KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1

Telafi Edici Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Türkiye ve AB Ülkelerinin İnsani Gelişmişlik Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi

Determination Human Development Levels of Turkey and EU Countries with Compensatory Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods

Erhan Orakçı
Ali Özdemir
Sayfa
61–74
Yayın Tarihi
2017-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Turkey is found to be the 26th when GRA is applied and 23rd when MOORA-RS and RPA is applied.     

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Normal 0 21 false false false TR X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normal Tablo"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:none; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Cambria; color:black;} Human development levels of countries are usually evaluated over three basic indicators which are education, health and welfare.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In many studies three indicators are found to be insufficient and, therefore, additional indicators are used.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Turkey is found to be the 26th when GRA is applied and 23rd when MOORA-RS and RPA is applied.     
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:İnsani Gelişmişlik · GİA · MOORA

Abstract

Normal 0 21 false false false TR X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normal Tablo"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:none; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Cambria; color:black;} Human development levels of countries are usually evaluated over three basic indicators which are education, health and welfare. In many studies three indicators are found to be insufficient and, therefore, additional indicators are used. Considering these discussions, the Human Development Index and indicators derived from the Europe Quality of Life Survey are used to determine the human development levels of Turkey and EU countries in this study. Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) and MOORA methods are used to determine the human development levels of countries and results are compared. Effectiveness level of indicators is evaluated through Entropy and CRITIC objective weighting methods.  Using GRA and MOORA-RS Luxemburg, Finland and Austria are found to be first three countries regarding human development and using MOORA-Reference point UK, Netherlands and Denmark are top three. Turkey is found to be the 26th when GRA is applied and 23rd when MOORA-RS and RPA is applied.     

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Orakçı, E., Özdemir, A. (2017). Telafi Edici Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Türkiye ve AB Ülkelerinin İnsani Gelişmişlik Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 61–74. https://ajindex.com/articles/1060523

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (40)

  1. Ahn, B.S. 2011. Compatible Weighting Method with Rank Order Centroid: Maximum Entropy Ordered Weighted Averaging Approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 212 (2011), 552–559.
  2. Baker, D.; Bridges, D.; Hunter, R.; Johnson, G.; Krupa, J.; Murphy, J. ve Sorenson, K. 2002. Guidebook to Decision - Making Methods. Developed for the Department of Energy, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255621095_Guidebook_to_Decision-Making_Methods. (Erişim tarihi: 13.05.2016).
  3. Billing, R.S. ve Marcus, S.A. 1983. Measures of Compensatory and Noncompensatory Models of Decision Behavior: Process Tracing Versus Policy Capturing. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 331-352.
  4. Brauers, W. K. M ve Zavadskas, E. K. 2006. The MOORA Method and Its Application to Privatization in A Transition Economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35 (2), 445-469.
  5. Brauers, W.K.M ve Zavadskas, E. K. 2010. Project Management by MULTIMOORA as an İnstrument for Fransition Economies. Technological and Economic Development, 16(1), 5-24.
  6. Chakraboty, S. 2011. Application of The MOORA Method for Decision Making in Manufacturing Environment. The İnternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54, 1155-1166.
  7. Chatterjee, P. ve Chakraborty, S. 2014. Investigating The Effect of Normalization Norms in Flexible Manufacturing System Selection Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review, 7(3), 141-150.
  8. Colson, G. ve De Bruyn, C. 1989. Models and Methods in Multiple Objective Decision Making. Mathematics on Computation, 12(10-11), 1201-1211.
  9. Diakoulaki, D.; Mavrotas, G. ve Papayannakis, L. 1995. Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The CRITIC Methods. Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
  10. Du, J. ve Wang, X. 2010. The Analysis of China’s Macro-Economy with Grey Dynamic Model in 30 Years of Reform and Opening Up. In Advances in Grey Systems Research (141- 152). Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer
  11. Engineer, M.H.; Roy, N. ve Fink, S. 2010. “Healthy” Human Development Indices” Social Indicators Research, 99(1), 61-80.
  12. Feng, C.M. ve Wang, R.T. 2000. Performance Evaluation for Airlines Including the Consideration of Financial Ratio. Journal of Air Transport Management, 6, 133-142.
  13. Göksu, A. ve Güngör İ. 2008. Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Proses Ve Üniversite Tercih Sıralamasında Uygulanması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 1-26.
  14. Grimm, M.; Harttgen, K.; Klasen, S. ve Misselhorn, M. 2008. A Human Development Index by Income Groups. World Development, 36(12), 2527-2546.
  15. Hwang C.L. ve Yoon K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. New York: Springer- Verlag. Julong, D. 1989. Introduction to Grey System Theory. The Journal of Grey System, 1,1-24.
  16. Kao, C. 2010. Weight Determination for Consistently Ranking Alternatives in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 34, 1779-1787.
  17. Kaya, P.; İpekçi Çetin, E. ve Kuruüzüm, A. 2011. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme İle Avrupa Birliği Ve Aday Ülkelerin Yaşam Kalitesinin Analizi. Ekonometri ve İstatistik, 13, 80-94.
  18. Kundakçı, N. 2016. Combined Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach Based on Macbeth and Multi-MOORA Methods. Alphanumeric Journal, 4(1).
  19. Kurt, Ü. (2003). Karar Verme Sürecinde Yöneticilerin Kişilik Yapılarının Etkileri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  20. Liu, S.; Forrest, J. ve Yang, Y. 2012. A Brief Introduction to Grey Systems Theory. Grey Syst. Theory Appl. 2 (2), 89-104.
  21. Liu, S. ve Lin, Y. 2006. Grey Information Theory and Practical Applications. London: Springer – Verlag.
  22. Özbek, A. 2015. Akademik Birim Yöneticilerinin MOORA Yöntemiyle Seçilmesi: Kırıkkale Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 38, 1-18.
  23. Poznyak, A.S. 2008. Advanced Mathematical Tools for Automatic Control Engineers. Elsevier: Amsterdam.
  24. Ramos, X. ve Silber, J. 2005. On The Application of Efficiency Analysis to The Study of the Dimensions of Human Development. Review of Income and Wealth, 51(2), 285-309.
  25. Reig-Martinez, E. 2012. Social and Economic Wellbeing in Europe and The Mediterranean Basin: Building an Enlarged Human Development Indicator. Soc Indic Res, 111, 527-547.
  26. Rothrock, L. ve Yin, J. 2008. Integrating Compensatory and Noncompensatory Decision Making Strategies in Dynamic Task Environments. Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments. (Ed: T. Kugler v.d). New York: Springer, ss. 125-141.
  27. Safari, H. ve Ebrahimi, E. 2014. Using Modified Similarity Multiple Criteria Decision Making Technique to Rank Countries in Terms of Human Development Index. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7(1), 254-275.
  28. Safari, H.; Khanmohammadi, E.; Hafezamini, A. ve Ahangari, S. S. 2013. A New Technique for Multi Criteria Decision Making Based on Modified Similarity Method. Middle-East Journal of Science and Research, 14(5), 712-719.
  29. Sarıkaya, M. 2013. Karar Verme Süreçleri Ve Örgütsel Sessizlik. Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Denizli.
  30. Stanton, E. A. 2007. The Human Development Index: A History. Political Economy Research Institute. Workingpaper Series 127.
  31. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=peri_workingpapers (Erişim tarihi: 26.06.2016).
  32. Stanujkic, D.; Magdalinovic, N.; Stojanovic, S. ve Jovanovic, R. 2011. Extension of ratio system part of MOORA method for solving decision-making problems with interval data. Informatica, 23, 141-154.
  33. Svenson, O. 1979. Process description of decision making. Organizational behavior and human performance, 23, 86-112.
  34. Taha, H. A. 2014. Yöneylem Araştırması. (Çev.) Ş.A. Baray ve Ş. Esnaf, Literatür Yayıncılık.
  35. UNDP. 2015. Human Development Report 2015. United Nations Development Programme, New York.
  36. UNDP. 2015. Human Development Report Technical Notes 2015. United Nations Development Programme, New York.
  37. Urfalıoğlu, F. ve Genç, R. 2013. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri İle Türkiye’nin Ekonomik Performansının Avrupa Birliği Üye Ülkeleri İle Karşılaştırılması. Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B. Dergisi, 35 (2), 329-360.
  38. Winston, W. L. 1994. Operations Research: Applications and Algorithms. (Third Edition). California: Duxbury Press.
  39. Wu, H. H. 2002. A Comparative Study of Using Grey Relational Analysis in Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems. Quality Engineering, 15, 209 – 217
  40. Zardari, N. H.; Ahmed, K.; Shirazi, S. M. ve Yusop, Z. B. 2015. Weighting Methods and Their Effect on Multi – Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management. London: Springer