Avrupa Birliği Üyeliğine Aday Ülkelerin Ekonomik, Sosyal ve Politik Endekslerinin Analitik İncelemesi: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği (AB) üyeliğine aday ülkelerin temel siyasi, ekonomik ve sosyal göstergelerini analiz etmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, hangi ülkelerin hangi alanlarda daha iyi veya daha düşük sırada yer aldığını ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma, başlıca önemli ekonomik, sosyal ve politik alanlarda sayısal veri araştırma ve değerlendirilmesine dayalı nicel bir araştırma yöntemi kullanmakta olup bu verileri AB'nin Kopenhag ve Maastricht Kriterleri açısından değerlendirmektedir. Ek olarak, çalışma, bu ülkelerin uluslararası endekslerini de değerlendirerek kapsamlı bir analiz ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırma, söz konusu ülkelerin uluslararası endekslerde daha yüksek puanlara ulaşmak için hangi alanlarda ilerlemesi gerektiğini göstermekte ve iyileştirme çalışmaları için onlara bir yol haritası sunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, çalışmada Avrupa Birliği’ne aday ülkelerin sosyo-politik ve ekonomik endeksleri hem nicel hem de karşılaştırmalı yöntem kullanılarak incelenmiş, bulgular AB üyeliği perspektifinden tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• AB Adaylığı
• AB Üyeliği
• Uluslararası Endeksler
• Kopenhag Kriterleri
• Maastricht Yakınsama Kriterleri.

An Analytical Examination of Economic, Social and Political Indexes of Candidate Countries to the EU: A Comparative Study

Abstract

This paper explores major political and socio-economic indicators of the countries candidate to the European Union (EU) membership. The aim of the study is to expose which countries are ahead or behind others and in which areas countries are better or worse ranked. The study uses a quantitative research method based on the collection and assessment of figures and statistics in significant economic, social and political areas and assesses these data in respect to EU’s Copenhagen and Maastricht Criteria. Additionally, the study further evaluates these countries’ international indexes to expose a comprehensive analysis and sheds light to where countries need to progress to reach higher scores and provides them a roadmap to improve their socio-economic and political results. Thus, the study mixes quantitative and comparative methods to evaluate the socio-political and economic indexing of the ten countries, discusses the findings from the EU membership perspective and provides them policy recommendations.

Keywords

• EU Candidacy
• EU Membership
• International Indexes
• Copenhagen Criteria
• Maastricht Convergence Criteria.

References

1. Cardona Peretó, F., & Freibert. A. (2007). The European Administrative Space and Sigma Assessments of EU Candidate Countries, Croatia and Comparative Public Administration: Journal of Theory and Practice of Public Administration, 7(1), 51-59.
2. Central Intelligence Agency – CIA. (2025). World Factbook Country Reports. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/
3. Chen, Y., Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., & Kwilinski, A. (2024). Green Development of the Country: Role of Macroeconomic Stability. Energy & Environment, 35(5), 2273-2295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231151679
4. Energy Institute. (2025). Statistical Review of World Energy. https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads
5. Erdoğan, O. (2025). Local Governments’ Cultural Policies, İmgelem, 17, 299-326. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1789022
6. European Commission. (2025). Economy and Finance: Convergence Criteria for Joining. https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/euro/enlargement-euro-area/convergence-criteria-joining_en#the-four-convergence-criteria
7. European Parliament. (2025). Copenhagen European Council - 21-22 June 1993 Presidency Conclusions. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/ec/cop_en.htm
8. Huber, P., Brücker, H., Köllö, J., Traistaru, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2002). Regional and Labour Market Development in Candidate Countries: A Literature Survey, The European Union Fifth Framework Programme, Work Package No:1, 1-90

9. INSEE. (2025) Convergence Criteria. https://www.insee.fr/en/metadonnees/definition/c1348
10. Jansen, L., Paulissen, T., & Van Hecke, S. (2025). Power beyond borders? Analysing formal and informal tools of the European Parliament in EU enlargement policy. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 33(3), 859-872. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2024.2448257
11. KOF Swiss Economic Institute. (2025). KOF Globalisation Index. https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html
12. Kupsik, W., & Pawlak, K. (2024). Competitive Position of EU Candidate Countries and Eastern Partnership Countries in Trading Fruit and Vegetables in the Single European Market, Agriculture, 14(11), 1997. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14111997
13. Mataracı, A. F. (2022). Social Climate in The Western Balkans (2018-2021), İmgelem, 6(10), 69-88.
14. Miladinov, G. (2020). Socioeconomic Development and Life Expectancy Relationship: Evidence from the EU Accession Candidate Countries. Genus, 76(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-019-0071-0
15. Organisation for Economic and Cooperation Development – OECD. (2023), PISA 2022 Results: The State of Learning and Equity in Education, Vol. 1, 1-150.
16. Pukenis, R. (2014). The Enlargement of the European Union and the (Non) Membership of Türkiye, European Scientific Journal, ESJ. (10) 1-22.
17. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Treasury and Finance, The World Bank: Doing Business. https://en.hmb.gov.tr/the-world-bank-doing-business
18. Samur, H., & Demirtepe, M. (2025). The EU’s tacit yet unspoken attitude towards Turkey’s EU accession process: viewing Turkey as 'a European outsider'. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 16(1). https//doi.org/10.47743/ejes-2025-0111
19. Schimmelfennig, F., & Ulrich. S. (2004). Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 661-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000248089
20. Schönfelder, N., & Wagner, H. (2015). The Impact of European Integration on Institutional Development. Journal of Economic Integration, 31(3). http://dx.doi.org/10. 11130/jei.2016.31.3.472
21. The Heritage Foundation. (2024). Index of Economic Freedom. https://www.heritage.org/index/
22. The World Justice Project – WJP. (2024). Rule of Law Index Report. https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/
23. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK). Enflasyon ve Fiyat. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=enflasyon-ve-fiyat-106
24. United Nations Development Programme. (2024). Human Development Index. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
25. United Nations. (2024). E-Government Development Index. https://data360.worldbank.org/en/dataset/UN_EGDI
26. Wang, Q., Dong, Z., Li, R., & Wang, L. (2022). Renewable Energy and Economic Growth: New Insight from Country Risks. Energy, 238, 122018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122018
27. World Bank (2020). Doing Business Report, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/688761571934946384/pdf/Doing-Business-2020-Comparing-Business-Regulation-in-190-Economies.pdf
28. World Bank. (2023). Logistics Performance Index. https://lpi.worldbank.org/
29. World Bank. (2023). Worldwide Governance Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worldwide-governance-indicators/Series/CC.EST
30. World Bank. (2025). Poverty and Inequality Platform. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-living-in-poverty-by-national-poverty-lines
31. World Economic Forum. (2024). Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index Report. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Travel_and_Tourism_Development_Index_2024.pdf
32. Zlati M. L, Ionescu R. V, Antohi V. M, & Grosu V. (2022). Growth and Integration's Impact Under a New Dynamic Approach. Environment Development and Sustainability. 24(5), 7057-7092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01739-9