Journals / Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2016 / İİBF 10. Yıl Özel Sayı

An Assessment in the Framework of the Maastricht Criteria with Indicators of Fiscal Discipline in Turkey (2000-2015)

TÜRKİYE’DE MALİ DİSİPLİN GÖSTERGELERİNİN MAASTRİCHT KRİTERLERİ AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ (2000-2015)

Pages
307–329
Publication Date
2016-12-15
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)

Especially the budget deficit and debt criteria are discussed of the Maastricht Criteria concerning the financial discipline.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The European Union has made foreseeing applications for the candidate countries to ensure of certain conditions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, Turkey has relations with the European Union based on the 1959 and it accepted the application for full membership to the European Union in 2005, analized budget balance and public debt indicators in the framework of Maastricht Criteria in comparison with European Union countries after 2000.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Especially the budget deficit and debt criteria are discussed of the Maastricht Criteria concerning the financial discipline.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Maastricht Kriterleri · Mali Disiplin · Ekonomik ve Parasal Birlik

Abstract

The European Union has made foreseeing applications for the candidate countries to ensure of certain conditions. Especially after the period of the fifth enlargement, brought to comply certain political and economic criteria for the countries applying for full membership , it was expected to provide necessarry economic conditions to adapt of the European Union Economiy. In this study, Turkey has relations with the European Union based on the 1959 and it accepted the application for full membership to the European Union in 2005, analized budget balance and public debt indicators in the framework of Maastricht Criteria in comparison with European Union countries after 2000. Especially the budget deficit and debt criteria are discussed of the Maastricht Criteria concerning the financial discipline.

Özet

Avrupa Birliği, kuruluşundan itibaren birliğe üye olacak ülkelerin belirli şartları taşımasını öngören uygulamalar gerçekleştirmiştir. Özellikle beşinci genişleme döneminden sonra tam üyelik başvurusunda bulunan ülkelere belirli siyasi ve ekonomik kriterlere uyma şartı getirilmiş, topluluğa katılmak isteyen ülkelerden AB ekonomisine uyumunu sağlayacak olan gerekli ekonomik şartları sağlaması beklenmiştir. Çalışmada, AB ile olan ilişkileri 1959 yılına dayanan ve 2005 senesinde ise AB’ye tam üyelik başvurusu kabul edilen Türkiye’nin, Maastricht Kriterleri çerçevesinde 2000 sonrası bütçe dengesi ve kamu borç stoku göstergelerinin AB ülkeleri ile karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmektedir. Özellikle Maastricht Kriterleri’nden mali disiplin konusunu ilgilendiren bütçe açığı ve borç stoku kriteri ele alınmaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLDEN, O., MIYNAT, M. (2016). An Assessment in the Framework of the Maastricht Criteria with Indicators of Fiscal Discipline in Turkey (2000-2015). Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, İİBF 10. Yıl Özel Sayı, 307–329. https://ajindex.com/articles/57427

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Aglietta, M. ve Uctum, M. (1996).
  2. Europe and Maastricht Challenge, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Research Paper, Paper No:9616, Paris. Aka, H. B. ve Gürsoy, B. (2012), An Evaluation of Turkey’s Aim For Full European Union Membership in Light of the Maastricht Criteria, 7th Management of International Business and Economics Proceedings Book (23-34),
  3. Larissa. Aka, H. B. ve Gürsoy, B. (2014). Turkey’s Objective of Full Membership in the Eu With Reference to Maastricht Criteria. Ankara University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 28(2), 271-294.
  4. Akçay, B. (2006). Euro Alanın Ekonomisine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 1-27.
  5. Berndsen, R. (1997). The Emu Debt Criterion: An Interpretation. BNL Quarterly Review, 203, 505-533.
  6. Çelebi, A. K., (2003). Liberal Ekonomik Düşüncede Kamu Kesiminin Büyüklüğü Sorunu. İkinci Baskı, Manisa: Emek Matbaacılık. Dağcı, K. (2008). Türkiye – Avrupa Birliği İlişkilerinin Tarihsel Evrimi (Rapor No:2). İstanbul: Türkiye Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi. Dippelsman, R., Dziobek C., Mangas, G. (2012). What Lies Beneath: The Statistical Definition of Public Sector Debt. IMF, Staff Discussion Note. Dorothee, H. (2006). Can the European Union Control the Agenda of Globalization. Contemporary Studies in Economic and Financial Analysis, 88, 19-39.
  7. European Central Bank. (2010). Convergence Report May 2010. Frankfurt: European Central Bank. European Commission. (2003). Enlargement of the European Union: An Historic Opportunity. Brussels: Enlargement Directorate Publication European Commission. (2015). One Currency for One Europe: The Road to the EURO. Luxembourg: Economic and Financial Affairs Publication. European Commmission. (1999). The Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Towars Accession 1999. Brussels: European Commission. European Commmission. (2001). The Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Towars Accession 2001. Brussels: European Commission. Eurostat,(2016). 4 Ekim 2016 tarihinde http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table. do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tipsgo20&plugin=1 adresinden erişildi. Eurostat.(2016).http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=teina200
  8. Gökbunar, R., Cura, S., Yanıkkaya, H., (2008). Avrupa Birliği’nin Türkiye’li Geleceği: Umutlar ve Korkular. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. Hazine Müsteşarlığı. (2010). Kamu Borç Yönetimi Raporu 2009. Ankara: Hazine Müsteşarlığı Hazine Müsteşarlığı. (2015). Kamu Borç Yönetimi Raporu 2015. 4 Ekim