KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyal Güvence / 2026 / Sayı: 30

Dijital Yaşam Kalitesi, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Sosyal Harcamalara Göre OECD Ülkelerinin Kümeleme Analizi: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz

Clustering of OECD Countries Based on Digital Quality of Life, Income Inequality And Social Expenditures: A Comparative Analysis

Ülkü İstiklal Ortakaya
Sayfa
2534–2556
Yayın Tarihi
2026-07-04
🏛️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)

Dijital gelişmenin çoğu zaman verimlilik ve erişilebilirlik artışıyla ilişkilendirilmesine rağmen, dijitalleşmenin refah politikaları ve gelir eşitsizliği üzerindeki etkileri ülkeler arasında farklılık göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Dijitalleşme, özellikle kamu hizmetlerinin sunumu ve yönetişim süreçlerinde dijital araçların yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte, refah devleti analizlerinde giderek daha önemli bir boyut haline gelmiştir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Dijital gelişmenin çoğu zaman verimlilik ve erişilebilirlik artışıyla ilişkilendirilmesine rağmen, dijitalleşmenin refah politikaları ve gelir eşitsizliği üzerindeki etkileri ülkeler arasında farklılık göstermektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu çerçevede çalışma, dijitalleşmenin refah rejimlerini anlamada bağlamsal bir unsur olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ve refah rejimi yaklaşımının dijital çağda da analitik önemini koruduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Dijitalleşme · refah rejimleri · sosyal harcamalar

Özet

Dijitalleşme, özellikle kamu hizmetlerinin sunumu ve yönetişim süreçlerinde dijital araçların yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte, refah devleti analizlerinde giderek daha önemli bir boyut haline gelmiştir. Dijital gelişmenin çoğu zaman verimlilik ve erişilebilirlik artışıyla ilişkilendirilmesine rağmen, dijitalleşmenin refah politikaları ve gelir eşitsizliği üzerindeki etkileri ülkeler arasında farklılık göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, dijital kapasite, sosyal politika çabası ve dağıtımsal sonuçlar arasındaki ilişkileri karşılaştırmalı bir perspektifle incelemek amacıyla 36 OECD ülkesini kapsayan kesitsel bir analiz sunmaktadır. Çalışmada dijital kapasitenin göstergesi olarak Dijital Yaşam Kalitesi Endeksi, refah politikası çabasının göstergesi olarak sosyal harcamaların GSYH içindeki payı ve gelir eşitsizliğinin göstergesi olarak Gini katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Pearson korelasyon analizi, Temel Bileşenler Analizi ve k-ortalamalar kümeleme analizi bulguları, ülkelerin dijital kapasite, sosyal harcama düzeyi ve gelir eşitsizliği açısından farklı kümelerde toplandığını göstermektedir. Dijital yaşam kalitesi ile sosyal harcamalar arasında daha güçlü bir ilişki gözlemlenirken, gelir eşitsizliği kümeler arasında ve kümeler içinde önemli ölçüde farklılık göstermektedir. Bulgular, refah devletlerinde bir yakınsama ya da nedensel bir ilişki ortaya koymaktan ziyade, dijitalleşmenin mevcut kurumsal yapılar ve politika tercihleriyle etkileşim içinde işlediğine işaret etmektedir. Bu çerçevede çalışma, dijitalleşmenin refah rejimlerini anlamada bağlamsal bir unsur olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ve refah rejimi yaklaşımının dijital çağda da analitik önemini koruduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

Digitalization has become an increasingly important dimension of welfare state analysis, particularly as public administrations expand the use of digital tools in service delivery and governance. While digital development is often associated with improved efficiency and accessibility, its implications for welfare provision and income inequality remain uneven across countries. This study provides a comparative, cross-sectional analysis of 36 OECD countries to examine how digital capacity, welfare effort, and distributive outcomes are configured in relation to one another. Using the Digital Quality of Life Index as an indicator of digital capacity, social expenditure as a share Digitalization has increasingly become a critical dimension in welfare state analyses, particularly with the proliferation of digital tools in public service delivery and governance processes. Although digital development is often associated with increased efficiency and accessibility, its impact on welfare policies and income inequality varies across countries. This study presents a cross-sectional analysis of 36 OECD countries to examine the relationships between digital capacity, social policy effort, and distributional outcomes from a comparative perspective. The Digital Quality of Life Index is used as an indicator of digital capacity, social expenditure as a share of GDP as an indicator of welfare policy effort, and the Gini coefficient as a measure of income inequality. The findings of the Pearson correlation analysis, Principal Component Analysis, and k-means cluster analysis indicate that countries are grouped into distinct clusters in terms of their digital capacity, social spending levels, and income inequality. While a stronger relationship is observed between digital quality of life and social expenditure, income inequality varies significantly between and within clusters. Rather than demonstrating a convergence or a causal relationship in welfare states, the findings indicate that digitalization operates in interaction with existing institutional structures and policy choices. In this context, the study reveals that digitalization should be considered as a contextual element in understanding welfare regimes, and that the welfare regime approach maintains its analytical significance in the digital age.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ortakaya, Ü. İ. (2026). Dijital Yaşam Kalitesi, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Sosyal Harcamalara Göre OECD Ülkelerinin Kümeleme Analizi: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz. Sosyal Güvence, Sayı: 30, 2534–2556. https://doi.org/10.21441/sosyalguvence.1845745

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

↗Yeni Sekme

Kaynakça (54)

  1. Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101
  2. Abu Sharkh, M., & Gough, I. (2010). Global welfare regimes: A cluster analysis. Global Social Policy, 10(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018109355035
  3. Andreassen, R., Kaun, A., & Nikunen, K. (2021). Fostering the data welfare state: A Nordic perspective on datafication. Nordicom Review, 42(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0020
  4. Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952872002012002114
  5. Barrientos, A. (2009). Labour markets and the (hyphenated) welfare regime in Latin America. Economy and Society, 38(1), 87–108.
  6. Brynjolfsson, E., & Collis, A. (2023). The digital welfare of nations: New measures of welfare gains and inequality (NBER Working Paper No. 31670). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31670
  7. Büchi, M. (2024). Digital well-being: Concepts, measurements, and policies. Springer.
  8. Buhr, D. (2017). What about Welfare 4.0? CESifo Forum, 18(4), 15–24.
  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2019). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve raporlama (26. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. baskı). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Dencik, L., & Kaun, A. (2020). Datafication and the welfare state. Global Perspectives, 1(1), 12912. https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12912
  12. Ding, C., & He, X. (2004). K-means clustering via principal component analysis. Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learning, 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/1015330.1015408
  13. Edmond, T. (2023). Digital access and the future of inclusion. Journal of Digital Equity, 2(1), 45–62.
  14. Eichhorst, W., & Rinne, U. (2017). Digital challenges for the welfare state (IZA Policy Paper No. 134). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  15. Eichhorst, W., Hemerijck, A., & Scalise, G. (2022). Investment, and the Digital Transformation. Digitalization and the Welfare State, 64.
  16. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
  17. Espinosa Zárate, Z., Camilli Trujillo, C., & Plaza-de-la-Hoz, J. (2023). Digitalization in vulnerable populations: A systematic review in Latin America. Social Indicators Research, 170(3), 1183–1207.
  18. Fenger, H. J. M. (2007). Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post-communist countries in a welfare regime typology. Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences, 3(2), 1–30.
  19. Ferge, Z. (1997). The changed welfare paradigm: the individualization of the social. Social Policy & Administration, 31(1), 20–44.
  20. Franzoni, J. M. (2008). Welfare regimes in Latin America: Capturing constellations of markets, families, and policies. Latin American Politics and Society, 50(2), 67–100. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2008.00013.x
  21. Gui, M., Fasoli, M., & Carradore, R. (2022). Digital well-being and quality of life in the age of hyperconnectivity. Media and Society, 14(3), 221–239.
  22. Güler, M. A. (2019). The concept of the welfare state and typologies of welfare regimes: A review. Problemy Polityki Społecznej. Studia i Dyskusje, (47 (4), 113–130.
  23. Gümüş, İ. (2020). Esping-Andersen ve Refah Rejimi Tartişmalari: Teorik Bir Değerlendirme. Ekonomi Maliye İşletme Dergisi, 3(1), 101–117.
  24. Gupta, A. (2023). Digitalisation of the welfare state: Lessons for the emerging economies. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 69(2), 453–467.
  25. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
  26. Hauke, J., & Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae, 30(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1
  27. Holliday, I. (2000). Productivist welfare capitalism: Social policy in East Asia. Political Studies, 48(4), 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00279
  28. Huh, T., & Kim, J. H. (2019). Multiple conjunctural impact on digital social innovation: Focusing on the OECD countries. Sustainability, 11(18), 4887. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184887
  29. Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. SAGE Publications.
  30. Jain, A. K. (2010). Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recognition Letters, 31(8), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.011
  31. Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065), 20150202. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202
  32. Jorge, A., Almeida, P., & Costa, M. (2022). Digital habitus and well-being. Information, Communication & Society, 25(7), 934–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1909098
  33. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  34. Kocakaya, G., & Ülgen, G. (2025). Mapping digital advances: A comprehensive digitalization index for analyzing OECD economies. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 12(2), 335–361.
  35. Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657333
  36. Lloyd, S. P. (1982). Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489
  37. Maiboroda, O., Sushyk, N., Silvestrova, O., Haponchuk, O., & Martyniuk, Y. (2025). The domain of social services in the twenty-first century: Digital transformation and innovative development within new paradigms. Science, 13, 100096.
  38. Marshall, T. H. (1963). Citizenship and social class. In Sociology at the crossroads and other essays (pp. 67–127). Heinemann.
  39. Martínez Franzoni, J. (2008). Welfare regimes in Latin America: Capturing constellations of markets, families, and policies. Latin American Politics and Society, 50(2), 67–100.
  40. Mishi, S., & Anakpo, G. (2022). Digital divide and inclusive development in developed countries. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 24(2), 123–139.
  41. Morris, A., Coles-Kemp, L., & Jones, W. (2020). Digitalised welfare: Systems for both seeing and working with mess. In Companion Proceedings of the 12th ACM Web Science Conference. ACM.
  42. Naeem, S., Ali, A., Anam, S., & Ahmed, M. M. (2023). Unsupervised machine learning algorithms: Comprehensive review. International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems, 13(1), 911–921.
  43. OECD. (2020). The OECD digital government policy framework. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 02. https://doi.org/10.1787/4de9f5bb-en
  44. Özcan Alp, G., & Baycan, T. (2024). Digital divide reflections on regional development disparities in Türkiye. Information Technology for Development, 30(4), 608–625.
  45. Palier, B. (2019). Work, social protection and the middle classes: What future in the digital age? International Social Security Review, 72(3), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12232
  46. Rakićević, J., Rakićević, A., & Poledica, A. (2019). Logical clustering approach for analysing digital economy and society performance of countries. In EUSFLAT Conference (pp. 550–557). Atlantis Press.
  47. Santos, L. S., Lima, L., & Rodrigues, R. (2022). Digitalisation and social inequality in the Global North. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 180, 121698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121698
  48. Saraiva, C., & Caiado, J. (2025). Global development patterns: A clustering analysis of economic, social and environmental indicators. Sustainable Futures, 10, 100907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100907
  49. Schoukens, P., Barrio, A., & Montebovi, S. (2018). The EU social pillar: An answer to the challenge of the social protection of platform workers? European Journal of Social Security, 20(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1388262718798393
  50. Sevgi, H. (2021). Analysis of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) through a cluster analysis. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23, 37–51.
  51. Thorndike, R. L. (1953). Who belongs in the family? Psychometrika, 18(4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289263
  52. van Gerven, M. (2022). Social policy in changing European societies: Research agendas for the 21st century. In K. Nelson, R. Nieuwenhuis, & M. Yerkes (Eds.), Studying social policy in the digital age (pp. 251–264). Edward Elgar.
  53. Van Lancker, W. (2020). Automating the welfare state: Consequences and challenges for the organisation of solidarity. In I. Van Hoyweghen, V. Pulignano, & G. Meyers (Eds.), Shifting solidarities: Trends and developments in European societies (pp. 153–173). Springer.
  54. Vigneau, E., Chen, M., & Qannari, E. M. (2015). ClustVarLVs: An R package for the clustering of variables around latent variables. The R Journal, 7(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2015-026