Academic Journals Database
Disseminating quality controlled scientific knowledge

Neden Bazı İşletme Grupları Diğerlerinin Gerisinde Kalmaktadır? Türkiye’deki Bölgesel Şebeke Örgütleri Örneği

Author(s): Hüseyin ÖZGEN | Hande Mimaroğlu ÖZGEN

Journal: Selcuk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi
ISSN 1302-1796

Issue: 22;
Start page: 325;
Date: 2009;
VIEW PDF   PDF DOWNLOAD PDF   Download PDF Original page

Keywords: Business groups | organizational growth | emerging markets | Turkey

To date, much of the business groups(BGs) literature has focused on mature and/or economically more important types ofgroups in their respective markets such as the chaebol (jae-bul) in South Korea, the quanxi qiye in Taiwan, the konglomerat in Indonesia,the family business groups in India, the family holdings in Turkey, the grupos economicos in Latin America, the twenty-two families of Pakistan,financial-industrial groups or FIGs (semibankirschchina) in Russia, and the qiye jituan in China. Yet, more recent analyses of BGsrecognize distinct types of BGs which emerge in the same markets but differ in terms of their performances and a variety oforganizational characteristics such as age, size, scope, ownership status, financial resources, and relations with the state businessgroups.Alliances composed of small and medium sized firms, which are often loosely connected through joint production, jointmarketing, and knowledge sharing networks, are identified as regional networks in Turkey (Karademir, 2004; Yaprak, Karademirand Osborn, 2007). Member firms of these networks seek benefits such as gaining access to more advance technological andmarketing knowledge. In most cases, member firms of these networks establish relatively stronger social and economic ties topolicy makers at the local and national levels compared to their stand alone counterparts. Some of them appear to be networks ofsecond-tier and third-tier suppliers. Some others evolve into hybrid structures which would be known as multiownership holdingcompany structure in Turkey. For the purposes of this study, we review the literature on regional networks and examineinstitutional factors affecting their evolutionary dynamics.BGs are often conceptualized as groups of firms which are legally independent but connected through economic, social, andlegal ties. Yet, it should be considered that BGs may vary according to some organizational characteristics such as such as age,size, scope, status of ownership, axes of solidarity, administrative structure, and network characteristics. A review of currentliterature illustrates that these complex entities which emerge in different institutional and economic settings considerably varyfrom each other (Yaprak, Karademir and Osborn, 2007). While we are relatively more informed about the varying characteristicsof BGs in different emerging markets, we are not informed as well about whether different types of BGs exist in these markets,and on what basis and to what extent do they differ from each other.More recent analyses of BGs recognize distinct types of BGs which emerge in the same markets but differ in terms of theirperformances and a variety of organizational characteristics. For example, Karademir (2004) identifies four types of BGs inTurkey; (a) Dominant Business Groups-DBGs, (b) Emergent Business Groups EBGs, (c) Encouraged Networks-ENs, and (d)Regional Networks-RNs. The first two of these are family owned and controlled BGs which emerged in different institutional andeconomic periods of Turkey. With a few exceptions initial investments of DBGs date back to 1950s. These BGs evolved alongwith the “roller coaster” economy and political climate of the country. Today, they dominate key industrial sectors, are likelyalliance partners for multinationals, and favorable participants of the big privatization projects. EBGs, on the other hand, are mostly established after 1980s, in the Outward Growth and Liberalization Period of Turkey. Today, some of the subsidiaries ofEBGs are important players in key industrial sectors. Some of these EBGs grow faster than their counterparts as long as they findstrong state backing. A review of the studies on political economics of Turkey demonstrates that economic policies throughoutthe various institutional and economic periods since the foundation of the republic in 1923, provided accumulation of capital inthe hands of family owned BGs (Karademir et al., 2005; Karademir and Danışman, 2007). On the other hand, initiatives forencouraging formation of networks of small and medium sized enterprises were easily broken. It can be articulated that whileoutward growth and liberalization policies of 1980s indirectly supported formation of regional networks in the country, legislationregarding the formation of Sectoral Foreign Trade Companies which largely borrowed from the Japanese trading company modeldirectly encouraged formation of networks of small and medium sized enterprises. Interestingly, a few of these encouragednetworks transformed into BGs composed of loose networks. Some of them reached very high export volumes; some of themsuffered from poor performance; some survived thanks to strong state backing; some blueprinted institutionalized growthpatterns of family owned business groups and diversified into a wide range of areas; some of them disbanded; some others stillsurvive.Our examination of the formation and evolution of regional networks in the Turkish business context suggests that in parallelwith the theoretical reasoning there are set of institutional factors limiting organizational growth. First, we observe that formationand evolution of regional networks are highly dependent on clustering of firms in a region and complementary relations amongboth small and medium sized enterprises and large scale companies. Clustering of firms in a region and formation of well-builtproduction, service, marketing, and knowledge relations substitute institutions and fill institutional voids. However, institutionsubstitution role of regional networks are limited in the absence of network building and/or organizing institutions such asmedium and/or large size companies, multinationals, state owned enterprises, chambers, and associations. Second, we observethat social relations which form on the region, ethnicity, religion basis become liability rather than asset in the absence of propereconomic policy orientations and state backing. In less developed regions, social networks of entrepreneurs impose uniformbehaviors. Third, we observe that state activity plays an important role in the formation and evolution of regional networks.In this paper, we aim to examine why some types of BGs do not prosper as well as other types, how institutional contextlimits organizational growth with a special emphasis on Turkey. Our paper is organized as follows. First, we define BGs andbriefly explain the types of BGs in Turkey. Second, we present the institutional approach to the study of BGs. Third, we presentdiscussion of formation and evolution of regional networks in Turkey. Finally, we present a discussion and propositions for futureresearch
Affiliate Program     

Tango Jona
Tangokurs Rapperswil-Jona