Decoding the Myth of ‘Turkish Silicon Valley’: Unveiling Aspirations and Realities

For years, there has been a continuous discourse surrounding the establishment of a Turkish counterpart to Silicon Valley, generating frequent headlines that declare the emergence of a ‘Turkish Silicon Valley’ in various media outlets. On delving deeper into these articles, it becomes apparent that they frequently associate the launch of newly developed technoparks with the essence of Silicon Valley. Hence, the intent behind crafting this article is to address the misconceptions surrounding the ‘Silicon Valley’ concept in Turkey and to highlight the potential for emulating Silicon Valley’s success within the country.

Nevertheless, the endeavor to create a counterpart to Silicon Valley has spurred the allocation of millions of liras in state-funded investments towards technoparks. However, these investments frequently lack meticulous financial examination. Drawing upon my personal encounters from a visit to Silicon Valley in July 2015, the intention of this article is to scrutinize the underlying reasoning behind initiatives that seek to emulate Silicon Valley’s models within Turkey. Considering the significant employment of public resources to establish technoparks, it becomes increasingly apparent that a comprehensive analysis is imperative for the development of a Silicon Valley-like ecosystem.

Academic Investigations You Should Know

Four notable academic investigations stand out, each delving into the intricate interplay between Silicon Valley and the esteemed institutions of Stanford and UC Berkeley. Leading the way is Henry Etzkowitz’s enlightening piece “Silicon Valley: The Sustainability of an Innovative Region” (Etzkowitz, 2013), which meticulously explores the pervasive influence of Stanford University on the valley’s dynamics. In a parallel vein, Charles E. Eesley and William F. Miller contribute with their article “Stanford University’s Economic Impact via Innovation and Entrepreneurship” (Eesley v Miller, 2012), further illuminating the profound economic resonance that Stanford University’s innovation and entrepreneurial spirit resonate within the Silicon Valley landscape.

A specific category of articles delves into the strategic aspects of Silicon Valley and its relationship to industrial clusters. For instance, Steven Klepper’s work “The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters: The making of Silicon Valley and Detroit” (Klepper, 2010) commands attention as it meticulously dissects industrial clusters in both Silicon Valley and Detroit. Another notable contribution comes from Celal Küçüker’s exploration titled “Industrial Clustering Approaches: An Evaluation” (Küçüker, 2012). Here, Küçüker zeroes in on industrial clusters, taking Silicon Valley as a prime example.

However, amidst these industrial cluster-focused articles, there exists an intriguing departure. “Social Capital and Capital Gains, or Virtual Bowling in Silicon Valley” by Stephen S. Cohen and Gary Fields diverges from the traditional ‘cluster model’ and instead scrutinizes Silicon Valley through the lens of the ‘social capital’ framework (Cohen v Fields, 1999). This unique perspective aims to decipher the dynamic role of social capital as opposed to the typical cluster-based analysis. Notably, this article takes a critical stance on the approach of creating Silicon Valley through the implementation of ‘public policies.’

Venturing into the realm of entrepreneurship, a comparative study by Suzuki (2002) casts a spotlight on Japan and Silicon Valley. Here, the contours of entrepreneurship take form against the backdrop of two distinct landscapes, echoing and diverging.

A compelling exploration emerges with “Hybrid Forms of Business Governance in the Japanese Internet Economy” (Sako, 2001), comparing the hybrid business governance of Bit Valley with that of Silicon Valley. This intricate dance of governance models in different contexts reveals the nuances of their coexistence.

From the realm of strategy, “Commercialization Strategies of Technology: Lessons From Silicon Valley” (Wonglimpiyarat, 2010) offers a canvas where commercialization strategies intersect, drawing lessons from the very heart of Silicon Valley’s technological prowess.

A temporal shift beckons us to medieval Italy, as Brouwer’s (2005) “Managing Uncertainty through Profit Sharing Contracts from Medieval Italy to Silicon Valley” draws intriguing parallels between historical profit-sharing models and those employed in the modern-day digital mecca.

The journey culminates with “Exceptional Visions: Chineseness, Citizenship, and the Architectures of Community in Silicon Valley” (Chung, 2011). Here, the intricate social architecture of Silicon Valley intertwines with the facets of Chineseeness and citizenship, culminating in an exploration of community dynamics.

Another category delves into academic studies exploring immigrants within the context of Silicon Valley. One such instance is the article titled “Silicon Valley’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs” authored by Anna Lee Saxenian (Saxenian, 1999). This particular article shines a spotlight on the substantial influence exerted by Chinese and Indian computer engineer immigrants in Silicon Valley. This theme resonates consistently with other works that also approach the topic from an immigration perspective.

Influence of Venture Capitalists on Silicon Valley

Let us delve into the realm of venture capital’s influence. Within this sphere, a seminal work titled “The Role of Venture Capital Firms in Silicon Valley’s Complex Innovation Network,” authored by Michel Ferrary and Mark Granovetter, commands our attention (Ferrary v Granovetter, 2009). This work, in its essence, offers a critical examination of prevailing analyses that have often associated Silicon Valley’s core with Stanford University or the chip manufacturing sector. Instead, it unveils the valley’s intricate structure as a network with multiple centers, intertwining various components. In this intricate web, the focal point shifts to the pivotal role of venture capital, highlighting its significance among the array of actors. This academic discourse stands in sharp contrast to prevailing interpretations that predominantly anchor Silicon Valley’s analysis in the context of Stanford University.

Advancing within this domain, we encounter “High-Tech Start-Ups and Industry Dynamics in Silicon Valley,” penned by Junfu Zhang (Zhang, 2003). This scholarly work meticulously examines the profound impact of venture capital firms in molding the trajectory of Silicon Valley’s evolution. Bolstered by meticulous data, the article’s significance reverberates within scholarly circles, as it addresses a void by underscoring the potency of funding sources and venture capital firms. This emphasis remains steadfast, despite the ongoing debate surrounding the extent of Stanford University’s imprint on Silicon Valley.

Beyond these, a distinct yet essential contribution beckons our attention – “Information and Governance in the Silicon Valley Model” by Masahiko Aoki (Aoki, 1999). This noteworthy piece reframes our perception of venture capital firms. No longer viewed solely as financial conduits, they emerge as intricate structures adept at managing information, particularly pertaining to emerging ventures. Thus, a panorama of ideas unfolds, all orbiting the central theme of venture capital’s paramount role in shaping the intricate fabric of Silicon Valley.

In international academic exploration, a final category emerges, focusing on the ‘Potential Replication of Silicon Valley‘. Leading this charge is the pioneering work titled “The next Silicon Valley? On the Relationship Between Geographical Clustering and Public Policy” (Hospers et al, 2009). This article meticulously unravels the endeavors of various governments seeking to establish their own versions of Silicon Valley. The discourse delves into the crux of the matter, accentuating the imperative for governments to craft initiatives rooted in the unique realities of their regions, rather than attempting to mimic the Silicon Valley model. This approach, aptly termed “Regional Realism”, underscores the need for context-sensitive policies.

Another notable addition within this category is “The Legal Road to Replicating Silicon Valley” by John Armour (Armour, 2004). This piece occupies an intersection between two realms: the sphere of ‘Silicon Valley’s Replication Potential’ and the domain exploring the impact of venture capital firms on Silicon Valley. Notably, the crux of this article lies in emphasizing the pivotal role played by the scale of venture capital funds within the Silicon Valley ecosystem. This academic discourse delves deeply into the intricacies surrounding the endeavor to emulate Silicon Valley, casting a spotlight on the matter within scholarly circles.

Turkish Academic Perspective

When delving into the Turkish academic landscape concerning Silicon Valley, two primary categories come to the fore. These encompass academic investigations into “Technoparks” and explorations of “University-Industry Cooperation.” Noteworthy examples of studies focusing on technoparks include Uğur Yüksel’s work “Technoparks as a Tool in University-Industry Cooperation” (Yüksel, 2003), Melih Törel’s “Technoparks in the World and in Turkey” (Törel, 2015), and Sanem Yalçıntaş Gülbaş’s contribution on “Technoparks” (Gülbaş, 2011) in the context of innovation.

Contrasting these technopark-centric analyses, Metin Eren’s piece titled “Technoparks and R&D Support in Turkey’s Technological Development” takes a different trajectory. Here, the emphasis shifts towards the significance of ‘social network’ and ‘social capital’, rather than adhering solely to the technopark paradigm (Eren, 2011). This perspective presents Silicon Valley as a “system of networks,” diverging from the prevalent notion in Turkey that tends to pigeonhole Silicon Valley solely as a technopark.

Arguably, the most robust contribution within the Turkish academic arena is the article “Technoparks, Administrative Problems and Solution Proposals in the Framework of University-Industry Cooperation” authored by Sanem Alkibay, Emine Orhaner, Sezer Korkmaz, and Ayşegül Ermeç Sertoğlu (Alkibay et al., 2012). This study delves into technoparks based in Ankara, analyzing the performance of their services through the evaluation of 124 questionnaires.

An exemplar of “thematic” scholarship within this realm is Murat Yalçıntaş’s article “The Effects of University – Industry – State Cooperation on Country Economies: Technopark Istanbul Example” (Yalçıntaş, 2014). This work zooms in on the Technopark Istanbul project in Kurtköy, Istanbul, conceptualized by Turgut Özal in 1987 with the vision of an ‘Advanced Technology Industrial Park’ (İTEP). Centered around a single technopark, this thematic exploration theoretically situates Istanbul’s Technopark within the perspective of ‘Triple Spiral: University-Industry-State Cooperation.’

An additional noteworthy category in the Turkish academic discourse revolves around “University-Industry Cooperation.” Within this realm, two primary articles stand out. The foremost among them is “University-Industry Cooperation in the World and in Turkey and the University-Industry Joint Research Centers Program (ÜSAMP)” authored by Mahmut Kiper (Kiper, 2010). This article intricately weaves the fabric of ‘University-Industry cooperation’ around the notion of intellectual capital, drawing associations and insights

Likewise, another pertinent contribution surfaces in the form of Emrah Cengiz’s work titled “Evaluations on University-Industry Cooperation” (Cengiz, 2014). Much akin to the prior article, here too the discourse delves into the realm of “intellectual capital.” This article not only expounds upon this concept but also engages with the perspectives of Joseph Schumpeter and Friedrich List, thus enriching the narrative surrounding university-industry collaboration.

Turning our attention to the realm of books centered around Silicon Valley, a standout among them within the Turkish landscape is the meticulously detailed work titled “Entrepreneur Capital: Silicon Valley History and Startup Economy.” Authored by Mustafa Ergen and published under the auspices of Koç University publications, this book delves deeply into the Silicon Valley narrative (Ergen, 2015). Within its pages, Ergen not only unravels the historical tapestry and intricate structure of Silicon Valley but also provides a concise summary of the foundational literature on entrepreneurship.
A complementary addition to this literary landscape is the publication “Silicon Valley and Entrepreneurship,” penned by Serkan Ünsal and disseminated as an e-book through online channels (Ünsal, 2015). In alignment with Mustafa Ergen’s tome, this work also journeys through the historical trajectory of Silicon Valley. However, it distinguishes itself by placing a significant emphasis on capturing the distinctive Silicon Valley mentality that underpins its enduring success.

Upon thorough exploration of the literature, it becomes evident that there are six predominant thematic categories that commonly emerge within international academic studies centered around Silicon Valley. These are as follows:

• The Nexus between Silicon Valley and Stanford/UC-Berkeley Universities
• Comparative Analysis: Silicon Valley versus Various Cities
• The Interplay of Silicon Valley and Industrial Clustering
• The Dynamics of Silicon Valley and Venture Capital
• Illuminating the Role of Immigrants in Silicon Valley
• The Prospects for Replicating Silicon Valley’s Success

Turning our focus to the Turkish academic landscape, two primary thematic categories stand out:

• The Landscape of Technoparks
• The Collaboration between University and Industry.

With the exception of Metin Eren’s article titled “Technoparks and R&D Support in Turkey’s Technological Development,” a prevailing trend among the studies is to depict Silicon Valley solely as a technopark. This highlights the pressing need for cultural analysis within articles concerning Silicon Valley in the Turkish context. In this regard, Mustafa Ergen’s work “Entrepreneurial Capital” and Serkan Ünsal’s e-book “Silicon Valley and Entrepreneurship” stand out as noteworthy contributions, offering valuable insights into the cultural dimensions of Silicon Valley. However, it is worth noting that this constitutes a limited portion of the scientific output within Turkish academic literature.

One might argue that, within the Turkish landscape, Silicon Valley’s maturity level remains somewhat insufficiently developed.

Another distinct category that finds its place within the Turkish academic literature is the exploration of university-industry cooperation. In contrast to a focus on Silicon Valley, these articles frequently delve into the “Triple Helix” model of collaboration between academia and industry. While the significant human resource synergy between Stanford University and Silicon Valley remains a key aspect, the emphasis within the Turkish academic discourse tends to center around the economic collaboration of universities with industrial parks.

Taking a broader view of the academic literature, a standout among robust articles is “The Next Silicon Valley? On the Relationship Between Geographical Clustering and Public Policy” authored by Gert-Jan Hospers, Pierre Desrochers, and Frédéric Sautet (Hospers et al., 2009). A remarkable feature of this article lies in its assertion that each region should be structured in alignment with its unique sociological and cultural fabric. In essence, it counters the notion of replicating Silicon Valley in an exact manner, advocating instead for contextual adaptation. Michel Ferrary and Mark Granovetter’s article titled “The Role of Venture Capital Firms in Silicon Valley’s Complex Innovation Network” (Ferrary and Granovetter, 2009) contributes a contrasting viewpoint. It posits that Silicon Valley’s essence doesn’t solely rest upon its association with technoparks or Stanford University; rather, it emerges as a complex innovative network brought forth by formidable actors coming together. This perspective stands in opposition to the more reductionist viewpoints often found in analyses of Silicon Valley.

It’s worth underscoring that to comprehensively dissect the academic literature on Silicon Valley, a grasp of its history, culture, and mindset is imperative. As highlighted by the article “The next Silicon Valley?” (Hospers et al., 2009), relying solely on mechanistic models for analysis may yield results lacking in reliability.

History of Silicon Valley

Differing perspectives surround the exact inception date of Silicon Valley. To illustrate, George Moore’s piece titled “Learning the Silicon Valley Way” ascribes the establishment of Fairchild as the point of origin for Silicon Valley. In my individual investigation, I regard the Gold Rush phenomenon around San Francisco in 1850 as the emblematic founding moment for this innovation hub. The following table presents key historical landmarks intricately woven into the unfolding narrative of Silicon Valley’s evolution.

1850: Gold Rush
1890: Founding of Stanford University
1930: Frederick Terman joins Stanford University
1937: Founding of Hewlett-Packard in a garage
1946: Establishment of Stanford Industrial Park
1955: Inception of William Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory
1957: Birth of Fairchild Semiconductor
1958: Draper, Gaither, and Anderson
1968: Formation of Intel
1970: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (GUI, OOP, Ethernet)
1972: Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia Capital
1976: Birth of Apple Computer (Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak)
1982: Emergence of Sun Microsystems
1984: Establishment of Cisco
1993: Formation of Netscape Communications Corporation
1994: Inception of Yahoo!
1995: Advent of the Internet dot-com era
1998: Introduction of Google
2005: Emergence of Facebook
2010: Rise of Billion Dollar Internet Companies, “Unicorns” (Uber, Airbnb, etc.)

Upon careful examination of the aforementioned table, it becomes evident that Silicon Valley has witnessed distinct ‘entrepreneurship periods’. In this regard, the valley has undergone internal evolution and continuous reconfiguration across each era. Frederick Terman, who served as the dean of Stanford University’s Faculty of Engineering from 1890 to 1955, emerges as a pivotal figure in this narrative. Terman’s influence proves paramount, considering his prior role as the director of the Harvard Radio Research Lab and a leader in technology-based military contracts during WWII. During that time, Harvard secured substantial public contracts while Stanford garnered comparably meager allocations. However, Terman’s relocation to Stanford marked a significant shift toward prioritizing private enterprise and entrepreneurship over anticipated public funding. It was under Terman’s guidance that Hewlett Packard (HP), one of the early tech giants, was established in a garage within Silicon Valley (1937). Further reinforcing this trajectory, the establishment of Stanford Industrial Park in 1952 saw Varian as the pioneer enterprise to set its roots in the region.

Between 1955 and 1970, a distinctive clustering of chip manufacturing companies—coined “Silicon” contributors—emerged as a hallmark of this period. Notably, the momentous departure of eight brilliant talents, recognized as the “Traitorous Eight,” from Nobel Prize laureate William Shockley’s venture marked a pivotal juncture. These individuals went on to establish some of Silicon Valley’s most consequential companies. During this era, the United States Department of Defense assumed the role of Silicon Valley’s foremost client. This allegiance was underscored by the technological rivalry stoked by Russia’s momentous launch of Sputnik on October 4, 1957, igniting the cold war technology race.

Fairchild, a prominent contender against Shockley, held a significant position as one of the era’s largest corporations, paralleling the trajectory of the Shockley enterprise.

A group of 65 individuals who departed Fairchild, analogous to their predecessors, have been dubbed the “Fairchildren.” These individuals went on to become the founding minds behind some of the region’s most trailblazing companies. This phenomenon underscores the critical role of spin-offs within the framework of Silicon Valley. A notable example is the “Paypal Mafia,” comprised of the 12 original Paypal founders. Their legacy of spin-offs has endured through the years, birthing enterprises like Tesla, YouTube, and 500 Startups after their divestment from Paypal.

In 1971, Ed Roberts introduced the inaugural personal computer in Albuquerque, New Mexico—a pivotal milestone in the PC evolution. Branded as Altair, this innovation proved instrumental in galvanizing “computer hobbyist” enthusiasts across Silicon Valley. During this era, these enthusiasts convened regularly through forums such as the “Homemade Computer Club.” Evidently, among the most recognizable names associated with this club are the founders of Apple.

The inception of Apple in 1976 heralded the commencement of the “Computer and Software” focused “entrepreneurial era” within Silicon Valley. Subsequently, the 1990s witnessed the ascendance of the internet economy as the region’s predominant growth engine. As the 2000s unfolded, the internet economy underwent a transformative evolution, giving rise to internet-based companies boasting billion-dollar valuations, commonly referred to as “Unicorns,” which have significantly shaped Silicon Valley’s historical trajectory. This intrinsic ability to continually reinvent itself across distinct historical epochs is a defining attribute of Silicon Valley’s uniqueness. Junfu Zhang’s article “High-Tech Start-Ups and Industry Dynamics in Silicon Valley” (Zhang, 2003) resonates with this perspective, highlighting the Valley’s propensity for diverse historical shifts.

Throughout these dynamic historical progressions, Silicon Valley has introduced its own brands and fostered the growth of indigenous enterprises. To such an extent, Silicon Valley isn’t merely a nurturing ground for companies originating in other regions; it stands as a domain where local businesses sprout from the ground up and rapidly flourish.

The Silicon Valley Mindset

Understanding Silicon Valley requires looking beyond its physical structures and acknowledging it as a mindset. The essence of Silicon Valley’s mindset can be distilled into 30 key attributes:

1. Thinking big
2. Fostering a sharing culture
3. Embracing an open mindset
4. Embodying rapid growth and dynamism
5. Championing innovation
6. Prioritizing results
7. Demonstrating flexibility and adaptability
8. Exhibiting tolerance for cultural differences (Internationalization)
9. Nurturing curiosity and a thirst for learning
10. Treating failure as a stepping stone, not a condemnation
11. Engaging in continuous research and testing
12. Persistently tackling challenging problems
13. Learning from mistakes
14. Cultivating a performance-based company culture
15. Valuing relationship-building (Networking)
16. Pursuing ambitious dreams
17. Cultivating win-win relationships
18. Actively seeking to comprehend diverse perspectives
19. Fostering a partnership-oriented culture
20. Learning through hands-on experience
21. Exercising persistence
22. Harnessing passion
23. Embracing a willingness to take risks
24. Nurturing creativity
25. Embracing visionary thinking
26. Focusing on substance over appearance
27. Cultivating imagination
28. Sharing experiences among experienced individuals
29. Embracing swift error correction and rapid results
30. Operating independently of government support

Silicon Valley’s Entrepreneurial spirit

When delving into the entrepreneurship ecosystem of Silicon Valley, we find an intricate web of diverse actors. At the forefront stand Stanford and UC-Berkeley universities, with Stanford in particular nurturing a lineage of graduates who have spearheaded major companies within the region. Google, Nike, Cisco, HP, Yahoo!, Ideo, and Netflix are just a few of the prominent names founded by Stanford alumni, affording them a unique advantage in cultivating professional networks. This robust social fabric expedites interactions between Stanford students, graduates, entrepreneurs, and investors, catalyzing swift connections.

Venture capital firms like Sequoia and First Round Capital play a pivotal role, ensuring entrepreneurs can readily access capital. These firms, renowned for their high-risk, high-return mindset, inherently bolster the region’s entrepreneurial risk-taking ethos. Enter the scion companies accelerators—exemplified by 500 Startups and Y Combinator. Such entities guide entrepreneurs through the treacherous “death valley” stage of their ventures, offering mentorship, financial backing, and moral support.

The ecosystem thrives thanks to incubation hubs like Plug & Play Center and Founder Institute. These centers act as bedrocks, fostering a fertile environment for entrepreneurial growth. This is complemented by shared workspaces, legal offices, and mentorship initiatives. These mentors and entrepreneurs congregate in technology meetups, colloquially known as “meetups.” The region’s vibrant landscape of technology conferences and seminars further enriches networking opportunities for entrepreneurs.

An intrinsic hallmark of Silicon Valley is its unwavering customer-centric focus. Entrepreneurs often craft Minimum Viable Products (MVPs)—prototypes that encapsulate core functionality—based on customer feedback. Investors, meanwhile, gravitate toward business ideas that present solutions to prevailing customer problems while boasting the potential for rapid growth. This nuanced ecosystem, where academia, venture capital, accelerators, incubators, mentors, and a customer-centered ethos converge, propels Silicon Valley’s indomitable spirit of innovation.

Silicon Valley boasts a sizeable local market that stands as an “early adopter” and enthusiastically embraces online shopping. This behavior offers a significant economic potential for investors and entrepreneurs alike. A pinnacle aspiration for managers within major tech companies is to join the founding teams of startups with stock market listing potential and share options. The allure stems from the substantial returns—often multiplying hundreds of times—once these fledgling companies go public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering).

Central to Silicon Valley’s allure is its robust talent pool, magnetizing global talent to its hub. The region wears its internationalization on its sleeve, given that a substantial portion of its entrepreneurs hail from outside the United States. Prof. Maryann P. Feldman, in her 1994 article “The Geography of Innovation,” underscores the significance of local development’s proximity to a reputable research university. Yet, even the presence of an exceptional research institution doesn’t guarantee economic progress, as emphasized by Paul Graham’s comparison with Carnegie Mellon University. He emphasizes San Francisco’s urban attributes as instrumental in Silicon Valley’s growth. The city’s consistent climate, thriving entrepreneurial scene, and appealing lifestyle play a pivotal role in retaining skilled individuals. The city’s cafes and restaurants foster social interactions that can spark initiative projects, paralleling the ethos captured by Serkan Ünsal in “Silicon Valley and Entrepreneurship.” There, he notes that cafes in San Francisco are often the breeding grounds for entrepreneurial endeavors.

Turkish Academic Literature vs Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial spirit is cultivated early, often beginning within the home environment. Mustafa Ergen’s “Entrepreneurial Capital” underscores how ideas often germinate within garages. The region thrives on a project culture that persists 24/7, as opposed to a conventional work culture confined to specific hours. This relentless project-driven culture fuels passion and excitement, driving value creation. Passion emerges as the sought-after trait for entrepreneurs, akin to the enthusiasm surrounding football discussions in Turkey. Such vigor propels R&D activity, which is abundantly evident in Silicon Valley, the state of California notably leading in patent applications within the USA.

From a financial perspective, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs enjoy easy access to funding sources. The abundance of “angel investors” and “venture capitalists” ensures ample opportunities for investment at various stages. Statistics indicate that startups typically secure their first investments within an average of 11.6 months.

Social networks serve as the latticework that binds entrepreneurs, investors, engineers, lawyers, and accountants. These networks, grounded in the ethos of “Pay it forward,” seamlessly connect talent with capital. The collaborative synergies of these networks form a linchpin in the region, generating a uniquely collaborative environment that defines the heart of Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurship ecosystem.

The limited view of Silicon Valley primarily through the lenses of Technoparks and University-Industry Cooperation in Turkey obstructs a comprehensive understanding of the larger context. Studies that adopt a holistic approach and recognize the collaborative synergy among all stakeholders in Silicon Valley have yielded more accurate insights.

In my assessment, this comprehensive review underscores the urgent need for thorough investigations within the Turkish Academic Literature regarding Silicon Valley. Otherwise, the attempt to replicate a new Silicon Valley through the establishment of Technoparks, driven by marketing aspirations, is likely to yield disappointment. To quote Bob Metcalfe, “Silicon Valley is the only place on earth not trying to become Silicon Valley.” Factors like the size of venture capital funds and the international talent pool are intricate components that are exceedingly challenging to replicate. Importantly, Silicon Valley’s genesis was not directly orchestrated by government support; it evolved naturally as a cluster. Its distinctive essence lies in its lack of “walls,” where universities, companies, and entrepreneurial culture seamlessly intersect.

Delving into its historical narrative, Silicon Valley autonomously generated its own enterprises over decades to reach its current stature. Sole reliance on mechanistic modeling is insufficient in this context. A well-rounded perspective, encompassing social networks, historical progression, and cultural dimensions, is imperative for more realistic analysis. I recommend that future research concentrate on cultural analysis rather than relying solely on mechanistic models when investigating Silicon Valley.

Source (Works Cited)

Adams, S. (2009). Follow the Money: Engineering at Stanford and UC Berkeley During the Rise of Silicon Valley. Minerva, 47, 367-390.

Alkibay, S., Orhaner, E., Korkmaz, S., Ermeç, A. (2012). Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliği Çerçevesinde Teknoparklar, Yönetimsel Sorunları ve Çözüm Önerileri. Atatürk Üniversitesi İİBF dergisi, 26, 65-90.

Aoki, M., (1999). Information and Governance in the Silicon Valley Model. Ca: USA, Stanford University Press.

Armour, J., (2004). The Legal Road to Replicating Silicon Valley. London: UK, ESRC Centre for Business Research.

Brouwer, M. (2005). Managing Uncertainty through Profit Sharing Contracts from Medieval Italy to Silicon Valley. Journal of Management & Governance, 9, 237-255.

Cengiz, E. (2014). Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği Üzerine Değerlendirmeler. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 4, 1-8.

Chung, B., (2011). Exceptional Visions: Chineness, Citizenship and the Architectures of Community in Silicon Valley. Mi, USA: The University of Michigan Press

Cohen, S., Fields, G. (1999). Social Capital and Capital Gains, or Virtual Bowling im Silicon Valley, presented at Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Programme for the Conference ‘Local Economic Development: Social Capital and Productive Networks’, Mexico City, 1999. Paris, FRANCE: OECD.

Eesley, C., Miller, W., (2012). Stanford University’s Economic Impact via Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

Eren, M., (2011) “Türkiye’nin Teknolojik Gelişmesinde Teknoparklar ve Ar-ge Desteği” Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

Ergen, M. (2015). Girişimci Kapital: Silikon Vadisi Tarihi ve Startup Ekonomisi. İstanbul, TÜRKİYE: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Etzkowists (2013). Silicon Valley: The Sustainability of an Innovative Region. Social Science Information Journal, 52, 515-538.

Ferrary, M., Granovetter, M. (2009). The Role of Venture Capital Firms in Silicon Valley’s Complex İnnovation Network. Economy and Society, 18, 326-359.

Gülbaş, S. (2011). İnovasyon: Teknopark Modeli. Ankem Dergisi, 25, 39-145, 2011.
Hospers, G., Desrochers, P., Sautet, F. (2009). The next Silicon Valley? On the Relationship Between Geographical Clustering and Public Policy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 285-299.

Hugman D., Quigley J, (2002). The Role of the University in Attracting High Tech Entrepreneurship: A Silicon Valley Tale. The Annals of Regional Science, 36, 403-419.

Kiper, M., (2010). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği ve Bu Kapsamda Üniversite-Sanayi Ortak Araştırma Merkezleri Programı (ÜSAMP) – TTGV, 150 P.

Klepper S. (2010). The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters: The making of Silicon Valley and Detroit. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 15-32.

Küçüker, C., (2012). Endüstriyel Kümelenme Yaklaşımları: Bir Değerlendirme. Ankara, TÜRKİYE: Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu.

Önvural R.(2014). Why Silicon Valley Works. Maltepe Üniversitesi İİBF Analiz Dergisi, 2014/2
Sako, M., (2001). Between Bit Valley and Silicon Valley: Hybrid Forms of Business Governance in the Japanese Internet Economy. Pa, USA: Penn State University Press.

Saxenian, A. (1996). Silicon Valley’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs. Public Policy Institute of California, 5, 96.

Suzuki, K., Kim, S., Bae Z. (2002). Entrepreneurship in Japan and Silicon Valley: A Comparative study. Technovation, 2, 595–606.

Toker, Ş., (1999). Stratejik İnsan Kaynakları Açısından Yönetim Geliştirme Programları ve Silikon Vadisi Uygulamaları. İstanbul, TÜRKİYE: İstanbul Üniversitesi.

Töreli, M., (2004) “Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Teknoparklar” Makine Mühendisleri Odası, Ankara.
Ünsal, S. (2013). Silikon Vadisi ve Girişimcilik. İstanbul, TÜRKİYE: Bankalar Arası Kart Merkezi.

Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2010). Commercialization Strategies of Technology: Lessons From Silicon Valley. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 225-236.

Yalçıntaş, M. (2014). Üniversite-Sanayi-Devlet İşbirliğinin Ülke Ekonomilerine Etkileri: Teknopark İstanbul Örneği. Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 5, 83-106.

Yüksel, U., (2003) “Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliğinde Bir Araç Olarak Teknoparklar” ODTÜ, Ankara.

Zhang, J., (2003). High-Tech Start-Ups and Industry Dynamics in Silicon Valley. Ca: USA, Public Policy Institute of California.