SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 12

A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIP?: A CASE OF MIKTA COUNTRIES

YENİLİKÇİ ORTAKLIK İÇİN YENİ BİR FIRSAT? MIKTA ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Vasfi Kahya(Dumlupinar University)0000-0002-2154-5689
Pages
118–131
Publication Date
2018-12-30
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)

Results show that there are two groups of MIKTA countries in terms of their human capitals and sub-indicators.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to compare the current state of national human capitals of MIKTA countries (Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia) in macro scale and to understand whether this political entity has foundations on the human capital basis or not.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The state of national human capital shaped by educational policies of current governments is evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results show that there are two groups of MIKTA countries in terms of their human capitals and sub-indicators.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:MIKTA · ULASAL İNSAN KAYNAKLARI · MEKSİKA

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the current state of national human capitals of MIKTA countries (Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia) in macro scale and to understand whether this political entity has foundations on the human capital basis or not. The state of national human capital shaped by educational policies of current governments is evaluated. Results show that there are two groups of MIKTA countries in terms of their human capitals and sub-indicators. Australia and Korea have a high profile when compared with others. Turkey, Mexico, and Indonesia are in low profile when compared with Korea and Australia. Suggestions regarding the future human capital accumulation strategies are also provided depending on the results.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı MIKTA ülkelerinin (Meksika, Endonezya, Kore, Türkiye ve Avustralya) ulusal insan sermayelerinin mevcut durumunu makro ölçekte karşılaştırmak ve bu politik varlığın insan sermayesi temelinde temelleri olup olmadığını anlamaktır. Mevcut hükümetlerin eğitim politikaları ile şekillenen ulusal insan sermayesinin durumu değerlendirilmektedir. Sonuçlar, insan sermayeleri ve alt göstergeleri bakımından iki MIKTA ülkesi olduğunu göstermektedir. Avustralya ve Kore, diğerleriyle karşılaştırıldığında yüksek bir profile sahiptir. Türkiye, Meksika ve Endonezya, Kore ve Avustralya'ya kıyasla düşük profildedir. Geleceğe yönelik insan sermayesi birikim stratejileri ile ilgili öneriler de sonuçlara bağlı olarak verilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kahya, V. (2018). A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIP?: A CASE OF MIKTA COUNTRIES. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 12, 118–131. https://ajindex.com/articles/1457947

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Aghion, P. and Howitt, P.1992. “A model of growth through creative destruction.” Econometrica, 60 (2), 323-351.
  2. Becker, G. S. 1993. “Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education”, Chicago, and London: the University of Chicago Press.
  3. Bontis, N. 2004. “National Intellectual Capital Index: A United Nations Initiative for the Arab Region”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5 (1), 13 – 39.
  4. Colakoglu, S. 2016. “The Role of MIKTA in Global Governance: Assessments & Shortcomings”. Korea Observer, 47(2), 267.
  5. Cooper, A. F. 2015. “G20 middle powers and initiatives on development”. In M. Jongryn (Ed.), MIKTA, middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda: 32-46. Palgrave Macmillan US.
  6. Dal, E. P., and Kursun, A. M. 2016. “Assessing Turkey’s middle power foreign policy in MIKTA: Goals, means, and impact.”International Journal, 71(4), 608-629.
  7. Denison, E. F. 1962. “Sources of economic growth in the United States and the alternatives before us.” New York: Committee for Economic Development.
  8. Gowan, R. 2014. “Middle powers and the G20: modest proposals for cooperation”. In M. Jongryn (Ed.), MIKTA, middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda: 86-97. Palgrave Macmillan US.
  9. Heenam C. 2014. “Middle power cooperation and related issues in the G20.” In M. Jongryn (Ed.), MIKTA, middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda: 69-85. Palgrave Macmillan US
  10. Jongryn, M. 2014. “Introduction”. In M. Jongryn (Ed.), MIKTA, middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda: 32-46. Palgrave Macmillan US.
  11. Lucas, R.E., Jr. 1988. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development.”Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-42.
  12. Lynham, S. A., & Cunningham, P. W. 2006. “National human resource development in the transition societies in the developing world: Concept and challenges.”Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8 (1), 116-135.
  13. Grossman, G. M. & Helpman E. 1991. “Innovation and growth in the global economy.” Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
  14. Lin, C. & Edvinsson, L. 2011. “National intellectual capital: A comparison of 40 countries.” New York, London: Springer.
  15. Maihold, G. 2016. “Mexico: A leader in search of like-minded peers.”International Journal, 71(4), 545-562.
  16. Mo, J. 2016. “South Korea’s middle power diplomacy: A case of growing compatibility between regional and global roles.”International Journal, 71(4), 587-607.
  17. OECD. 2001. The well-being of nations the role of social capital. Paris: OECD.
  18. OECD.2013, Education Policy Outlook: Australia. Paris: OECD
  19. OECD. 2013, Education Policy Outlook: Mexico. Paris: OECD
  20. OECD. 2013, Education Policy Outlook: Turkey. Paris: OECD
  21. Pasher, E. and Shachar, S. 2007. The intellectual capital of the state of Israel: 60 years of achievement. http://www.moital.gov.il/ic. (Accessed at 11/08/2017)
  22. Porter, M. 2011. Upon competition, Istanbul: Brand East Marmara Development Agency.
  23. Porter, M. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
  24. Romer, P. 1990. “Endogenous technological change.”Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), 71-102.
  25. Santikajaya, A. 2016. “Walking the middle path: The characteristics of Indonesia’s rise.”International Journal, 71(4), 563-586.
  26. Saygılı, S, Cihan C. Yavan, Z. A. 2006. Education and sustainable growth: Turkey experience, risks, and opportunities, İstanbul: TUSIAD.
  27. Schiavon, J. A., & Domínguez, D. 2016. “Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): middle, regional, and constructive powers providing global governance.” Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 3(3), 495-504.
  28. Schultz, T. W. 1961. “Investment in human capital.”The American economic review, 51(1), 1-17.
  29. Siwon, P. 2014. “Middle power cooperation for climate change and green growth.” In M. Jongryn (Ed.), MIKTA, middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda: 47-68. Palgrave Macmillan US
  30. Smith, A. 1937. (1776). “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealthy nations.” In Charles W. Eliot, (Ed.) the Harvard Classics. New York: P. Collier & Son Corporation.
  31. Ståhle, P. and Pöyhönen, A. 2005. Intellectual Capital and National Competitiveness: A Critical Examination. Case Finland. In ECKM, 575-583.
  32. Surdel, B. (2018) Mikta: An Innovative Partnership. Analysis Centre for International Relations. Warsaw.
  33. Weziak, D. 2007. Measurement of national intellectual capital–application to EU countries (No. 2007-13). IRISS at CEPS/INSTEAD.
  34. World Bank (2017), Country Statistics, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx (accessed at 12/12/2017)
  35. Wright, P. T. 2014. Middle powers and the multilateral pivot. In M. Jongryn (Ed.), MIKTA, Middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda: 13-31. Palgrave Macmillan US.