2013
DOI: 10.29302/oeconomica.2013.15.2.31
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

"The Evolution Of Regional Development Agencies: Turkey Case "

Abstract: Regional imbalance is an important socioeconomic problem which can be seen in many countries. The development agency tool which is implemented by many developed or developing countries in order to eliminate the regional imbalances is an important actor in especially implementation of regional plans and policies. In this study, especially the development of Regional Development Agency, which became an important implementation of development strategies in regions especially since early 2000s is evaluated.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
2
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…There are two approaches to the distribution of activities in regional development, the socalled top-down and bottom-up approaches, i.e., the first "top-down" approach, which refers to decision-making at higher levels of government, i.e., a tendency toward centralism that often ignores actors at lower levels of decision-making, and the second "bottom-up" approach, which refers to proposals and activities and decision-making at the lowest levels of government (Thierstein & Walser, 1999;Pissourios, 2014). Halkier (2001) states that the first period of the creation of RDA in Europe was from the 1960s to the 1980s, when the creation of regional policy was "top down", which was the centralized management of regional development policy, and that the second period, " top down", which began in the 1980s and continues (Toktas, et al, 2013). Since the 1980s, the inadequacies of the centralized approach to regional development have been slowly recognized and the introduction of the "bottom up" system, i.e., the decentralized approach to regional development, has begun.…”
Section: The Architectures' Of Regional Economic Institutions In the ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are two approaches to the distribution of activities in regional development, the socalled top-down and bottom-up approaches, i.e., the first "top-down" approach, which refers to decision-making at higher levels of government, i.e., a tendency toward centralism that often ignores actors at lower levels of decision-making, and the second "bottom-up" approach, which refers to proposals and activities and decision-making at the lowest levels of government (Thierstein & Walser, 1999;Pissourios, 2014). Halkier (2001) states that the first period of the creation of RDA in Europe was from the 1960s to the 1980s, when the creation of regional policy was "top down", which was the centralized management of regional development policy, and that the second period, " top down", which began in the 1980s and continues (Toktas, et al, 2013). Since the 1980s, the inadequacies of the centralized approach to regional development have been slowly recognized and the introduction of the "bottom up" system, i.e., the decentralized approach to regional development, has begun.…”
Section: The Architectures' Of Regional Economic Institutions In the ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…регионального развития Анализу таких специфических ИРР, как РИФ, АРР и КРР в отечественной и зарубежной литературе посвящено достаточно много работ. В целом ряде исследований проанализированы правовые особенности функционирования АРР (Eroglu et al, 2014), выделены их типовые характеристики, к числу которых относятся: полуавтономное положение по отношению к центральным органам власти; использование «мягких» инструментов политики для поддержки местных фирм; наличие таких факторов успеха деятельности АРР, как консенсус между бизнесом и властью, предпринимательский потенциал региона, большое население и наличие квалифицированной рабочей силы (Halkier, Danson, 1998;Toktas, Sevinc, Bozkurt, 2013;Toktas et al, 2018). В литературе осуществлена классификация АРР по различным признакам, например, по функционалу (Татаркин, Котлярова, 2013), по уровню развития и зрелости (Полтерович, 2016), по учредительному принципу (Балацкий, Екимова, Юревич, 2019).…”
Section: феномен мегапроектов как разновидность институтаunclassified
“…Большой пласт работ связан с анализом практического опыта построения АРР в отдельных странах, например, в Австралии (Maude, Beer, 2000), Великобритании (Екимова, 2020), Румынии (Benedek, Horvath, 2008), Турции (Toktas, Sevinc, Bozkurt, 2013), а также с оценкой эффективности их деятельности (Гусев, Юревич, 2021).…”
Section: феномен мегапроектов как разновидность институтаunclassified
“…Legality and authority come to the next which indicate that in order to enhance the effectiveness of RDAs, they need to be supported bottomup in local base and top-down by central governments. Another issue that affect efficiencies of RDAs in Turkey is to adopt the decentralization tradition despite that RDAs require more comprehensive and more unique effective regional policy tools and actions rather than centrally oriented supports (Toktaş, Sevinç and Bozkurt, 2013).…”
Section: Agricultural Finance In Turkeymentioning
confidence: 99%