ROBİN HAHNEL'İN BAKIŞ AÇISINDAN FAYDA MALİYET ANALİZİ

Ebru Bilgin

doi:10.18070/erciyesiibd.1480433

Research Article

ROBİN HAHNEL'İN BAKIŞ AÇISINDAN FAYDA MALİYET ANALİZİ

Year 2024, Issue: 69, 17 - 26, 30.12.2024

Ebru Bilgin

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1480433

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fayda maliyet analizi yaklaşımını Robin Hahnel’in bakış açısından irdelemektir. İlgili kapsamda öncelikle fayda maliyet analizi yaklaşımının tarihçesi ve gelişimi araştırılmakta; daha sonra analize getirilen eleştiriler aktarılmaktadır. Son tahlilde, Hahnel’in analize getirdiği yenilikçi bakış açısı paylaşılmaktadır. Çalışma, fayda maliyet analizinin sadece ekonomik değil, aynı zamanda ekolojik ve sosyal boyutları da içerecek şekilde genişletilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Hahnel’in eleştirileri, fayda maliyet analizinin doğal çevrenin nicel değerlendirilmesine odaklanarak, çevrenin korunmasını sadece ekonomik bir çerçevede ele almanın yetersiz kaldığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, fayda maliyet analizinin, çevre politikalarının daha etkin uygulanabilmesi için ekonomik, ekolojik ve sosyal değerleri entegre edecek şekilde genişletilmesinin zorunlu olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, çevresel ve sosyal boyutların yeterince dikkate alınmamasına yol açan mevcut uygulamaların üstesinden gelmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Fayda-Maliyet Analizi, Çevre, Çevresel Fayda-Maliyet Analizi

Ethical Statement

Etik kurul kararı gerektirmemektedir.

Thanks

Çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecindeki katkılarından dolayı Prof. Dr. İ. Erdem SEÇİLMİŞ'e teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

References

Ackerman, F. ve Heinzerling, L. (2001). Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 15-53.
Akalın, G. (2005). Kamu ekonomisi. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.
Albert, M. ve Hahnel, R. (1994). Geleceğe bakmak: 21. yüzyıl için katılımcı ekonomi. Ayrıntı Yayınları.
Atkinson, G., ve Mourato, S. (2008). Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 317-344.
Babula, M. ve Muschert, G. (2020). Post-materialist waste: a study of Turkey’s importation of rubbish. Open Journal for Sociological Studies, 4(2), 114-126.
Beder, S. (2011). Environmental economics and ecological economics: The contribution of interdisciplinarity to understanding, influence and effectiveness. Environmental Conservation, 38(2), 140-150.
Boyce, J. K. (2002). The political economy of environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Daly, H. (1995). Summary of the Economic Growth Debate: What Some Economists Have Learned but Many Have Not. Rajaraman Krishnan, Jonathan Harris ve Neva Goodwin, A Survey of Ecological Economics içinde, (s. 125-128) Washington, DC: Island Press.
Eckstein, O. (1958). Water resources development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
El Serafy, S. (1991). The Environment as Capital, in Ecological Economics, içinde (77-98). Robert Costanza, New York: Columbia University Press.
Feuillette, S., Levrel, H., Boeuf, B., Blanquart, S., Gorin, O., Monaco, G. and Robichon, S. (2016). The use of cost–benefit analysis in environmental policies: Some issues raised by the water framework directive implementation in France. Environmental Science & Policy, 57(1), 79-85.
Fleurbaey, M., Kartha, S., Bolwig, S., Chee, Y.L., Chen, Y., Corbera, E., … Sagar, A.D., (2014). Sustainable development and equity. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group ııı to the fifth assessment report of the ıntergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press,
Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Cost overruns and demand shortfalls in urban rail and other infrastructure. Transportation Planning and Technology, 30(1), 9-30.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris, M. K. and Buhl, S. L. (2004). What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects?, Transport Reviews, 24(2), 3-18.
Gerald, B. K. (1998). Financial evaluation tools for smallholder forestry: A methodological comparison of two forms of cost-benefit analysis and optimisation, International Tree Crops Journal, 9(4), 233-246, DOI: 10.1080/01435698.1998.9752981
Gerber, J. F., Adaman, F., Avcı, D., Aydın, C. I., Ojo, G.U., Özkaynak, B., … Yánez, I., (2014). Socio-Environmental Valuation and Liabilities: What Strategies for EJOs. EJOLT Report No. 13, 108.
Gramlich, E. M. (1981). Cost-benefit analysis of government programs, Prentice-Hall Int, USA.
Hahnel, R. (2014). Yeşil iktisat, İstanbul: BGST yayınları.
Hahnel, R. ve Wright, E. O. (2016). Alternatives to capitalism: Proposals for a democratic economy. Londra: Verso Books.
Hahnel, R. (2016). Income Distribution and Environmental Sustainability: A Sraffian Approach. Routledge.
Hanley, N. ve Spash, C. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hansjürgens, B. (2004). Economic valuation through cost-benefit analysis–possibilities and limitations. Toxicology, 205(3), 241-252.
Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis. Economics & Philosophy, 23(2), 163-183.
Hindriks, J. ve Myles, G. D. (2013). Intermediate public economics. Cambridge: MIT press.
IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
Johansson, P. O. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kapp, K. W. (1950). The social costs of private enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kaya, G. (2010). Türkiye’de Çevresel Değer Belirleme Araştırmaları, Darboğazlar ve Öneriler (Poster bildiri). Ekoloji 2010 Sempozyumu, 5-7 Mayıs 2010.
Kolstad, C., Urama, K., Broome, J., Bruvoll, A., Cariño-Olvera, M., Fullerton, D., ... Mundaca, L. (2014). Social, economic and ethical concepts and methods. In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change (ss. 173-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krutilla, J. and Eckstein, O. (1958). Multiple purpose river development, studies in applied economic analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Livermore, M. A. ve Revesz, R. L. (Eds.). (2013). The globalization of cost-benefit analysis in environmental policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Löffler, K. (2021). Social discounting, social costs of carbon, and their use in energy system models. Environmental Research Letters, 16(10), 104-151.
Mackie, Mackie, P. and Nellthorp, J. (2001). Cost–benefit analysis in transport. In Handbook of transport systems and traffic control (Vol. 3, pp. 143-174). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D. and Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(3), 221-234.
Masur, J. S. and Posner, E. A. (2011). Climate regulation and the limits of cost-benefit analysis. California Law Review, 99(6). 15-57.
McKean, R. (1958). Efficiency in government through systems analysis, with emphasis on water resource development, New York: JohnWiley.
Mishan, E. J. ve Quah, E. (2020). Cost-benefit analysis. Londra: Routledge.
Munda, G. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues. Ecological economics, 19(2), 157-168.
O’Mahony, T. (2021). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: The time horizon is of the essence. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89(1), 587-593.
O’Neill, J. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis, rationality and the plurality of values. The Ecologist, 26(3), 98-104.
OECD. (2018). Cost-Benefit analysis and the environment: further developments and policy use. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085169-en
Pearce, D. (1998). Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(4), 84-100.
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/2867
Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. B. (1994). Blueprint for a green economy. Londra: Earthscan Publications.
Pearce, D. W. (1971). Cost-benefit analysis. (Çev: A. L. Alpay, Akbank Yayınları), London, Macmillan.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Rosen, H. S. (2004). Public finance. In the encyclopedia of public choice. Springer, Boston, MA.
Roser, M. ve Hasell, J. (2021). The fight against global poverty: 200 years of progress and still a very long way to go. No Poverty, 13(1). 36-42.
Sartori, D., Catalano, G., Genco, M., Pancotti, C., Sirtori, E., Vignetti, S. and Del Bo, C. (2014). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of ınvestment project: Economic appraisal tool for cohesion policy 2014-2020. european commission directorate general for regional and urban policy. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf
Sen, A. K., (2000). The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(2): 931-952.
Sewell, W. R. D., Davis, J., Scott, A.D. and Ross, D. W. (1965). Guide to benefit–cost analysis, Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.
Shapiro, C., Varian, H. R. and Carl, S. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Şataf, C. (2014). Fayda-maliyet analizinde uygulamada karşılaşılan güçlükler: fayda ve maliyetin belirlenebilme sorunu. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 107-123.
Tarlock, A. D. (1992). Environmental protection: the potential misfit between equity and efficiency. University of Colorado Law Review, 63(3), 871-889.
Uzunyayla, F. (2018). An examination of the methods and discussions on estimation of monetary value of ecosystem services. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 28(105), 19-61.
Venditti, A. (2023). High-performance and miniature greenhouse gas sensor for drone-based remote sensing. Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Vickerman, R. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: State of the art and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(4), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32112
Voorhees, S. S., Sakai, R. and Araki, S. (2001). Cost-benefit analysis methods for assessing air pollution control programs in urban environments- A review. Environ Health Prev Med 6(3), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02897948

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FROM ROBIN HAHNEL’S PERSPECTIVE

Year 2024, Issue: 69, 17 - 26, 30.12.2024

Ebru Bilgin

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1480433

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-benefit analysis approach from the perspective of Robin Hahnel. Initially, the history and development of the cost-benefit analysis approach are explored; subsequently, the criticisms brought to the analysis are presented. Ultimately, R. Hahnel’s innovative perspective on the analysis is shared. The study emphasizes that cost-benefit analysis should not only incorporate economic dimensions but also ecological and social aspects. Hahnel’s critiques illustrate that focusing cost-benefit analysis solely on the quantitative evaluation of the natural environment, and addressing environmental protection only within an economic framework, is insufficient. Consequently, it is concluded that cost-benefit analysis must be expanded to integrate economic, ecological, and social values to more effectively implement environmental policies. This approach aims to overcome current practices that fail to adequately consider environmental and social dimensions.

Keywords

Environment, Cost-benefit analysis, Environmental cost-benefit analysis

References

Ackerman, F. ve Heinzerling, L. (2001). Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 15-53.
Akalın, G. (2005). Kamu ekonomisi. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.
Albert, M. ve Hahnel, R. (1994). Geleceğe bakmak: 21. yüzyıl için katılımcı ekonomi. Ayrıntı Yayınları.
Atkinson, G., ve Mourato, S. (2008). Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 317-344.
Babula, M. ve Muschert, G. (2020). Post-materialist waste: a study of Turkey’s importation of rubbish. Open Journal for Sociological Studies, 4(2), 114-126.
Beder, S. (2011). Environmental economics and ecological economics: The contribution of interdisciplinarity to understanding, influence and effectiveness. Environmental Conservation, 38(2), 140-150.
Boyce, J. K. (2002). The political economy of environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Daly, H. (1995). Summary of the Economic Growth Debate: What Some Economists Have Learned but Many Have Not. Rajaraman Krishnan, Jonathan Harris ve Neva Goodwin, A Survey of Ecological Economics içinde, (s. 125-128) Washington, DC: Island Press.
Eckstein, O. (1958). Water resources development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
El Serafy, S. (1991). The Environment as Capital, in Ecological Economics, içinde (77-98). Robert Costanza, New York: Columbia University Press.
Feuillette, S., Levrel, H., Boeuf, B., Blanquart, S., Gorin, O., Monaco, G. and Robichon, S. (2016). The use of cost–benefit analysis in environmental policies: Some issues raised by the water framework directive implementation in France. Environmental Science & Policy, 57(1), 79-85.
Fleurbaey, M., Kartha, S., Bolwig, S., Chee, Y.L., Chen, Y., Corbera, E., … Sagar, A.D., (2014). Sustainable development and equity. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group ııı to the fifth assessment report of the ıntergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press,
Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Cost overruns and demand shortfalls in urban rail and other infrastructure. Transportation Planning and Technology, 30(1), 9-30.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris, M. K. and Buhl, S. L. (2004). What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects?, Transport Reviews, 24(2), 3-18.
Gerald, B. K. (1998). Financial evaluation tools for smallholder forestry: A methodological comparison of two forms of cost-benefit analysis and optimisation, International Tree Crops Journal, 9(4), 233-246, DOI: 10.1080/01435698.1998.9752981
Gerber, J. F., Adaman, F., Avcı, D., Aydın, C. I., Ojo, G.U., Özkaynak, B., … Yánez, I., (2014). Socio-Environmental Valuation and Liabilities: What Strategies for EJOs. EJOLT Report No. 13, 108.
Gramlich, E. M. (1981). Cost-benefit analysis of government programs, Prentice-Hall Int, USA.
Hahnel, R. (2014). Yeşil iktisat, İstanbul: BGST yayınları.
Hahnel, R. ve Wright, E. O. (2016). Alternatives to capitalism: Proposals for a democratic economy. Londra: Verso Books.
Hahnel, R. (2016). Income Distribution and Environmental Sustainability: A Sraffian Approach. Routledge.
Hanley, N. ve Spash, C. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hansjürgens, B. (2004). Economic valuation through cost-benefit analysis–possibilities and limitations. Toxicology, 205(3), 241-252.
Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis. Economics & Philosophy, 23(2), 163-183.
Hindriks, J. ve Myles, G. D. (2013). Intermediate public economics. Cambridge: MIT press.
IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
Johansson, P. O. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kapp, K. W. (1950). The social costs of private enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kaya, G. (2010). Türkiye’de Çevresel Değer Belirleme Araştırmaları, Darboğazlar ve Öneriler (Poster bildiri). Ekoloji 2010 Sempozyumu, 5-7 Mayıs 2010.
Kolstad, C., Urama, K., Broome, J., Bruvoll, A., Cariño-Olvera, M., Fullerton, D., ... Mundaca, L. (2014). Social, economic and ethical concepts and methods. In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change (ss. 173-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krutilla, J. and Eckstein, O. (1958). Multiple purpose river development, studies in applied economic analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Livermore, M. A. ve Revesz, R. L. (Eds.). (2013). The globalization of cost-benefit analysis in environmental policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Löffler, K. (2021). Social discounting, social costs of carbon, and their use in energy system models. Environmental Research Letters, 16(10), 104-151.
Mackie, Mackie, P. and Nellthorp, J. (2001). Cost–benefit analysis in transport. In Handbook of transport systems and traffic control (Vol. 3, pp. 143-174). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D. and Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(3), 221-234.
Masur, J. S. and Posner, E. A. (2011). Climate regulation and the limits of cost-benefit analysis. California Law Review, 99(6). 15-57.
McKean, R. (1958). Efficiency in government through systems analysis, with emphasis on water resource development, New York: JohnWiley.
Mishan, E. J. ve Quah, E. (2020). Cost-benefit analysis. Londra: Routledge.
Munda, G. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues. Ecological economics, 19(2), 157-168.
O’Mahony, T. (2021). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: The time horizon is of the essence. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89(1), 587-593.
O’Neill, J. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis, rationality and the plurality of values. The Ecologist, 26(3), 98-104.
OECD. (2018). Cost-Benefit analysis and the environment: further developments and policy use. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085169-en
Pearce, D. (1998). Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(4), 84-100.
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/2867
Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. B. (1994). Blueprint for a green economy. Londra: Earthscan Publications.
Pearce, D. W. (1971). Cost-benefit analysis. (Çev: A. L. Alpay, Akbank Yayınları), London, Macmillan.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Rosen, H. S. (2004). Public finance. In the encyclopedia of public choice. Springer, Boston, MA.
Roser, M. ve Hasell, J. (2021). The fight against global poverty: 200 years of progress and still a very long way to go. No Poverty, 13(1). 36-42.
Sartori, D., Catalano, G., Genco, M., Pancotti, C., Sirtori, E., Vignetti, S. and Del Bo, C. (2014). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of ınvestment project: Economic appraisal tool for cohesion policy 2014-2020. european commission directorate general for regional and urban policy. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf
Sen, A. K., (2000). The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(2): 931-952.
Sewell, W. R. D., Davis, J., Scott, A.D. and Ross, D. W. (1965). Guide to benefit–cost analysis, Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.
Shapiro, C., Varian, H. R. and Carl, S. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Şataf, C. (2014). Fayda-maliyet analizinde uygulamada karşılaşılan güçlükler: fayda ve maliyetin belirlenebilme sorunu. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 107-123.
Tarlock, A. D. (1992). Environmental protection: the potential misfit between equity and efficiency. University of Colorado Law Review, 63(3), 871-889.
Uzunyayla, F. (2018). An examination of the methods and discussions on estimation of monetary value of ecosystem services. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 28(105), 19-61.
Venditti, A. (2023). High-performance and miniature greenhouse gas sensor for drone-based remote sensing. Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Vickerman, R. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: State of the art and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(4), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32112
Voorhees, S. S., Sakai, R. and Araki, S. (2001). Cost-benefit analysis methods for assessing air pollution control programs in urban environments- A review. Environ Health Prev Med 6(3), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02897948

There are 58 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language	Turkish
Subjects	Environmental Economy, Public Finance, Theory of Treasury
Journal Section	Makaleler
Authors	Ebru Bilgin 0000-0002-2394-4157
Early Pub Date	December 27, 2024
Publication Date	December 30, 2024
Submission Date	May 8, 2024
Acceptance Date	July 22, 2024
Published in Issue	Year 2024 Issue: 69

Cite

APA	Bilgin, E. (2024). ROBİN HAHNEL’İN BAKIŞ AÇISINDAN FAYDA MALİYET ANALİZİ. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(69), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1480433

Download Cover Image

Article Files

Full Text

Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.