IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Is there evidence of creative destruction in the Turkish manufacturing sector? Lessons from a cross-industry analysis of aggregate productivity growth

  • Mahmut Yasar
  • Roderick Rejesus
  • Ilhami Mintemur

This paper examines the Schumpeterian creative destruction process by decomposing and analysing aggregate industry-level productivity growth in three Turkish manufacturing industries. The results are somewhat supportive of the Schumpeterian hypothesis given that the productivity effects within plants contributed the most to the aggregate level productivity growth. However, the results generally contradict the insight that plants entering the market have higher productivity than plants that exit the market. This supports Caballero and Hammour's (NBER Working Paper No. 7720, 2000) arguments that institutional and market constraints may interfere with the proper functioning of Schumpeter's creative destruction process.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.

Volume (Year): 36 (2004)
Issue (Month): 17 ()
Pages: 1937-1945

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:36:y:2004:i:17:p:1937-1945
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. G. Steven Olley & Ariel Pakes, 1992. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," NBER Working Papers 3977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. John Haltiwanger & C J Krizan & Lucia Foster, 1998. "Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons From Microeconomic Evidence," Working Papers 98-12, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  3. Martin N. Baily & Eric J. Bartelsman & John Haltiwanger, 1996. "Labor productivity: structural change and cyclical dynamics," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 96-10, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  4. Martin Neil Baily & Eric J. Bartelsman & John Haltiwanger, 1994. "Downsizing and Productivity Growth: Myth or Reality?," NBER Working Papers 4741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Okamoto, Yumiko & Sjöholm, Fredrik, 1999. "FDI and the Dynamics of Productivity: Microeconomic Evidence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 348, Stockholm School of Economics.
  6. Mark Doms & Eric J. Bartelsman, 2000. "Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September.
  7. David H. Good & M. Ishaq Nadiri & Robin C. Sickles, 1996. "Index Number and Factor Demand Approaches to the Estimation of Productivity," NBER Working Papers 5790, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Aw, Bee Yan & Chen, Xiaomin & Roberts, Mark J., 2001. "Firm-level evidence on productivity differentials and turnover in Taiwanese manufacturing," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 51-86, October.
  9. Bee Yan Aw & Sukkyun Chung & Mark J. Roberts, 1998. "Productivity and the Decision to Export: Micro Evidence from Taiwan and South Korea," NBER Working Papers 6558, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Phoebus Dhrymes & Eric Bartelsman, 1992. "Productivity Dynamics: U.S. Manufacturing Plants, 1972-1986," Working Papers 92-1, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:36:y:2004:i:17:p:1937-1945. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.