BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Mülkiyet - Verimlilik İlişkisi: Uygulamalı (Ampirik) Çalışmalar

Yıl 2006, Sayı: 26, - 20, 01.03.2006

Öz

Mülkiyet-verimlilik ilişkisi ekonomi literatüründe göze çarpan önemli tartışma konularından birisidir. Konuyla ilgili birçok teori ortaya atılmıştır. Bunlardan bazıları; mülkiyet hakları, kamu tercihi ve x-etkinlik teorisi’dir. Bu teorilerin ve bu kapsamda mülkiyet yapısının organizasyonların performansını (verimlilik-etkinlik, kârlılık) belirleyen önemli bir belirleyici olduğu iddialarının sınanmasına yönelik bir çok ampirik çalışma da yapılmıştır. Genel olarak bakıldığında bu çalışmaların mülkiyet ile işletme performansı arasında mutlak bir ilişki olduğu yönünde sonuçlara ulaşamadığını ifade edebiliriz

Kaynakça

  • AKTAN, C. C. ve Özlem ÖZKIVRAK (1999), Devlet mi, Piyasa mı?, TOSYÖV Yayınları, Ankara, 102s.
  • ALCHIAN, A. (1977), “Some Economics of Property Rights”, Economics Forces Work, in Liberty Press, pp. 127-49.
  • ANDRES, L. (2004), “The Impact of Privatization on Firms in the Infrastructure Sector http://www.home.uchicago.edu. Erişim Tarihi: 03/08/2005, pp. 1-44. American Countries”, İnternet Adresi:
  • ARIN, K.P. and C. OKTEN (2003), “How does privatization affect efficiency, productivity and technology choice? Evidence from Turkey”, Massey University, Department of Commerce Working Paper Series 03.14.
  • AYDIN, A. (1995), İmalat Sanayii ve Alt Kollarında Verimlilik, Üretim ve İstihdam Göstergeleri, MPM Yayınları, Ankara, 153s.
  • BARTEL, A. P. and Ann E. HARRISON (1999), “Ownership versus Environment: Why Are Public Sector Firms Inefficient?” NBER Working Paper, No 7043, pp. 1-34.
  • BARTEL, R. and F. SCHNEIDER (1991), “The Mess of the Public Industrial Production in Austria: A Typical Case of Public Sector Inefficiency”, Public Choice, 68, pp. 17-40.
  • BAUBAKRI, N. and J. C. COSSET (1998), “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries”, The Journal Finance, 53 (3), pp. 1081-1110.
  • BEGG, D., R. DORNBUSCH ve S. FISCHER, (2000), Mikro İktisat, Alkım Yayınları, İstanbul, 317s.
  • BOARDMAN, A. E. and A. R. VINING (1989), “Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-owned Enterprises”, Journal of Law Economics, 32, pp. 1-33.
  • BOZEC, R.. G. BRETON and L. COTE, (2002), “The Performance of State-Owned Enterprises Revisited”, Financial Accountability Management, 18 (4), pp. 383-407.
  • ÇAKMAK, E.H. and O. ZAİM (1992) “Privatization and Comparative Efficiency of Public and Private Enterprise in Turkey: The Cement Industry”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62, pp. 271-284
  • CHANG, H. J. ve I. GRABEL (2005), Kalkınma Yeniden, Alternatif İktisat Politikaları El Kitabı, İmge Yayınları, Ankara, 283 s.
  • DEMİR, O. (2003), “Özelleştirmenin Gerekçeleri ve Engelleri”, Özelleştirme Teori, Dünya ve Türkiye Deneyimi içinde, Yusuf Bayraktutan (Ed.), Liberte Yayınları, Ankara, ss.107-132.
  • DEMSETZ, H. (1967), “Towards a Theory Property Rights”, American Economic Review, 57 (2), pp. 347-359.
  • D’SOUZA, J., W. L. MEGGINSON and R. C. NASH (2002), “Determinants of Performance Improvements in Privatized Firms: The Role of Restructuring and Corporate Governance”, İnternet Adresi: http://www.papers. ssrn.com Erişim Tarihi: 23.06.2005, pp. 1-40.
  • D’SOUZA, J. and W. L .MEGGINSON (1999), “The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms During the 1990s’“, Journal of Finance, 54 (4), pp. 1397-1438.
  • DEWENTER, K. L. and P. H. MALATESTA (2001), “State-Owned and Privately – Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity”, American Economic Review, 91, pp. 320-334.
  • DURA, Yahya Can (2006), “Kamu İktisadi Teşebbüsleri ve Mülkiyet- Verimlilik İlişkisi: Teori ve Uygulama”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2006, 217s.
  • HARPER, J. T. (2002), “The Performance of Privatized Firms in the Czech Republic”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, pp. 621-649.
  • HANKE, S. S. (1990), “Özelleştirme Tercihi: Bir Analiz” Çev. C. Can AKTAN, İnternet Adresi: http://www.canaktan.org, pp.5-6. Erişim Tarihi: 10/03/2005.
  • HINDS, S., N. SANCHEZ and D. SCHAP (2004), “Retrospective Review and Prospective Theory”, Handbook of Public Finance Public Enterprise, 2004.
  • KÖSE, A. H. (1992), Büyüme ve Verimlilik, MPM Yayınları, Ankara, 208s.
  • KRUGER, A. and B. TUNCER (1982), “Growth of Factor Productivity in Turkish Manufacturing Industries”, Journal of Development Economies, 11, pp. 307-326.
  • LEIBENSTEIN, H. (1996), “Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency”, The American Economic Review, 56 (3), pp. 392-415.
  • LI, M. and R.L SIMERLY (1998), “The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism on the Ownership and Performance Relationship”, Strategic Management Journal, 19 (2), pp. 169-179.
  • MEGGINSON, W. L., R. C. NASH and M. RANDENBORGH,(1994), “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis”, The Journal Finance, 49 (2), pp. 403- 452.
  • MEGGINSON, W. L. and M. JEFFREY (2001), “From State to Market: A Survey of Empricial Studies on Privatization”, Journal of Economic Literature, 39, pp. 321-398.
  • O’DRISCOLL, JR. and P. GERALD (2004), “Ekonomik Kalkınmanın Anahtarı: Mülkiyet Hakları”, Piyasa, 9, pp. 49-72.
  • REEVES, E. and J. RYAN (1998), “A Benchmark Analysis of the Performance of State-owned Enterprises in Ireland”, İnternational Journal of Public Administration, 21, pp. 1577-1602.
  • SARKAR, J., S. SARKAR and S. K. BHAUMIK. (1998), “Does Ownership Always Matter? Evidence from the Indian Banking Industry”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 26, pp. 262-281
  • TURHAN, A. (2005), “Piyasa Başarısızlığı versus Kamu Başarısızlığı”, Piyasa, 13, ss. 47-63.
  • TÜREL, O. (1999), “Restructuring the Public Sector in Post -1980 Turkey: An Assessment”, ERC Working Papers in Economics, erc Working Paper no. 99/6, pp. 1-49.
  • UYGUR, E. (1991), “Policy, Productivity, Growth and Employment in Turkey, 1960-1989, and Prospects for the 1990 s”, Genova.
  • VINING, A. R. and A. BOARDMAN (1992), “Ownership versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise”, Public Choice, 73, pp. 205-239.
  • ZAİM, O. ve E. H. ÇAKMAK (1994), Özelleştirme Tartışmaları, Kamu Sektörü, Özelleştirme ve Etkinlik içinde “Kamu Sektörü, Özelleştirme ve Etkinlik”, Bağlam Yayınları, İstanbul, ss. 154-163.
  • ZAİM, O. and F. TAŞKIN (1997), “The Comparative Performance of the Public Enterprise Sector in Turkey: A Malmquist Productivity Index Approach”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 25, pp. 129-157.
Yıl 2006, Sayı: 26, - 20, 01.03.2006

Öz

Kaynakça

  • AKTAN, C. C. ve Özlem ÖZKIVRAK (1999), Devlet mi, Piyasa mı?, TOSYÖV Yayınları, Ankara, 102s.
  • ALCHIAN, A. (1977), “Some Economics of Property Rights”, Economics Forces Work, in Liberty Press, pp. 127-49.
  • ANDRES, L. (2004), “The Impact of Privatization on Firms in the Infrastructure Sector http://www.home.uchicago.edu. Erişim Tarihi: 03/08/2005, pp. 1-44. American Countries”, İnternet Adresi:
  • ARIN, K.P. and C. OKTEN (2003), “How does privatization affect efficiency, productivity and technology choice? Evidence from Turkey”, Massey University, Department of Commerce Working Paper Series 03.14.
  • AYDIN, A. (1995), İmalat Sanayii ve Alt Kollarında Verimlilik, Üretim ve İstihdam Göstergeleri, MPM Yayınları, Ankara, 153s.
  • BARTEL, A. P. and Ann E. HARRISON (1999), “Ownership versus Environment: Why Are Public Sector Firms Inefficient?” NBER Working Paper, No 7043, pp. 1-34.
  • BARTEL, R. and F. SCHNEIDER (1991), “The Mess of the Public Industrial Production in Austria: A Typical Case of Public Sector Inefficiency”, Public Choice, 68, pp. 17-40.
  • BAUBAKRI, N. and J. C. COSSET (1998), “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries”, The Journal Finance, 53 (3), pp. 1081-1110.
  • BEGG, D., R. DORNBUSCH ve S. FISCHER, (2000), Mikro İktisat, Alkım Yayınları, İstanbul, 317s.
  • BOARDMAN, A. E. and A. R. VINING (1989), “Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-owned Enterprises”, Journal of Law Economics, 32, pp. 1-33.
  • BOZEC, R.. G. BRETON and L. COTE, (2002), “The Performance of State-Owned Enterprises Revisited”, Financial Accountability Management, 18 (4), pp. 383-407.
  • ÇAKMAK, E.H. and O. ZAİM (1992) “Privatization and Comparative Efficiency of Public and Private Enterprise in Turkey: The Cement Industry”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62, pp. 271-284
  • CHANG, H. J. ve I. GRABEL (2005), Kalkınma Yeniden, Alternatif İktisat Politikaları El Kitabı, İmge Yayınları, Ankara, 283 s.
  • DEMİR, O. (2003), “Özelleştirmenin Gerekçeleri ve Engelleri”, Özelleştirme Teori, Dünya ve Türkiye Deneyimi içinde, Yusuf Bayraktutan (Ed.), Liberte Yayınları, Ankara, ss.107-132.
  • DEMSETZ, H. (1967), “Towards a Theory Property Rights”, American Economic Review, 57 (2), pp. 347-359.
  • D’SOUZA, J., W. L. MEGGINSON and R. C. NASH (2002), “Determinants of Performance Improvements in Privatized Firms: The Role of Restructuring and Corporate Governance”, İnternet Adresi: http://www.papers. ssrn.com Erişim Tarihi: 23.06.2005, pp. 1-40.
  • D’SOUZA, J. and W. L .MEGGINSON (1999), “The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms During the 1990s’“, Journal of Finance, 54 (4), pp. 1397-1438.
  • DEWENTER, K. L. and P. H. MALATESTA (2001), “State-Owned and Privately – Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity”, American Economic Review, 91, pp. 320-334.
  • DURA, Yahya Can (2006), “Kamu İktisadi Teşebbüsleri ve Mülkiyet- Verimlilik İlişkisi: Teori ve Uygulama”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2006, 217s.
  • HARPER, J. T. (2002), “The Performance of Privatized Firms in the Czech Republic”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, pp. 621-649.
  • HANKE, S. S. (1990), “Özelleştirme Tercihi: Bir Analiz” Çev. C. Can AKTAN, İnternet Adresi: http://www.canaktan.org, pp.5-6. Erişim Tarihi: 10/03/2005.
  • HINDS, S., N. SANCHEZ and D. SCHAP (2004), “Retrospective Review and Prospective Theory”, Handbook of Public Finance Public Enterprise, 2004.
  • KÖSE, A. H. (1992), Büyüme ve Verimlilik, MPM Yayınları, Ankara, 208s.
  • KRUGER, A. and B. TUNCER (1982), “Growth of Factor Productivity in Turkish Manufacturing Industries”, Journal of Development Economies, 11, pp. 307-326.
  • LEIBENSTEIN, H. (1996), “Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency”, The American Economic Review, 56 (3), pp. 392-415.
  • LI, M. and R.L SIMERLY (1998), “The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism on the Ownership and Performance Relationship”, Strategic Management Journal, 19 (2), pp. 169-179.
  • MEGGINSON, W. L., R. C. NASH and M. RANDENBORGH,(1994), “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis”, The Journal Finance, 49 (2), pp. 403- 452.
  • MEGGINSON, W. L. and M. JEFFREY (2001), “From State to Market: A Survey of Empricial Studies on Privatization”, Journal of Economic Literature, 39, pp. 321-398.
  • O’DRISCOLL, JR. and P. GERALD (2004), “Ekonomik Kalkınmanın Anahtarı: Mülkiyet Hakları”, Piyasa, 9, pp. 49-72.
  • REEVES, E. and J. RYAN (1998), “A Benchmark Analysis of the Performance of State-owned Enterprises in Ireland”, İnternational Journal of Public Administration, 21, pp. 1577-1602.
  • SARKAR, J., S. SARKAR and S. K. BHAUMIK. (1998), “Does Ownership Always Matter? Evidence from the Indian Banking Industry”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 26, pp. 262-281
  • TURHAN, A. (2005), “Piyasa Başarısızlığı versus Kamu Başarısızlığı”, Piyasa, 13, ss. 47-63.
  • TÜREL, O. (1999), “Restructuring the Public Sector in Post -1980 Turkey: An Assessment”, ERC Working Papers in Economics, erc Working Paper no. 99/6, pp. 1-49.
  • UYGUR, E. (1991), “Policy, Productivity, Growth and Employment in Turkey, 1960-1989, and Prospects for the 1990 s”, Genova.
  • VINING, A. R. and A. BOARDMAN (1992), “Ownership versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise”, Public Choice, 73, pp. 205-239.
  • ZAİM, O. ve E. H. ÇAKMAK (1994), Özelleştirme Tartışmaları, Kamu Sektörü, Özelleştirme ve Etkinlik içinde “Kamu Sektörü, Özelleştirme ve Etkinlik”, Bağlam Yayınları, İstanbul, ss. 154-163.
  • ZAİM, O. and F. TAŞKIN (1997), “The Comparative Performance of the Public Enterprise Sector in Turkey: A Malmquist Productivity Index Approach”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 25, pp. 129-157.
Toplam 37 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Uzm. Yrd. Yahya Can Dura

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mart 2006
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2006 Sayı: 26

Kaynak Göster

APA Dura, U. . Y. . Y. C. (2006). Mülkiyet - Verimlilik İlişkisi: Uygulamalı (Ampirik) Çalışmalar. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(26), 20.

TRDizinlogo_live-e1586763957746.pnggoogle-scholar.jpgopen-access-logo-1024x416.pngdownload.jpgqMV-nsBH.pngDRJI-500x190.jpgsobiad_2_0.pnglogo.pnglogo.png  arastirmax_logo.gif17442EBSCOhost_Flat.png?itok=f5l7Nsj83734-logo-erih-plus.jpgproquest-300x114.jpg

ERÜ İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2021 | iibfdergi@erciyes.edu.tr

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-Gayri Ticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır. 

 88x31.png