MICRO AND MACRO ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES OF
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
IN SOUTHEASTERN ANATOLIA REGION OF TURKEY ON
EUROPEAN UNION
CONTENTS
Abstract/Özet
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Data and Method
4. Analysis of Survey’s Data
A) Information on the Participants
B1)
Micro Economic Assessment
B2) Macro Economic Assessment
5. Conclusion
References
Abstract
This paper contains the data of a survey that
aims to reveal the perspectives of
university students in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey on the various micro and macro economic effects of possible
European Union (EU) membership of Turkey. In the context of micro economic
assessments; the proportion of the participants who look forward to an
improvement in the institutionalism of companies is 57%. Half the participants
expect positive changes in the wages and salaries. Conversely the proportion of
those who expect negative effects of the companies on the environment is 43%.
In the context of macro economic assessments; while half the participants state
that unemployment in
Keywords: Sotheastern Anatolia Region, University Students,
European Union (EU), Economic Perspective on EU, EU-Turkey Relations.
JEL
Classification: F6, O19, O52.
Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi’nde Üniversite
Öğrencilerinin
Avrupa Birliği’ne Mikro ve Makro İktisadî Bakış
Açısı
Özet
Bu çalışma, Güneydoğu Anadolu
Bölgesi’ndeki üniversite öğrencilerinin Avrupa Birliği’ne (AB) üyelik
sonrasında Türkiye iktisadına ilişkin çeşitli mikro ve makro iktisadî bakış
açılarını ortaya koymayı hedeflemekte olup bu amaçla düzenlenen anket
verilerinin analizini içermektedir. Mikro iktisadî çerçevede; firmaların
kurumsallaşma seviyelerinde iyileşme bekleyenlerin oranı %57’dir.
Katılımcıların yarısı da çalışanların ücretlerinde olumlu değişim beklediğini
ifade etmiştir. Öte yandan, Birliğe katıldıktan sonra işletmelerin çevreye
olumsuz etkilerinde azalma bekleyenlerin oranı %43’tür. Makro iktisadî
çerçevede ise; katılımcıların yarısı Türkiye’de işsizliğin
azalacağını belirtirken, enflasyonun düşeceği yönünde tercihte bulunanların
oranı %35’tir. Gelir dağılımında adaletin sağlanacağına inananların oranı da
benzer seviyededir.
Anahtar
Kelimeler: Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi, Üniversite
Öğrencileri, Avrupa Birliği (AB), AB’ye İktisadî Bakış, AB-Türkiye İlişkileri.
JEL
Sınıflandırması: F6, O19, O52.
1. Introduction
The European Union (EU) to which Turkey has been
endeavouring to become a full member for a long time is an institution that is
discussed in terms of political, social, and economic aspects. Prioritisation
of the economic aspects of the EU by people during the negotiations, or forming
their expectations is understandable in a country which is very behind the
Union in terms of average income level and standard of living.
Although economic issues and related
expectations are so prioritised, studies particularly on economic perspectives
of Turkey’s people on the EU are insufficient. EU
membership is, especially in the Sotheastern Anatolia Region of Turkey, usually
associated with political issues, while the economic perspectives of people
with regard to the EU and its membership have not necessarily been taken into
account.
This study aims to close that
gap and reveal the economic perspectives of people in the Sotheastern Anatolia
Region of Turkey on the EU. In this context, a target group has been identified
as university students. The basis of the study is formed by a survey conducted
with university students of nine cities in Sotheastern Anatolia Region (Mardin, Adıyaman, Antep, Batman, Diyarbakır, Kilis, Siirt, Şırnak, Urfa) during April-June 2016.
Although the scope of this survey is broader, in
this paper, the perspectives of students, particularly with regard to the micro
and macro effects of possible EU membership of Turkey are revealed.
2. Literature Review
Literature on the EU membership of Turkey mainly
concentrates on three areas: the general effects of EU membership on Turkey’s economy,
the general effects of Customs Union on Turkey’s economy, and the sectoral
effects of the Customs Union and EU membership.
While the paper by Karakaya and Özgen (2002) is an
example for the first group, the study by Akkoyunlu-Wigley, Mıhçı, and Arslan
(2006) is of the second group. The paper by Bekmez (2002) falls into the last
group.
There are also various ‘public opinion polls’
examining Turkey’s membership of EU. The researches by Ceran et al. (2016);
Özsöz et al. (2015); Ercan (2016); Samur and Oral (2007); Aktaş (2012); Karakuzu et al. (2015) are among such studies.
Such studies do not, however, focus specifically on
the economic aspect of the issue but are about the effects of membership on a
sector and/or perception of people of a city/province.
3. Data and Method
This paper
consists of some assessments by university students in the Sotheastern Anatolia Region on various
micro and macro changes in the economy of Turkey in the case of its membership
of EU.
The
section of the main survey assessed in this paper includes 10 questions which
can be classified under two main headings: personal information on the
participants plus their economic perspectives with regard to EU membership of
Turkey. A 5-Point Likert Scale Method is applied in the
survey.
4. Analysis of Survey’s Data
A) Information on the
Participants
The
participants are mainly from the Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences (FEAS). However, to enrich the research, students of the Faculties of
Theology, Engineering, Architecture, and Vocational Higher Schools are also
included.
The
share of FEAS’ students in the total is 87% and they are from the departments
of Economics, Business, Political Sciences and Public Management, and
International Relations. Information on the gender and age range of the
participants is given below.
Q1)
Gender of the participants
|
Male |
57% |
|
Female |
43% |
Although
the majority of the participants are male, the number of females is not much lower.
Thus, one can say that the representation level of the research is high in
terms of gender.
Q2)
Age range of the participants
As
they are university students, the age of the participants ranges from 17 to 28
years.
B1) Micro Economic Assessment
|
(%) |
Strongly disagree |
Disagree |
Undecided |
Agree |
Strongly agree |
|
1)
Wage/salaries will rise. |
5 |
14 |
34 |
30 |
17 |
|
2)
Companies will be institutionalised. |
3 |
11 |
29 |
45 |
12 |
|
3) Negative effects of companies on the environment will
be decreased. |
9 |
18 |
30 |
30 |
13 |
|
4) Government regulations on the competition will be
increased. |
4 |
12 |
23 |
47 |
14 |
Those who think that EU
membership will have positive effects on wages/salaries are nearly half the participants
(47%). However, the choice of those as yet undecided is remarkable. It is 34%
and comes first among all the answers.
While the rate of the
participants who expect an improvement in the institutionalisation level of
companies is 57%, the rate of those who differ is 14%.
Following EU membership, the
proportion of those who expect a decrease in the negative effects of companies
on the environment is 43%. The proportion of those who think differently
remains at 27%. However, the proportion of undecided students is 30%.
An important proportion of
participants believe that government regulations on competition will be
increased (61%). Only 16% disagree.
B2) Macro Economic Assessment
|
(%) |
Strongly disagree |
Disagree |
Undecided |
Agree |
Strongly agree |
|
1)
Unemployment rate will decrease. |
9 |
13 |
29 |
38 |
11 |
|
2)
Inflation rate will decrease. |
8 |
18 |
39 |
29 |
6 |
|
3) Justice in the income distribution will be
provided. |
11 |
20 |
32 |
25 |
12 |
|
4) Income per capita will increase. |
7 |
15 |
25 |
39 |
14 |
Nearly half the students think
that unemployment rate will be lower (49%). However, it seems that there is no
clarity on this matter. Because 29% of the participants are undecided.
Those who believe that the
rate of inflation will decrease following EU membership stands at 35% which is
a low rate clearly. Moreover, the share of the undecided students is greater
(39%).
Like the preferences of the
participants for ‘inflation’, those who believe that inequality
in income distribution will be reduced following
53% of the participants think
that income per capita will increase following EU membership of Turkey while
22% believe that it will not be so.
5. Conclusion
In the context of micro economic assessments based on a survey conducted with the 266 university students in the Sotheastern Anatolia Region of Turkey; 60% of the participants believe that government regulations on
competition following Turkey’s EU membership will be increased. The proportion of
participants who expect an improvement in the institutionalisation level of
companies is similar to that above. Nearly half the students think that EU
membership will have positive effects on wages/salaries. Their expectations
with regard to the decrease of negative effects of companies on the environment
is also positive. In fact, following EU membership, the proportion of
participants who believe that such negative effects in Turkey will be lower is
43%.
In the context of macro economic assessments; nearly half the students think that the unemployment rate
will be lower (49%). However, those who believe that the inflation rate will
decrease following EU membership is only 35%. The proportion of students who
believe that inequality in income distribution will be
reduced is nearly the same as that
given above. On the other hand, the participants who expect an increase in
income per capita in Turkey following the EU membership is rather than the
half.
* Assist. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Behzat Ekinci
Economics, FEAS,
**
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Kara
Economics, FEAS, Mustafa Kemal University
*** “Micro and Macro Economic Perspectives of University Students in
Southeast Anatolia Region of
References
Akkoyunlu-Wigley Arzu; Sevinç Mıhçı; Hakan Arslan
(2006). “The Custom Union with EU and Its Impact on
Bekmez, Selahattin (2002). “Sectoral Impacts of
Turkish Accession to the European Union”, Eastern Economic Journal,
40(2), 57-84.
Ercan, Murat (2012). “Bilecik Üniversitesi Avrupa
Birliği Anketi; Türkiye Kamuoyu AB’ye Nasıl Bakıyor?”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,
36(1), 199-220, http://dergi.cumhuriyet.edu.tr/cumusosbil/article/view/1008000924/1008001380.
Ceran, Ahmet; Çisel İleri; İlge Kıvılcım; Yeliz Şahin
(2016). Türkiye Kamuoyunda AB Desteği ve Avrupa Algısı; Kamuoyu Araştırması,
İktisadi Kalkınma Vakfı, Yayın No: 213, İstanbul.
Karakaya, Etem; Ferhat B. Özgen (2002). “Economic
Feasibility of Turkey’s Economic Integration with the EU: Perspectives from
Trade Creation and Trade Diversion”, International
Economics Research Conference, September 11-14, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1014031.
Karakuzu, Taner; Seyfi Aktoprak; Çiğdem Erk; İlker
Limon (2015). “Meslek Yüksekokulu Öğrencilerinde Avrupa Birliği Algısı Üzerine
Karşılaştırmalı Bir İnceleme: Trakya Üniversitesi Uzunköprü Meslek Yüksekokulu
Örneği”, Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 4.UMYOS Özel Sayısı,
Aralık.
Özsöz, Melih; Çisel İleri, Büşra Çatır; Ahmet
Ceran; İlke Özkan (2015). Türkiye Kamuoyunda
AB Desteği ve Avrupa Algısı; Kamuoyu Araştırması, İktisadi Kalkınma Vakfı,
Yayın No: 276, İstanbul.
Samur, Hakan; Behçet Oral (2007). “Orientation of University
Seniors from Southeastern Turkey to the European Union”, European Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 186-205.
Yazgan, H.; A. Aktaş (2012). “Türkiye- Avrupa Birliği İlişkilerinde Kamuoyu
Faktörü: Çankırı İli Örneği”, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve
İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 1-23, Güz.