ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The fact that relationships at global levels have increased necessitates redefinition of the roles of nations, regions, and metropolitan areas. In recent years, during the economic transportation process experienced on a global scale, the traditional role of cities has been changing, and preferences about location selections, which are related to the requirements of urban functions, have displayed changes as well. In this study, the objective is to ascertain the determining characteristics of decisions about location choice by foreign direct investors in Istanbul. The study is based on a sample of 100 companies that were surveyed in 2002. The ranking of location factors has been analyzed using not only variance of means but also principal components factor analysis. The result of the analysis verifies that the processes which influence location choice in Istanbul are similar to those found in other related studies. Since the beginning of the 1990s, Istanbul has become the hub of a vast hinterland extending from the Balkans to the Caucuses and represents a prime focus for foreign investment. For this reason, it is very significant to know the location choice criteria sought especially in the regions of Istanbul, where foreign capital is to be invested, in order to attract foreign-owned companies in the industrial and service sector. In this study, the criteria to which the foreign-owned investments in the industrial and service sector attach significance in location choice are set for each sector.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Locational Determinants of Foreign Investors in Istanbul
Lale Berköz
1
Abstract: The fact that relationships at global levels have increased necessitates redefinition of the roles of nations, regions, and
metropolitan areas. In recent years, during the economic transportation process experienced on a global scale, the traditional role of cities
has been changing, and preferences about location selections, which are related to the requirements of urban functions, have displayed
changes as well. In this study, the objective is to ascertain the determining characteristics of decisions about location choice by foreign
direct investors in Istanbul. The study is based on a sample of 100 companies that were surveyed in 2002. The ranking of location factors
has been analyzed using not only variance of means but also principal components factor analysis. The result of the analysis verifies that
the processes which influence location choice in Istanbul are similar to those found in other related studies. Since the beginning of the
1990s, Istanbul has become the hub of a vast hinterland extending from the Balkans to the Caucuses and represents a prime focus for
foreign investment. For this reason, it is very significant to know the location choice criteria sought especially in the regions of Istanbul,
where foreign capital is to be invested, in order to attract foreign-owned companies in the industrial and service sector. In this study, the
criteria to which the foreign-owned investments in the industrial and service sector attach significance in location choice are set for each
sector.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94882005131:3140
CE Database subject headings: Turkey; Urban development; Investment; Foreign projects
.
Introduction
In the year 1991, the amount of direct foreign investment equaled
160 billion U.S. dollars. This figure increased to 1.5 trillion dol-
lars by 2000, then decreased to 755 billion dollars in 2001 and
650 billion dollars in 2002. The foreign direct investment FDI
increase in developing countries remained at equal levels,
whereas there was a great recession in investment in developed
countries, particularly in Europe.
Since 1983 the entire sum of foreign capital has been restruc-
tured in legal, financial, and institutional terms, which has led to
an increase in foreign investment in Turkey. For the past ten
years, the country has witnessed an influx of a significant amount
of credit owned by international institutions and private finance
companies. At the close of 1987, total foreign capital investments
totalled only 655.24 million U.S. dollars. By 1997, this had figure
increased to 1.645 billion dollars. In 1987, a total of 795 foreign
firms had investments in Turkey, while by 1997 the figure was
3,707 firms. It is the service sector in which the increase in for-
eign investments has been the most significant, whereas the influx
of foreign capital into the manufacturing sector has taken place at
a slower pace. Of the 3,707 foreign-owned companies in 1997,
963 were in the manufacturing sector, 98 were in agriculture, and
2,646 were in the service sector. The situation in 1987 was far
different, with figures of 255, 35, and 505, respectively. While
in 1983, the service subsectors of commercial enterprises, hotels,
financial institutions, and banking companies numbered 305,
57, and 24, by 1997 these same subsectors totaled 1,525, 269, and
60 data provided by the Foreign Investors Association
YASED兲兴.
The YASED figures illustrate that in 1997 there were 2,153
foreign capital investments in Istanbul. Of these investments,
0.9% were made in agriculture, 19.2% in industry, and 79.9%
in the service sector. 78.9% of the companies investing in the
agricultural sector and 75.6% investing in the industrial sector
were members of OECD countries. OECD countries also repre-
sented a majority of those investing in the service sector 50.3%,
followed by Middle-Eastern and Islamic countries, with 25.3%
Berköz 2001.
There are a great number of studies on analyses of the deter-
minants of the location decision influenced by national or regional
characteristics cheap labor, incentives, union strength, etc. in
foreign direct investment literature Woodward and Glickman
1991; Hill and Munday 1992; Ondrich and Wasylenko 1993;
Dicken and Quevit 1994.
Little 1978 regressed shares of U.S. inward investment
against state characteristics in order to present that foreign-owned
companies’ location decisions were more sensitive than domestic
firms’ decisions to wage differentials and the availability of a port
infrastructure. Using a similar methodology, Glickman and Wood-
ward 1988 made a survey to show how the location of a foreign-
owned plant within the United States is explained by variables
such as energy cost, essential infrastructure, and the labor climate.
Bagchi-Sen and Wheeler 1989 found a significant relation-
ship between foreign-owned service industry investment and
population size and growth rates, together with per capita retail
spending.
Hood and Young 1983 suggested a range of variables that
may be important, but pointed specifically to survey evidence that
stressed market size and incentives. Dunning and Norman 1979
1
Prof. Dr., Istanbul Technical Univ., Faculty of Architecture, Dept. of
Urban and Regional Planning, Taskısla, Taksim, 34437, Istanbul, Turkey.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2006. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on January 5, 2004; approved on August 19, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol.
131, No. 3, September 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488/2005/3-140–
146/$25.00.
140 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2005
examined foreign-owned office location in the United Kingdom
and found that infrastructure variables such as access to airports,
telephone/telex links, and accommodation availability were sig-
nificant determinants of location density.
The current empirical work in both the United States and the
United Kingdom suggests a great number of factors that explain
why some specific regions are attractive. Some of these factors
include infrastructure availability, labor variables, access to adja-
cent markets, and capital incentives Little 1978; Hill and Mun-
day 1991; Glickman and Woodward 1988; Arpan 1981. What
underlies these common factors is the concern of the foreign in-
vestor for minimizing costs while having access to key markets.
Questionnaire-based approaches examining locational motivation
often assess such influences as low labor costs and the availability
of financial assistance undisclosed for reasons of corporation
image Munday 1990.
Preferential assistance and spending on new infrastructure and
improvements also affect the decisions governing FDI location.
Such location factors are more likely to vary at the regional level.
Hill and Munday 1995 studied FDI location in the United King-
dom and France and found that financial assistance, manufactur-
ing wages, and regional well-being play an important role in de-
cision making.
According to econometric studies, regional assistance and
infrastructure spending highly affect the regional distribution
of FDI.
The major factors underlying location choice have in recent
years been infrastructure, access to markets, and financial assis-
tance and, with a likely increase in service sector investment,
especially financial and business services. On the other hand,
it is likely that other factors are assuming greater significance,
such as the presence of a highly educated workforce Collis and
Noon 1994.
There are a number of studies on this subject, including
Tokatlı and Erkip 1998, Balasubramanyam 1996, Balkır
1993, 1996, Togan 1994, and Berköz 2001.
Research Area
The data in this study have been acquired through questionnaires
filled out during personal interviews in 100 leading foreign-
owned companies registered to the Foreign Investors Association
in Istanbul. Fifty companies operate in the industrial sector, and
50 are in the service sector. The companies are marked by their
high ranks in the capital amount they possess. The survey was
carried out through questionnaires filled out during personal
interviews with the company managers between November and
December 2002.
Respondents were asked to identify the most important char-
acteristics of their existing business location and the most critical
factors that influence the choice of location. The characteristics of
the respondents are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
More than half of the industrial companies within the scope
of the study 52% preferred towns that form the inner zone of
Istanbul as hubs. The data on the number of employees indicate
that 46% of the companies have less than 250, whereas 36% of
them have more than 500 employees. 46% of the companies were
established after 1980, and it is certain that this is due to the
economic, legal, and organizational arrangements made in Turkey
in 1983.
54% of the industrial companies have research and develop-
ment R&D units. 20% of these receive R&D service from outer
sources. 44% of them stated that they would need R&D services
in the future. Such companies are planning to meet this re-
quirement either by setting up an R&D unit within the scope of
the company or developing an existing one 30% or by getting
R&D services from outer sources 12%. The data about the in-
tensity of export facilities show that 46% of the companies export
1–25% whereas 34% of them export 26–50% of the products they
produce.
It has been found that 70% of the service sector companies
within the scope of the study operate in the inner zone of Istanbul,
whereas 14% of them operate in the core zone. It is seen that 40%
of the companies have focused on subsectors including finance,
insurance, and real estate Table 2. These findings show that the
service sector companies within the scope of this study are rela-
tively new firms, 82% of which were established after 1980 and
58% of which established after 1990. 32% of the companies have
less than 50 employees, whereas 20% of them are firms with
more than 500 employees.
The 100 firms were asked to rate factors on a four-point
Likert–type scale. In studies within Turkey, usually 1–5 or 1–4
scales are used, because the Turkish society is apt to respond to
Table 1. Characteristics of Industrial Sector Firms
Characteristic Frequency Percent
Distribution of industrial firms
Core districts 3 6
Inner districts 26 52
Outer districts 21 42
Distribution of industrial firms by subsector
Food manufacturing 8 16
Ready-made garments 4 8
Medicine 4 8
Chemical industry 3 6
Paper 3 6
Transport equipment 11 22
Other 17 34
Export intensity
1–25% 23 46
26–50% 17 34
51–75% 8 16
76–100% 2 4
Date of Establishment
Before 1980 27 54
1980–1989 11 22
1990–1999 12 24
2000+
Employment range
1–50 8 16
51–100 6 12
101–250 9 18
251–500 9 18
501+ 18 36
Firms undertaking research and development
(R&D)
27 54
Firms not undertaking R&D 23 46
Receiving R&D services from other sources 10 20
Companies planning to receive R&D 22 44
By setting up R&D unit within scope of company
or developing existing one by getting
15 30
R&D services from other sources 612
JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2005 / 141
this scale more easily. There are difficulties in feeling slight dif-
ferences due to the intellectual level of the respondents in 1–10
scales; thus, in Turkey a 1–4 scale is preferable.
The significance of a specific factor with respect to location
decision has been measured both by the mean index score and the
percentage of firms which indicated that a factor was either “de-
cisive” or “of major importance” in their decision. The mean
index score has been calculated using the following procedure:
4decisive; 3of major importance; 2of some importance; and
1unimportant.
The factors considered “crucial” in the choice of location are
those with a mean index score of 2.0 or greater and which 50% or
more of the respondent firms indicated to be decisive or of major
importance. Factors “of secondary importance” include all those
with solely a mean index score of 2.0 or greater.
Table 3 presents the arithmetic means and standard deviation
values of the industrial companies. As seen in the table, “reliable
electrical power” is the variable with the highest arithmetic mean
value 3.58; thus, it is the criterion which the company managers
consider to be the most important in location choice. On the other
hand, the criterion considered to be the least important is the
“quality of local basic schools.” Moreover, the criteria with low
arithmetic mean values and high standard deviation values,
namely, “ownership,” “attractive living environment for
managers/administrative staff,” and “existence of related indus-
tries in the environment,” were found to be the least important
criteria.
Table 4 shows that the “customer potential” criterion, with the
highest arithmetic mean value 3.62 and the lowest standard de-
viation value 0.72, is the one considered to be the most impor-
tant by the service sector companies, and this is followed by
“quality of the communications infrastructure,” ”physical condi-
tion of the office,” and “quality of the building.” Conversely, the
ones thought to be the least important are “ownership,” “personal
or family reasons of the owners,” and “relatively cheap real estate
property,” respectively.
The variables with the lowest arithmetic mean values and the
highest standard deviation values were not included in the factor
analysis.
First, using the SPSS package program, a factor analysis of the
industrial sector data was made. Factor analysis is also called a
data reduction method, so instead of multiple variables as a means
of describing a subject, factor analysis can be used, which makes
it easier to describe the subject with fewer variables.
The statistical values presented in Table 5 indicate that 30
variables in the first factor group had a total variability of 17.29%.
The figure for the second factor group was 11.42%; the third
factor group was 9.45%; the fourth factor group was 7.14%; the
fifth factor group was 6.95%; and the sixth factor group was
Table 2. Characteristics of Service Sector Firms
Characteristic Frequency Percent
Distribution of service sector firms
Core districts 7 14
Inner districts 35 70
Outer districts 8 16
Distribution of service sector firms by subsector
FIRE finance, insurance, real estate 20 40
Administrative 3 6
Telecommunication/communication 5 10
Transportation 1 2
Real trade 5 10
Export-import 10 20
Tourism 6 12
Date of establishment
Before 1980 9 18
1981–1990 12 24
1991–2000 26 52
2001+ 3 6
Employment range
1–50 16 32
51–100 9 18
101–250 10 20
251–500 5 10
501+ 10 20
Table 3. Reasons for Choice of Location by Industry
Variables Mean
Standard
deviation
Reliable electric power 3.58 0.70
Quality of communications infrastructure 3.50 0.84
Public water supply and infrastructure 3.48 0.76
Infrastructure especially designed for industry 3.42 0.76
Labor with required skills 3.40 0.78
Presence of sector subsidiary firms 3.24 0.80
Suitable plot of land 3.24 0.72
Suitability of transportation cost 3.20 0.64
Disposal of waste 3.20 0.90
Financial incentives 3.14 0.76
Availability of parking space 3.10 0.65
Access to developed rail network 3.08 0.75
Technical/maintenance services 3.08 0.85
Relatively cheap real estate property 3.06 0.74
Government persuasion 3.06 0.68
Financial pressure on alternative locations 3.02 0.80
Pleasant surrounding environment 3.02 0.80
Plentiful and cheap labor 3.02 0.65
Ownership 3.02 1.04
Close to major suppliers 2.96 0.90
Cost of public services 2.94 0.77
Suitable building 2.92 0.92
Close to major customers 2.92 0.90
Presence of related industries 2.88 0.96
Limited local competition for products 2.88 0.96
Close to health facilities 2.82 0.72
Distance from specialist services and facilities 2.78 0.62
Property availability for lease 2.72 0.76
Space for expansion 2.70 0.84
Public transportation to plant site 2.64 0.80
Close to international maritime port 2.62 0.81
Distance from international airport 2.48 0.81
Attractive living environment for managers and
administrative staff
2.48 0.99
Employment agencies 2.46 0.95
Image of location 2.44 0.95
Access to developed rail network 2.30 0.76
Personal or family reasons of owners 2.30 0.91
Locally available technical training 2.08 0.80
Quality of local basic schools 1.98 0.87
142 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2005
6.16%. The total variation of the sixth factor group cited was
58.44%. The “quartimax” transformation grouped the criteria by
importance in location choice, as reported by company officials,
into six main groups.
Application of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin KMO, the measure of
sampling adequacy, and the Bartlett test of sphericity indicated
that the factor analysis results were reliable.
The KMO values of the industrial and service sector samples
suggest that the factor analysis results may be accepted with
confidence Norusis 1992. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin KMO
measure, which tests sampling adequacy, indicated that a factor
analysis was adequate, because correlations between pairs of vari-
ables can be explained by the other variables.
Consequently, as a result of applying this procedure, the origi-
nal conceptual six factor groups are considered as operational
representatives underlying the complete set of variables.
The first significant factor was the “government support and
urban public services” factor. This factor had a total variance of
17.29%. It was determined that, in the selection of site, industrial
firms with foreign capital attached great importance to criteria
related to management support and the presence of urban public
services. Four variables from this group exceeded the weight of
0.7%, these being “financial pressure on alternative locations,”
“financial incentives,” “quality of communications infrastruc-
ture,” and “cost of public services.”
We named the second factor group “infrastructure and produc-
tion factors.” Its total weight was 11.42%. The second factor
group consisted of two variables with a factor weight exceeding
0.7%, these being “public water supply and infrastructure” and
“disposal of waste.”
The third factor group was named “localization factors.” It had
a total weight of 9.45%. In this group, three variables had a
Table 4. Importance of Location Factors for Service Sector Firms
Variables Mean
Standard
deviation
Customer potential 3.62 0.72
Quality of communications ınfrastructure 3.58 0.70
Physical condition of office 3.48 0.74
Quality of building 3.48 0.65
Visible location 3.46 0.65
Proximity to business center 3.42 0.67
Pleasant surrounding environment 3.32 0.68
Prestigious location 3.28 0.88
Suitable building 3.26 0.78
Labor with required skills 3.22 0.86
Availability of parking space 3.18 0.87
Quality of public services 3.10 0.81
Suitability of type of operations to setting 3.10 0.76
Government persuasion 3.04 0.78
Access to developed road network 3.04 0.73
Quality of ınfrastructure 3.04 0.86
Public transportation to firm site 3.00 0.88
Suitability of transportation cost 2.96 0.83
Distance from specialist services and facilities 2.94 0.68
Cost of public services 2.84 0.89
Proximity to complementary sector 2.80 0.73
Access to international airport 2.76 0.89
Property available for lease 2.72 0.95
Proximity of financial center 2.66 0.77
Lower municipal taxes 2.64 0.85
Technical/maintenance services 2.64 0.85
Proximity to firms in same sector 2.64 0.75
Low cost of land and rents 2.60 0.83
Ownership 2.58 1.03
Employment agencies 2.48 0.84
Personal or family reasons of owners 2.22 1.02
Relatively cheap real estate property 2.00 0.99
Table 5. Principal Components Factor Analysis of Location Determi-
nants by Industry
Factors
Factor
loading
Eigen-
values
Percentage
of variance
1. Government support
and urban public services
6.93 17.29
Financial pressure on
alternative locations
0.816
Financial incentives 0.725
Quality of communications
infrastructure
0.711
Cost of public services 0.710
Close to health facilities 0.626
Presence of sector subsidiary firms 0.600
Presence of industries in same sector 0.566
Technical/maintenance services 0.542
Pleasant surrounding environment 0.538
Space for expansion 0.508
Labor with required skills 0.453
2. Infrastructure and
production factors
2.64 11.42
Public water supply
and infrastructure
0.793
Disposal of waste 0.774
Reliable electric power 0.646
Infrastructure especially
designed for industry
0.627
Close to major suppliers 0.356
3. Localization factors 2.27 9.45
Distance from specialist services
and facilities
0.635
Public transportation to plant site 0.632
Suitable building 0.626
Suitable plot of land 0.596
Availability of parking space 0.453
4. Government persuasion
and accessibility factors
2.15 7.14
Government persuasion 0.723
Access to developed road network 0.616
Access to developed rail network 0.430
Suitability of transportation cost 0.397
Close to international maritime port 0.220
5. Ownership affordability 1.85 6.95
Relatively cheap real estate property −0.610
Property available for lease −0.556
6. Production cost 1.67 6.16
Close to major customers −0.694
Plentiful and cheap labor 0.658
Cumulative percentage 0.58
Note: KMO: 0.613; quartimax rotation. Bartlett: 719.50.
JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2005 / 143
weight that exceeded 0.6%, these being “distance from specialist
services and facilities,” “public transportation to plant site,” “suit-
able building,” and “suitable plot of land.”
The fourth factor group was related to “government persuasion
and accessibility.” One variable from this group, “government
persuasion,” had a weight exceeding 0.7%.
We addressed the fifth factor group as “ownership affordabil-
ity.” It gave a total weight of 6.95%.
The sixth factor group was related to cost of production and
turned out to be the least significant group. This factor had a total
weight of 6.16%.
Table 6 shows the results from the factor analysis of the ser-
vice sector data. In this solution, all factors were readily interpret-
able. We labeled factor 1 as “government support and urban pub-
lic services.” Factor loading in this factor consisted of “cost of
public services,” “lower municipal taxes,” “quality of communi-
cations infrastructure,” “cost of public services,” “government
persuasion,” “technical/maintenance services,” “quality of infra-
structure,” and “availability of parking space.”
When it comes to choosing a location, it can be seen that the
managers of service sector firms attach special importance to the
cost of public services, lower municipal taxes, quality of the com-
munications infrastructure, government persuasion, technical/
maintenance services, and quality of the infrastructure.
“Physical condition of building and accessibility,” along
with “quality of building,” “physical condition of office,” and
“access to developed road network,” formed the factors covered
by factor 2.
Factor 3 dealt with the “localization factor,” including state-
ments about “image of location,” “distance from specialist ser-
vices and facilities,” “visible location,” and “pleasant surrounding
environment.”
The “desire for centralized location” formed the focal point of
factor 4. Factor loading on this factor contained the “suitability of
the type of operations to setting,” “customer potential,” “proxim-
ity to complementary sectors,” “proximity to business center,”
“proximity to financial center,” and “suitable building.”
Factor 5 was related to “transportation and cost factors” such
as “public transportation to firm site” and “suitability of transpor-
tation cost.” The variables in this group are those that were at-
tached the least importance by the management of the firms.
The objective of the factor analysis is to explain numerous
variables by a couple of common factors. The cluster analysis
aids in dividing the variables of which natural groups are not
accurately known into subclusters that are similar to one another.
In this study, K-means cluster analysis has been applied in order
to determine how the groups of factors that the firms attach sig-
nificance to in location choice form clusters in other words, in
what way such factors are divided into subgroups.
The application of K-means cluster analysis on the factor
groups of the industrial firms yields the result that the industrial
firms are divided into two subgroups, as shown in Table 7. It has
been found out that the 41 firms which form the first group attach
the greatest importance to “government support and urban public
services” in location choice, followed by “infrastructure and pro-
duction factors” and “government persuasion and accessibility
factors,” respectively. The firms in this group do not find “pro-
duction cost,” “ownership affordability,” and “localization fac-
tors” as important.
On the other hand, the nine firms in the second group find
“production cost,” “ownership affordability,” and “localization
factors” important, because the firms in this group are in the sub-
sectors of textiles, industrial chemicals, petroleum and coal prod-
ucts, plastics, and tobacco products, and as such they produce
mostly raw materials. This difference is why second group firms
find the variables that decrease production costs significant,
Table 6. Principal Components Factor Analysis of Location Determi-
nants by Service Sector Firms
Factors
Factor
loading
Eigen-
values
Percentage
of variance
1. Government support
and urban public services
4.66 17.55
Quality of public services 0.738
Lower municipal taxes 0.735
Quality of communications
infrastructure
0.709
Cost of public services 0.700
Government persuasion 0.694
Technical/maintenance services 0.602
Quality of infrastructure 0.565
Availability of parking space 0.560
Relatively cheap real estate property 0.550
Proximity of financial center 0.394
2. Physical condition of building
and accessibility
3.10 10.99
Quality of building 0.856
Physical condition of office 0.823
Access to developed road network 0.369
3. Localization factors 2.72 10.65
Image of location 0.852
Distance from specialist
services and facilities
−0.582
Visible location 0.503
4. Desire for centralized location 2.10 10.17
Suitability of type of operations
to setting
0.743
Customer potential 0.649
Proximity to complementary sectors 0.648
Labor with required skills 0.570
Proximity to business center 0.545
Pleasant surrounding environment 0.435
Suitable building 0.106
5. Transportation and cost factors 1.63 7.58
Public transportation to firm site 0.550
Suitability of transportation cost 0.513
Cumulative percentage 56.90
Note: KMO: 0.526; varimax rotation. Bartlett: 565,74.
Table 7. K-Means Cluster Analysis of Industrial Firms
Factor scores of factor groups Cluster 1 Cluster 2
1. Government support and urban
public services
0.20805 −0.94778
2. Infrastructure and production factors 0.17866 −0.81389
3. Localization factors − 0.03650 0.16630
4. Government persuasion
and accessibility factors
0.17345 −0.79014
5. Ownership affordability −0.10722 0.48845
6. Production cost −0.16516 0.75239
Note: Number of cases in each cluster: cluster 141; cluster 29;
valid50; mission0.000.
144 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2005
whereas “government support and urban public services,” “infra-
structure and production factors,” and “government persuasion
and accessibility factors” are insignificant.
The application of K-means cluster analysis on the factor
groups of the firms of the service sector has revealed the fact that
the service firms are clustered into two subgroups Table 8.
Forty-one of the 50 firms are in the first group. The subsectors
gathered in this group are finance, insurance, and real estate
FIRE; telecommunications; tourism services; and administration
services. The firms in this group find “government support and
urban public services,” “localization factors,” and “physical con-
dition of building and accessibility” significant, whereas “trans-
portation and cost factors” are insignificant. This is because it is
necessary for the firms of the aforesaid subsectors to be located in
the urban cores, due to their business scopes.
The trade, transportation, and export-import firms attach great
importance to “transportation and cost factors” in location choice,
because it is the factor group required in such business sectors.
Conclusion
Turkey has been undergoing a process of restructuring its rela-
tionship within the world economies since 1980. In the 1980s,
with the purpose of alluring foreign capital investment into the
country, some economic, legal, and organizational changes were
made. Istanbul, due to its propinquity to regional markets and its
variety of natural resources, has an important place in the eco-
nomic system of the world in the globalizing process. To put it in
another way, Istanbul holds the potential both of controlling a
huge interregional network and of acting as the center for com-
mercial activities.
This study aimed at determining the factors that were attached
importance by firms with foreign capital in determining the loca-
tion of their site, aided by data from a questionnaire covering 50
industrial and 50 service sector companies that invested in Istan-
bul, with the purpose of establishing the preferences of location of
firms with foreign capital in the metropolitan area of Istanbul.
The findings of this study show that FDI firms tend to be
located in the inner zone of Istanbul.
The mean results’ variance shows that the most important lo-
cation determinants for the industry were reliable electric power,
quality of the communications infrastructure, the public water
supply and infrastructure, and infrastructure especially designed
for industries.
The variance of mean results confirms that reliable customer
potential, quality of communications infrastructure, physical con-
dition of office, and quality of building were the highest important
determinants of location choice by service sector firms of foreign
investors.
As per the results of factor analysis of the industrial sector of
FDI locations, six factor categories were formed, each showing
the variables rated as important by company officials. The “gov-
ernment support and urban public services” factor was found to
be the factor group of greatest importance. Second in importance
was “infrastructure provisions and production,” while the third
most important factor was “localization factors,” the fourth con-
tained “accessibility and cost factors,” the fifth was “ownership
affordability,” and the sixth and least important factor was the one
concerning “production cost.”
The study showed that service sector of FDI found “govern-
ment support and urban public services” critical in their selection
of a location. “Physical condition of building and accessibility”
turned out to be the most important factor in the choice of
location. The third most important factor was the “localization
factor,” the fourth factor was “desire for centralized location,” and
“transportation and cost factor” was the fifth and least important
factor.
The results of this study show that government persuasion
and financial incentives do have some effect on the location of
foreign investments. Similar results were obtained by Hill and
Munday 1992.
Factor analyses were applied, respectively, to both sets of cri-
teria, as attached importance by the industry and service sectors in
their selection of location. Upon factor analysis and grouping of
important criteria by both sectors, it was found that “government
support and urban public services” was the factor that was at-
tached greatest priority and importance.
Applying K-means cluster analysis on the factor groups ob-
tained as a result of factor analysis yielded two subgroups in not
only the industrial but also the service sector. In both of the sec-
tors, 82% of the total firms are collected in the first groups.
Within the industrial and service sectors, the sectors gathered in
the first subgroup attach the utmost importance to “government
support and urban services” in location choice.
This finding supports the results of the factor analysis. In both
of the sectors industrial and service, there are fewer firms gath-
ered in the second subgroup 12% of the total firms were in this
group and they find “cost reducing factors” significant, as this is
something necessitated by their sector structure.
This research shows that the similarity of the factors that were
attached greatest importance in site selection by both industrial
and service sector firms with foreign capital, in spite of their
different structure, was due to their primary need for government
support and reliability, unlike the needs of domestic companies.
Thus, the results of this survey and those of earlier studies about
the locational determinants of FIRE Berköz 2000 and producer
services Berköz 1998 in the Istanbul metropolitan area confirm
that the criteria which were attached greatest importance by do-
mestic and foreign companies in determining location differ from
each other.
This study further showed that, in developing countries
like Turkey, reliability and support by the government and the
presence and quality of urban public services were the loca-
tional incentives that most attracted the foreign investor. In
addition, whereas industrial firms with foreign capital tend to pre-
fer areas with first-rate infrastructural conditions, with a fine lo-
cation and high accessibility, service sector firms prefer areas
with a fine location, high accessibility, and buildings in good
physical condition.
The results of this research have important implications for
Turkey. Governments must make necessary legal arrangements
that attract foreign capital and reduce long-lasting procedures.
Table 8. K-Means Cluster Analysis of Service Firms
Factor scores of factor groups Cluster 1 Cluster 2
1. Government support and urban
public services
0.34207 −1.55832
2. Physical condition of building
and accessibility
0.11185 −0.50955
3. Localization factors 0.17119 −0.77985
4. Desire for centralized location 0.03227 0.14703
5. Transportation and cost factors −0.04171 0.18999
Note: Number of cases in each cluster: cluster 141; cluster 29;
valid50; missing0.000.
JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2005 / 145
However, the government must also ensure economic stability,
which will make it reliable both within the country and abroad.
Moreover, it will be more possible for foreign investors to invest
in Turkey if municipalities apply the location-determining criteria
in this research in industrial and central areas, thus rendering
conditions more attractive.
References
Arpan, J. 1981. “The impact of state incentives on foreign investors’ site
selections.” Econ. Rev.,668, 3642.
Bagchi-Sen, S., and Wheeler, J. D. 1989. “A spatial and temporal model
of foreign investment in the US.” Econ. Geol.,652, 113–129.
Balasubramanyam, V. N. 1996. “Foreign direct investment in Turkey.”
The economy of Turkey since liberalisation, S. Togan and V. N. Bala-
subramanyam, eds., Macmillan, London, 112–130.
Balkır, C. 1993. “Turkey and the European Community: Foreign trade
and direct foreign investment in the 1980s.” Turkey and Europe,C.
Balkır and A. M. Williams, eds., Pinter, London.
Balkir, C. 1996. “Türkiye ve Avrupa Topluluğu: 1980’lerde ș Ticaret
ve Doğrudan ș Yatırımlar.” Türkiye ve Avrupa likileri, C. Balkır and
A. M. Williams, eds., Sarmal Yayınevi, Istanbul, Turkey, 137–188 in
Turkish.
Berköz, L. 1998. “Locational preferences of producer service firms in
Istanbul.” European Planning Studies,63, 333–349.
Berköz, L. 2000. “Location of financial, insurance, and real estate firms
in Istanbul.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 1262, 75–88.
Berköz, L. 2001. “The interregional location of foreign investors in
Turkey.” European Planning Studies,98, 979–994.
Collis, C., and Noon, D.
1994. “Foreign direct investment in the UK
regions: Recent trends and policy issues.” Regional Studies,288,
843–848.
Dicken, P., and Quevit, M., eds. 1994. “Transnational corporations and
European regional restructuring.” Geographical Studies 181, Royal
Dutch Geographical Society, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dunning, J. H., and Norman, G. 1979. Factors influencing the location
of offices’ muitinational enterprises, Location of Offices Bureau and
Economists Advisory Group, London.
Glickman, N., and Woodward, D. 1988. “The location of foreign direct
investment in the US: Patterns and determinants.” Int. Region. Sci.
Rev.,112, 137–154.
Hill, S., and Munday, M. 1991. “The determinants of inward invest-
ment: A Welsh analysis.” Appl. Econom.,231, 761–769.
Hill, S., and Munday, M. 1992. “The UK regional distribution of for-
eign direct investment: Analysis and determinants.” Reg. Studies, 26,
535–544.
Hill, S., and Munday, M. 1995. “Foreign manufacturing investment in
France and the UK: A regional analysis of locational determinants.”
Tijdschfift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 86, 311–327.
Hood, N., and Young, S. 1983. Multinational investment strategies in
the British Isles, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
Little, J. S. 1978. “Locational decisions of foreign direct investors in the
US, New England.” Econ. Rev., July/August, 43–63.
Munday, M. 1990. Japanese manufacturing investment in Wales, Uni-
versity of Wales, Cardiff, Wales,
Norusis, M. J. 1992. SPSS for Windows professional statistics
, SPSS
Inc., Chicago.
Ondrich, J., and Wasylenko, M. 1993. Foreign direct investment in the
United States, Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalmazoo,
Mich.
Togan, S. 1994. Foreign trade regime and trade liberalization in Turkey
during the 1980s, Avebury, Aldershot, U.K.
Tokath, N., and Erkip, F. 1998. “Foreign investment in producer ser-
vices.” TWPR,201, 87–106.
Woodward, D. P., and Glickman, N. J. 1991. “Regional and local deter-
minants of foreign firm location in the United States.” Industry loca-
tion and public policy, H. W. Herzog and A. Schlottmann, eds., Uni-
versity of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tenn. 190–220.
146 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2005
... Deichmann, Karidis ve Sayek (2003) Türkiye'deki çokuluslu firmaların yerseçimi faktörlerini belirlemişlerdir ve çalışmalarında bu konuya özgü yasal yapıya referans vermişlerdir. Berköz (2005) yabancı sermayeli sanayi ve hizmet sektörü firmalarının yerseçiminde önem verdikleri kriterleri belirlemiştir. Bu çalışmada 2002 Aralık ayında İstanbul metropoliten alanında bulunan sermaye açısından en büyük 50 hizmet ve en büyük 50 sanayi firması ile yüz yüze yapılan anket çalışması ile metropoliten alandaki yerseçimi önceliklerinin sektörlere göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğinin belirlenmesi açısından konu değerlendirilmiştir (Berköz, 2005 Pazarın büyüklüğü-Pazarın büyüklüğü DYY'ın yerseçimi belirleyicilerinden birisidir. ...
... Berköz (2005) yabancı sermayeli sanayi ve hizmet sektörü firmalarının yerseçiminde önem verdikleri kriterleri belirlemiştir. Bu çalışmada 2002 Aralık ayında İstanbul metropoliten alanında bulunan sermaye açısından en büyük 50 hizmet ve en büyük 50 sanayi firması ile yüz yüze yapılan anket çalışması ile metropoliten alandaki yerseçimi önceliklerinin sektörlere göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğinin belirlenmesi açısından konu değerlendirilmiştir (Berköz, 2005 Pazarın büyüklüğü-Pazarın büyüklüğü DYY'ın yerseçimi belirleyicilerinden birisidir. Chakrabarti (2003) göre; pazarın büyüklüğü talep artışı sağladığı için yabancı sermayenin yerseçiminde etkili olmaktadır. ...
... İstanbul'da faaliyet gösteren firmaların arazi seçimlerini, enerji ve iletişim altyapılarının gücü, yeşil ve rekrasyon alanlarının varlığı, uygun parsellerin varlığı ve gelişmiş yol ağına erişim belirlemektedir. Arazi kullanımı haricinde ise, ekonomik yatırımların hâlihazırda bir yerde yoğunlaşması, yeni yatırımların da o yere yönelmesini teşvik etmektedir (Berköz, 2005;Mariotti ve Piscitello, 1995;Yavan, 2010 (TÜİK, 2001). ...
Article
Full-text available
Bu çalışma, arazi yönetiminin en önemli bileşenlerinden biri olan arazi kullanımı ile ekonomik kalkınma arasında bir ilişki kurmaktadır. Ekonomik kalkınmanın, mülkiyet / arazi kullanımı ile olan ilişkisi, çeşitli düşünürlerin ve modern ekonomistlerin görüşlerine değinilerek irdelenmektedir. Yapılan literatür taraması sonucunda, ekonomik kalkınmanın çağımız koşullarında mülkiyet biriktirme ile sağlanamayacağı ve doğru arazi kullanımının ekonomik kalkınmayı güçlendireceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, ülkemizin bölgeleri arasındaki ekonomik gelişmişlik farklılıklarını azaltmaya yönelik olarak gerçekleştirilen bölgesel kalkınma çalışmalarını destekleyecek arazi kullanım politikaları sunulmuştur. Kalkınma ajanslarının hazırladığı bölge planları ve merkezi hükümetin ortaya koyduğu stratejik belgeleri geliştirmeye yönelik sunulan bu arazi kullanımı politikaları, literatürde sunulan içerik ile karşılaştırılarak, bölgesel kalkınma çalışmalarına yeni tartışma konuları ortaya koymaktadır. Bu önermelerin içerisinde en önemlisi de, arazi kullanımının yönetilebildiği konumsal veri altyapılarının kullanımı ve geliştirilmesidir.
... Türkiye'de yabancı sermayenin yatırım yapmasını teşvik edici yasal düzenlemeler ile Doksanlı yıllardan itibaren özellikle İstanbul'a yapılan yabancı yatırımların miktarında artış olmuştur (Berköz, 2005). Yabancı sermayenin İstanbul'da yatırım yapmaya başlaması ile yüksek gelirli üst düzey yönetici kadrolarından oluşan lüks konut tüketicisi bir grubun da üst gelir gruplarına eklenmesi anlamına gelmektedir. ...
... Having entered the new millennium as a developing country, Turkey bears the potential to be the new local power in the region that encompasses the Balkans, Middle East and Caucasia, making use of the historical, geographical, ethnic and economic opportunities it conveys in the changing global balances. With the dissolution of the Soviet system after 1989, Istanbul has become the center of the wide hinterland that includes three continents and covers the countries neighboring the Balkans, Caucasia, Turkic Republics, Middle East, and the Black Sea (Berköz, 2005). Whereas foreign capital made investments in the industry sector, namely manufacture in Turkey before 1980, today this trend has changed, and services sector, banking, insurance trade, and the sub-sectors of investment finance have become more preferable. ...
Article
Full-text available
The effects of the social and spatial changes caused by globalization experienced worldwide are also seen in the Istanbul metropolitan area. In recent years, the tremendous changes in economic systems, politics, and technology throughout the world, which have combined with certain specific factors such as the opening of Eastern European markets, have all acted to enhance Istanbul’s position among world cities. With this rapid transformation process, foreign-capital companies are investing in Turkey, especially in Istanbul. The Istanbul metropolitan area is an essential centre of focus within the changing world balances in the region encompassing the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Turkic Republics. There are also economic potentials in addition, to the natural and geopolitical location of Istanbul. The advantageous conditions of Istanbul have been highly effective, including its location as an important market, the presence of the qualified, young and low-cost workforce, a dynamic and open economy and liberal foreign capital legislation, an advanced access and communication infrastructure, an advanced work environment, as well as operations of the world-famous multinational companies. Due to both its geographical location and its historical relationships, today the Turkish Republic acts as a country that bridges markets across Northern Africa and the Middle East thus are becoming an important point for foreign logistics firms. Within the last decade, the importance of the logistics sector increases gradually in the Istanbul metropolitan area, located in the crossroads between two continents in terms of the Istanbul’s international dealings. In this light, it is necessary, to have an understanding of both the foreign firms in logistics industry operating in Istanbul and the impacts of the characteristics of these companies on the city’s development. However, the role that the characteristics of logistics FDI firms play on the location choice at the intra-metropolitan level is unknown. This paper focuses on the characteristics and spatial distribution of foreign firms in logistics industry. Keywords: FDI, spatial analysis, logistics industry, Istanbul, Turkey
... During the period between 1980s and 1990s, the outbound and inbound FDI flows as a percent of GDP increased from 6.4 to 4.7, respectively, to double digits (Hejazi and Pauly 2003). These changes have raised questions regarding international trade (Balasubramanyam et al. 1996;Brainard 1997;Lipsey and Weiss 1984), gross capital formation (Caves and Reuber 1971;Feldstein and Horioka 1980;Stevens and Lipsey 1992;Feldstein 1995;Desai et al. 2005), regional determinants of FDI (Chen 1996;Coughlin et al. 1991;Liu et al. 1997;Wu 1999Wu , 2000Berköz 2001Berköz , 2005Wu and Radbone 2005;Berköz and Turk 2010), employment (Mariotti et al. 2003), productivity (Tomiura 2007;Menghinello et al. 2010), financial development (Alfaro et al. 2004;Hermes and Lensink 2003), the balance of payments (Razmi 2009), regional growth (Bajo-Rubio et al. 2010), overall welfare (Sinha 2009) and air pollution (Zheng et al. 2010). ...
Article
Previous studies suggest that FDI inflows enhance economic growth in developing countries through spillover effects and more employment opportunities. This research attempts to go one step further by offering a theoretical framework for estimating the influence of FDI inflows on residential property prices through expanding the host country’s economy. Utilizing a panel of 21 Guangdong cities from 2001 through 2009, the current study indicates that although the estimated coefficient for FDI inflows is positive and significant, its impact on prices is only modest. Moreover, most foreign real estate developers, especially those from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, who concentrate on investing in commercial and deluxe residential developments, help preserve open space and green areas in less developed parts of Guangdong Province. Given that FDI inflows will not drive up property prices significantly, this research proposes that Guangdong Province, especially its inner cities, should create better business environment to attract foreign investment to develop the economies of inner cities, in order to enjoy more balanced economic growth in Guangdong.
... With legal arrangements to encourage the investment of foreign capital in Turkey, the number of foreign investments especially in Istanbul has increased since the 1990's (Berkoz, 2005). ...
Article
Full-text available
Prof. Dr. Lale BERKÖZ ITU, Faculty of Architecture Department of Urban and Regional Planning Taksim, Taşkışla, 34437, İstanbul e-mail: lberkoz@itu.edu.tr e-mail: lberkoz@gmail.com Merve SAKAR Business Development Assistant Specialist Yapı Kredi Koray GYO A.Ş. Şişli, Elit Residence, No: 17, K: 17, D: 42, 34360, İstanbul e-mail: msakar@yapikredikoray.com e-mail: mervesakar@yahoo.com Abstract The effects of the social and spatial transformation caused by globalization can also be seen within the Istanbul metropolitan area. The growth of the service sector in Istanbul since the 1980s may be attributed to the expansion of foreign multinational corporations, transnational banks, growth in international relations, extension of foreign trade and enlargement of business size. Within this process, a need for qualified and user friendly office areas came into existence. This study will investigate the satisfaction and expectations of office tenants in Istanbul office market. The data collected in this study were obtained through a survey of 330 office tenants in Istanbul. The survey was conducted by internet interviews during April 2010 (Sakar, 2010). The results of collected data were compared with the study, What Office Tenants Want, that prepared by ULI/BOMA in 1999. The results of this research have particular policy and planning implications for Istanbul and may stimulate the creation of real estate development in developing user-satisfying and well-equipped office buildings for the city center that respond to the desires and needs of FİRE firms with respect to location and mechanical infrastructure necessitated by the new telecommunications systems.
Thesis
Full-text available
Turkey is an example of economic development and restructuring that took place during the decade 2001-2011. During the same period, the net foreign direct investment which has been injected in the country exceeded 110 billion dollars. This study provides initially the broader background, and, in comparison with other regional markets, examines and presents the issue of FDI in Turkey. In this context summarizes the main directions of academic literature relating exclusively to the case of FDI in Turkey. It presents the long and deepening compound approach of the country towards the EU and considers its continuation more as a critical condition, and less as an advantage, in attracting FDI in the future. Through a questionnaire survey analyzes the anatomy, the determinants and prospects of the Greek direct investments in Turkey. The lack of academic research renders additional value to the subject, particularly in a period characterized by critical efforts of rapprochement between the two countries. Finally, through a new approach which is proposed (TIP Model©), quantifies the prospects and the potential size of future FDI inflows in Turkey during the period 2011-2015 on the basis of the growth potential offered by the banking sector and estimates the inflows at 70 billion dollars. At last, after having presented the great potential of the country in attracting FDI, the thesis emphasizes the critical importance and necessity of deepening geopolitical stability in the wider region of Turkey for these prospects to be materialized in the medium term.
Article
This study investigates the effects of renovation, improvement and preservation works in the historical center of the city of Trabzon. The historical center of the city has a more intense and more private business and service types than the sub-centers. In addition, it is one of the parts of the city which has the most buildings that reflect the historical, architectural and cultural heritage of the city. The problems that have been brought about by urban development in the traditional center have made it necessary to carry out some preservation and improvement works. In order to unveil the effects of preservation and improvement works in the historical city center, this study focused on three main arteries of the city (Kunduracilar Street, Uzun Street and Maras Street) which have undergone such works, and in order to unveil the (physical, environmental and economic) effects of such works on the users, a questionnaire was administered to 239 business owners who were either the owners or renters of the shops. The general findings of this study are that the preservation and improvement works that are made in the streets of the historical city center affect the preferences of the business owners in their choice of shops; that they increase the volume of customer and shopping; and that they decrease inactivity in the area. The study has also found that parking lots, landscaping and recreation areas are not enough. Other important findings revealed by the interviews with the business owners are: that the complaints of the shop owners about the area should be taken into consideration in the future plans for the purpose of improving the commercial and environmental standards; that infrastructure and rehabilitation programs that will support such open space arrangements as landscaping and recreation areas should be given priority; and that it is necessary to create solutions for the preservation and reuse of the historical values of the area. In addition to these, it is anticipated that another study which will be held in the future and which will employ the customers as the sample will be quite useful for a comparison between two samples (customers and business owners).
Article
Utilizing a static panel data model, this article investigates the regional determinants of domestic gross capital formation among twenty-five Chinese regions for the period between 2004 and 2007. Being inconsistent with previous studies using data from developed countries, our empirical results have suggested that while inbound FDI flows cause gross capital formation to vary across Chinese regions, neither outbound FDI flows nor gross savings cause the variations. The last section concludes with some plausible explanations for these results.
Book
Full-text available
Özet: Bu arastırma, Türkiye’de dogrudan yabancı yatırımların lokasyon seçimini incelemektedir. Arastırmanın ana amacı, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren yabancı sermayeli firmaların ülke içindeki lokasyon seçimini belirleyen faktörleri açıklamaktır. Bu ana amaçla iliskili olarak bu çalısma aynı zamanda, Türkiye’deki yabancı firmaların sektörlere göre lokasyon seçiminin farklılık gösterip göstermedigini de ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Arastırma, bu ana amaca dayalı olarak formüle edilen iki temel hipotezi test ederek ampirik bir analiz saglamaktadır. Bu arastırma, hem dıs ticaret ve lokasyon teorisi, hem de dogrudan yabancı yatırım teorisine dayanmakla birlikte, esas olarak Dunning’in eklektik paradigmasını benimsemektedir. Her bir lokasyon faktörü cografya, iktisat ve isletme literatürünün ortaya koydugu ampirik arastırmalara dayalı olarak seçilmistir. Bu lokasyon faktörlerinin önemini ortaya koymak için En Küçük Kareler yöntemli çoklu regresyon analizi kullanılmıstır. Çoklu regresyon analizinin sonuçları göstermistir ki, Türkiye’de yabancı firmaların lokasyon seçimi yıgılma ekonomileri, piyasa potansiyeli, piyasanın büyüme egilimi, alım gücü, emek arzı, emek maliyeti, emek niteligi, hükümet tesvikleri, serbest bölgeler, yasam kalitesi, mesafe ve erisilebilirlik/ulasım seklinde tanımlanan faktörler tarafından belirlenmektedir. Yabancı firmaların lokasyon seçimini etkileyen en önemli faktör, yıgılma ekonomileridir. Ayrıca, <statistiksel bulgular, lokasyon seçimini belirleyen faktörlerin firmanın faaliyet gösterdigi sektöre göre büyük ölçüde degisiklik gösterdigini ortaya koymustur. Buna göre, sanayi firmalarının yer seçimini belirleyen faktörler hizmet firmalarınınkinden farklıdır. Analiz sonuçları, emek verimliligi, sendikalasma düzeyi, karayolu agı, elektrik altyapısı ve arazi büyüklügü gibi degiskenlerin Türkiye’de yabancı firmaların lokasyon seçiminde istatistiksel bakımdan önemli olmadıgını ortaya koymustur. Sonuç olarak, Türkiye’de yabancı firmaların lokasyon seçimi en basta yıgılma ekonomileri olmak üzere, piyasa, emek, kamu tesvikleri, erisilebilirlik, altyapı ve cografi konum gibi faktörler tarafından belirlenmektedir. Bu ampirik kanıtlar ileri sürülen hipotezleri desteklemektedir. Bu arastırma, gelismekte olan bir ekonomide yabancı firmaların lokasyon seçerken nasıl davrandıgını anlamamızı derinlestirmek yoluyla literatüre katkı saglamaktadır. Bu arastırmanın sonuçları, Türkiye’deki her bir ilin veya kentin kendi yerel/bölgesel yatırım politikasını olusturmaya ihtiyacı oldugunu ve böylece daha fazla dogrudan yabancı sermaye çekebilecegini önermektedir. Abstract: This research examines locational considerations of foreign investors in Turkey using foreign direct investment (FDI) data at provicial level from 1990 to 2003. The main purpose of this dissertation is to investigate factors that determine the locational choice of foreign firms within Turkey. Addionally, this study is designed to understand sectoral variations in the location preferences of foreign investors in Turkey. By doing so, it provides an empirical analysis of location-related determinants of FDI in Turkey. The study tests two hypotheses. The first suggests that the location choice of foreign firms operating in each province of Turkey is determined by the location-specific advantages. The second suggests that the importance of location-specific advantages varies according to the broad activities of foreign firms. The present research adopts Dunning’s eclectic approach as a general framework for investigating the location spesific advantages of foreign firms operating in Turkey. Based on past theoretical and empirical studies, locational variables are selected from geography, economics and international business literatures on location theory, foreign trade and FDI. A number of models are constructed to test the two hypothesis. Ordinary least squares regression is used to analyse the importance of individual location factors. Multiple regression results show that the significant variables influencing the locational choice of foreign firms in Turkey include agglomaration economies, market potential, market growth, market strength, labor availability, labor cost, labor quality, government incentive, free zones, quality of life, distance and accessibility. Among these, the most influential factor explaining the location choice is agglomeration economies. This suggests that agglomeration economies, especially previous foreign investment and the presence of domestic firms in a province, have an enormous effect on location choice. Statistical findings also confirm that the location factors considered vary significantly among foreign investors from different sectors. Hence, locational determinants of service FDI are different from those of manufacturing FDI. The results also indicate that labor productivity, unionization, road density, electricity infrastructure, and land area are not important determinants of FDI location in Turkey. As a result, the empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that location decisions of foreign investors are determined by agglomeration economies, market, labor, government policy, infrastructure, and geography as a distance/proximity. From a policy point of view, the results suggest that each province in Turkey needs to create its own local/regional FDI policy in order to attract more investment.
Article
Full-text available
With the advent of advanced telecommunication networks, the range of location selection has expanded. The impact of telecommunications on the choice of location for businesses active in producer services is so far unclear. None the less, it has become evident that many other factors are of importance in determining office location patterns. Office location and its effect on urban structures has been one of the most important aspects of post-World War II economic changes in developed countries. The increasing importance of the service sector in modem economies necessitates elaboration of locational behaviour in producer service firms. The objective of the research summarized in this paper was to evaluate location of producer service firms in the Istanbul metropolitan area. The method of factor analysis was utilized to define factors important in determining office location patterns. Factor analysis would indicate the main axis of data variation. It is basically a data reduction method that identifies a small number of factors representing the major variation of the data. Section 1 constitutes a review of the relevant literature. This is followed by a description of the producer service sector in Istanbul in Sections 2 and 3. Section 4 contains an exposition of the methodology and survey results. The final section is devoted to a conclusion.
Article
Full-text available
There are several dynamic factors that contribute to the reinforcement of the commercial relationships of Turkey. That is to say not only the strategic regional importance of Turkey, placed on the axis extending from the Far East to the Mediterranean side, Middle East and Europe, but also the new opportunities arising from the continuously developing relationships with the Balkan countries and the newly-established Turkish Republics, since the beginning of the 1990s, have been strengthening Turkey's commercial contacts. Istanbul has the communication networks and infrastructure required to develop into a regional centre. The major investments made in the communication sector during the 1980s have acted to develop the telecommunications infrastructure, thus supporting Istanbul's development into a regional communications centre. Today Istanbul has one of the world's most developed telecommunications infrastructures and this has given the city advantages in terms of expanding into international markets.
Article
The economies of Europe, always in dynamic flux, are currently experiencing particularly turbulent conditions. One particularly important component of change is the transnational corporation (TNC). The growth and spread of TNCs as a major part of the macroscale process of the internationalisation of capital, materially affects the geographical distribution, composition and recomposition of economic activities. Through their coordination (and often their control) of complex intra-firm and inter-firm networks TNCs help to bind together the economic fortunes of widely disparate locations. Certainly within Europe there are few, if any, areas whose economic well-being is not, in some way, influenced by the production or marketing decisions of TNCs. Successive chapters deal with the impact of TNCs in Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Hungary, and Central and Eastern Europe, and with the impact of capital investment in eastern Germany. -after Editors
Chapter
Turkey is often referred to as a typical middle income developing country. This judgement is based on the level of her per capita income, growth rate, population size and literacy rate which all lie near to the average for the middle income developing countries as a group. Turkey, however, differs markedly from other middle income developing countries in the relatively low volume of foreign direct investment (FDI) she harbours. Turkey is not idealogically hostile to the participation of foreign capital and enterprise in her economy. Indeed, one of the major objectives of the economic liberalization programme Turkey embarked upon in 1980 is the encouragement of inflows of FDI and workers’ remittances. Both for reasons of balance of payments, which in fact provided the impetus for the liberalization programme, and requirements of technology and know-how, FDI is crucial for the development of the Turkish economy. There are signs that foreign investors have responded to the liberalization policies, and inflows of FDI into Turkey have increased in recent years. It is, however, arguable if Turkey is poised to be a major recipient of FDI in the near future. Although, since the beginning of this decade, the world supply of FDI has increased appreciably and several countries including Japan have joined the ranks of suonliers of FDI, demand for FDI has also increased.
Article
Since 1980, Turkey has been changing its growth strategy from protectionist import substitution to one more market-oriented and outward looking. As the restructuring has unfolded, the domestic market has opened up to foreigners. This paper discusses the increasing involvement in the economy of producer service firms with foreign capital. We describe 278 such firms: when they entered the Turkish market, their countries of origin (mostly European Community countries), industry groups and ownership structure. The most popular choice of location has been Istanbul.
Article
The interurban location of high-order service activities was investigated by many researchers during the 1980s, but few of these studies concentrated on the intermetropolitan location of high-order service activities (i.e., producer services, finance, insurance, real estate, investment, and holding companies). During the past ten years, Istanbul has become the hub of a vast hinterland that extends from the Balkans to the Caucuses and represents a prime focus for foreign investment. The increasing importance of high-order activities in the Istanbul metropolitan area demands a closer understanding of the locational behavior of high-order service enterprises and its effect on the city's development. The aim of this study was to ascertain the determining characteristics of decisions concerning the location choice by FIRE firms (finance, insurance, real estate, investment, and holding companies) in the Istanbul metropolitan area, a city currently in the midst of a rapid change process.
Article
This study analyzes the spatial distribution of foreign direct investment among metropolitan areas in the United States for the periods 1974-1978 and 1979-1983. A model is developed to test the importance of population size, population growth rate, and per capita retail sales in determining levels of foreign investment. Casetti's expansion method is used to test whether or not the regression parameters of the explanatory variables are spatially and temporally unstable. The results indicate that the model varies both spatially and over time. Heavily concentrated in northeastern metropolitan areas in 1974-1978, especially New York, foreign direct investment dispersed widely to the south and west in 1979-1983. In keeping with the general transformation of the U.S. metropolitan economy, foreign direct investment shifted noticeably from the manufacturing sector to the service sector during the study period.