Avrupa 2020 Stratejisi temelinde seçilmiş göstergelerle karşılaştırmalı bir analiz: Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri ile Türkiye örneği
Öz
Sürekli gelişen ve yenilenen yapısıyla dinamik bir oluşumu temsil eden Avrupa Birliği (AB), en son hedeflerini ve politikalarını Avrupa 2020 Stratejisi’nde yayımlamıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı da AB üyesi ülkeler ile aday ülke statüsünde yer alan Türkiye’nin, Avrupa 2020 Stratejisi kapsamında değerlendirilen 5 göstergesine (çevre, eğitim, istihdam, Ar-Ge ve yoksulluk) yönelik karşılaştırmalı bir analizini yapmaktır. Bu analiz kapsamında gösterge değerlerinden oluşturulan endeksler yardımıyla göreli olarak avantajlı ve dezavantajlı konumda bulunan ülkeler tespit edilmekte ve analize dahil olan ülkelerin öncelik vermesi gereken alanlar saptanarak çözüm önerileri sunulmaktadır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, tam manasıyla bir parasal birlik olmasına karşın, sosyoekonomik bakımdan heterojen bir yapıyı bünyesinde barındıran AB’nin, ele alınan göstergeler ve 2017-2018 yıllarına ait veriler ışığında, farklı gelişmişlik seviyesine sahip ülkelerce oluştuğunu söylemek mümkündür. Araştırmanın bulguları; çevre, istihdam ve Ar-Ge göstergelerinde İsveç’in, eğitimde Litvanya’nın, yoksullukta ise Lüksemburg’un avantajlı konumda yer aldığını göstermektedir. Buna karşın Türkiye, Bulgaristan ve Romanya’nın söz konusu göstergelerde tüm ülkeler arasında negatif ayrıştığı vurgulanabilir. Analize dahil edilen 5 temel gösterge bakımından, tüm ülkeler içinde İsveç’in en avantajlı ülke konumunda yer aldığı tespit edilirken, en dezavantajlı olan ülkenin Türkiye olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte Macaristan, Malta, Polonya, Yunanistan, İspanya, İngiltere ve Fransa da nispeten düşük performans sergileyen ülkeler grubunda yerini almaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Aykın, S.M. & A. Korkmaz. (2014). Türkiye ve üye ülkelerin AB-2020 stratejisi göstergeleri açısından kümelenmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 9(1), 7-20.
- Ayllon, S. & A. Gabos. (2015). The interrelationships between the Europe 202 poverty and social exclusion indicators. Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social Policy and Innovation, 1-27. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.5007.9844.
- Balcerzak, A.P. (2015, June). Europe 2020 Strategy Implementation: Grouping the Countries with the Application of Natural Breaks Method. Proceedings Of The 8th International Conference On Applied Economics Contemporary Issues In Economy Under The Title Market Or Government?, Poland.
- Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T. & K.M. Brauers Willem. (2011). Implementatıon of the strategy Europe 2020 by the multi–objective evaluation method multimoora. Ekonomie A Management, 2, 2-21. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/
- Barro, R. & J.W. Lee. (2010). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
- Eurostat. (2020). Europe 2020 Indicators. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database European Commission. (2011a, 28 Mart). White paper on transport: roadmap to a single european transport area towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/doc/2011_white_paper/white-paper-illustrated-brochure_en.pdf
- European Commission. (2011b, 8 Mart). A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Erişim adresi: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2013a, 21 Mart). State of the innovation union 2012. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2012/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2012.pdf
- European Commission. (2013b, 21 Mart). İnnovation union scoreboard 2013. Erişim adresi: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b41700a-ad23-440f-9f7e-96230a3aa510
- Goedeme, T. (2013). How much confidence can we have in eu-silc? complex sample designs and the standard error of the Europe 2020 poverty indicators. Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 89-110.
- Kaposzta, J. & H. Nagy. (2015). Status report about the progess of the visegrad countries in relation to Europe 2020 targets. European Spatial Research and Policy, 22(1), 81-99.
- Brauers Willem, K.M., Balezentis, A. & T. Balezentis. (2012). European Union member states preparing for Europe 2020 an application of the multimoora method. Technological And Economic Development of Economy, 18(4), 567-587.
- Leon, R. & P. Nica. (2011). Europe 2020 strategy –forecasting the level of achieving its goals by the EU member states. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6(1), 3-18.
- Lorcu, F. (2015). Avrupa Birliği (AB) eğitim hedefleri açısından Türkiye ve üye ülkelerin yakınlıklarının değerlendirilmesi. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 7(14), 55-68.
- Mitev Gerovska, M. & P. Stubbs. (2012). The social policy challenges of Europe 2020 in the EU candidate countries: the case of Croatia and Macedonia. Journal of Comparative Politics, 5(1), 60-72.
- SBB. (2019). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. Erişim adresi: http://www.sbb.gov.tr , 1.1.2020.
- Öz, C.S. & S. Karagöz. (2015). Avrupa 2020 hedeflerinin Avrupa istihdam stratejisi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Bilgi, 31, 99-122.
- Özmusul, M. (2012). Eğitim ve yetiştirme 2020 stratejisi: hedef göstergelere göre ülkelerin durumu. Journal of European Education, 2(1), 14-27.
- Priede, J. & J. Neuert. (2015). Competitiveness gap of the European Union member countries in the context of Europe 2020 strategy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 690 – 699.
- Roth, F. & A.E. Thum. (2010). The key role of education in the Europe 2020 strategy. CEPS Working Document No. 338/October. Erişim adresi: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WD338%20Roth%20and%20Thum%20on%20Education.pdf
- Spisakova, D.E., Gontkovičová, B. & Z. Hajduová. (2016). Education from the perspective of the Europe 2020 strategy: the case of Southern countries of the European Union. Economics and Sociology, 9(2), 266-278.
- Stanickova, M. (2017). Can the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy goals be efficient? the challenge for achieving social equality in the European Union. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 12(3), 383–398.
- Stec, M. & M. Grzebyk. (2018). The implementation of the strategy Europe 2020 objectives in European Union countries: the concept analysis and statistical evaluation. Qual Quant, 52, 119-133.
- Turhan, K. (2019). Avrupa Birliği Avrupa 2020 stratejisi hedefleri bağlamında Türkiye’de istihdam. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ordu. Warzecha, K. & A. Skorska. (2017). The phenomenon of social exclusion in European Union countries in relation to Europe 2020 strategy. Public Policy And Administration, 16(4), 657-671.
- Yazıcı, İ.G. (2018). Lizbon stratejisi ve Avrupa 2020 hedeflerinde bölgesel kalkınma ve sosyal politikalar. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 1(3), 436-451.
A comparative analysis with selected indicators based on European 2020 Strategy: The case of European Union countries and Turkey
Öz
European Union (EU) which represents a dynamic composition with its constantly improving and innovating structure published its latest goals and policies in Europe 2020 Strategy. The aim of this study is to comparatively analyse Turkey which is among the candidate countries of the EU to the 5 indicators which are evaluated within the scope of Europe 2020 Strategy (environment, education, employment, R&D, and poverty). As part of this analysis, countries in relatively advantageous and disadvantageous positions are identified with the help of indices created from indicator values, and the areas that the countries involved in the analysis should give priority to are identified and solution proposals are presented. As a result of the conducted analyses, it is possible to state that although there is an absolute monetary union, the EU which contains a socioeconomically heterogeneous structure consists of countries that have different development levels according to the discussed indicators and the data of years of 2017-2018. The findings of the study indicate that Sweden is advantageous in the environment, employment, and R&D indicators, Lithuania is advantageous in education, and Luxembourg is advantageous in poverty. On the other hand, it can be emphasized that Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania dissociate negatively among all the countries in the above-mentioned indicators. In terms of the 5 basic indicators included in the analysis, it was determined that Sweden was the most advantageous country among all countries, while Turkey was the most disadvantaged country. Also, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Greece, Spain, England, and France are also in the group of relatively underperforming countries.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Aykın, S.M. & A. Korkmaz. (2014). Türkiye ve üye ülkelerin AB-2020 stratejisi göstergeleri açısından kümelenmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 9(1), 7-20.
- Ayllon, S. & A. Gabos. (2015). The interrelationships between the Europe 202 poverty and social exclusion indicators. Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social Policy and Innovation, 1-27. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.5007.9844.
- Balcerzak, A.P. (2015, June). Europe 2020 Strategy Implementation: Grouping the Countries with the Application of Natural Breaks Method. Proceedings Of The 8th International Conference On Applied Economics Contemporary Issues In Economy Under The Title Market Or Government?, Poland.
- Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T. & K.M. Brauers Willem. (2011). Implementatıon of the strategy Europe 2020 by the multi–objective evaluation method multimoora. Ekonomie A Management, 2, 2-21. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/
- Barro, R. & J.W. Lee. (2010). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
- Eurostat. (2020). Europe 2020 Indicators. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database European Commission. (2011a, 28 Mart). White paper on transport: roadmap to a single european transport area towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/doc/2011_white_paper/white-paper-illustrated-brochure_en.pdf
- European Commission. (2011b, 8 Mart). A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Erişim adresi: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2013a, 21 Mart). State of the innovation union 2012. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2012/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2012.pdf
- European Commission. (2013b, 21 Mart). İnnovation union scoreboard 2013. Erişim adresi: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b41700a-ad23-440f-9f7e-96230a3aa510
- Goedeme, T. (2013). How much confidence can we have in eu-silc? complex sample designs and the standard error of the Europe 2020 poverty indicators. Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 89-110.
- Kaposzta, J. & H. Nagy. (2015). Status report about the progess of the visegrad countries in relation to Europe 2020 targets. European Spatial Research and Policy, 22(1), 81-99.
- Brauers Willem, K.M., Balezentis, A. & T. Balezentis. (2012). European Union member states preparing for Europe 2020 an application of the multimoora method. Technological And Economic Development of Economy, 18(4), 567-587.
- Leon, R. & P. Nica. (2011). Europe 2020 strategy –forecasting the level of achieving its goals by the EU member states. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6(1), 3-18.
- Lorcu, F. (2015). Avrupa Birliği (AB) eğitim hedefleri açısından Türkiye ve üye ülkelerin yakınlıklarının değerlendirilmesi. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 7(14), 55-68.
- Mitev Gerovska, M. & P. Stubbs. (2012). The social policy challenges of Europe 2020 in the EU candidate countries: the case of Croatia and Macedonia. Journal of Comparative Politics, 5(1), 60-72.
- SBB. (2019). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. Erişim adresi: http://www.sbb.gov.tr , 1.1.2020.
- Öz, C.S. & S. Karagöz. (2015). Avrupa 2020 hedeflerinin Avrupa istihdam stratejisi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Bilgi, 31, 99-122.
- Özmusul, M. (2012). Eğitim ve yetiştirme 2020 stratejisi: hedef göstergelere göre ülkelerin durumu. Journal of European Education, 2(1), 14-27.
- Priede, J. & J. Neuert. (2015). Competitiveness gap of the European Union member countries in the context of Europe 2020 strategy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 690 – 699.
- Roth, F. & A.E. Thum. (2010). The key role of education in the Europe 2020 strategy. CEPS Working Document No. 338/October. Erişim adresi: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WD338%20Roth%20and%20Thum%20on%20Education.pdf
- Spisakova, D.E., Gontkovičová, B. & Z. Hajduová. (2016). Education from the perspective of the Europe 2020 strategy: the case of Southern countries of the European Union. Economics and Sociology, 9(2), 266-278.
- Stanickova, M. (2017). Can the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy goals be efficient? the challenge for achieving social equality in the European Union. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 12(3), 383–398.
- Stec, M. & M. Grzebyk. (2018). The implementation of the strategy Europe 2020 objectives in European Union countries: the concept analysis and statistical evaluation. Qual Quant, 52, 119-133.
- Turhan, K. (2019). Avrupa Birliği Avrupa 2020 stratejisi hedefleri bağlamında Türkiye’de istihdam. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ordu. Warzecha, K. & A. Skorska. (2017). The phenomenon of social exclusion in European Union countries in relation to Europe 2020 strategy. Public Policy And Administration, 16(4), 657-671.
- Yazıcı, İ.G. (2018). Lizbon stratejisi ve Avrupa 2020 hedeflerinde bölgesel kalkınma ve sosyal politikalar. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 1(3), 436-451.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 31 Temmuz 2021 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 20 Temmuz 2020 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 8 Aralık 2020 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2021 Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3 |
Kaynak Göster
