BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

THE DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP IN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: CASES OF TURKEY AND GERMANY

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2 , 197 - 226 , 12.07.2016

Gülşah Kulalı

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.84469
https://izlik.org/JA56BF87ZH

Öz

The aim of this study is to find answers to the following research questions: which business-life and firm-unique factors have influences over foreign ownership concentration of inward FDI’s to Turkey as a developing country, and to Germany as a developed country? Multiple linear regression analysis method is used in this study. There are ten approaches about building ownership strategy in theoretical literature. Results of this research are as follows: “transaction cost approach” is valid for explaining foreign ownership concentration for both countries. Other than that, “bargaining power approach” is applicable to explain foreign ownership concentration of investments to Turkey, whereas “organizational competences approach” is applicable to explain foreign ownership concentration of investments to Germany.

Keywords: International Investment Decisions, Ownership Structure, Corporate Governance.

Kaynakça

  • Agrawal, S. ve Ramaswami, S. N. (1992). Choice of foreign market entry mode: Impact of ownership, location and internalization factors. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (1): 1-27.
  • Akgündüz, A. (2008). Labour migration from Turkey to Western Europe, 1960-1974: A multidisciplinary analysis. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
  • Asiedu, E. ve Esfahani, H. S. (2001). Ownership structure in foreign direct investment projects. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83 (4): 647-662.
  • Aydın, N. (Proje Koordinatörü) (2011). Almanya’da faaliyet gösteren Türk sermayeli şirketlerle Alman sermayeli şirketlerin finansal performanslarının ve etkinliklerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Tübitak Projesi,
  • No:109K145.
  • Bhattacharya, P. S. ve Graham, M. A. (2009). On institutional ownership and firm performance: A disaggregated view. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 19 (5): 370-394.
  • Blodgett, L. L. (1991). Partner contributions as predictors of equity share in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1): 63-78.
  • Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. D. ve Werner, S. (2003). Transaction cost-enhanced entry mode choices and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12): 1239-1248.
  • Chan, M. C. (2002). Institutional perspective of foreign direct investment strategy: The case of Japanese multinational corporations.Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
  • Chang, S. J. ve Rosenzweig, P. M. (2001). The choice of entry mode in sequential foreign direct investment. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (8): 747-776.
  • Chokkar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. ve House, R. J. (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The globe book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. London: Lea Publishers.
  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S. ve Lang, L. H. P. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58 (1-2): 81-112.
  • Cohen, S. D. (2007). Multinational corporations and foreign direct investment: Avoiding simplicity, embracing complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Daniels, R. J. ve Iacobucci, E. M. (2000). Some of the causes and consequences of corporate ownership concentration in Canada. R. K. Morck (Ed.) Concentrated corporate ownership: İçinde 55-80. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Deephouse, D. L. ve Wiseman, R. M. (2000). Comparing alternative explanations for accounting risk-return relations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42 (4): 463-482.
  • Demsetz, H. ve Lehn, K. (1985). Managerial ownership of voting rights: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93 (6): 1155-1177.
  • Desai, M. A., Foley, C. F. ve Hines, J. R. (2002). International joint ventures and the boundaries of the firm. USA: International Investment Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.
  • Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T. ve Eisner, A. B. (2008). Strategic management: Text and cases. 4th edition. China: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  • Dunning, J. H. (1988). Explaining international production. London: Unwin Hyman.
  • Erramilli, M. K. (1996). Nationality and subsidiary ownership patterns in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (2): 225-248.
  • Faccio, M. ve Lang, L. H. P. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics. 65 (3): 365-395.
  • Garengo, P. ve Bititci, U. (2007) Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: An empirical study in Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27 (8): 802-825.
  • Gomes-Casseres, B. (1989). Ownership structures of foreign subsidiaries: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 11 (1): 1-25.
  • Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4): 828-853.
  • Gürsoy, G. (2001). Equity ownership structure and its consequences: An empirical investigation in Turkish firms. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Bilkent Üniversitesi, Ekonomi ve Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4): 986-1014.
  • Hennart, J. F. (1988). A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (4): 361-374.
  • Hill, C. W. L., Hwang, P. ve Kim, W. C. (1990). An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (2): 117-128.
  • Himmelberg, C. P., Hubbard, R. G. ve Palia, D. (1999). Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 7209.
  • Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14 (2): 75-89.
  • Hofstede, G. (2003). What is culture? A reply to Baskerville. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28 (7): 811-813.
  • Holderness, C. G., Kroszner, R .S. ve Sheehan, D. P. (1999). Were the good old days that good? Changes in managerial stock ownership since the great depression. The Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 435-469.
  • Jung, J. C. (2007). The varying patterns of ownership strategy of MNEs: A Japan- US comparison. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Western Ontorio, Richard Ivey School of Business, Ontario, USA.
  • Kyaw, N. A. ve Theingi, H. (2009). A performance analysis of wholly owned subsidiaries and joint ventures: Electrical and electronic industry in Thailand. International Journal of Business Studies, 17 (1): 107-125.
  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 471-517.
  • Laeven, L. ve Woodruff, C. (2004). The quality of the legal system, firm ownership, and firm size. World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 3246.
  • Leaven, L. ve Levine, R. (2006). Complex ownership structures and corporate valuations. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 12675.
  • Luo, Y. ve Park, S. H. (2001). Strategic alignment and performance of market seeking MNCs in China. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2): 141-155.
  • Mahoney, J. T. (2005). Economic foundations of strategy. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Makino, S. ve Neupert, K. E. (2000). National culture, transaction cost, and the choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 705-713.
  • Mani, S., Antia, K. D. ve Rindfleisch, A. (2007). Entry mode and equity level: A multilevel examination of foreign direct investment ownership structure. Strategic management journal, 28 (8): 857-866.
  • Morck, R. K. (2000). Concentrated corporate ownership. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • OECD (2008). OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct investment. Fourth Edition. OECD Publishing.
  • Pan, Y. (1996). Influences on foreign equity ownership level in joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (1): 1-26.
  • Pan, Y. (2002). Equity ownership in international joint ventures: The impact of source country factors. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2): 375-384.
  • Pedersen, T. ve Thomsen, S. (2003). Ownership structure and value of the largest European firms: The importance of owner identity. Journal of Management and Governance, 7 (1): 27-55.
  • Prescott, G. L., Madden, E. K. ve Foster, R. M. (2010). Forms of business ownership: A primer for commercial lenders. Commercial Lending Review, 25 (6): 27-55.
  • Raff, H., Ryan, M. J. ve Stahler, F. (2007). Whole versus shared ownership of foreign affiliates. Christian Albrechts Universitat Kiel Economics Working Paper No. 2007-18.
  • Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of international business studies, 32 (3): 519-535.
  • Sirkeci, İ., Cohen, J. H., ve Yazgan, P. (2012). Turkish culture of migration: Flows between Turkey and Germany, socio-economic development and conflict. Migration Letters, 9 (1): 33-46.
  • Tallman, S. ve Li, J. (1996). Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1): 179-196.
  • The World Bank Investment Climate Advisory Services (2010). Investing across borders 2010: Indicators of FDI regulation in 87 economies. Washigton, DC: The World Bank Publication.
  • Thomsen, S. ve Pedersen, T. (1996). Nationality and ownership structures: The 100 largest companies in six European Nations. Management International Review, 36 (2): 149-166.
  • Todeva, E. (2006). Business networks: Strategy and structure. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Influences on foreign ownership level and entry mode choice in Vietnam. International Business Review, 14 (4): 441-463.
  • UNCTAD (2010). World investment report 2010-Overview. Geneva: United Nations Publication.
  • Van der Elst, C. (2004). Industry-specificities and size of corporations: determinants of ownership structures. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series: 04-19.
  • Vibert, C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
  • World Economic Forum (2010). The global enabling trade report 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum Publishing.
  • Yan, A. ve Gray, B. (2002). Negotiating control and achieving performance in international joint ventures: A conceptual model. Journal of International Management, 7 (4): 295-315.
  • Zeitun, R. ve Tian, G. G. (2007). Does ownership affect a firm’s performance and default risk in Jordan? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. 7 (1): 66-82.
  • Zhang, R. ve Rezaee, Z. (2009). Do credible firms perform better in emerging markets? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 90 (2): 221-237.

DOĞRUDAN YATIRIMLARDA YABANCI SAHİPLİK YOĞUNLUĞUNUN BELİRLEYİCİLERİ: TÜRKİYE VE ALMANYA ÖRNEKLERİ

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2 , 197 - 226 , 12.07.2016

Gülşah Kulalı

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.84469
https://izlik.org/JA56BF87ZH

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, gelişmekte olan bir ekonomi olarak Türkiye'ye yönelik ve gelişmiş bir ekonomi olarak Almanya’ya yönelik doğrudan yabancı yatırımlardaki yabancı sahiplik yoğunluğu, ev sahibi ülke ve kaynak ülkelerin ticaret hayatı ile ve yatırım çeken şirketler ile ilgili hangi faktörlerin etkisi altında değişmektedir? sorusuna cevap bulmaktır. Araştırmada çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi kullanılmaktadır. Teorik alan yazında sahiplik stratejisinin oluşturulması ile ilgili on yaklaşım mevcuttur. Araştırma sonucunda her iki ülke için yabancı sahiplik yoğunluğunu açıklayan faktörlerin ortaya konulmasında “işlem maliyeti yaklaşımı”nın geçerli olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu yaklaşımdan başka Türkiye’ye yönelik yatırımlarda sahiplik yoğunluğunun açıklanmasında “pazarlık gücü yaklaşımı”nın, Almanya’ya yönelik yatırımlarda “örgütsel yeterlilikler” yaklaşımının geçerli olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Uluslararası Yatırım Kararları, Sahiplik Yapısı, Kurumsal Yönetim.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uluslararası Yatırım Kararları Sahiplik Yapısı Kurumsal Yönetim

Kaynakça

  • Agrawal, S. ve Ramaswami, S. N. (1992). Choice of foreign market entry mode: Impact of ownership, location and internalization factors. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (1): 1-27.
  • Akgündüz, A. (2008). Labour migration from Turkey to Western Europe, 1960-1974: A multidisciplinary analysis. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
  • Asiedu, E. ve Esfahani, H. S. (2001). Ownership structure in foreign direct investment projects. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83 (4): 647-662.
  • Aydın, N. (Proje Koordinatörü) (2011). Almanya’da faaliyet gösteren Türk sermayeli şirketlerle Alman sermayeli şirketlerin finansal performanslarının ve etkinliklerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Tübitak Projesi,
  • No:109K145.
  • Bhattacharya, P. S. ve Graham, M. A. (2009). On institutional ownership and firm performance: A disaggregated view. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 19 (5): 370-394.
  • Blodgett, L. L. (1991). Partner contributions as predictors of equity share in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1): 63-78.
  • Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. D. ve Werner, S. (2003). Transaction cost-enhanced entry mode choices and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12): 1239-1248.
  • Chan, M. C. (2002). Institutional perspective of foreign direct investment strategy: The case of Japanese multinational corporations.Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
  • Chang, S. J. ve Rosenzweig, P. M. (2001). The choice of entry mode in sequential foreign direct investment. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (8): 747-776.
  • Chokkar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. ve House, R. J. (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The globe book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. London: Lea Publishers.
  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S. ve Lang, L. H. P. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58 (1-2): 81-112.
  • Cohen, S. D. (2007). Multinational corporations and foreign direct investment: Avoiding simplicity, embracing complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Daniels, R. J. ve Iacobucci, E. M. (2000). Some of the causes and consequences of corporate ownership concentration in Canada. R. K. Morck (Ed.) Concentrated corporate ownership: İçinde 55-80. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Deephouse, D. L. ve Wiseman, R. M. (2000). Comparing alternative explanations for accounting risk-return relations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42 (4): 463-482.
  • Demsetz, H. ve Lehn, K. (1985). Managerial ownership of voting rights: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93 (6): 1155-1177.
  • Desai, M. A., Foley, C. F. ve Hines, J. R. (2002). International joint ventures and the boundaries of the firm. USA: International Investment Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.
  • Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T. ve Eisner, A. B. (2008). Strategic management: Text and cases. 4th edition. China: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  • Dunning, J. H. (1988). Explaining international production. London: Unwin Hyman.
  • Erramilli, M. K. (1996). Nationality and subsidiary ownership patterns in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (2): 225-248.
  • Faccio, M. ve Lang, L. H. P. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics. 65 (3): 365-395.
  • Garengo, P. ve Bititci, U. (2007) Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: An empirical study in Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27 (8): 802-825.
  • Gomes-Casseres, B. (1989). Ownership structures of foreign subsidiaries: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 11 (1): 1-25.
  • Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4): 828-853.
  • Gürsoy, G. (2001). Equity ownership structure and its consequences: An empirical investigation in Turkish firms. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Bilkent Üniversitesi, Ekonomi ve Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4): 986-1014.
  • Hennart, J. F. (1988). A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (4): 361-374.
  • Hill, C. W. L., Hwang, P. ve Kim, W. C. (1990). An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (2): 117-128.
  • Himmelberg, C. P., Hubbard, R. G. ve Palia, D. (1999). Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 7209.
  • Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14 (2): 75-89.
  • Hofstede, G. (2003). What is culture? A reply to Baskerville. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28 (7): 811-813.
  • Holderness, C. G., Kroszner, R .S. ve Sheehan, D. P. (1999). Were the good old days that good? Changes in managerial stock ownership since the great depression. The Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 435-469.
  • Jung, J. C. (2007). The varying patterns of ownership strategy of MNEs: A Japan- US comparison. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Western Ontorio, Richard Ivey School of Business, Ontario, USA.
  • Kyaw, N. A. ve Theingi, H. (2009). A performance analysis of wholly owned subsidiaries and joint ventures: Electrical and electronic industry in Thailand. International Journal of Business Studies, 17 (1): 107-125.
  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 471-517.
  • Laeven, L. ve Woodruff, C. (2004). The quality of the legal system, firm ownership, and firm size. World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 3246.
  • Leaven, L. ve Levine, R. (2006). Complex ownership structures and corporate valuations. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 12675.
  • Luo, Y. ve Park, S. H. (2001). Strategic alignment and performance of market seeking MNCs in China. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2): 141-155.
  • Mahoney, J. T. (2005). Economic foundations of strategy. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Makino, S. ve Neupert, K. E. (2000). National culture, transaction cost, and the choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 705-713.
  • Mani, S., Antia, K. D. ve Rindfleisch, A. (2007). Entry mode and equity level: A multilevel examination of foreign direct investment ownership structure. Strategic management journal, 28 (8): 857-866.
  • Morck, R. K. (2000). Concentrated corporate ownership. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • OECD (2008). OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct investment. Fourth Edition. OECD Publishing.
  • Pan, Y. (1996). Influences on foreign equity ownership level in joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (1): 1-26.
  • Pan, Y. (2002). Equity ownership in international joint ventures: The impact of source country factors. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2): 375-384.
  • Pedersen, T. ve Thomsen, S. (2003). Ownership structure and value of the largest European firms: The importance of owner identity. Journal of Management and Governance, 7 (1): 27-55.
  • Prescott, G. L., Madden, E. K. ve Foster, R. M. (2010). Forms of business ownership: A primer for commercial lenders. Commercial Lending Review, 25 (6): 27-55.
  • Raff, H., Ryan, M. J. ve Stahler, F. (2007). Whole versus shared ownership of foreign affiliates. Christian Albrechts Universitat Kiel Economics Working Paper No. 2007-18.
  • Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of international business studies, 32 (3): 519-535.
  • Sirkeci, İ., Cohen, J. H., ve Yazgan, P. (2012). Turkish culture of migration: Flows between Turkey and Germany, socio-economic development and conflict. Migration Letters, 9 (1): 33-46.
  • Tallman, S. ve Li, J. (1996). Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1): 179-196.
  • The World Bank Investment Climate Advisory Services (2010). Investing across borders 2010: Indicators of FDI regulation in 87 economies. Washigton, DC: The World Bank Publication.
  • Thomsen, S. ve Pedersen, T. (1996). Nationality and ownership structures: The 100 largest companies in six European Nations. Management International Review, 36 (2): 149-166.
  • Todeva, E. (2006). Business networks: Strategy and structure. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Influences on foreign ownership level and entry mode choice in Vietnam. International Business Review, 14 (4): 441-463.
  • UNCTAD (2010). World investment report 2010-Overview. Geneva: United Nations Publication.
  • Van der Elst, C. (2004). Industry-specificities and size of corporations: determinants of ownership structures. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series: 04-19.
  • Vibert, C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
  • World Economic Forum (2010). The global enabling trade report 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum Publishing.
  • Yan, A. ve Gray, B. (2002). Negotiating control and achieving performance in international joint ventures: A conceptual model. Journal of International Management, 7 (4): 295-315.
  • Zeitun, R. ve Tian, G. G. (2007). Does ownership affect a firm’s performance and default risk in Jordan? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. 7 (1): 66-82.
  • Zhang, R. ve Rezaee, Z. (2009). Do credible firms perform better in emerging markets? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 90 (2): 221-237.
Toplam 62 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Yazarlar

Gülşah Kulalı

Gönderilme Tarihi 5 Kasım 2014
Yayımlanma Tarihi 12 Temmuz 2016
DOI https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.84469
IZ https://izlik.org/JA56BF87ZH
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2016 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Kulalı, G. (2016). DOĞRUDAN YATIRIMLARDA YABANCI SAHİPLİK YOĞUNLUĞUNUN BELİRLEYİCİLERİ: TÜRKİYE VE ALMANYA ÖRNEKLERİ. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(2), 197-226. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.84469

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Aile Yılı Özel Sayısı Çağrısı
Sayı Editörü
Prof. Dr. NEBİYE KONUK KANDEMİR

Sevgili Araştırmacılar ve Değerli Yazarlar,
Aile, toplumun temel yapı taşıdır ve bireylerin gelişimi ile sosyal yaşamın şekillenmesinde kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Aile yapıları ve dinamikleri, tarihsel, kültürel ve toplumsal faktörlerle şekillenirken, bu faktörlerin aile içerisinde yaşanan sorunları, ilişkileri ve güç dengelerini nasıl etkilediği büyük bir önem taşımaktadır. 2025 yılı "Aile Yılı" olarak ilan edilmesi, aile olgusunun daha geniş bir perspektiften ele alınmasını ve bu konudaki farkındalığın artırılmasını hedeflemektedir.
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, "Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı" olarak 2026 yılında yayımlanacak olan Aile Yılı Özel Sayısı'na yönelik makale çağrısında bulunmaktadır. Bu özel sayı, aile yapılarını, rollerini ve dinamiklerini inceleyen çalışmalara ev sahipliği yapmayı hedeflemektedir.
Aile ile ilgili çalışmalara olan ihtiyaç, yalnızca bireysel düzeyde değil, toplumsal düzeyde de açıktır. Son yıllarda, aile içi ilişkilerin sağlıklı bir şekilde sürdürülmesi, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği, kadın hakları, çocuk sağlığı ve eğitim gibi konular ön plana çıkmış, bu konularda yapılacak bilimsel araştırmaların önemi artmıştır. Aile Yılı Özel Sayısı'nın hazırlanması, bu kritik meselelerin sistematik bir biçimde incelenmesine ve topluma duyurulmasına olanak sağlayacaktır.
Bu özel sayı, aile dinamiklerini, ilişkilerini ve sorunlarını derinlemesine inceleyen, özgün ve yenilikçi çalışmaları bir araya getirerek, alanında önemli bir kaynak oluşturmayı hedeflemektedir. Ayrıca, uzmanların görüşleri ve çeşitli disiplinlerden gelen katkılar sayesinde, aile kavramına dair güncel bakış açıları sunulacak, toplumsal fayda sağlanacaktır.
Aşağıda, özel sayıda kabul edilebilecek (ama bunlarla sınırlı olmayan) güncellenmiş konular listesi yer almaktadır:

• Aile Yapıları ve Değişimi
• Geleneksel ve Modern Aile Rolleri
• Aile İçi İletişim ve İlişkiler
• Ailedeki Psiko-Sosyal Dinamikler
• Aile İlişkilerinde Kültürel Farklılıklar
• Evlilik ve Boşanma Dinamikleri
• Aile ve Çocuk Gelişimi
• Ebeveynlik Stilleri ve Çocuk Üzerindeki Etkileri
• Aile Ekonomisi ve Sosyal Politika
• Aileyi Etkileyen Toplumsal Değişimler
• Aile ve Eğitim İlişkisi
• Ailede Şiddet ve Koruma Mekanizmaları
• Aile İçi Sağlık ve Refah
• Kadınların Aile İçindeki Rolü ve Değişen Dinamikleri
• Kadın Hakları ve Aile İlişkileri
• Kadının Aile Üyeleriyle İlişkileri ve Güç Dinamikleri
• Ailede Cinsiyet Eşitliği
İki bağımsız anonim hakem tarafından değerlendirmeden geçecek makaleler, kabul edilmesi halinde, Aralık 2026'da yayımlanacak özel sayımızda yer alacaktır. Gelecek sayıların dolmuş olması ve süreçte makale yoğunluğunun bulunması nedeniyle dergimiz, özel sayı dışında makale kabulüne kapalıdır. Özel sayı dışında dergimize gönderilen makaleler iade edilecektir.
Saygılarımızla