Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

A RESEARCH ON PROPERTY-OWNING DEMOCRACY AND ITS APPLICABILITY ON THE BASIS OF INCOME AND WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 24, 500 - 535, 27.04.2024

Emre Örün Ercan Eren

https://doi.org/10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851

Abstract

Discussions on the equitable distribution of income and wealth, as well as the impact of inequality on individual freedom, have been ongoing since the 18th and 19th centuries. Economic inequality affects individuals not just economically, but also in terms of their freedoms in social life. Thus, it is crucial to assess studies on inequality from both economic and social perspectives. This study analyzes debates on income and wealth distribution within the framework of property-owning democracy. Furthermore, it explores the origins of property-owning democracy in the context of economic inequality. An additional focus of this study is the examination of the feasibility of the property-owning democracy regime. Examples of worker-owned firms and worker cooperatives in the United States, Spain, and Poland are scrutinized to assess the viability of property-owning democracy. The literature review indicates that the concept of property-owning democracy traces its roots to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill. The examination of worker-owned firms and worker cooperatives, based on case studies from specific countries, leads to the conclusion that implementing a property-owning democracy is indeed feasible.

Keywords

John Rawls Property-Owning Democracy Liberal Democratic Socialism Worker-Owned Firm Worker Cooperative

References

  • Allen, D. (2021). Time for new philosophical foundations for economic theory? O. Blanchard, & D. Rodrik (Ed.), Combating inequality: Rethinking goverment’s role içinde (s. 41-48). The MIT Press.
  • Bernardi, A. & Tridico, P. (2021). What is organizational inequality? Why is it increasing as macroeconomic inequality increases? Capital & Class, 45(3), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816820959791
  • Blasi, J., Scharf, A. & Kruse, D. (2023). Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028
  • Canavan, F. (1987). Thomas Paine. L. Strauss, & J. Cropsey (Ed.), History of political philosophy içinde (s. 680-686). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Christiansen, C. O., & L.B.Jensen, S. (2019). Histories of global inequality: Introduction. C. O. Christiansen, & S. L.B.Jensen (Ed.), Histories of global inequality: New perspectives içinde (s. 1-32). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • COCETA. (2021). Informe de Gestion. Madrid: Confederación Española de Cooperativas de Trabajo Asociado.
  • Conti, G. (2021). John Stuart Mill and modern liberalism: A study in contrasts. Constellations, 28(3), 379-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12533
  • Cowen, N. (2021). Neoliberal social justice: Rawls unveiled. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Dorfman, J. (1938). The economic philosophy of Thomas Paine. Political Science Quarterly, 53(3), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.2307/2143819
  • Douglass, R. (2019). Inequality. E. Grace, & C. Kelly (Ed.), The rousseauian mind içinde (s. 308-318). New York: Routledge.
  • Employee Ownership Foundation. (2020). Employee-owned firm in the covid-19 pandemic: How majority-owned esop & other companies have responded to the covid-19 health and economic crises. Washington: Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations.
  • Eren, E. (2021). Eşitlikçi liberalizm üzerine düşünceler. İktisat ve Toplum, (130), 117-126.
  • Gaus, G. (2017). Mill’s normative economics. C. Macleod, & D. E. Miller (Ed.), A companion to Mill içinde (s. 488-503). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Jackson, B. (2012). Property-owning democracy: A short history. M. O’Neill & T. Williamson (Ed.), Property-owning democracy: Rawls and beyond içinde (s. 33-52). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Kamosiński, S. (2017). Employee companies as a form of dissemination of ownership within the period of state enterprises privatization in Poland since 1990. Revue des Sciences Politiques, (54), 59-69.
  • Kerr, G. (2015). ‘Predistribution’, property-owning democracy and land value taxation. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 15(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X15573458
  • Kerr, G. (2017). The property owning democracy: Freedom and capitalism in the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.
  • Kerr, G. (2021). Freedom, recognition, and the property-owning democracy: Towards a predistributive model of justice. D. Celentano, & L. Caranti (Ed.), Paradigms of justice: Redistribution, recognition, and beyond içinde (s. 27-45). New York: Routledge.
  • Marangos, J. (2008). Thomas Paine (1737-1809) and Thomas Spence (1750-1814) on land ownership, land taxes and the provision of citizens’ dividend. International Journal of Social Economics, 35(5), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290810861576
  • Marcuello, C. (2023). Employee ownership in Spain: Worker cooperatives and sociedades laborales. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership, 6(2), 149-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-10-2022-0022
  • Mathieu, M. (2008-2023). Annual economic survey of employee ownership in european countries 2007-2023. Brussels: European Federation of Employee Share Ownership.
  • McCabe, H. (2021). John Stuart Mill: Market socialist? Review of Social Economy, 79(3), 506-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1781923
  • Meade, J. E. (1949a). Planning and the price mechanism. New York: The Macmillan Company.
  • Meade, J. E. (1949b). Next steps in domestic economic policy. The Political Quarterly, 20(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1949.tb01838.x
  • Meade, J. E. (2012). Efficiency, equality and the ownership of property. New York: Routledge.
  • Mill, J. S. (1965). Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. London: University of Toronto Press.
  • Mill, J. S. (1969). Essays on ethics, religion and society. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  • Mill, J. S. (1982). Essays on England, Ireland, and the empire. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  • Miller, D. E. (2003). Mill’s ‘socialism’. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2(2), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X03002002004
  • Mygind, N. (2023). Overcoming barriers of employee ownership in France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the US. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership, 6(3), 230-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-10-2022-0026
  • National Center for Employee Ownership. (2023). Employee ownership by the numbers. 20 Eylül 2023 tarihinde https://www.nceo.org/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Nuti, D. M. (2005). Employee ownership in polish privatizations. P. Hare, J. Batt & S. Estrin (Ed.), Reconstituing the market: The political economy of microeconomic transformation içinde (s. 77-93). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
  • O’Neill, M. (2009). Liberty, equality and property-owning democracy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(3), 379-396.
  • O’Neill, M. (2020). Social justice and economic systems: On Rawls, democratic socialism, and alternatives to capitalism. Philosophical Topics, 48(2), 159-202.
  • Paine, T. (1945a). Agrarian justice. P. S. Foner (Ed.), The complete writings of Thomas Paine içinde (s. 605-624). New York: The Citadel Press.
  • Paine, T. (1945b). Rights of man. P. S. Foner (Ed.), The complete writings of Thomas Paine içinde (s. 243-344). New York: The Citadel Press.
  • Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. London: Harvard University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. London: Harvard University Press.
  • Ron, A. (2008). Visions of democracy in ‘property-owning democracy’: Skelton to Rawls and beyond. History of Political Thought, 29(1), 168-187.
  • Rosen, C. (2023). Employee ownership in the USA: Lessons to consider in creating more inclusive capitalism. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership, 6(3), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0029
  • Rosen, C. & Quarrey, M. (1987). How well is employee ownership working? Harvard Business Review.
  • Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a). The social contract and other later political writings. (V. Gourevitch, Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b). The discourses and other early political writings. (V. Gourevitch, Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Skelton, N. (1923, Mayıs 19). Constructive Conservatism IV: Democracy Stabilised. The Spectator Archive: http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-may-1923/5/constructive-conservatism-ivdemocracy-stabilized adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Stafford, W. (1998). How can a paradigmatic liberal call himself a socialist? The case of John Stuart Mill. Journal of Political Ideologies, 3(3), 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569319808420784
  • Thomas, A. (2012). Rawls, Adam Smith, and an argument from complexity to property-owning democracy. The Good Society, 21(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.21.1.0004
  • Thomas, A. (2017). Republic of equals: predistribution and property-owning democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ward, L. (2022). Thomas Paine on agrarian justice and reparations. The Political Science Reviewer, 46(2), 25-56.
  • Wiefek, N. (2017). Employee ownership & economic well-being. Oakland: National Center for Employee Ownership.
  • Williamson, T. (2009). Who owns what? An egalitarian ınterpretation of John Rawls’s idea of a property-owning democracy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(3), 434-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01461.x
  • Williamson, T. (2012). Realizing property-owning democracy: A 20-year strategy to create an egalitarian distribution of assets in the united states. M. O’Neill, & T. Williamson (Ed.), Property-owning democracy: Rawls and beyond içinde (s. 225-248). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Winch, D. (2004). Review essay: Mill as romantic idealist. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26(4), 543-555.

GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 24, 500 - 535, 27.04.2024

Emre Örün Ercan Eren

https://doi.org/10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851

Abstract

Gelir ve servetin adil bir şekilde dağılımı ve eşitsizliğin bireysel özgürlük üzerindeki etkisi ile ilgili tartışmalar 18. yüzyıl ve 19. yüzyıla kadar gitmektedir. Ekonomik eşitsizlik bireyleri sadece ekonomik anlamda değil aynı zamanda sosyal yaşam alanındaki bireysel özgürlüklerini de etkilemektedir. Bu bağlamda, eşitsizlik üzerine yapılan çalışmaların sadece ekonomik değil sosyal açıdan da değerlendirilmesi önem taşımaktadır. Çalışmada gelir ve servet dağılımı tartışmaları mülkiyet sahipli demokrasi özelinde incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, ekonomik eşitsizlik temelinde mülkiyet sahipli demokrasinin kökenlerinin hangi düşünürlere kadar uzandığı araştırılmaktadır. Çalışmanın bir diğer odak noktası mülkiyet sahipli demokrasi rejiminin uygulanabilirliği üzerine inceleme yapılmasıdır. Mülkiyet sahipli demokrasinin uygulanabilirliği bağlamında Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, İspanya ve Polonya’daki işçi sahipli firmalar ve işçi kooperatifleri temelinde örnekler incelenmiştir. Literatür incelemeleri sonucunda mülkiyet sahipli demokrasinin kökenlerinin Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine ve John Stuart Mill’e kadar uzandığı ortaya konulmuştur. İşçi sahipli firmalar ve işçi kooperatifleri üzerine ülke örnekleri temelinde yapılan araştırmalar mülkiyet sahipli demokrasinin uygulanabilirliğinin mümkün olduğu çıkarımının yapılabilmesine olanak sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

John Rawls Mülkiyet Sahipli Demokrasi Liberal Demokratik Sosyalizm İşçi Sahipli Firma İşçi Kooperatifi

References

  • Allen, D. (2021). Time for new philosophical foundations for economic theory? O. Blanchard, & D. Rodrik (Ed.), Combating inequality: Rethinking goverment’s role içinde (s. 41-48). The MIT Press.
  • Bernardi, A. & Tridico, P. (2021). What is organizational inequality? Why is it increasing as macroeconomic inequality increases? Capital & Class, 45(3), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816820959791
  • Blasi, J., Scharf, A. & Kruse, D. (2023). Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028
  • Canavan, F. (1987). Thomas Paine. L. Strauss, & J. Cropsey (Ed.), History of political philosophy içinde (s. 680-686). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Christiansen, C. O., & L.B.Jensen, S. (2019). Histories of global inequality: Introduction. C. O. Christiansen, & S. L.B.Jensen (Ed.), Histories of global inequality: New perspectives içinde (s. 1-32). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • COCETA. (2021). Informe de Gestion. Madrid: Confederación Española de Cooperativas de Trabajo Asociado.
  • Conti, G. (2021). John Stuart Mill and modern liberalism: A study in contrasts. Constellations, 28(3), 379-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12533
  • Cowen, N. (2021). Neoliberal social justice: Rawls unveiled. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Dorfman, J. (1938). The economic philosophy of Thomas Paine. Political Science Quarterly, 53(3), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.2307/2143819
  • Douglass, R. (2019). Inequality. E. Grace, & C. Kelly (Ed.), The rousseauian mind içinde (s. 308-318). New York: Routledge.
  • Employee Ownership Foundation. (2020). Employee-owned firm in the covid-19 pandemic: How majority-owned esop & other companies have responded to the covid-19 health and economic crises. Washington: Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations.
  • Eren, E. (2021). Eşitlikçi liberalizm üzerine düşünceler. İktisat ve Toplum, (130), 117-126.
  • Gaus, G. (2017). Mill’s normative economics. C. Macleod, & D. E. Miller (Ed.), A companion to Mill içinde (s. 488-503). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Jackson, B. (2012). Property-owning democracy: A short history. M. O’Neill & T. Williamson (Ed.), Property-owning democracy: Rawls and beyond içinde (s. 33-52). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Kamosiński, S. (2017). Employee companies as a form of dissemination of ownership within the period of state enterprises privatization in Poland since 1990. Revue des Sciences Politiques, (54), 59-69.
  • Kerr, G. (2015). ‘Predistribution’, property-owning democracy and land value taxation. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 15(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X15573458
  • Kerr, G. (2017). The property owning democracy: Freedom and capitalism in the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.
  • Kerr, G. (2021). Freedom, recognition, and the property-owning democracy: Towards a predistributive model of justice. D. Celentano, & L. Caranti (Ed.), Paradigms of justice: Redistribution, recognition, and beyond içinde (s. 27-45). New York: Routledge.
  • Marangos, J. (2008). Thomas Paine (1737-1809) and Thomas Spence (1750-1814) on land ownership, land taxes and the provision of citizens’ dividend. International Journal of Social Economics, 35(5), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290810861576
  • Marcuello, C. (2023). Employee ownership in Spain: Worker cooperatives and sociedades laborales. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership, 6(2), 149-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-10-2022-0022
  • Mathieu, M. (2008-2023). Annual economic survey of employee ownership in european countries 2007-2023. Brussels: European Federation of Employee Share Ownership.
  • McCabe, H. (2021). John Stuart Mill: Market socialist? Review of Social Economy, 79(3), 506-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1781923
  • Meade, J. E. (1949a). Planning and the price mechanism. New York: The Macmillan Company.
  • Meade, J. E. (1949b). Next steps in domestic economic policy. The Political Quarterly, 20(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1949.tb01838.x
  • Meade, J. E. (2012). Efficiency, equality and the ownership of property. New York: Routledge.
  • Mill, J. S. (1965). Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. London: University of Toronto Press.
  • Mill, J. S. (1969). Essays on ethics, religion and society. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  • Mill, J. S. (1982). Essays on England, Ireland, and the empire. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  • Miller, D. E. (2003). Mill’s ‘socialism’. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2(2), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X03002002004
  • Mygind, N. (2023). Overcoming barriers of employee ownership in France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the US. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership, 6(3), 230-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-10-2022-0026
  • National Center for Employee Ownership. (2023). Employee ownership by the numbers. 20 Eylül 2023 tarihinde https://www.nceo.org/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Nuti, D. M. (2005). Employee ownership in polish privatizations. P. Hare, J. Batt & S. Estrin (Ed.), Reconstituing the market: The political economy of microeconomic transformation içinde (s. 77-93). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
  • O’Neill, M. (2009). Liberty, equality and property-owning democracy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(3), 379-396.
  • O’Neill, M. (2020). Social justice and economic systems: On Rawls, democratic socialism, and alternatives to capitalism. Philosophical Topics, 48(2), 159-202.
  • Paine, T. (1945a). Agrarian justice. P. S. Foner (Ed.), The complete writings of Thomas Paine içinde (s. 605-624). New York: The Citadel Press.
  • Paine, T. (1945b). Rights of man. P. S. Foner (Ed.), The complete writings of Thomas Paine içinde (s. 243-344). New York: The Citadel Press.
  • Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. London: Harvard University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. London: Harvard University Press.
  • Ron, A. (2008). Visions of democracy in ‘property-owning democracy’: Skelton to Rawls and beyond. History of Political Thought, 29(1), 168-187.
  • Rosen, C. (2023). Employee ownership in the USA: Lessons to consider in creating more inclusive capitalism. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership, 6(3), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0029
  • Rosen, C. & Quarrey, M. (1987). How well is employee ownership working? Harvard Business Review.
  • Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a). The social contract and other later political writings. (V. Gourevitch, Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b). The discourses and other early political writings. (V. Gourevitch, Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Skelton, N. (1923, Mayıs 19). Constructive Conservatism IV: Democracy Stabilised. The Spectator Archive: http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-may-1923/5/constructive-conservatism-ivdemocracy-stabilized adresinden edinilmiştir.
  • Stafford, W. (1998). How can a paradigmatic liberal call himself a socialist? The case of John Stuart Mill. Journal of Political Ideologies, 3(3), 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569319808420784
  • Thomas, A. (2012). Rawls, Adam Smith, and an argument from complexity to property-owning democracy. The Good Society, 21(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.21.1.0004
  • Thomas, A. (2017). Republic of equals: predistribution and property-owning democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ward, L. (2022). Thomas Paine on agrarian justice and reparations. The Political Science Reviewer, 46(2), 25-56.
  • Wiefek, N. (2017). Employee ownership & economic well-being. Oakland: National Center for Employee Ownership.
  • Williamson, T. (2009). Who owns what? An egalitarian ınterpretation of John Rawls’s idea of a property-owning democracy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(3), 434-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01461.x
  • Williamson, T. (2012). Realizing property-owning democracy: A 20-year strategy to create an egalitarian distribution of assets in the united states. M. O’Neill, & T. Williamson (Ed.), Property-owning democracy: Rawls and beyond içinde (s. 225-248). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Winch, D. (2004). Review essay: Mill as romantic idealist. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26(4), 543-555.
There are 52 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Microeconomics (Other)
Journal Section Tüm Sayı
Authors

Emre Örün 0000-0002-2739-1959

Ercan Eren 0000-0003-4513-278X

Publication Date April 27, 2024
Submission Date January 16, 2024
Acceptance Date April 22, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 11 Issue: 24

Cite

APA Örün, E., & Eren, E. (2024). GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 11(24), 500-535. https://doi.org/10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851
AMA Örün E, Eren E. GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Akademik Hassasiyetler. April 2024;11(24):500-535. doi:10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851
Chicago Örün, Emre, and Ercan Eren. “GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. Akademik Hassasiyetler 11, no. 24 (April 2024): 500-535. https://doi.org/10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851.
EndNote Örün E, Eren E (April 1, 2024) GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Akademik Hassasiyetler 11 24 500–535.
IEEE E. Örün and E. Eren, “GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”, Akademik Hassasiyetler, vol. 11, no. 24, pp. 500–535, 2024, doi: 10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851.
ISNAD Örün, Emre - Eren, Ercan. “GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. Akademik Hassasiyetler 11/24 (April 2024), 500-535. https://doi.org/10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851.
JAMA Örün E, Eren E. GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2024;11:500–535.
MLA Örün, Emre and Ercan Eren. “GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”. Akademik Hassasiyetler, vol. 11, no. 24, 2024, pp. 500-35, doi:10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1420851.
Vancouver Örün E, Eren E. GELİR VE SERVET DAĞILIMI TEMELİNDE MÜLKİYET SAHİPLİ DEMOKRASİ VE UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2024;11(24):500-35.
 Download Cover Image

MAKALE DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ

Yazar tarafından gönderilen bir makale, gönderim tarihinden itibaren 10 gün içinde dergi sekreteri tarafından makalenin, telif sözleşmesinin ve benzerlik raporunun (Turnitin programı) eksiksiz ve düzgün bir şekilde gönderilip gönderilmediği yönünden incelenir. İstenilen bu dosyalar eksiksiz ve düzgün bir şekilde gönderilmiş ise makale; ikinci aşamada derginin yayın çizgisine uygun olup olmadığı yönünden değerlendirilir. Bu süreçte makale yayın çizgisine uygun değilse yazara iade edilir. Makale yayın çizgisine uygun ise şablona uygun bir şekilde gönderilip gönderilmediği yönünden değerlendirilir. Şayet makale şablona uyarlanıp gönderilmemiş ise değerlendirme sürecine alınmaz. Bu süreçte yazarın derginin belirlediği şartlara uygun bir şekilde sisteme makale yüklemesi beklenir. Makale şablona uygun bir şekilde hazırlanıp gönderilmiş ise son aşamada makale derginin yayın ilkeleri, yazım kuralları, öz, abstract, extented abstract, kaynakça gösterimi vb. yönlerden incelenir. Bu ayrıntılarda makalede bir sorun varsa yazarın bu hususları tamamlaması istenir ve verilen süre içerisinde eksiksiz bir şekilde yeniden makaleyi göndermesi istenir.
Tüm bu aşamaları geçen makale, editör tarafından bilimsel yeterliliğinin denetlenmesi amacıyla ikinci 7 günlük süre içerisinde çalışmaya uygun iki hakeme değerlendirmeleri için gönderilir. Hakemlerin değerlendirme süreleri 15 gündür. Bu süre zarfında hakemlik görevini tamamlamayan bir hakem olursa ilgili hakeme değerlendirmeyi tamamlaması için 7 günlük ek süre verilebilir. Bu süre zarfında hakem görevini yerine getirmezse yerine yeni bir hakem ataması yapılır. En az iki hakemden gelen raporlar olumlu ise makale yayın aşamasına alınır. Hakem raporlarından birisi olumlu diğeri olumsuz ise makale üçüncü bir hakeme gönderilir. Üçüncü hakem raporu da olumsuz ise makale ret edilir. Üçüncü hakemin değerlendirmesi olumlu ise makaleyle ilgili hakem raporları dergi alan editörlerinden oluşan Editörler Kurulu tarafından incelenir. Makalenin yayınlanmasıyla ilgili nihai karar alan editörlerinden oluşan Editörler Kurulu tarafından verilir. Hakem raporlarının yetersiz ve tatmin etmekten uzak olması veya İngilizce editör tarafından abstract ve extented abstract’ın yetersiz görülmesi hallerinde de yine makaleyle ilgili son karar Editörler Kurulu tarafından verilir. Tüm bu aşamalardan geçen bir makale en yakın sayıya yayınlanmak üzere eklenir. İlgili sayıda yer kalmaması halinde makalenin yayımı bir sonraki sayıya kaydırılır. Bu durumda ve tüm değerlendirme sürecinde yazar isterse makalesini geri çekme hakkına sahiptir. Ancak bu durumu dergiye bildirmesi gerekir. Makale gönderim tarihinden makalenin yayına kabul tarihine kadar tüm bu işlemler için ortalama 3 aylık bir süre öngörülmektedir.