SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1

Performance Analysis of Turkish Economy Between 1986-2006

1986-2006 Türkiye Ekonomisinin Performans Değerlendirmesi

Mehmet KARAGÜL
Ali ELEREN
Pages
1–14
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

This method has an advantage for letting to analyze all criteria together with considering spesific points.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:When national and internetional competition are mentioned what firstly comes to mind has an economic competition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:That is why critics on governments focus especially on economy politics and its results.In this study, the performance of Turkey’s economy between 1986-2006 is analyzed by TOPSIS method which is one of the multi-criterion decision methods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This method has an advantage for letting to analyze all criteria together with considering spesific points.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

When national and internetional competition are mentioned what firstly comes to mind has an economic competition. That is why critics on governments focus especially on economy politics and its results.In this study, the performance of Turkey’s economy between 1986-2006 is analyzed by TOPSIS method which is one of the multi-criterion decision methods. This method has an advantage for letting to analyze all criteria together with considering spesific points.

Özet

Ülke içi ve ülkeler arası rekabet denilince ilk akla gelen iktisadi alanda rekabet gelmektedir. Bu nedenle ülke yönetimleri üzerine yapılan eleştiriler öncelikle uygulanan iktisat politikaları ve sonuçları üzerinde odaklaşmaktadır.Çalışmada, Türkiye ekonomisinin 1986–2006 yılları arasındaki performans düzeyi çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden TOPSIS yöntemiyle değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Yöntem, belirli ağırlıklar dikkate alınarak tüm kriterlerin birlikte değerlendirmesine imkânı vermesi yönüyle önemli bir avantaj sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAGÜL, M., ELEREN, A. (2022). Performance Analysis of Turkish Economy Between 1986-2006. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1, 1–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/647471

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. CHEN, S.J., HWANG, C.L., (1992) Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. DENG, H., YEH, C.H., WILLIS, R.J., (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research 27 (10), 963–973.
  2. ENGEL, C., RUGERS, J., 2-3, (2006) “The U.S. Current Account Deficent and Expected Share of World Output,”Journal of Monetary Economics, 53, pp. 1063-1093.
  3. EVREN, R., ve ÜLENGEN, F. (1992) Yönetimde Çok Amaçlı Karar Verme. Teknik Üniversite Matbaası, İstanbul GERNİ, C., EMSEN, S. ve DEGER, Kemal, (2005), “Erken Uyarı Sistemleri Yoluyla Türkiye’deki Ekonomik Krizlerin Analizleri”, Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sayı; 2, s. 11-29. GAO Workshop, (2005), “Economic Performance- Highlights of a Workshop on Economic Performance Measures, United States Government Accountability Office, GAO-05-796SP, July 2005.
  4. HERRIG, R., ve SANTOMERO, A., 5, (1996), “The Role of the Financial Sectör in Economic performance,” Working Paper, University of Pensylvania. KAZGAN, Gülten. (--), “Türkiye’de Ekonomik Krizler: (1929-2001) Nedenleri ve Sonuçları Üzerine Bir İrdeleme” DEGEV-Türkiye İş Bankası. KOTAN, Z., (2002), “Uluslararası Rekabet Gücü Göstergeleri Türkiye Örneği”, TCMB, Araştırma Genel Müdürlüğü. Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., Hwang, C.L., 1994. TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research 76 (3), 486–500.
  5. MELKERS, J.,MALONA, L. (2002) “Performans mesurment in state economic development agengies,” Presented at the 2002 meeting of the AFBM, Kansas City, MO, October. OPRICOVIC, S; TZENG, G.H. (2004) “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research 156 pp.445–455
  6. RODRIQUES, F., (2000), “In Equality, Economic Growth and Economic Performance,” A backgrount note for the World development Report 2000,
  7. University of Maryland. RUBIA, O., ROLDAN, C. ve ESTEVE, V., (2006), “Is the budget deficit sustainable when fiscal policy is non-liner? The case study of Spain.” Journal of Macroeconomics, 1, (28), pp. 596-608.
  8. SEN, P. ve YANG, J.-B. (1998) Kultiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering Design, Springer-Verlag London Likited, London, Great Britain. YOON, K.,(1987) “A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions”, Journal of Operational Research Society 38 (3), 272–286.
  9. YOON, K.P., HWANG, C.-L. (1995) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction. Sage University Paper series on Quantative Applications in the So