ATKİNSON EŞİTSİZLİK ENDEKSİ KULLANILARAK ORMAN İŞLETME MÜDÜRLÜKLERİNDEKİ ORMAN MÜHENDİSİ DAĞILIMININ İNCELENMESİ: KAHRAMANMARAŞ ORMAN BÖLGE MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ ÖRNEĞİ

Year 2018, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 129 - 141, 31.10.2018

Arif Okumuş , Mehmet Pak

https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.469054

Abstract

Toplumun sosyal, sosyo-kültürel ve ekonomik değişimi
beraberinde orman işletmelerine olan taleplerin de aratarak çeşitlenmesine
neden olmaktadır. Bu nedenle iş ve alan yoğunluğu gibi özellikler dikkate
alınarak orman mühendisi dağılımının en uygun seviyede olması sağlanmalıdır. Bu
çalışmada, Atkinson endeksi kullanılarak Kahramanmaraş Orman Bölge Müdürlüğü
sınırları içerisinde yer alan 7 adet orman işletme müdürlüğünde 2016 yılında görev
yapan orman mühendislerinin sosyal fayda kaybı değerlendirilmiştir. Orman Bölge
Müdürlüğünden elde edilen verilere bağlı olarak Atkinson eşitsizlik endeksleri
hesaplanmıştır. Orman işletme müdürlüklerinde çalışan orman mühendislerinin
sosyal fayda kaybını gösteren değerler 0,585 ile 0,917 arasında değişmektedir.
İşletmelerin farklı özellikleri dikkate alındığında Kahramanmaraş Orman Bölge
Müdürlüğüne bağlı Orman İşletme Müdürlüklerinde çalışan 68 orman mühendisi 37
kişi ile 62 kişi arasında hissedilmiştir.

Keywords

Atkinson eşitsizlik endeksi, sosyal fayda kaybı, orman mühendisi dağılımı

INVESTIGATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST ENGINEERS IN THE STATE FOREST ENTERPRISES BY USING ATKINSON INEQUALITY INDEX: A CASE STUDY OF KAHRAMANMARAŞ REGIONAL FOREST DIRECTORATE

Abstract

Demands
for forest enterprises increase and diversify along with the social,
socio-cultural and economic changes of the society. Therefore, taking into
consideration of characteristics such as work and area density, the distribution
of forest engineer should be ensured at the most appropriate level. In this
study, loss of social benefit for forest engineer(s) who served in the 7 state
forest enterprises located in Kahramanmaras Regional Forest Directorate in 2016
has been evaluated by Atkinson index. Depending on the obtained data from the
Kahramanmaraş Regional Forest Directorate, Atkinson inequality indices were
calculated. The values indicating the loss of social benefit of forest
engineers vary between 0,585 and 0,917. When different characteristics of the
enterprises were taken into consideration, 68 forest engineers felt between 37
and 62 people in Kahramanmaraş Forest Enterprises located in Kahramanmaras
Regional Forest Directorate.

Keywords

Atkinson inequality index, loss of social benefit, distribution of forest engineer

References

• Aka, F. B. (2016). Feasible Utopia: Cutting Poverty Rate In Half Using Basic Income Grants in Regions And Cities Of Cote D´Ivoire. Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, 16(2), 87-104.
• Alesina, A., & Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive politics and economic growth. The quarterly journal of economics, 109(2), 465-490.
• Alesina, A., Perotti, R., (1996). Income Distribution, Political Instability, and Investment. European economic review, 40(6), 1203-1228.
• Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On The Measurement of Inequality. Journal of economic theory, 2(3), 244-263.
• Atkinson A.B. (1997). Bringing Income Distribution in from The Cold. The Economic Journal 107 297-321.
• Atkinson, A. B. (2009). “Factor Shares: The Principal Problem of Political Economy?.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy ,25(1): 3-16.
• Barro, R. J. (2000). Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries. Journal of economic growth, 5(1), 5-32.
• Bellu, L. G., Liberati, P. (2006), ‘Policy Impacts on Inequality: Welfare Based Measures of Inequality – The Atkinson Index’, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
• Bleys, B. (2006). The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for Belgium. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Report MOSI, 27.
• Borooah, V. (2002). Employment Inequality, Employment Regulation, and Social Welfare. MPRA Paper No. 20008.
• Chakravorty, S. (1996). A Measurement of Spatial Disparity: The case of income inequality. Urban Studies, 33(9), 1671-1686.
• Champernowne, D. G., & Cowell, F. A. (1998). Economic Inequality and Income Distribution. Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, S., Hemming, R., and Ulph, D. (1981). On Indices for The Measurement of Poverty. Economic Journal 91(362), 515-526.
• Cowell, F. A., and Jenkins S. P. (1995). “How Much Inequality Can We Explain? A Methodology and an Application to the USA” Economic Journal, 105: 421-30.
• Cowell, F. A. (2008). Income Distribution and Inequality. In J. B. Davis, & W. Dolfsma (Eds.), The Elgar companion to social economics. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham [Chapter 13
• Çiftçi, M. (2009a). Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to The Students in Faculties of Forestry in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index. Journal of Bartın Forestry Faculty, 11(16), 13-23.
• Çiftçi, M., (2009b). The Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Fish & Fisheries in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 26(2).
• Çiftçi, M. (2011). The Measurement of Social Utility From Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Veterınary in Turkey with Atkınson Inequality Index. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University, 37(2), 89-96.
• Çiftçi, M., and Şengezer, B., (2015). Relation Between Internal Migration and Socioeconomic Development with Inter-Regional Inequality Perspective: A case study from Turkey. Sigma, 6(1), 29-40.
• Duro, J. A., & Esteban, J. (1998). Factor Decomposition of Cross-Country Income Inequality, 1960–1990. Economics Letters, 60(3), 269-275.
• Heshamati, A. (2004). Inequalities and Their Measurement. IZA Discussion Paper No: 1219.
• Hoeven, V. D. R. (2008). Income Inequality Revisited: Can one bring sense back into economic policy. Inaugural Adress, The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.
• Kaplow, L. (2005). Why Measure Inequality?. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 3(1), 65-79.
• Lubrano, M. (2013). The Econometrics of Inequality and Poverty Lecture 3: Welfare functions, inequality and poverty.
• Maignan, C., Ottaviano, G., Pinelli, D., Rullani, F. (2003). Bio-ecological Diversity vs. Socio-economic Diversity: A comparison of existing measures. The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, p. 40.
• Maio D., Fernando, G. (2007). Income Inequality Measures. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(10), 849-852.
• Öztürk, L., & Meral, İ. G. (2017). Türkiye’de Hastane Yatak Sayılarının 1977-2014 Yılları Arasında İllere Dağılımındaki Eşitsizliğin Ölçülmesi. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 621-643.
• Persson, T., and Tabellini, G. (1994). Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? Theory and Evidence, American Economic Review 84, 600 621.
• Riera, P., & Nájera, T. (2002). Distributional Cost-Benefit Analysis as an Integrated Tool to Assess Fiscal Policies in Efficiency and Equity Terms1. Financial Instruments of Forest Policy, 7. Ruiz, N. T., & Riera, P. (2004). Integrating Equity and Efficiency Considerations in The Evaluation of Public Decisions.
• Sen, A. (1977). “Non-linear Social Welfare Functions: A Reply to Professor Harsanyi”. Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences (RE Butts & J. Hintikka eds.), Dordrecht: Reidel, 297-302.
• Shorrocks, A. (1978). Income Inequality and Income Mobility. Journal of Economic Theory, 19(2), 376-393.
• Spatz, J. (2007). Poverty and Inequality in The Era of Structural Reforms: The case of Bolivia (Vol. 336). Springer Science & Business Media.
• DPT, (2001). Improving Income Distribution and Fighting Against Poverty the Special Commission Report. The Eight Five Year Development Plan, Ankara.
• Şafak, İ., & Gül, A. (2011). Ege Bölgesi Orman İşletmelerindeki Orman Mühendisi Dağılımının Atkinson Endeksi ile Değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 12(2), 110-114.
• Theodorakis, P. N., Mantzavinis, G. D., Rrumbullaku, L., Lionis, C., & Trell, E. (2006). Measuring health inequalities in Albania: a focus on the distribution of general practitioners. Human Resources for Health, 4(1), 5.
• United Nations, (2015). Inequality Measurements. Development Strategy and Policy Analysis Unit, Development Policy and Analysis Division Department of Economic and Social Affair, Development Issues No:2.
• Uslu, Ç. L. (2010). Regional Income Convergence: An Econometric Analysis. Yeditepe University Graduate Institute of Social Sciencies, PhD Thesis, İstanbul.