Journals / The Journal of International Scientific Researches / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

Evaluation of the Success of European Union Candidate Countries in Meeting the Maastricht Criteria

Avrupa Birliği’ne Aday Ülkelerin Maastricht Kriterlerini Sağlamadaki Başarısının Değerlendirilmesi

İbrahim Al(KARADENİZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2653-4663
Pages
174–186
Publication Date
2026-07-14
🏛️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)

The fact that the performance rankings of the countries are largely the same in both techniques supports the consistency of the analysis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:For an economic union to function successfully, member countries need to have similar macroeconomic characteristics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to evaluate the macroeconomic performance of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia, Türkiye, and Ukraine—countries that are candidates for membership in the European Union—within the framework of the Maastricht Criteria.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The fact that the performance rankings of the countries are largely the same in both techniques supports the consistency of the analysis.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Maastricht Kriterleri · Çok Kriterli Karar Verme · TOPSIS

Abstract

For an economic union to function successfully, member countries need to have similar macroeconomic characteristics. In this context, the European Union has established macroeconomic convergence criteria, known as the Maastricht Criteria, for countries that are candidates for membership. The aim of this study is to evaluate the macroeconomic performance of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia, Türkiye, and Ukraine—countries that are candidates for membership in the European Union—within the framework of the Maastricht Criteria. For this purpose, the macroeconomic performance of these nine countries was analyzed using the multi-criteria decision-making methods TOPSIS, M-TOPSIS, and GRA based on data related to budget balance, public debt stock, inflation, and interest rates. According to the findings obtained from the analyses, the two countries with the best performance are Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania, respectively. While the two countries with the worst performance are Türkiye, and Ukraine, respectively. The fact that the performance rankings of the countries are largely the same in both techniques supports the consistency of the analysis.

Özet

Ekonomik bir birliğin başarılı olabilmesi için üye ülkelerin benzer makroekonomik özelliklere sahip olması gerekmektedir. Bu bağlamda Avrupa Birliği, üyeliğe aday ülkeler için Maastricht Kriterleri olarak bilinen makroekonomik yakınsama kriterleri belirlemiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa Birliği’ne aday olan Arnavutluk, Bosna-Hersek, Gürcistan, Karadağ, Kuzey Makedonya, Moldova, Sırbistan, Türkiye ve Ukrayna’yı Maastricht Kriterleri çerçevesinde makroekonomik performans açısından değerlendirmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, söz konusu dokuz ülkenin makroekonomik performansı bütçe dengesi, kamu borç stoku, enflasyon ve faiz oranına ilişkin veriler yardımıyla çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi çerçevesinde TOPSIS, M-TOPSIS ve GRA teknikleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiş ve ülkeler sıralanmıştır. Analizlerden elde edilen bulgulara göre, en iyi performansa sahip iki ülke sırasıyla Bosna Hersek ve Arnavutluk iken, en kötü performansa sahip iki ülke sırasıyla Türkiye ve Ukrayna’dır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Al, İ. (2026). Evaluation of the Success of European Union Candidate Countries in Meeting the Maastricht Criteria. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.1908763

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Al, İ., & Demirel, S. K. (2022). Türkiye'nin makroekonomik performansının TOPSIS yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi: 2002–2019 dönemi. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 9(1), 202–222.
  2. Altın, H. (2020). Analysis of the macroeconomic performances of European countries by gray relational analysis. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 7(3), 198–213.
  3. Ashourian, M. (2012). Evaluating the rank of performance of countries of the Middle East and North Africa with MADM. Journal of Informatics and Mathematical Sciences, 4(3), 285-292.
  4. Avcı, T. & Çınaroğlu, E. (2018). AHP temelli TOPSIS yaklaşımı ile havayolu işletmelerinin finansal performans değerlemesi. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 316- 335.
  5. Balcerzak, A. P. & Pietrzak, M. B. (2016). Application of TOPSIS method for analysis of sustainable development in European Union countries. Institute of Economic Research Working Papers, 22/2016, Institute of Economic Research (IER), Toruń.
  6. Belke, M. (2020), “CRITIC ve MAIRCA Yöntemleriyle G7 Ülkelerinin Makroekonomik Performansının Değerlendirilmesi”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(Temmuz 2020 (Özel Ek)), 120-139
  7. Chattopadhyay, S., & Bose, S. (2015). Global macroeconomic performance: A comparative study based on composite scores. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 4, 51-68.
  8. Chattopadhyay, S., & Bose, S. (2022). Monthly composite macroeconomic performance score based country rankings assessing early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Insurance and Financial Management, 5(5), 33–58.
  9. Chaudhuri, T. D., & Ghosh, I. (2014). A multi-criteria decision making model-based approach for evaluation of the performance of commercial banks in India. IUP Journal of Bank Management, 13(3), 23–37.
  10. Chih-Sung, L., Chaang-Yung, K., & Ming-Yuan, H. (2011). Utilize GRA to evaluate the investment circumstance of the ten industrial regions after the global financial crisis. Journal of Grey System, 23(4), 281-390.
  11. Chitsaz, N., & Banihabib, M. E. (2015). Comparison of different multi-criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resources Management, 29(8), 2503–2525.
  12. Cihan, Y., & Salur, M. N. (2017). Comparison of the economic performance between Turkey and BRICS countries using TOPSIS method. Journal of Current Researches on Business and Economics, 7(2), 350–358.
  13. Çınar, N. T. (2010). Kuruluş yeri seçiminde bulanik TOPSIS Yöntemi ve bankacılık sektöründe bir uygulama. KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(18), 37-45.
  14. Deng, J. (1982). Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters, 1(5), 288-294.
  15. Deng, J. (1989). Introduction to grey system theory. The Journal of Grey System, 1(1), 1-24.
  16. Dumanoğlu, S. (2010). İMKB’de işlem gören çimento şirketlerinin mali performansının TOPSIS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 29(2), 323-339.