G7 Grubu Ülkelerinin Cinsiyet Eşitliği Performanslarının Analizi: SECA Yöntemi ile Bir Uygulama

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 722 - 742, 31.10.2024

Furkan Fahri Altıntaş

https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.1291466

Abstract

Büyük ekonomilerin, cinsiyet eşitliği konusundaki stratejileri, küresel ekonomiyi ve küresel ekonomi ile ilişkili diğer boyutları etkileyebilmektedir. Bu bağlamda, dünyanın en büyük ekonomileri olan G7 ülkelerinin cinsiyet eşitliği performanslarının analizinin önemli olduğu düşünülebilir. Böylelikle hangi G7 ülkesinin/ülkelerinin küresel ekonomiye katkısı için cinsiyet eşitliği performansını/performanslarını artırması gerektiğinin tespiti yapılabilecektir. Bu kapsamda araştırmanın amacı, 2022 yılı için G7 ülkelerinin Küresel Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği Endeksi (Global Gender Gap Index-GGGI) bileşen verileri ile söz konusu ülkelerin cinsiyet eşitliği performansları SECA çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi (ÇKKV) ile ölçülmek olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulgular incelendiğinde, ülkelere göre GGGI bileşenlerinin önemlilik dereceleri politik güçlendirme, sağlık ve hayatta kalma, eğitim durumu ile ekonomik katılım ve fırsat olarak sıralanmıştır. Diğer bir bulguya göre ülkelerin cinsiyet eşitliği performanslarının sıralamaları ise Almanya, İngiltere, Fransa, Kanada, ABD, İtalya ve Japonya olarak belirlenmiştir. Ülkelerin ayrıca ortalama cinsiyet eşitliği performans değeri hesaplanmış ve söz konusu değerin altında performansa sahip olan ülkelerin İtalya ve Japonya olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Dolayısıyla Japonya ve İtalya’nın küresel ekonomiye katkısının daha fazla olması için cinsiyet eşitliği performansını artırması gerektirdiği tespit edilmiştir. Yöntem açısından ise ayırım ve korelâsyon analizlerine göre ülkelerin cinsiyet eşitliği performanslarının SECA yöntemi ile ölçülebileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Cinsiyet Eşitliği, Cinsiyet Eşitliği Performansı, G7, SECA, GGGI

Analysis of G7 Group Countries' Gender Equality Performance: An Application with SECA Method

Abstract

The strategies of major economies regarding gender equality can influence the global economy and other dimensions associated with it. In this context, it can be argued that the analysis of gender equality performance of G7 countries, which are the largest economies in the world, is crucial. Thus, it would be possible to determine which G7 country/countries need to improve their gender equality performance to contribute more to the global economy. In this regard, the aim of the research is to measure the gender equality performances of G7 countries for the year 2022 using the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) component data and the SECA multi-criteria decision-making method. When the findings are examined, the importance rankings of GGGI components for countries are listed as political empowerment, health and survival, educational attainment, economic participation and opportunity. According to another finding, the rankings of countries' gender equality performances are determined as Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, the United States, Italy, and Japan. Additionally, the average gender equality performance value for countries has been calculated, and it has been found that Italy and Japan are the countries with performances below this value. Therefore, it is concluded that Japan and Italy need to improve their gender equality performance to contribute more to the global economy. From a methodological perspective, it has been concluded that countries' gender equality performances can be measured using the SECA method based on discrimination and correlation analyses.

Keywords

Gender Equality, Gender Equality Performance, G7, SECA, GGGI

References

• AHANG, M. (2014). The impact of gender inequality on economic growth in developed countries. The Accounting, Economics and Financial Management Conference, (s. 1-8). Tahran.
• ALTUZARRA, A., GÁLVEZ-GÁLVEZ, C., & GONZÁLEZ-FLORES, A. (2021). Is gender ınequality a barrier to economic growth? A panel data analysis of developing countries. Sustainability, 13(167), 1-21.
• ARMAĞAN, İ. Ü., ÖZDAĞOĞLU, A., & KELEŞ, M. K. (2021). Covid-19 salgınının banka performanslarına etkisinin seca yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Oğuzhan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 114-124.
• ASSADI, M. R., ATAEBI, M., ATAEBI, E. S., & HASANI, A. (2022). Prioritization of renewable energy resources based on sustainable management approach using simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives: a case study on ıran's electricity ındustry. Renewable Energy, 181, 820-832.
• ATAKLI YAVUZ, R. (2016). Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği ekseninde kadın istihdamı ve ekonomik şiddet. Journal of Life Economics, 3(3), 77-100.
• BAZRAFSHAN, R., ZOLFANI, S. H., & AL-E-HASHEM, S. J. (2021). Comparison of the sub-tour elimination methods for the asymmetric traveling salesman problem applying the seca method. Axioms, 10(19), 1-14.
• BONIOL, M., MCISAAC, M., XU, L., WULIJI, T., DIALLO, K., & CAMPBELL, J. (2019). Gender equity in the health workforce: Aalysis of 104 countries. Geneva: World Health Organization.
• BUHRER, S., SCHMIDT, E. K., PALMÉN, R., & REIDL, S. (2020). Evaluating gender equality effects in research. Scientometrics, s. 1-17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03596-1.
• BÜYÜKAKGÜL, Ü., ÖZSOY, D., PARLAKKILIÇ BÜYÜKAKGÜL, Ş., & ÖZMAN, C. (2021). Spor gönüllülüğü ve toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: gençlik ve spor gönüllüleri derneği örneği. Uluslararası Bozok Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 202-210.
• CARLSEN, L. (2020). Gender inequality and development. Sustainability Science, 15, 759–780.
• CARRASCO, I. (2014). Gender gap in ınnovation an institutionalist explanation. Management Decision, 52(2), 410-424.
• CHUNG, H., BIRKETT, H., FORBES, S., & SEO, H. (2021). Covid-19, flexible working, and ımplications for gender equality in the United Kingdom. Gender & Society, 35(2), 218–232.
• CUBERES,, D., & TEIGNIER‐BAQUÉ, M. (2011). Gender Inequality and Economic Growth. World Development Report Gender Equality and Development, Background Paper, 1-24.
• ÇETİN, F., & YILMAZ, S. E. (2022). İş-Aile çatışmasının işten ayrılma niyeti üzerindeki etkisi: tükenmişliğin aracılık ve cinsiyet eşitsizliğinin düzenleyicilik rolü. Pamukkale Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi(52), 333-349.
• ÇİL, M. (2020). Cinsiyet eşitsizliği ve uluslararası finansal ilişkiler: niceliksel bir değerlendirme. Journal of Business, Innovation and Govarnance, 3(2), 120–130.
• DAS, P. P., & CHAKRABORTY, S. (2022). Application of simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (seca) method for parametric optimization of hybrid machining processes. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 16, 1497–1509.
• DE MELO, F., DA SILVA, R., & DE ALMEIDA, T. (2019). Gender and entrepreneurship: A comparative study between the causation and effectuation approaches. Brazilian Business Review, 16(3), 273-296.
• ECER, F. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• EDEN, L., & WAGSTAFF, M. (2021). Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 Gender Equality. Journal of International Business Policy, 4, 28–57.
• EIGE. (2013). Gender equality index report: Gender equality index – Country profiles. Germany: European Institute for Gender Equality.
• EINARSDÓTTIR, A., ÓLAFSDÓTTIR, K., & NESAULE, L. (2018). The relationship between gender equality activity in organizations and employee perceptions of equality. Tímarit um viðskipti og efnahagsmál, 15(1), 37-53.
• ERSOY, N. (2022). Türk inşaat firmalarının finansal performansının seca yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 37(4), 1003-1021.
• FALK, A., & HERMLE, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science(362), 1-46.
• GBADEBO, A., KESHIRO, T., SULE, O., ADEYEMI, A., & YEMI, B. (2018). Gender equality and sustainable development in Nigeria. Covenant Journal of Entrepreneurship (CJoE), 2(2), 42-53.
• GÓMEZ-CASILLAS, A., VAN DAMME, M., & PERMANYER, I. (2023). Women’s and men’s status: revisiting the relationship between gender equality and ıntimate partner violence against women in Europe. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, DOI: 10.1177/08862605231158760.
• GUERRA, A., BULA, L., RUIZ, M., GONZÁLEZ, L., HERRERA, J., & MOLINA, M. G. (2022). Gender equality to achieve the sustainable development goals through the ımplementation of an ınnovative strategy. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 6(6), 8516-8530.
• GURSCH, S., URAK, K., HEROLD, M., KUTSCHERA, S., PEREZ, S., GARCIA-BETANCES, R., ET AL. (2022). Inequalities for women in science, technology and ınnovation. 5th ınternational conference on gender research (s. 88-96). Virtual Conference: TIIKM.
• HASANOVIĆ, I. (2014). Gender equality & work: Are We there yet? Epiphany Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies, 7(2), s. 55-63.
• HEARN, J., & HUSU, L. (2016). Gender equality. N. Naples, J. M. Ryan, R. C. Hoogland, M. Wickramasinghe, & W. Wong içinde, The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (s. 1-3). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,.
• KABEER, N. (2021). Gender equality, inclusive growth, and labour markets. K. Grantham, G. Dowie, & A. de Haan içinde, Women's Economic Empowerment Insights from Africa and South Asia (s. 11-46). Philadelphia, Melbourne, New Delhi, Singapore, and Beijing.: ImprintRoutledge.
• KALITA, K., MADHU, S., RAMACHANDRAN, M., CHAKRABORTY, S., & GHADAİ, R. K. (2023). Experimental investigation and parametric optimization of a milling process using multi criteria decision making methods: A comparative analysis. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 17, 453–467.
• KARAKUŞ, G. (2022). Kadın kooperatiflerinin kadınların güçlendirilmesi ve toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğinin sağlanmasındaki rolü. Pamukkale University Journal of Business Research, 9(1), 247-259.
• KESHAVARZ-GHORABAEE, M., AMIRI, M., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., TURSKIS, Z., & ANTUCHEVICIENE, J. (2018). Simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (SECA) for multi-criteria decision-making. Informatica, 29(2), 265–280.
• KESHAVARZ-GHORABAEE, M., AMIRI, M., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., TURSKIS, Z., & ANTUCHEVICIENE, J. (2022). A fuzzy simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (f-SECA) for sustainable e-waste scenario management. Sustainability, 14, 1-26.
• KESHAVARZ-GHORABAEE, M., GOVINDAN, K., AMIRI, M., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., & ANTUCHEVIČIENĖ, J. (2019). An integrated type-2 fuzzy decision model based on waspas and seca for evaluation of sustainable manufacturing strategies. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 27(4), 187–200.
• KHAYRIA, K., & FEKI, R. (2015). Gender inequality and economic development. Business and Economics Journal, 6(4), 1-3.
• KIM, J., LEE, J.-W., & SHIN, K. (2016). A model of gender inequality and economic growth. Mandaluyong: Asian Development Bank.
• LIBERDA, B., & ZAJKOWSKA, O. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship policies and gender equity. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 16(1), 37–59.
• LU, F., YAN, L., & HUANG, B. (2022). Site selection for shared charging and swapping stations using the seca and trust methods. Energy Reports, 8, 14606–14622.
• MAHDIRAJI, H. A., GOVINDAN, K., YAFTIYAN, F., GARZA-REYES, J. A., & HAJIAGHA, S. R. (2023). Unveiling coordination contracts’ roles considering circular economy and eco ınnovation toward pharmaceutical supply chain resiliency: Evidence of an emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 382, 1-10.
• MALHOTRA, A., SCHULTE, J., PATEL, P., & PETESCH, P. (2009). İnnovation for Women's Empowerment and Gender Equality. New Delhi: ICRW.
• MERCAN, N. (2016). A Study about the relationship between differences in business management and development of openness on gender equality. Global Business Research Congress (GBRC) (s. 443-448). İstanbul: Pressacademia.
• MIKKOLA, A., & MILES, C. A. (2007). Development and gender equality:Consequences, causes, challenges and cures. Helsinki: Helsinki Center of Economic Research.
• MIOTTO, G., LÓPEZ, M., & RODRIGUEZ, J. (2019). Gender equality and UN sustainable development goalpriorities and correlations in the top business schools’ communication and legitimation strategies. Sustainability, 11(308), s. 1-18.
• MUKHERJEE, P., & MUKHOPADHYAY, I. (2013). Impact of gender ınequality on economic growth: A study of developing countries. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 13(2), 61-69.
• MURTHY, R., & KAPPEN, M. (2017). Gender equality and sustainable development goals. Karnataka: Visthar.
• OLAREWAJU, T., & FERNANDO, J. (2020). Gender inequality and female entrepreneurship in developing countries. W. Leal Filho, A. Azul, L. Brandli, A. Lange Salvia., & T. Wall içinde, Decent Work and Economic Growth. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (s. 1-9). New York, Heidelberg, Basingstoke: Springer.
• PRADHAN, M. S., RAI-PAUDYAL, B., RAI, A., BAI, Y., HENGSUWAN, P., BUN, P., ET AL. (2021). Exploring the role of gender equality in addressing climate change, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration and food security. B. THAPA, C. FU, & L. ZHANG içinde, Gender Equality and Sustainable Development in the Mountain Areas of Asia (s. 1-29). LI-BIRD: Pokhara.
• RASMUSSEN, A., SABIC, H., SAHA, S., & NIELSEN, I. E. (2023). Supplier Selection for aerospace & defense ındustry through mcdm methods. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 12, 1-13.
• RODRIGUEZ, A. V. (2017). Economic Growth and Gender Inequality: An Analysis of Panel Data for Five Latin American Countries. CEPAL Review(122), 79-106.
• SARFARAZ, L., FAGHIH, N., & MAJD, A. A. (2014). The relationship between women entrepreneurship and gender equality. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 2(6), 1-11.
• SHANTHI, S., & MITRAVINDA, K. S. (2020). Gender equality-the need of the hour. International Journal of Language, Literature and Culture, 1(1), 1-5.
• STARTIENE, G., & REMEIKIENE, R. (2008). Gender gap in entrepreneurship. engineering economics, 6(60), 95-103.
• STOTSKY, G., SHIBUYA, S., KOLOVICH, L., & KEBHAJ, S. (2016). Trends in gender equality and women’s advancement. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
• SULLIVAN, D., & MEEK, W. (2012). Gender and entrepreneurship: A review and process model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(5), 428-458.
• TÜRKER, O. (2018). Kamu harcamalarinin dış ticaret üzerindeki etkisi: G7 ükeleri örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(27), 141-156.
• VYAS, N. (2021). Gender inequality- now available on digital platform’: An ınterplay between gender equality and the gig economy in the European Union. European Labour Law Journal, 12(1), 37–51.
• WEF. (2022). Global gender gap report. Geneva: World Economic Forum.