Journals / Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH SELECTED INDICATORSBASED ON EUROPEAN 2020 STRATEGY: THE CASE OFEUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES AND TURKEY

AVRUPA 2020 STRATEJİSİ TEMELİNDE SEÇİLMİŞGÖSTERGELERLE KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR ANALİZ: AVRUPABİRLİĞİ ÜLKELERİ İLE TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Pages
763–783
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

Also, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Greece, Spain, England, and France are also in the group of relatively underperforming countries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:European Union (EU) which represents a dynamic composition with its constantly improving and innovating structure published its latest goals and policies in Europe 2020 Strategy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to comparatively analyse Turkey which is among the candidate countries of the EU to the 5 indicators which are evaluated within the scope of Europe 2020 Strategy (environment, education, employment, R&D, and poverty).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Greece, Spain, England, and France are also in the group of relatively underperforming countries.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

European Union (EU) which represents a dynamic composition with its constantly improving and innovating structure published its latest goals and policies in Europe 2020 Strategy. The aim of this study is to comparatively analyse Turkey which is among the candidate countries of the EU to the 5 indicators which are evaluated within the scope of Europe 2020 Strategy (environment, education, employment, R&D, and poverty). As part of this analysis, countries in relatively advantageous and disadvantageous positions are identified with the help of indices created from indicator values, and the areas that the countries involved in the analysis should give priority to are identified and solution proposals are presented. As a result of the conducted analyses, it is possible to state that although there is an absolute monetary union, the EU which contains a socioeconomically heterogeneous structure consists of countries that have different development levels according to the discussed indicators and the data of years of 2017-2018. The findings of the study indicate that Sweden is advantageous in the environment, employment, and R&D indicators, Lithuania is advantageous in education, and Luxembourg is advantageous in poverty. On the other hand, it can be emphasized that Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania dissociate negatively among all the countries in the above-mentioned indicators. In terms of the 5 basic indicators included in the analysis, it was determined that Sweden was the most advantageous country among all countries, while Turkey was the most disadvantaged country. Also, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Greece, Spain, England, and France are also in the group of relatively underperforming countries.

Özet

Sürekli gelişen ve yenilenen yapısıyla dinamik bir oluşumu temsil eden Avrupa Birliği (AB), en son hedeflerini ve politikalarını Avrupa 2020 Stratejisi’nde yayımlamıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı da AB üyesi ülkeler ile aday ülke statüsünde yer alan Türkiye’nin, Avrupa 2020 Stratejisi kapsamında değerlendirilen 5 göstergesine (çevre, eğitim, istihdam, Ar-Ge ve yoksulluk) yönelik karşılaştırmalı bir analizini yapmaktır. Bu analiz kapsamında gösterge değerlerinden oluşturulan endeksler yardımıyla göreli olarak avantajlı ve dezavantajlı konumda bulunan ülkeler tespit edilmekte ve analize dahil olan ülkelerin öncelik vermesi gereken alanlar saptanarak çözüm önerileri sunulmaktadır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, tam manasıyla bir parasal birlik olmasına karşın, sosyoekonomik bakımdan heterojen bir yapıyı bünyesinde barındıran AB’nin, ele alınan göstergeler ve 2017-2018 yıllarına ait veriler ışığında, farklı gelişmişlik seviyesine sahip ülkelerce oluştuğunu söylemek mümkündür. Araştırmanın bulguları; çevre, istihdam ve Ar-Ge göstergelerinde İsveç’in, eğitimde Litvanya’nın, yoksullukta ise Lüksemburg’un avantajlı konumda yer aldığını göstermektedir. Buna karşın Türkiye, Bulgaristan ve Romanya’nın söz konusu göstergelerde tüm ülkeler arasında negatif ayrıştığı vurgulanabilir. Analize dahil edilen 5 temel gösterge bakımından, tüm ülkeler içinde İsveç’in en avantajlı ülke konumunda yer aldığı tespit edilirken, en dezavantajlı olan ülkenin Türkiye olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte Macaristan, Malta, Polonya, Yunanistan, İspanya, İngiltere ve Fransa da nispeten düşük performans sergileyen ülkeler grubunda yerini almaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

ZANBAK, M., ÖZGÜR, R. Ö. (2022). A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH SELECTED INDICATORSBASED ON EUROPEAN 2020 STRATEGY: THE CASE OFEUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES AND TURKEY. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3, 763–783. https://ajindex.com/articles/586499

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Ayllon, S., & Gabos, A. (2017). The interrelationships between the Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion indicators. Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social Policy and Innovation, 1–27. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.5007.9844. Balcerzak, A.P. (2015). Europe 2020 Strategy Implementation: Grouping the Countries with the Application of Natural Breaks Method. In Contemporary Issues in Economy. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Economics: Economics and Finance, 1, 172–181.
  2. Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T., & Brauers Willem, K.M. (2011). Implementation of the strategy Europe 2020 by the multi–objective evaluation method multimoora. Ekonomie A Management, 2, 2–21. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/.
  3. Barro, R., & Lee, J.W. (2010). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. In NBER Working Paper Series (pp. 1–49),
  4. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Brauers Willem, K. M., Balezentis, A., & Balezentis, T. (2012). European Union member states preparing for Europe 2020 an application of the multimoora method. Technological And Economic Development of Economy, 18(4), 567–587. Eurostat. (2020, 1 Şubat). Europe 2020 Indicators. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database European Commission. (2011a, 8 Mart). A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Erişim adresi: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:EN:PDF. European Commission. (2011b, 28 Mart). White paper on transport: Roadmap to a single European transport area towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/doc/2011_white_paper/white-paper-illustrated-brochure_en.pdf. European Commission. (2013a, 21 Mart). State of the innovation union 2012. Erişim adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2012/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2012.pdf. European Commission. (2013b, 21 Mart). Innovation union scoreboard 2013. Erişim adresi: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b41700a-ad23-440f-9f7e-96230a3aa510.
  5. Goedeme, T. (2013). How much confidence can we have in EU-silc? complex sample designs and the standard error of the Europe 2020 poverty indicators. Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 89–110.
  6. Kaposzta, J., & Nagy, H. (2015). Status report about the progess of the visegrad countries in relation to Europe 2020 targets. European Spatial R