SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2

Citizenship = Data and Tax (Individual = Market and State)

VATANDAŞLIK= VERİ VE VERGİ (BİREY= PİYASA VE DEVLET)

Orhan Çakmak0000-0002-3759-4186
Pages
194–232
Publication Date
2025-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, the rationale for this theoretical definition will be evaluated in terms of “knowledge, knowledge formation and the socio-political function of knowledge”.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The fact that the socio-economic dimension of the interaction between the state, the market and the individual due to technological developments is under discussion in terms of its legal foundations requires an interdisciplinary analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study presents a socio-political, public and economic analysis of technological developments and a proposed model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the rationale for this theoretical definition will be evaluated in terms of “knowledge, knowledge formation and the socio-political function of knowledge”.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Weber’e Göre Otorite ve Meşruiyet · Veri Vatandaşı · Dijital Refah Devleti

Abstract

The fact that the socio-economic dimension of the interaction between the state, the market and the individual due to technological developments is under discussion in terms of its legal foundations requires an interdisciplinary analysis. This study presents a socio-political, public and economic analysis of technological developments and a proposed model. In this context, the scope of our study is to discuss the effectiveness of state-individual-market interactions and intersections and the causes of conflict in deterministic and stochastic terms. The aim of this study is to define the new and somewhat uncertain (stochastic) political maneuvering space of the state apparatus in the socio-economic sphere (determinism) in today’s world, where the debates on the shrinking of the actual/productive volume of the state in the economic sphere have become clearer. The theoretical part of this discussion is based on the definitions of determinism (adherence to a specific data set/legal scope) and stochasticism (unpredictability, uncertainty, and mentality/culture). However, the rationale for this theoretical definition will be evaluated in terms of “knowledge, knowledge formation and the socio-political function of knowledge”.

Özet

Birey, piyasa ve devlet arasındaki teknolojik gelişmeler kaynaklı etkileşimin sosyo-ekonomik boyutunun yasal temelleri bakımından tartışmaya konu edilmesi interdisipliner bir analizi zorunlu kılmaktadır. Çalışma teknolojik gelişmelerin; sosyo-politik, mali ve iktisadi açıdan analizini sunmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmamızın kapsamı; birey-piyasa- devlet üçlüsünün etkileşim ve kesişme alanlarının etkililiği ile çatışma/uyuşmazlık gibi hususlarının nedenlerini deterministtik ve stokastik açıdan tartışmaya tabi tutmaktır. Çalışmanın amacı ise devletin iktisadi alanda üretim hacminin daralmasına yönelik tartışmaların berraklaştığı günümüzde, teknolojik gelişmeler ile devletin sosyo-ekonomik alan üzerindeki yeni ve birazda belirsizlik (stokastik) üzerine kurulu siyasi manevra alanını tanımlamaktır. Bu tartışmanın teorik kısmının temelini deterministtik (belirli bir veri setine bağlılık/yasal kapsam) ve stokastik (öngörülemezlik, belirsizlik, zihniyet/kültür) tanımlamalar oluşturmaktadır. Bununla birlikte teorik tanımlamanın gerekçesini ise “bilgi, bilginin oluşumu ve bilginin sosyo-politik işlevi” bakımından değerlendirmeye tabi tutacağız. Çalışmanın çıktısı ise bireyin davranışlarının ve tercihlerinin hem kamusal hem de piyasa alanındaki temel belirleyici olmasına yönelik tespitlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çakmak, O. (2025). Citizenship = Data and Tax (Individual = Market and State). Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 194–232. https://ajindex.com/articles/1064829

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (69)

  1. Aksoy, Abdulkadir (2024). “Kutadgu Bilig’de Yönetim Düşüncesi: Kamu Değeri Yaklaşımı Merkezli Bir İnceleme”, Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(29), 334-353. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2024.013.
  2. Alp, Salih ve Karakaş Adem (2007). “Asimetrik Bilgi Teorisi Karşısında Hayek’in Ekonomik Yaklaşımları: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz”, Liberal Düşünce Dergisi (51-52), 215-230.
  3. Baack, Stefan (2018). “Civic Tech at mySociety: How the Imagined Affordances of Data Shape Data Activism”, Krisis Journal, (1) Data Activism Special Issue, 44-56. www.krisis.eu.
  4. Berry, David M. (2019). “Against infrasomatization towards a critical theory of algorithms”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge Studies in International Political Sociology, Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights inc., New York: Routledge.
  5. Bigo, Didier (2019). “Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge studies in international political sociology, New York: Routledge.
  6. Bonina, Carla M. and Cordella, Antonio (2009). “Public Sector Reforms and the Notion of 'Public Value': Implications for eGovernment Deployment”, Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) (15). http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/15.
  7. Borcherding, Thomas E; Lee, Dongwon and Dongil Kim (2013). “Tax structure and government spending: does the value-added tax increase the size of government?”, National Tax Journal (66)3, 541-570.
  8. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2013.3.02.
  9. Cangöz, M. Coşkun; Emek, Uğur ve Karaca, Nurhan U. (2021). Türkiye’de Kamu-Özel-İşbirliği Uygulaması: Etkin Risk Paylaşımına Yönelik bir Model Önerisi, Ankara: TEPAV Elektronik Yayınları No:1.
  10. Carmi, E.; Yates, S. J.; Lockley, E. and Pawluczuk, A. (2020). “Data citizenship: rethinking data literacy in the age of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation”, Internet Policy Review, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.2.1481.
  11. Coase, R. H. (1976). “Adam Smith’s View of Man”, The Journal of Law & Economics, 19(3), 529-546.
  12. Cobbe, Jennifer (2018). Big Data, Surveillance, and the Digital Citizen, Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast.
  13. Couldry, Nick and Ulises A. Mejias (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data is Colonizing Human Life and
  14. Appropriating it for Capitalism, California, USA: Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  15. Çağlar, Sibel (2021). “Algoritmaların Kökeni ve Günlük Hayatta Algoritma Örnekleri”, https://www.matematiksel.org.
  16. Çakmak, Orhan (2024). “Terakki, Cedit ve Milliyetçilik: Ziya Gökalp (Milliyetçiliğin İktisadi Refah Anlayışının Zihniyet Analizi)”. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (Ölümünün 100. Yıl Dönümünde Ziya Gökalp’ı Yeniden Anlamak), 182-206. https://doi.org/10.53568/yyusbed.1433029.
  17. Çakmak, Orhan (2025). “Türkiye’de İktisadi Hürriyetçiler: Yayılma Kanalı Ve Taşıyıcılar”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 43/1, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1487401.
  18. Denmark Agency for Digitisation (DDK 2016). A Stronger And More Secure Digital Denmark: The Digital
  19. Strategy 2016-2020, Danish Ministry of Finance, Local Government Denmark and Danish Regions. www.fm.dk.
  20. Day, M. James and Skulsuthavong, Merisa (2021), “Newton’s Socio-technical Cradle? Web Science, the Weaponisation of Social Media, Hashtag Activism and Thailand's Postcolonial Pendulum”, JOMEC Journal (16), 100-129. https://doi.org/10.18573/jomec.207.
  21. Deibert, Ronald J. and Pauly, Louis W. (2019). “Mutual Entanglement and Complex Sovereignty in Cyberspace”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge Studies in International Political Sociology, Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights inc., New York: Routledge.
  22. Delong, J. and Magin, Konstantin. (2006). “A Short Note on the Size of the Dot-Com Bubble”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers-12001. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12011.
  23. Dencik, Lina (2018). “Surveillance Realism and the Politics of Imagination: Is There No Alternative?”, Krisis Journal, (1) Data Activism Special Issue, 31-43. www.krisis.eu.
  24. Dencik, Lina and Kaun, Anne (2020). “Datafication and the Welfare State”, Global Perspectives (1)1, 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12912.
  25. Engin, Zeynep and Treleaven, Philip (2019). “Algorithmic Government: Automating Public Services and Supporting Civil Servants in using Data Science Technologies”, The Computer Journal, (62)3, 448–460.
  26. Ehrhart, Hélène (2013). Elections and the Structure of Taxation In Developing Countries, Banque de France Document De Travail No: 419. www.banque-france.fr.
  27. European Commission (EU 2018). Automated decision-making on the basis of personal data that has been transferred from the EU to companies certified under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, Fact-finding and assessment of safeguards provided by U.S. law, Final Report, https://ec.europa.eu.
  28. Gabrys, Jennifer (2019). “Data Citizens How to reinvent rights”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge Studies in International Political Sociology, Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights inc, New York: Routledge.
  29. Gantchev, Valery (2019). “Data Protection in the Age of Welfare Conditionality: Respect for Basic Rights or a Race to the Bottom?”, European Journal of Social Security, 21(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1388262719838109.
  30. Goldman Sachs (2020). The Future, Now: Integrating Sustainability with Purpose across Our Business, Sustainability Report.
  31. Gray, Jonathan (2018). “Three Aspects of Data Worlds”, Krisis Journal, (1) Data Activism Special Issue, 4-17. www.krisis.eu.
  32. Guild, Elspeth (2019). “Data Rights Claiming privacy rights through international institutions”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge Studies in International Political Sociology, Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights inc. New York: Routledge.
  33. Gutiérrez, Miren (2018). “Data activism in Light of the Public Sphere”, Krisis Journal, (1) Data Activism Special Issue, 57-71. www.krisis.eu.
  34. Holcombe, Randall G. (1998). “Tax Policy From A Public Choice Perspective”, National Tax Journal 51(2), 359- 371.
  35. Kabaklarlı, Esra (2020). “Yapay Zekânın İstihdama Etkisi: Sürdürülebilir Gelecek”, (Ed. Özgür B. Soylu ve
  36. Fabrício P. Piurcosky), International Symposium on Economic Thought (ISET) “Theory, History, Sociology, Philosophy, Methodology, Policy” Proceedings Book içinde (297-305), The Research Platform on Economic Thought (RePEcT).
  37. Karippacheril, Tina George, Soonhee Kim, Robert P. Beschel Jr., and Changyong Choi (Eds). (2016). Bringing Government into the 21st Century: The Korean Digital Governance Experience. Directions in Development, Washington DC: World Bank.
  38. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0881-4.
  39. Kennedy, Helen (2018). “Living with Data: Aligning Data Studies and Data Activism Through a Focus on Everyday Experiences of Datafication”, Krisis Journal, (1) Data Activism Special Issue, 18-30. www.krisis.eu.
  40. Kılıç, A. Leyla (2024). “Dünden Bugüne Defteroloji: Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmalarında Tahrir Defteri Çalışmalarında Metodolojik Arayışlar”, Osmanlı Medeniyeti Araştırmaları Dergisi (22), 38-79.
  41. Larsson, Anthony and Teigland, Robin (2020). “An Introduction to digital welfare – A way forward?”, “Conclusion: Digital welfare -now and forever”, (Ed. A. Larsson and R. Teigland), Digital Transformation and
  42. Public Services: Societal impacts in Sweden and Beyond inc.), New York: Routledge.
  43. Lyon, David (2019). “Surveillance Capitalism, Surveillance Culture and Data Politics”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge Studies in International Political Sociology, Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights inc., New York: Routledge.
  44. Marciano, Alain (2020). “How Wicksell became important for Buchanan: a historical account of a (relatively) slow epiphany”, Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice 35(2),181–203. https://doi.org/10.1332/251569119X15709869180845.
  45. National Infrastructure Commission (2017). Data for the Public Good, Policy Report, UK. www.nic.org.uk.
  46. Isin, Engin and Ruppert Evelyn (2019). “Data’s Empire Postcolonial Data Politics”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge Studies in International Political Sociology, Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights inc, New York: Routledge.
  47. Isin, Engin and Ruppert Evelyn (2020). Being Digital Citizens, Second Edition, London-New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
  48. OECD (2016). Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in the Welfare Areas, OECD Comparative Study.
  49. Peacock, Mark S. (2020). “Amartya Sen and Rational Choice: The Concept of Commitment”, Routledge INEM Advances in Economic Methodology, London-New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
  50. Petropoulos, G. Marcus, J. Scott Moës, N. Bergamini, Enrico (2019). Digitalisation and European Welfare States, (Eds. S. Gardner) Bruegel Blueprint Series Volume 30, Brussels, Belgium. www.bruegel.org.
  51. Profeta, Paola (2003). Public Finance And Political Economics in Tax Design and Reforms, Dipartimento di Economia Pubblica e Territoriale Università di Pavia, XV Conferenza SIEP Pavia, Università. www.siepweb.it/siep/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/252.pdf.
  52. Stiglitz, J. (1987) “Pareto Efficient and Optimal Taxation and the New Welfare Economics”, Handbook of Public Economics, (II), North-Holland.
  53. UK Government Digital Service (2016). Government Transformation Strategy.
  54. www.assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75674f40f0b6360e473d91.
  55. Tréguer, Félix (2019) “Seeing Like Big Tech Security assemblages, technology, and the future of state bureaucracy”, (Ed. D. Bigo, E. Isin and E. Ruppert), Routledge Studies in International Political Sociology, Data politics: worlds, subjects, rights inc., New York: Routledge.
  56. Tüfekçi, Zeynep (2014). “Engineering the Public: Big Data, Surveillance, and Computational Politics”, First Monday 19(7). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view /4901/40 97.
  57. Veale, Michael (2018). Data Management and Use: Case Studies of Technologies and Governance, Produced for the British Academy and the Royal Society, www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1886.
  58. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/rwgs9.
  59. Velden, Lonneke and Milan, Stefania (2018). “Reversing Data Politics: An Introduction to the Special Issue”, Krisis Journal, (1) Data Activism Special Issue, 1-3. www.krisis.eu.
  60. Wagner, E. Richard (1998). “Taxation and the Price of Civilization: An Essay on Federal Tax Reform”. National Legal Center for the Public Interest, Washington DC.
  61. Weber, Max (2010). Şehir, Modern Kentin Oluşumu (Çev. Musa Ceylan), 10. Baskı, İstanbul: Yarın Yayınları.
  62. Weber, Max (2015). “Politics as Vocation”, Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society inc. (Eds. T. Waters and D. Waters), New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 129-198. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137365866_7.
  63. Winer, Stanley L. (2019). “The Political Economy of Taxation: Power, Structure, Redistribution” (Eds. R. D. Congleton, B. Grofman, and S. Voigt), The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 2, Oxford Handbooks, online Oxford Academic, 455–498.
  64. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190469771.013.22.
  65. World Bank (WB 2020). The Long Shadow of Informality: Challenges and Policies, (Ed. F. Ohnsorge and S. Yu).
  66. www.openknowledge.worldbank.org.
  67. www.caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/376/254.html.
  68. www.casetext.com/case/rubylee-davis-et-al-v-george-w-romney-individually-and-in-his-capacity-as- secretary-of-housing-and-urban-development-et-al.
  69. www.chartercitiesinstitute.org. www.gdpr.eu.