BibTex RIS Cite

The Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Fish & Fisheries in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index.

Year 2009, Volume: 26 Issue: 2, 95 - 100, 01.06.2009

Abstract

References

  • * Çiftçi, 2009a, 18.
  • ** Çiftçi, 2009b, 51. *** Tablo 1.
  • Eczacılık F.** 89.0 68.4 83.2 91.9 Orman F.* 80.2 74.8 60.6 90.0
  • Su Ürünleri F.*** 63.2 92.4 82.8 82.1 77.9 85.5 89.7 99.2 92.0 76.1 Kaynaklar
  • Alcantara V. and J. A. Duro. 2004. Inequality of energy intensities across OECD countries: a note. Energy Policy 32: 1257–1260.
  • Atkinson A. B. 1970. On the Measurement of Inequality. Journal of Economic Theory 2, 244–263.
  • Benito J. M. and R. Ezcurra 2005. Spatial Disparities in Productivity and Industry Mix: The Case of the European Regions. European Urban and Regional Studies 12: 177–194.
  • Carlino G. and S. Chatterjee. 2002. Employment Deconcentration: A New Perspective of America’s Postwar Urban Evolution. Journal of Regional Science 42 (2): 455–475.
  • Chakravarty S. 1996. A Measurement of Spatial Disparity: The Case of Income Inequality. Urban Studies. 33 (9): 1671–1686.
  • Chakravarty S.R. and J. Silber. 2008. A generalized index of employment segregation. Mathematical Social Sciences 53: 185–195.
  • Çiftçi M. 2008. Ülkelerarası Küresel Eşitsizlikte Uzun Dönemli Bozulma (1950–2001). “Long Term Corruption for Global Inter-Regional Inequality from 1950 to 1998” The Journal of International Social Research 1 (5): 156–179.
  • Çiftçi M. 2009a. Türkiye’de Orman Fakültelerindeki Öğrencilerin Öğretim Üyelerinden Sağladıkları Sosyal Fayda Düzeylerinin Atkinson Eşitsizlik Endeksi Yaklaşımıyla Ölçümü “Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Forestry in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index”. Journal of the Bartin Faculty of Forestry 11 (16): 13–23.
  • Çiftçi M. 2009b. Türkiye’de Eczacılık Fakültelerindeki Öğrencilerin Öğretim Üyelerinden Sağladıkları Sosyal Fayda Düzeylerinin Atkinson Eşitsizlik Endeksi Yaklaşımıyla Ölçümü “Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Pharmacy in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index”. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy 29 (1): 45–59.
  • Dawkins C. 2006. The Spatial Pattern of Black–White Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas: An Exploratory Analysis. Urban Studies 43 (11): 1943–1969.
  • Duro J. A. and J. Esteban. 1998. Factor Decomposition of Cross-Country Income Inequality, 1960–1990. Economics Letters 60: 269–275.
  • Ezcurra R, Gil C., P. Pascual and M. Rapşn. 2005. Inequality, Polarisation and Regional Mobility in the European Union. Urban Studies 42 (7): 1057–1076.
  • Ezcurra R. Pascual P. and M. Rapun. 2008. Spatial Inequality in Productivity in the European Union: Sectoral and Regional Factors. International Regional Science Review 30 (4): 384–407.
  • Ezcurra R. and P. Pascual. 2008. Regional Polarisation and National Development in the European Union. Urban Studies 44 (1): 99–122.
  • Ezcurra R. and M. Rapşn. 2006.Regional Disparities and National Development Revisited: The Case of Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 13 (4): 355–369.
  • Fedorov L. 2002. Regional Inequality and Regional Polarization in Russia, 1990–99. World Development 30 (3): 443–456.
  • García I. and J. A. Molina. 2001. The Effects of Region on the Welfare and Monetary Income of Spanish Families. Urban Studies 38 (13): 2415– 2424.
  • Gezici F. 2008. Türkiye’nin Bölgelerarası Gelişmişlik Farkları ve Bölgesel Politikalarının Yeni Yaklaşımlar Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi. “Interregional Development Diversity in Turkey and The Analysis of New Approaches for Regional Politics” Bölge Biliminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar – Bildiriler Kitabı, 12. Ulusal Bölge Bilimi / Bölge Planlama Kongresi, Bölge Bilim Türk Milli Komitesi, İTÜ, DPT.
  • Güven A. 2008. The Role of Incentive Policy on Income Inequality between Turkish Provinces: A Decomposition Analysis. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi 14: 20–38.
  • Harvey J. 2005. A note on the ‘natural rate of subjective inequality’hypothesis and the approximate relationship between the Gini coefficient and the Atkinson index. Journal of Public Economics 89: 1021–1025.
  • Heindenreich M. 2003. Regional Inequalities in the Enlarged Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 13: 313–333.
  • Jammalamadaka S. R. and M. N. Goria. 2004. A test of goodness - of - t based on Gini’s index of spacings. Statistics & Probability Letters 68: 177–187.
  • Jones M. P. and S. Mainwaring. 2003. The Nationalization of Parties and Party Systems An Empirical Measure and an Application to the Americas. Party Politics 9 (2): 139–166.
  • Lu D. 2008. China’s Regional Income Disparity - An Alternative Way to think of the Sources and Causes. Economics of Transition 16 (1): 31–58.
  • Marks G. N, B. Headey and M. Wooden. 2005. Household Wealth in Australia: Its Components, Distribution and Correlates. Journal of Sociology 41 (1): 47–68.
  • Millimet D. M. and D. Slottje. 2002. Environmental Compliance Costs and the Distribution of Emissions in the U.S. Journal of Regional Science 42 (1): 87 – 105.
  • Moran T. P. 2003. On the Theoretical and Methodological Context of Cross- National Inequality Data. International Sociology 18 (2): 351–378.
  • Oberwittler D. Disorganization Juvenile Offending: The Role of Subcultural Values and Social A Multilevel Analysis of Neighbourhood Contextual Effects on Serious. European Journal of Criminology, 2004, 1 (2): 201– 235.
  • ÖSYM. 2001. 2001–2001 Öğretim Yılı Yükseköğretim İstatistikleri Kitabı. “Statistical Yearbook of Higher Education for the 2001-2001 Academic Year”.
  • ÖSYM. 2008. 2008–2008 Öğretim Yılı Yükseköğretim İstatistikleri Kitabı. “Statistical Yearbook of Higher Education for the 2008-2008 Academic Year”.
  • Öztürk L. 2005. Bölgelerarası Gelir Eşitsizliği: İstatistikî Bölge Birimleri Sınıflandırması’na (İBBS) Göre Eşitsizlik İndeksleri İle Bir Analiz, 1965– 2001. “Interregional Income Inequality: An Analysis with Inequality Indexes By Considering Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (Nuts), 1965-2001” Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi 10: 95–110.
  • Pedersen A. W. 2004 Measurement Inequality as Relative Deprivation: A Sociological Approach to Inequality. Acta Sociologica 47: 31–49.
  • Poulin R. ve A. D. M. Latham. 2002. Inequalities in size and intensitydependent growth in a mermithid nematode parasitic in beach hoppers. Journal of Helminthology 76: 65–70.
  • Ravallion M. 2001. Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond the Averages, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 2558.
  • Regidor E, M. E. Calle, P. Navarro and V. Dominguez. 2003. Trends in the Association between Average Income, Poverty and Income Inequality and Life Expectancy in Spain. Social Science & Medicine 56: 961–971.
  • Sadras V. and R. Bongiovanni. 2004. Use of Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients to assess yield inequality within paddocks. Field Crops Research 90: 303–310.
  • Salas R. 1997. Welfare-consistent inequality indices in changing populations: The marginal population replication axiom A note. Journal of Public Economics 67: 145–150.
  • Schmidt M. B. and D. J.Berri. 2001. Competitive Balance and Attendance: The Case of Major League Baseball. Journal of Sports Economics, 2 (2): 145–167.
  • Sen A. K. 1973. On Economic Inequality, Oxford University Press.
  • Siew A, K. Lim and K. K. Tang. 2008. Human Capital Inequality and the Kuznets Curve. The Developing Economies XLVI-1: 26–51.
  • Spatz J. 2006. Poverty and Inequality in the Era of Structural Reforms: The Case of Bolivia, Springer Verlag.
  • Sweeney S. H. and H. Goldstein. 2005. Accounting for migration in regional occupational employment projections. The Annals of Regional Science 39: 297–316.
  • Utt J. and R. Fort. 2002. Pitfalls to Measuring Competitive Balance With Gini Coefficients. Journal of Sports Economics 3 (4): 367–373.
  • ÜAK 2009. Ziraat ve Ormancılık Temel Alanı. URL: http://www.uak.gov.tr/temelalanlar/tablo12.pdf Erişim: 27.12.2009.

Türkiye'de Su Ürünleri Fakültelerindeki Öğrencilerin Öğretim Üyelerinden Sağladıkları Sosyal Fayda Düzeylerinin Atkinson Eşitsizlik Endeksi Yaklaşımıyla Ölçümü.

Year 2009, Volume: 26 Issue: 2, 95 - 100, 01.06.2009

Abstract

Bu çalışmada su ürünleri fakülteleri arasında öğrenci ve öğretim üyesi sayılarının dengesiz dağılmasından kaynaklanan sosyal fayda kaybının ölçülmesine odaklanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada üç farklı öğretim üyesi kadrosu ve iki öğretim dönemi için Atkinson endeksleri kullanılmıştır. Uygulamada kullanılan veriler ÖSYM’nin yayınlarına dayanmaktadır. Hesaplanan endeks katsayıları, genel olarak öğretim üyelerinin fakültelere dağılımlarının öğrenci sayılarına göre ciddi düzeyde dengesiz olduğunu ve öğrencilerin öğretim üyelerinden sağladıkları sosyal faydadan ciddi kayıplarının mevcut olduğunu göstermektedir. Hesaplanan sosyal fayda düzeyleri 2001 öğretim yılı için profesörlerden % 61.9, doçentlerden % 99.8, yardımcı doçentlerden % 65.8 olmuş, 2008 öğretim yılında ise bu oranlar % 92.4, % 82.1 ve % 85.5 düzeylerinde gerçekleşmiştir. Bu sonuçsa 2001 öğretim yılı için su ürünleri fakültelerinde görev yapan profesör başına düşen 67.6, doçent başına düşen 125.6 ve yardımcı doçent başına düşen 44 öğrencilik düzeyinin aynı sırayla 109.3; 125.9; 66.8 öğrenci şeklinde hissedildiği şeklinde yorumlanabilir. Buna ek olarak 2008 öğretim yılı için ise aynı sırayla 56.7; 95.9; 25 öğrencilik düzeyleri 61.3; 116.7; 29.2 öğrenci gibi hissedilmiştir. Türkiye’deki su ürünleri mühendisliği öğretiminde sosyal fayda kaybı mevcuttur

References

  • * Çiftçi, 2009a, 18.
  • ** Çiftçi, 2009b, 51. *** Tablo 1.
  • Eczacılık F.** 89.0 68.4 83.2 91.9 Orman F.* 80.2 74.8 60.6 90.0
  • Su Ürünleri F.*** 63.2 92.4 82.8 82.1 77.9 85.5 89.7 99.2 92.0 76.1 Kaynaklar
  • Alcantara V. and J. A. Duro. 2004. Inequality of energy intensities across OECD countries: a note. Energy Policy 32: 1257–1260.
  • Atkinson A. B. 1970. On the Measurement of Inequality. Journal of Economic Theory 2, 244–263.
  • Benito J. M. and R. Ezcurra 2005. Spatial Disparities in Productivity and Industry Mix: The Case of the European Regions. European Urban and Regional Studies 12: 177–194.
  • Carlino G. and S. Chatterjee. 2002. Employment Deconcentration: A New Perspective of America’s Postwar Urban Evolution. Journal of Regional Science 42 (2): 455–475.
  • Chakravarty S. 1996. A Measurement of Spatial Disparity: The Case of Income Inequality. Urban Studies. 33 (9): 1671–1686.
  • Chakravarty S.R. and J. Silber. 2008. A generalized index of employment segregation. Mathematical Social Sciences 53: 185–195.
  • Çiftçi M. 2008. Ülkelerarası Küresel Eşitsizlikte Uzun Dönemli Bozulma (1950–2001). “Long Term Corruption for Global Inter-Regional Inequality from 1950 to 1998” The Journal of International Social Research 1 (5): 156–179.
  • Çiftçi M. 2009a. Türkiye’de Orman Fakültelerindeki Öğrencilerin Öğretim Üyelerinden Sağladıkları Sosyal Fayda Düzeylerinin Atkinson Eşitsizlik Endeksi Yaklaşımıyla Ölçümü “Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Forestry in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index”. Journal of the Bartin Faculty of Forestry 11 (16): 13–23.
  • Çiftçi M. 2009b. Türkiye’de Eczacılık Fakültelerindeki Öğrencilerin Öğretim Üyelerinden Sağladıkları Sosyal Fayda Düzeylerinin Atkinson Eşitsizlik Endeksi Yaklaşımıyla Ölçümü “Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Pharmacy in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index”. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy 29 (1): 45–59.
  • Dawkins C. 2006. The Spatial Pattern of Black–White Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas: An Exploratory Analysis. Urban Studies 43 (11): 1943–1969.
  • Duro J. A. and J. Esteban. 1998. Factor Decomposition of Cross-Country Income Inequality, 1960–1990. Economics Letters 60: 269–275.
  • Ezcurra R, Gil C., P. Pascual and M. Rapşn. 2005. Inequality, Polarisation and Regional Mobility in the European Union. Urban Studies 42 (7): 1057–1076.
  • Ezcurra R. Pascual P. and M. Rapun. 2008. Spatial Inequality in Productivity in the European Union: Sectoral and Regional Factors. International Regional Science Review 30 (4): 384–407.
  • Ezcurra R. and P. Pascual. 2008. Regional Polarisation and National Development in the European Union. Urban Studies 44 (1): 99–122.
  • Ezcurra R. and M. Rapşn. 2006.Regional Disparities and National Development Revisited: The Case of Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 13 (4): 355–369.
  • Fedorov L. 2002. Regional Inequality and Regional Polarization in Russia, 1990–99. World Development 30 (3): 443–456.
  • García I. and J. A. Molina. 2001. The Effects of Region on the Welfare and Monetary Income of Spanish Families. Urban Studies 38 (13): 2415– 2424.
  • Gezici F. 2008. Türkiye’nin Bölgelerarası Gelişmişlik Farkları ve Bölgesel Politikalarının Yeni Yaklaşımlar Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi. “Interregional Development Diversity in Turkey and The Analysis of New Approaches for Regional Politics” Bölge Biliminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar – Bildiriler Kitabı, 12. Ulusal Bölge Bilimi / Bölge Planlama Kongresi, Bölge Bilim Türk Milli Komitesi, İTÜ, DPT.
  • Güven A. 2008. The Role of Incentive Policy on Income Inequality between Turkish Provinces: A Decomposition Analysis. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi 14: 20–38.
  • Harvey J. 2005. A note on the ‘natural rate of subjective inequality’hypothesis and the approximate relationship between the Gini coefficient and the Atkinson index. Journal of Public Economics 89: 1021–1025.
  • Heindenreich M. 2003. Regional Inequalities in the Enlarged Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 13: 313–333.
  • Jammalamadaka S. R. and M. N. Goria. 2004. A test of goodness - of - t based on Gini’s index of spacings. Statistics & Probability Letters 68: 177–187.
  • Jones M. P. and S. Mainwaring. 2003. The Nationalization of Parties and Party Systems An Empirical Measure and an Application to the Americas. Party Politics 9 (2): 139–166.
  • Lu D. 2008. China’s Regional Income Disparity - An Alternative Way to think of the Sources and Causes. Economics of Transition 16 (1): 31–58.
  • Marks G. N, B. Headey and M. Wooden. 2005. Household Wealth in Australia: Its Components, Distribution and Correlates. Journal of Sociology 41 (1): 47–68.
  • Millimet D. M. and D. Slottje. 2002. Environmental Compliance Costs and the Distribution of Emissions in the U.S. Journal of Regional Science 42 (1): 87 – 105.
  • Moran T. P. 2003. On the Theoretical and Methodological Context of Cross- National Inequality Data. International Sociology 18 (2): 351–378.
  • Oberwittler D. Disorganization Juvenile Offending: The Role of Subcultural Values and Social A Multilevel Analysis of Neighbourhood Contextual Effects on Serious. European Journal of Criminology, 2004, 1 (2): 201– 235.
  • ÖSYM. 2001. 2001–2001 Öğretim Yılı Yükseköğretim İstatistikleri Kitabı. “Statistical Yearbook of Higher Education for the 2001-2001 Academic Year”.
  • ÖSYM. 2008. 2008–2008 Öğretim Yılı Yükseköğretim İstatistikleri Kitabı. “Statistical Yearbook of Higher Education for the 2008-2008 Academic Year”.
  • Öztürk L. 2005. Bölgelerarası Gelir Eşitsizliği: İstatistikî Bölge Birimleri Sınıflandırması’na (İBBS) Göre Eşitsizlik İndeksleri İle Bir Analiz, 1965– 2001. “Interregional Income Inequality: An Analysis with Inequality Indexes By Considering Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (Nuts), 1965-2001” Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi 10: 95–110.
  • Pedersen A. W. 2004 Measurement Inequality as Relative Deprivation: A Sociological Approach to Inequality. Acta Sociologica 47: 31–49.
  • Poulin R. ve A. D. M. Latham. 2002. Inequalities in size and intensitydependent growth in a mermithid nematode parasitic in beach hoppers. Journal of Helminthology 76: 65–70.
  • Ravallion M. 2001. Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond the Averages, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 2558.
  • Regidor E, M. E. Calle, P. Navarro and V. Dominguez. 2003. Trends in the Association between Average Income, Poverty and Income Inequality and Life Expectancy in Spain. Social Science & Medicine 56: 961–971.
  • Sadras V. and R. Bongiovanni. 2004. Use of Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients to assess yield inequality within paddocks. Field Crops Research 90: 303–310.
  • Salas R. 1997. Welfare-consistent inequality indices in changing populations: The marginal population replication axiom A note. Journal of Public Economics 67: 145–150.
  • Schmidt M. B. and D. J.Berri. 2001. Competitive Balance and Attendance: The Case of Major League Baseball. Journal of Sports Economics, 2 (2): 145–167.
  • Sen A. K. 1973. On Economic Inequality, Oxford University Press.
  • Siew A, K. Lim and K. K. Tang. 2008. Human Capital Inequality and the Kuznets Curve. The Developing Economies XLVI-1: 26–51.
  • Spatz J. 2006. Poverty and Inequality in the Era of Structural Reforms: The Case of Bolivia, Springer Verlag.
  • Sweeney S. H. and H. Goldstein. 2005. Accounting for migration in regional occupational employment projections. The Annals of Regional Science 39: 297–316.
  • Utt J. and R. Fort. 2002. Pitfalls to Measuring Competitive Balance With Gini Coefficients. Journal of Sports Economics 3 (4): 367–373.
  • ÜAK 2009. Ziraat ve Ormancılık Temel Alanı. URL: http://www.uak.gov.tr/temelalanlar/tablo12.pdf Erişim: 27.12.2009.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Murat ÇİFTÇİ

Publication Date June 1, 2009
Submission Date December 7, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2009Volume: 26 Issue: 2

Cite

APA ÇİFTÇİ, M. . (2009). Türkiye’de Su Ürünleri Fakültelerindeki Öğrencilerin Öğretim Üyelerinden Sağladıkları Sosyal Fayda Düzeylerinin Atkinson Eşitsizlik Endeksi Yaklaşımıyla Ölçümü. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 26(2), 95-100.