Digital Divide at the Regional Level in Turkey: An Empirical Study with EDAS and MAIRCA Methods

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 42, 359 - 386, 27.06.2022

İbrahim Dağlı

Öz

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the existence of digital divide at the regional level empirically in Turkey. For this purpose, the digital divide of 12 regions at the TR Nuts 1 level was analyzed using EDAS and MAIRCA methods. The analysis was made separately with the 2011 and August 2021 data, and in this way, the ten-year variation of the digital divide between the regions was revealed. As a result of the analysis, it has been revealed that there is a significant digital gap between regions in Turkey and the distribution of this gap within the regions has hardly changed in the last ten years. As of 2021, the ranking of 12 regions regarding digital division has been determined as Istanbul, West Anatolia, East Marmara, Aegean, Mediterranean, Central Anatolia, East Black Sea, West Marmara, Southeast Anatolia, West Black Sea, Middle East Anatolia, Northeast Anatolia regions. The parallelism of the results of this study with previous empirical studies in the literature reveals that the digital divide in Turkey has continued with similar differences for many years. This paper is different from other studies in the literature in that it includes the comparison of the last ten years and makes use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the detection of the digital divide.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Digital Divide, Regional Inequality, Regional Study, EDAS, MAIRCA.

Türkiye’de Bölgesel Düzeyde Dijital Bölünme: EDAS ve MAIRCA Yöntemleri ile Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı Türkiye’de bölgesel düzeyde dijital bölünmenin varlığını ampirik olarak araştırmaktır. Bu maksatla EDAS ve MAIRCA yöntemleri kullanılarak TR Düzey 1’de yer alan 12 bölgede dijital bölünme analiz edilmiştir. Analiz, 2011 ve Ağustos 2021 verileri ile ayrı ayrı yapılmış ve bu şekilde dijital bölünmenin bölgeler arasındaki on yıllık değişimi ortaya konulmuştur. Analiz sonucunda, Türkiye’de bölgeler arasında önemli derecede bir dijital uçurumun olduğu ve bu uçurumun bölgeler içindeki dağılımımın son on yılda neredeyse hiç değişmediği ortaya çıkmıştır. 2021 itibariyle 12 bölgenin dijital bölünmeye ilişkin sıralaması İstanbul, Batı Anadolu, Doğu Marmara, Ege, Akdeniz, Orta Anadolu, Doğu Karadeniz, Batı Marmara, Güneydoğu Anadolu, Batı Karadeniz, Ortadoğu Anadolu, Kuzeydoğu Anadolu bölgeleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışmadaki sonuçların literatürde daha önceden yapılan ampirik çalışmalarla paralellik göstermesi Türkiye’de dijital bölünmenin uzun yıllardır benzer farklılıklarla devam ettiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, son on yıllık karşılaştırmaya yer vermesi ve dijital bölünmenin tespitinde çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden yararlanması bakımından literatürdeki diğer çalışmalardan farklıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dijital Bölünme, Bölgesel Eşitsizlik, Bölgesel Çalışma, EDAS, MAIRCA

Kaynakça

• Arıcıgil Çilan, Ç. ve Özdemir, M. (2013). Measuring Domestic Digital Divide by Using Latent Class Analysis: A Case Study of Turkey. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 219-234.
• Ayçin, E. ve Güçlü, P. (2020). BİST Ticaret Endeksinde Yer Alan İşletmelerin Finansal Performanslarının Entropi ve MAIRCA Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 85, 287-312.
• Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for Digital Divide/s. The Information Society, 22(5), 269-278.
• Bell, D. (1997). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
• Billon, M., Lera-Lopez, F. ve Marco, R. (2016). ICT Use by Households and Firms in the EU: Links and Determinants from A Multivariate Perspective. Review of World Economics, 152(4), 629-654.
• Boral, S., Howard, I., Chaturvedi, S. K., McKee, K. ve Naikan, V. N. A. (2020). An Integrated Approach for Fuzzy Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MAIRCA. Engineering Failure Analysis, 108, 104195.
• Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J. ve Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the New Digital Divide—A Typology of Internet Users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(3), 123-138.
• Castells, M. (2008). Ağ Toplumunun Yükselişi. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T. ve Bacao, F. (2012). Digital Divide across the European Union. Information & Management, 49(6), 278-291.
• Cullen, R. (2001). Addressing the Digital Divide. Online Information Review, 25(3), 311-320.
• Dewan, S. ve Riggins, F. J. (2005). The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions. Journal of the Association For Information Systems, 6(12), 298-337.
• Ecer, F. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Geçmişten Günümüze Kapsamlı Bir Yaklaşım. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Freeman, C. ve Soete, L. (2003). Yenilik İktisadı. E. Türkcan (Çev.). Ankara: TÜBİTAK.
• Fuchs, C. ve Horak, E. (2008). Africa and the Digital Divide. Telematics and Informatics, 25(2), 99-116.
• Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Bajić, Z. ve Milićević, M. (2016). The Combination of Expert Judgment and GIS-MAIRCA Analysis for the Selection of Sites for Ammunition Depots. Sustainability, 8(372), 1-30.
• Gijon, C., Whalley, J. ve Anderson, G. (2016). Exploring the Differences in Broadband Access Speeds Across Glasgow. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 1167-1178.
• Görgün Baran, A. ve Erdem, M. T. (2017). Bilgi Toplumunda Dijital Bölünme: Bilişim ve İletişim Teknolojileri Kullanım Yetenekleri Üzerinden Bir Tartışma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(Kayfor 15 Özel Sayısı), 1505-1518.
• Görgün Baran, A. ve Öztekin Alpaydın, M. (2020). A Qualitative Study on Skills of Elders to Use Digital Technology Products from Digital Divide Perspective. Elderly Issues Research Journal (EIRJ), 13(2), 107-122.
• Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second Thoughts: Toward A Critique of The Digital Divide. New Media & Society, 5(4), 499-522.
• Hidalgo, A., Gabaly, S., Morales-Alonso, G. ve Urueña, A. (2020). The Digital Divide in Light of Sustainable Development: An Approach Through Advanced Machine Learning Techniques. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119754.
• Hilbert, M. (2016). The Bad News Is That the Digital Access Divide Is Here to Stay: Domestically Installed Bandwidths Among 172 Countries for 1986–2014. Telecommunications Policy, 40(6), 567-581.
• Husing, T. ve Selhofer, H. (2004). DIDIX: A Digital Divide Index for Measuring Inequality in IT Diffusion. IT & Society, 1(7), 21-38.
• International Telecommunication Union. (2021). The World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/wtid.aspx
• Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L. ve Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451.
• Kyriakidou, V., Michalakelis, C. ve Sphicopoulos, T. (2011). Digital Divide Gap Convergence in Europe. Technology in Society, 33(3-4), 265-270.
• Lucendo-Monedero, A. L., Ruiz-Rodríguez, F. ve González-Relaño, R. (2019). Measuring the Digital Divide at Regional Level. A Spatial Analysis of The Inequalities in Digital Development of Households and Individuals in Europe. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 197-217.
• Mariscal, J. (2005). Digital Divide in A Developing Country. Telecommunications Policy, 29(5-6), 409-428.
• Montagnier, P. ve Wirthmann, A. (2011). Digital Divide from Computer Access to Online Activities- A Micro Data Analysis. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 189, Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Moroz, M. (2017). The Level of Development of The Digital Economy in Poland and Selected European Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Foundations of Management, 9(1) 175-190.
• Nishida, T., Pick, J. B. ve Sarkar, A. (2014). Japan׳ s Prefectural Digital Divide: A Multivariate and Spatial Analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 38(11), 992-1010.
• Nishijima, M., Ivanauskas, T. M. ve Sarti, F. M. (2017). Evolution and Determinants of Digital Divide in Brazil (2005–2013). Telecommunications Policy, 41(1), 12-24.
• Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and The Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• OECD (2001), Understanding the Digital Divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 49, Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2017), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2017, Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2021), Genişbant Portalı, https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics-update.htm
• Okunola, O. M., Rowley, J. ve Johnson, F. (2017). The Multi-Dimensional Digital Divide: Perspectives from an E-government Portal in Nigeria. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 329-339.
• Oyedemi, T. D. (2012). Digital Inequalities and Implications for Social Inequalities: A Study of Internet Penetration Amongst University Students in South Africa. Telematics and Informatics, 29(3), 302-313.
• Öztürk, L. (2005). Türkiye’de Dijital Eşitsizlik-Tübitak-Bilten Anketleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 111-131.
• Pamucar, D. S., Pejcic Tarle, S. ve Parezanovic, T. (2018). New Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making DEMATEL-MAIRCA Model: Sustainable Selection of a Location for The Development of Multimodal Logistics Centre. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 31(1), 1641-1665.
• Pamucar, D., Vasin, L. ve Lukovac, V. (2014) Selection of Railway Level Crossings for Investing in Security Equipment Using Hybrid DEMATEL-MAIRCA model. In Proceedings of the XVI International Scientific-expert Conference on Railways, Railcon, Niš, Serbia, 9–10 October 2014, 89–92.
• Pantea, S. ve Martens, B. (2013). Has the Digital Divide Been Reversed? Evidence from Five EU Countries. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Digital Economy Working Paper, No. 2013/06, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Seville, ISBN 978-92-79-29822-6.
• Pick, J. B. ve Nishida, T. (2015). Digital Divides in The World and Its Regions: A Spatial and Multivariate Analysis of Technological Utilization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91, 1-17.
• Puspitasari, L. ve Ishii, K. (2016). Digital Divides and Mobile Internet in Indonesia: Impact of Smartphones. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 472-483.
• Robinson, J. P., DiMaggio, P. ve Hargittai, E. (2003). New Social Survey Perspectives on The Digital Divide. It & Society, 1(5), 1-22.
• Scheerder, A., Van Deursen, A. ve Van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet Skills, Uses and Outcomes. A Systematic Review of the Second-And Third-Level Digital Divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607-1624.
• Srinuan, C., Srinuan, P. ve Bohlin, E. (2012). An Analysis of Mobile Internet Access in Thailand: Implications for bridging the digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 29(3), 254-262.
• Şen, A. ve Akdeniz, S. (2012). Sayısal Uçurumla Başetmek: OECD Trendleri ve Türkiye. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 7(1), 53-75.
• Toso, S., Atlı, Ş. M. ve Mardikyan, S. (2015). Türkiye’nin Bölgeleri Arasında Sayısal Uçurum. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 10(1), 41-49.
• TÜİK (2021). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Survey-on-Information-and-Communication-Technology-(ICT)-Usage-in-Households-and-by-Individuals-2021-37437
• Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital Divide Research, Achievements and Shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4-5), 221-235.
• Van Dijk, J. ve Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315-326.
• Vicente, M. R. ve López, A. J. (2011). Assessing the Regional Digital Divide across the European Union-27. Telecommunications Policy, 35(3), 220-237.
• Yıldız, H ve Seferoğlu, S. S. (2012). Sayısal Uçurum Üzerine Karşılaştırılmalı Bir İnceleme, Türkiye Bilişim Derneği 29. Ulusal Bilişim Kurultayı, 111-117. Ankara: Türkiye Bilişim Derneği.
• Zhang, X. (2013). Income Disparity and Digital Divide: The Internet Consumption Model and Cross-Country Empirical Research. Telecommunications Policy, 37(6-7), 515-529.