Journals / Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty / 2025 / Volume: 12 Issue: 4

The Comparison of Türkiye's Economic Performance with Macroeconomic Indicators

Yusuf Kahreman(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZARA VEYSEL DURSUN UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER YÜKSEKOKULU, FİNANS VE BANKACILIK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-5968-5081
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-23
🏛️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)

Although Türkiye’s economic performance improved steadily until 2016, a decline became evident after that year, indicating renewed macroeconomic instability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The economic assessment of nations can be conducted through various macroeconomic indicators and analytical frameworks.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The current study seeks to evaluate Türkiye’s economic performance during the period 2000–2021, characterized by relative political stability, through the analysis of selected macroeconomic variables.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although Türkiye’s economic performance improved steadily until 2016, a decline became evident after that year, indicating renewed macroeconomic instability.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2000–2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Economic Performance Analysis · MCDM · Türkiye

Abstract

The economic assessment of nations can be conducted through various macroeconomic indicators and analytical frameworks. The current study seeks to evaluate Türkiye’s economic performance during the period 2000–2021, characterized by relative political stability, through the analysis of selected macroeconomic variables. The performance indicators employed include per capita GDP, inflation rate, unemployment rate, the ratio of exports and imports to total foreign trade volume, net exports, GDP, and the exchange rate. An integrated multi-criteria decision-making model combining the CRITIC (Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation), COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment), and EDAS (Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution) methods was applied to assess Türkiye’s economic performance over the years. Within this framework, the CRITIC method was used to determine the weighting coefficients of the criteria, identifying the exchange rate with 17 percent and per capita GDP with 16 percent as the most influential factors shaping economic performance. The findings obtained through the COPRAS and EDAS methods reveal that Türkiye achieved its strongest economic performance in 2011, 2012, and 2013, while the weakest performance occurred in 2000, 2001, and 2002, which coincided with a period of economic crisis. Although Türkiye’s economic performance improved steadily until 2016, a decline became evident after that year, indicating renewed macroeconomic instability.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kahreman, Y. (2025). The Comparison of Türkiye's Economic Performance with Macroeconomic Indicators. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Volume: 12 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1608783

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Al, İ., & Demirel, S. K. (2022). Türkiye'nin makroekonomik performansının TOPSIS yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi: 2002-2019 dönemi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.860476
  2. Alesina, A., & Summers, L. H. (1993). Central bank independence and macroeconomic performance: Some comparative evidence. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 25(2), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.2307/2077833
  3. Alvarez, R. M., Garrett, G., & Lange, P. (1991). Government partisanship, labor organization, and macroeconomic performance. American Political Science Review, 85(2), 539-556. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963174
  4. Arsu, T. (2022). Assessment of macroeconomic performances and human development levels of BRICS and MINT countries using CRITIC and COPRAS methods. Pacific Business Review (International), 14(10),1-19.
  5. Belke, M. (2020). CRITIC ve MAIRCA yöntemleriyle G7 ülkelerinin makroekonomik performansının değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (Prof. Dr. Sabri ORMAN Özel Sayısı), 120-139.
  6. Božanić, D., Milić, A., Tešić, D., Salabun, W., & Pamučar, D. (2021). D numbers–FUCOM–fuzzy RAFSI model for selecting the group of construction machines for enabling mobility. Facta Universitatis Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 447–471. https://10.22190/FUME210318047B
  7. 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.
  8. Chattopadhyay, S., & Bose, S. (2015). Global macroeconomic performance: A comparative study based on composite scores. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, (4), 51-68.
  9. Cutler, D. M., Katz, L. F., Card, D., & Hall, R. E. (1991). Macroeconomic performance and the disadvantaged. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1991(2), 1-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534589
  10. d'Albis, H., Boubtane, E., & Coulibaly, D. (2016). Immigration policy and macroeconomic performance in France. Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d'Économie et de Statistique, 121(122), 279-308. https://doi.org/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.121-122.279
  11. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
  12. Dinçer, S. E. (2011). Multi-criteria analysis of economic activity for European Union member states and candidate countries: TOPSIS and WSA applications. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(4), 563-572.
  13. Doğan, H. (2022). Türkiye’nin makroekonomik performansının 2010-2020 yılları için CRITIC temelli ARAS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Asya Studies, 6(19), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.31455/asya.1027906
  14. Eleren, A., & Karagul, M. (2008). Performance analysis of Turkish economy between 1986-2006. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, (15), 1-14.
  15. Eyüboğlu, K. (2016). Comparison the financial performances of developing countries’ banking sectors with TOPSIS method. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Araştırması Dergisi, (14) 220-236.
  16. Feltenstein, A., & Iwata, S. (2005). Decentralization and macroeconomic performance in China: Regional autonomy has its costs. Journal of Development Economics, 76(2), 481-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.01.004
  17. Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskıs, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
  18. Haveman, R., & Schwabish, J. (2000). Has macroeconomic performance regained its antipoverty bite?. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(4), 415-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00038.x
  19. Hosseinzadeh, S., Zomorodian, G. R., & Chirani, E. (2024). The impact of macroeconomic variables on the money and capital markets using a multilevel model with a future studies and multi-criteria decision making approach. International Journal of Finance and Managerial Accounting, 11(40), 53-70. https://10.30495/ijfma.2023.75667.2069
  20. Hsu, M., Luo, X. C., & Gary, H. (2008). The fog of OECD and non-OECD country efficiency: A data envelopment analysis approach. The Journal of Developing Areas, 42(1), 81-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jda.0.0029
  21. Işık, Ö. (2019). Türkiye'de hayat dışı sigorta sektörünün finansal performansının CRITIC tabanlı TOPSIS ve MULTIMOORA yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Business and Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(1), 542-562. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i1.1090
  22. Işık, Ö. (2022). Gri Entropi, FUCOM ve EDAS-M yöntemleriyle Türk lojistik firmalarının çok kriterli performans analizi. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 17(66), 472-489.
  23. Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Naimaviciene, J., Krutinis, M., Plakys, V., & Venskus, D. (2010). Model for a complex analysis of intelligent built environment. Automation in Construction, (19), 326-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.006
  24. Kiszkiel, Ł. (2017). Application of TOPSIS method for the evaluation of economic inequality in OECD countries. studies in logic. Grammar and Rhetoric, 50(1), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2017-0023
  25. Koşaroğlu, M. (2021). E7 ülkelerinin makroekonomik performanslarının Entropi ve ARAS yöntemleriyle karşılaştırılması. Dumlupınar Unıversıty Journal of Socıal Scıences, (68), 203-221. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.833885
  26. Li, C. (2018). Evaluation of the financial and economic development of the European Union member states on basis of multiple indicators changed to multiple objectives. Economics and Management, 21(4), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2018-4-002
  27. Madić, M., & Radovanović, M. (2015). Ranking of some most commonly used non-traditional machining processes using ROV and CRITIC methods. Upb Sci. Bull., Series D., 77(2), 193-204.
  28. Mangır, F., & Erdoğan, S. (2011). Comparison of economic performance among six countries in global financial crisis: The application of fuzy TOPSIS method. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 6(2), 122–136.
  29. Moesen, W., & Cherchye, L. (1998). The macroeconomic performance of nations measurement and perception. CES-Dischussion Paper Series, 98(22), 1-29.
  30. Önder, E., Tas, N., & Hepsen, A. (2015). Economic performance evaluation of fragile 5 countries after the great recession of 2008-2009 using analytic network process and TOPSIS methods. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking, 5(1), 1-17.
  31. Pamucar, D., Žižović, M., Biswas, S., & Božanić, D. (2021). A new logarithm methodology of additive weights (LMAW) for multi-criteria decision-making. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 361-380. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210214031P
  32. Podvezko, V. (2011). The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134- 146. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310
  33. Ramanathan, R. (2006). Evaluating the comparative performance of countries of the Middle East and North Africa: A DEA application. Socioeconomic Planning Sciences, 40(2), 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2004.10.002
  34. Skare, M., & Rabar, D. (2017). Measuring sources of economic growth in OECD countries. Engineering Economics, 28(4), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.28.4.18502
  35. Teixeira, J. R., Pinheiro, D. S., & Vilasboas, A. E. S. (2015). Socioeconomic and environmental performance: A composite index and comparative application to the USA and China. Cadmus, 2(5), 146-164.
  36. Trinkūnienė, E., Podvezko, V., Zavadskas, E. K., Jokšienė, I., Vinogradova, I., & Trinkūnas, V. (2017). Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods. Economic Research Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 1152-1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1325616
  37. Wang, C. N., & Le A. L. (2018). Measuring the macroeconomic performance among developed countries and Asian developing countries: Past, present, and future. Sustainability, 10(10), 3664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103664
  38. Wanke, P., Azad, M. D. A. K., & Barros, C. P. (2016). Predicting efficiency in Malaysian Islamic banks: A two-stage TOPSIS and neural networks approach. Research in International Business and Finance, (36), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.10.002
  39. Yalman, İ. N., Koşaroǧlu, Ş. M., & Işık, Ö. (2023). 2000-2020 döneminde Türkiye ekonomisinin makroekonomik performansının MEREC-LOPCOW-MARCOS modeliyle değerlendirilmesi. Finans Politik and Ekonomik Yorumlar, 60(664), 57-86.
  40. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., & Sarka, V. (1994). The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1(3), 131–139.
  41. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2008). Contractor selection multiattribute model applynig COPRAS method with grey interval numbers. International Conference 20th EURO Mini Conference Continuous Optimization and Knowledge-Based Technologies, Neringa, Lithuania.