Journals / Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi / 2024 / Volume: 11 Issue: 4

Social and Economic Problems of Agricultural Enterprises: The Case of Bayburt

Tarımsal İşletmelerin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Sorunları: Bayburt Örneği

Emrah Özel(BAYBURT ÜNİVERSİTESİ, LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM ENSTİTÜSÜ, ORGANİK TARIM İŞLETMECİLİĞİ ANABİLİM DALI (DİSİPLİNLERARASI), ORGANİK TARIM İŞLETMECİLİĞİ (YL) (TEZLİ))0000-0001-6844-6031
Yusuf Esmer(Bayburt Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Fakültesi Yönetim Bilişim Sistemleri Bölümü)0000-0003-3691-1730
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-10-12
🏛️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)

In conclusion, it is thought that this study will shed light on all agricultural enterprises operating in the sector and relevant stakeholders by addressing the existing problems, identifying the obstacles and developing recommendations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Agricultural enterprises are enterprises that make significant contributions to the economic, social and cultural development of countries by engaging in agricultural production, agricultural product processing and agricultural marketing activities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the interview, a questionnaire containing 32 questions about the social and economic problems of agricultural enterprises was used in addition to questions about participants and agricultural enterprises such as position, sector experience, enterprise size, enterprise title.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, it is thought that this study will shed light on all agricultural enterprises operating in the sector and relevant stakeholders by addressing the existing problems, identifying the obstacles and developing recommendations.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Agricultural entrepreneurship · agricultural enterprises · social and economic problems

Abstract

Agricultural enterprises are enterprises that make significant contributions to the economic, social and cultural development of countries by engaging in agricultural production, agricultural product processing and agricultural marketing activities. It can be said that agricultural enterprises in Türkiye face many problems because they are mostly SMEs. The aim of this study is to examine the social and economic problems of agricultural enterprises based on the Bayburt example. In the study, it was deemed appropriate to use face-to-face interview technique within the scope of qualitative research method. In the interview, a questionnaire containing 32 questions about the social and economic problems of agricultural enterprises was used in addition to questions about participants and agricultural enterprises such as position, sector experience, enterprise size, enterprise title. Data were collected from 27 agricultural enterprises engaged in production, processing and marketing activities in Bayburt province. Content analysis technique was used to analyze the data. The responses of the participants were processed in depth within the scope of the themes determined in accordance with the content analysis technique, and the social and economic problems of agricultural enterprises were identified and solution suggestions were developed. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that agricultural enterprises have various problems related to management, production, marketing, finance and risk management, accounting, human resources, R&D and infrastructure, and suggestions were made within the scope of each theme. In conclusion, it is thought that this study will shed light on all agricultural enterprises operating in the sector and relevant stakeholders by addressing the existing problems, identifying the obstacles and developing recommendations.

Özet

Tarımsal işletmeler, tarımsal üretim, tarımsal ürün işleme ve tarımsal pazarlama faaliyetinde bulunarak ülkelerin ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel gelişimine önemli katkılar sağlayan girişimlerdir. Türkiye`de tarımsal işletmelerin büyük oranda KOBİ niteliğinde olmaları nedeniyle birçok sorunla karşı karşıya kaldıkları söylenebilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Bayburt örneğinden hareketle tarımsal işletmelerin sosyal ve ekonomik sorunlarını incelemektir. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemi kapsamında yüz yüze görüşme tekniğinin kullanılması uygun görülmüştür. Görüşmede pozisyon, sektör deneyimi, işletme büyüklüğü, işletme unvanı gibi katılımcılar ve tarımsal işletmelerle ilgili soruların yanında tarımsal işletmelerin sosyal ve ekonomik sorunlarına ilişkin 32 sorunun yer aldığı bir soru formu kullanılmıştır. Bayburt ilinde üretim, işleme ve pazarlama faaliyetinde bulunan 27 tarımsal işletmeden veri toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizi tekniği kullanılmıştır. Katılımcıların yanıtları içerik analizi tekniğine uygun bir biçimde belirlenen temalar kapsamında derinlemesine işlenerek tarımsal işletmelerin sosyal ve ekonomik sorunları tespit edilmiş ve çözüm önerileri geliştirilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda tarımsal işletmelerin yönetim, üretim, pazarlama, finans ve risk yönetimi, muhasebe, insan kaynakları, Ar-Ge ve altyapı ile ilgili çeşitli sorunlarının olduğu belirlenmiş olup, belirlenen her tema kapsamında önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışmada mevcut sorunlara değinilerek engellerin tespit edilmesinin ve geliştirilen önerilerin, sektörde faaliyet gösteren tüm tarımsal işletmelere ve ilgili paydaşlara ışık tutacağı düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özel, E., Esmer, Y. (2024). Social and Economic Problems of Agricultural Enterprises: The Case of Bayburt. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 11 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1445211

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Açiler, S. 2020. Qualitative research methods. Iienstitu. https://www.iienstitu.com/blog/nitel-arastirma-yontemleri (Date of access: 12 February 2024).
  2. Ağızan, K. 2018. Analysis of the factors affecting entrepreneurship in agricultural enterprises. Master's Thesis, Selçuk University Institute of Science and Technology, Konya.
  3. Ağızan, K., Bayramoğlu, Z. 2018. Ecosystem of agricultural entrepreneurship. 1475th ASM International Congress of Social Science, (pp. 147-161). Antalya.
  4. Arı, F. A. 2006. Agriculture’s place and its issues in Turkish economy. The Journal of Labor and Society, 2(9): 61-81.
  5. Baltacı, A. 2019. The qualitative research process: How to conduct a qualitative research? Ahi Evran Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 5(2), 368-388. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.598299
  6. Başar, M., Tosunoğlu, T., Demirci, E. (2001). Girişimcilik ve girişimcinin yol haritası: İş planı. Eskişehir: Eskişehir Ticaret Odası Yayınları.
  7. Başkale, H. 2016. Determination of validity, reliability and sample size in qualitative studies. E-Journal of Dokuz Eylul University Nursing Faculty, 9(1): 23-28.
  8. Bayramoğlu, Z., Ağızan, K. 2019. Determination of entrepreneurship level in agricultural enterprises. Harran Journal of Agricultural and Food Science, 23(2): 234-246. https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.482352
  9. Bayramoğlu, Z., Oğuz, C., Arısoy, H., Karakayacı, Z. 2014. Türkiye’de uygulanan tarimsal desteklerin tarim isletmelerinin ekonomik surdurulebilirligine etkisi: Konya ili örnegi. 1002 Project Report, TÜBİTAK, Konya.
  10. Benek, S. 2007. The present status of agricultural enterprises in Turkey in the process of adaptation to european union. Marmara Geographical Review, (15): 191-206.
  11. Cheriet, F., Messeghem, K., Lagarde, V., McElwee, G. (2020). Agricultural entrepreneurship: Challenges and perspectives. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 4(19): 13-29. https://doi.org/10.3917/entre.194.0013
  12. Dernek, Z. 2005. Tarim ekonomisi ve isletmeciligi. Isparta: Süleyman Demirel University Press.
  13. Esmer, Y., Gezer, Y. 2021. Strategic analysis in agricultural enterprises: The case of Erzurum province. Atatürk University Journal of Agricultural Faculty, 52(2): 119-1127. https://doi.org/10.17097/ataunizfd.745928
  14. Gezer, Y., Esmer, Y. 2023. Green management practices in agricultural enterprises: A qualitatıve research. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 15(2): 172-187. https://doi.org/10.55978/sobiadsbd.1265186
  15. Gökçe, O., 2010. Tarımsal girşişimcilik ve geliştirilmesihttp://osmangokce.net/wp/2010/05/16/tarimsalgrmclk-ve-geltrlmes/ (Date of access: 3 March 2024).
  16. Gökkür, S. 2016. Agricultural and livestock problems and solution proposals. Apelasyon, (37): 1-3.
  17. Gürbüz, E. 2018. Marketing mix and positiveness/trust.Turkish Studies Economics, Finance and Politics, 13(30): 165-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14498
  18. Karahan Uysal, Ö. 2015. Analysis of the factors effecting farmers’ approaches to agricultural production in the villages of the yunt mountain in Manisa Turkey. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Researches, (35): 76-99.
  19. Kaya, A. 2017. Bilisim ve iletisim isiginda girisimcilik ve KOBI yonetimi (3.Ed.). Konya: Eğitim Publishing House. Koçak, A., Arun, Ö. 2006. The sampling problem in content analysıs studies. Journal of Selcuk Communication, 4(3): 21-28. https://doi.org/10.18094/si.51496
  20. Koçak, A., Arun, Ö. 2006. The sampling problem in content analysıs studies. Journal of Selcuk Communication, 4(3): 21-28. https://doi.org/10.18094/si.51496
  21. McElwee, G. 2006. The enterprising farmer: A review of entrepreneurship in agriculture. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 167(9): 1-8.
  22. Patel, B., Chavda, K. 2013. Rural entrepreneurship in India: Challenge and problems. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 1(2): 28-37.
  23. Seale, C. 1999. Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4): 465-478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800499005004
  24. Türk Agriculture Law 2006. Article 3, definitions, agricultural enterprise. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5488.pdf (Date of access: 25 December 2024).
  25. Türköz, O., Bektaş, M., Çiçek, H. 2021. Future anxiety in graduate education individuals. Journal of Bucak Business Administration Faculty, 4(2): 132-152. https://doi.org/10.38057/bifd.936821
  26. Yağar, F. 2023. Determining sample size in qualitative research: Data saturation. Aksaray University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 7(2): 138-152. https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.1030365
  27. Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. 2008. Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri (6. Ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
  28. Zerenler, M., Türker, N., Şahin, E. 2007. Kuresel teknoloji, arastirma-gelistirme (Ar-Ge) ve yenilik iliskisi. The Journal of Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute, (17): 653-667.
  29. Zinina, O. V., Olentsova, J. A. 2020. Elements of sustainable development of agricultural enterprises. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 421(2): 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/421/2/022003
  30. Karahan Uysal, Ö. 2015. Analysis of the factors effecting farmers’ approaches to agricultural production in the villages of the yunt mountain in Manisa Turkey. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Researches, (35): 76-99.
  31. Zinina, O. V., Olentsova, J. A. 2020. Elements of sustainable development of agricultural enterprises. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 421(2): 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/421/2/022003