent influences on woman-owned business. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6, 9-16.
  • Cansız, M. (2016). Türkiye’de akademik girişimcilik. Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  • Cansız, M. (2014). Innovative entrepreneurship of Turkey (The case of turkish technoparks). Ankara: Ministry of Development.
  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Cohen, S., & Fields, G. (1999). Social capital and capital gains in Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 41(2), 108-130.
  • Collins C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of need for achievement to entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17, 95-117.
  • Cooper, A.C., & Dunkleburg, W.C., (1987). Entrepreneurial research: Old questions, new answers, and methodological issues. American Journal of Small Business, 11(3), 11-23.
  • Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organisations: Dialogue and directions. Journal of Management, 25, 317-353.
  • Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Toward a theory of social conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(2), 170-183.
  • Das T., & Teng B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academic Management, 23, 491-512.
  • Davidson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the meeting of Rent IX Conference, Piacenza, Italy.
  • Delmar, F., & Gunnarsson, J. (2000). How do self-employed parents of nascent entrepreneurs contribute? Paper presented at the meeting of Babson Entrepreneurial Research Conference, Wellesley, MA.
  • Diaz, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2003). Locus of control nach and values of community entrepreneurs. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(8), 739-748.
  • DiMaggio, P. (1992). Nadel’s paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects of organizational structure. In N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 118-142). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
  • Doyle, O., Harmon, C. P., Heckman, J. J., & Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Investing in early human development timing and economic efficiency. Economics and Human Biology, 7, 1-6.
  • Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301- 331.
  • Drucker, F. P. (1991). The new productivity challenge. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 69-90.
  • Drucker F. P. (1994). Yeni gerçekler, (B. Karanakçı, Çev.) Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  • Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 372-386). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
  • Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academic Management, 23, 660-79.
  • Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M. (1984). The effects of communication on-technological innovation. Management Science, 30(5), 572-585.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84-110.
  • Esmer, Y. (2012). Türkiye değerler atlası.
  • http://content.bahcesehir.edu.tr/public/files/files/ATLAS%20SUNUM%202_10_2012%20(2).pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Evans, D., & Leighton, L. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. Empirical Economics, 79, 519-535.
  • Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
  • Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge.
  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
  • Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., & Amorós, J. E. (2011). Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial employees across the globe. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/Documents/GEM%202011%20Extended%20Report%20VF%20rev.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Empirical Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
  • Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology, In N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25-56). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1993). Social network analysis: Concepts, methodology, and directions for the 1990’s. Sociological Methods Resource, 22, 3-22.
  • Greene, P., & Brown, T. (1997). Resource needs and the dynamic capitalism typology. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 161-173.
  • Gattiker, U. E., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2001). Entrepreneurial phenomena in a cross-national context. In R. T. Golembievski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. New York: Marcel Dekker.
  • Hansen, E. L., & Allen, K. R. (1992). The creation corridor: Environmental load and pre-organization information processing ability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 57-65.
  • Hansemark, O. (2003). Need for achievement locus of control and the prediction of business start-ups: A longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(3), 301-319.
  • Helmann T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169-197.
  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal 15, 63-84.
  • Hisrich R., Langan-Fox J., & Grant S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: A call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 575-589.
  • Honig, B. (1996). Education and self employment in Jamaica. Computer Education, 40 (6-2),(2), 177-193.
  • Honig, B. (1998). What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and social capital of jamaican microentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(5), 371-394.
  • Holt, D. (1998). Does cultural capital structure american consumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 25-79.
  • Johanson, J., & Mattson, L. G. (1987). Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: A network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach. International Studies of Management and Organization, 17(2), 34-48.
  • Kalkınma Bakanlığı, (2011). İllerin ve bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması (SEGE 2011). http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Lists/Yaynlar/Attachments/548/SEGE-2011.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspiration among norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 209-222.
  • Koh, H. C. (1995). Factors associated with entrepreneurial inclination: An empirical study of business undergraduates in Hong Kong. Journal of Small Business Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 29-41.
  • Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76-104.
  • Laguna, M. (2013). Self-efficacy self-esteem and entrepreneurship among the unemployed. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 253-262.
  • Leana, C. C., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-554.
  • Liao, J., & Welsch H. (2003). Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration: Comparison of technology and non-technology based nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 149-170.
  • Morrison, A., Rimmington, M., & Williams, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship in the hospitality, tourism and leisure industries. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
  • Nohria, N. (1992). Information search in the creation of new business ventures: The case of 128 venture group. In N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 240-261). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Marsden, P. V., & Hulbert, J. S. (1988). Social resources and mobility outcomes: A replication and extension. Social Forces, 67, 1038-1059.
  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academic Management, 20, 709-734.
  • Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviat, B. M. (1994). Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 469-487.
  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academic. Management, 23(2), 242-266.
  • OECD (2011). Financing high growth firms: The role of angel investors. Paris: OECD.
  • OECD, (2012). Entrepreneurship at a glance. Paris: OECD.
  • OECD, (2015). New approaches to SME and entrepreneurship financing: Broadening the range of instruments. Paris: OECD.
  • Orser, B. J., Hogarth-Scott, S., & Wright, P. (1998). On the growth of small enterprises: The role of intentions, gender and experience. In P. Reynolds, W. Bygrave, N. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. Gartner, C. Mason, & P. McDougall (Eds.), Frontier Of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 366-380). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
  • Parsons, T. (1991). The social system. London: Routledge.
  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan.
  • Putman, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35-42.
  • Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88-127.
  • Reynolds, P. (1997). Who starts firms? Preliminary explorations of firms in gestation. Small Business Economics, 9, 449-462.
  • Rahim, A. (1996). Stress strain and their moderators: An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 46-58.
  • Robinson, P., & Sexton, E. (1994). The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 141-156.
  • Robinson, K. (2009). The element, how finding your passion changes everything. London: Penguin Publishing.
  • Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone.
  • Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., White, B. A. B., Ou, S. R., & Robertson, D. L. (2011). Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of the child-parent center early education program. Child Development, 82, 379-404.
  • Smith, D. A., & Lohrke F. T. (2008). Entrepreneurial network development: Trusting in the process. Journal of Business Research, 61, 315-322.
  • Stinchcombe A. (1965). Social structures of organizations. In March J,. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, (pp. 153-93). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
  • Schiller, B. R., & Crewson P. E. (1997). Entrepreneurial origins: A longitudinal inquiry. Economic Inquiry, 35, 523-531.
  • Scherer, R., F., Brodzinski, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1991). Examining the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial career performance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3(2), 195-206.
  • Schultz, T. (1959). Investment in man: An economist’s view, The Social Service Review, 33(2), 69-75.
  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academic Management, 25(1), 217-226.
  • Stuart, T., & Abetti, P., (1990). Impact of entrepreneurial and managerial experience on early performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 151-162.
  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intra-firm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embededness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-68.
  • Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64(4), 481-505.
  • Weick, K. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 301-314.
  • Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8, 109-125.
  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J. Katz, R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, 3, (pp. 119-38). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Konular Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler
Dergi Bölümü ARAŞTIRMA
Yazarlar

Yazar: Mehmet Cansız
E-posta: mcansiz75@gmail.com

Yazar: M. Demet Ulusoy
E-posta: demet@hacettepe.edu.tr

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { iusoskon328527, journal = {Sosyoloji Konferansları}, issn = {1304-0243}, address = {İstanbul Üniversitesi}, year = {2017}, volume = {}, pages = {117 - 153}, doi = {}, title = {TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ}, language = {tr}, key = {cite}, author = {Cansız, Mehmet and Ulusoy, M. Demet} } @araştırma makalesi { iusoskon328527, journal = {Sosyoloji Konferansları}, issn = {1304-0243}, address = {İstanbul Üniversitesi}, year = {2017}, volume = {}, pages = {117 - 153}, doi = {}, title = {THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE}, language = {en}, key = {cite}, author = {Cansız, Mehmet and Ulusoy, M. Demet} }
APA Cansız, M , Ulusoy, M . (2017). TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Sosyoloji Konferansları, (56), 117-153. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/iusoskon/issue/30714/328527
MLA Cansız, M , Ulusoy, M . "TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ". Sosyoloji Konferansları (2017): 117-153 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/iusoskon/issue/30714/328527>
Chicago Cansız, M , Ulusoy, M . "TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ". Sosyoloji Konferansları (2017): 117-153
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ AU - Mehmet Cansız , M. Demet Ulusoy Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - DO - T2 - Sosyoloji Konferansları JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 117 EP - 153 VL - IS - 56 SN - 1304-0243-2458-8245 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Sosyoloji Konferansları TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ %A Mehmet Cansız , M. Demet Ulusoy %T TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ %D 2017 %J Sosyoloji Konferansları %P 1304-0243-2458-8245 %V %N 56 %R %U