Search results

Today, although governance is important for every country, it is of great importance in solving economic and social problems especially in developing countries. Many studies in the literature reveal that the understanding of governance affects the economic performance of countries positively. In this context, it is possible to evaluate countries comparatively by considering the effects of their governance quality on national economies. In this study, it is aimed to emphasize that the countries that are in a good position in terms of governance indicators are generally more successful in sustainable economic growth and development, and it has been tried to show that institutional differences are effective on the development gap between countries. In this study, the role of governance on economic growth and development was discussed and comparisons were made between Turkey and G7 countries based on the governance indicators in The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) of the World Bank and economic performance data obtained from the World Bank. Governance indicators and macroeconomic data obtained from the World Bank are tabulated and the current situation of Turkey and G7 countries is interpreted. Significant differences were observed in the comparisons made. G7 countries have high scoring governance indicators that can produce positive economic results. On the other hand, Turkey's economic and governance indicators lag behind the averages of developed countries. ; Günümüzde yönetişim herülke için önemli olmakla birlikte özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerde yaşanan ekonomik ve sosyal sorunların çözümünde büyük önem arz etmektedir. Literatürde birçok çalışma yönetişim anlayışının ülkelerin ekonomik performansını olumlu yönde etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda ülkeleri yönetişim kalitelerinin ülke ekonomileri üzerinde yarattığı etkileri ile ele alarak karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmek mümkün olabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada yönetişim göstergeleri açısından iyi konumda olan ülkelerin, sürdürülebilir bir ekonomik büyüme ve gelişme konusunda genellikle daha başarılı olduğu vurgulanmak istenmiştir ve ülkeler arası gelişmişlik farkı üzerinde kurumsal farklılıkların etkili olduğu gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır. Çalışmada yönetişimin ekonomik büyüme ve gelişme üzerindeki rolü ele alınmış olup Türkiye ile G7 ülkeleri arasında Dünya Bankası'nın The Worldwide Governance Indicators'da (WGI) yer alan yönetişim göstergelerine ve Dünya Bankası'ndan elde edilmiş ekonomik performans verilerine dayanarak karşılaştırmalar yapılmıştır. Dünya Bankasından elde edilen yönetişim göstergeleri ve makroekonomik veriler tablolaştırılarak Türkiye ve G7 ülkelerinin mevcut durumu yorumlanmıştır. Yapılan karşılaştırmalarda önemli farklılıklar olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. G7 ülkeleri olumlu ekonomik sonuçlar doğurabilen yüksek puanlı yönetişim göstergelerine sahiptirler. Türkiye'nin ise hem ekonomik hem de yönetişim göstergeleri gelişmiş ülkelerin ortalamalarının gerisinde kalmaktadır.

This article analyzes the civil society dimension and pays particular attention to the role of civil society's organizations within the EU's Eastern Partnership's governance and networking processes. The study is based on the EU's documents' analysis and the data of qualitative interviews conducted between 2011-2014 from the respondents of the EU's institutions (European Commission, EEAS, EP), member states' representations in Brussels, and the members of the Eastern Partnership civil society forum created in 2009. The study shows that the representatives of civil society organizations are seeking to be involved and are existent in most of the stages and interactional modes of the EU's relations with the Eastern Partnership countries, and this process predicts the conditions for the emergence of international governance in the Eastern neighborhood space. On the other hand, the representatives of CSOs are complaining about not being involved enough in the negotiations deciding over the Association or other kind of agreements between the EU and their (EaP) country.

This article analyzes the civil society dimension and pays particular attention to the role of civil society's organizations within the EU's Eastern Partnership's governance and networking processes. The study is based on the EU's documents' analysis and the data of qualitative interviews conducted between 2011-2014 from the respondents of the EU's institutions (European Commission, EEAS, EP), member states' representations in Brussels, and the members of the Eastern Partnership civil society forum created in 2009. The study shows that the representatives of civil society organizations are seeking to be involved and are existent in most of the stages and interactional modes of the EU's relations with the Eastern Partnership countries, and this process predicts the conditions for the emergence of international governance in the Eastern neighborhood space. On the other hand, the representatives of CSOs are complaining about not being involved enough in the negotiations deciding over the Association or other kind of agreements between the EU and their (EaP) country.

This article analyzes the civil society dimension and pays particular attention to the role of civil society's organizations within the EU's Eastern Partnership's governance and networking processes. The study is based on the EU's documents' analysis and the data of qualitative interviews conducted between 2011-2014 from the respondents of the EU's institutions (European Commission, EEAS, EP), member states' representations in Brussels, and the members of the Eastern Partnership civil society forum created in 2009. The study shows that the representatives of civil society organizations are seeking to be involved and are existent in most of the stages and interactional modes of the EU's relations with the Eastern Partnership countries, and this process predicts the conditions for the emergence of international governance in the Eastern neighborhood space. On the other hand, the representatives of CSOs are complaining about not being involved enough in the negotiations deciding over the Association or other kind of agreements between the EU and their (EaP) country.

5.3 Corporate-style management5.4 Success on targeted preventative output; 5.5 Improved outcome; 6. Continental case: Amsterdam; 6.1 Specialised policy; 6.2 Intense and exclusive structures; 6.3 Games of management; 6.4 High risk targeted output; 6.5 Varying outcomes; 7. Comparative analysis of empirical findings; 7.1 Variation in governance arrangements; 7.2 Variation in the quality of outputs and outcomes; 7.3 Testing three hypotheses; 8. Conclusion and discussion; 8.1 Answer to the central question; 8.2 Theoretical implications; 8.3 Practical implications.