Türkiye’de Eczacılık Fakültelerindeki Öğrencilerin Öğretim Üyelerinden Sağladıkları Sosyal Fayda Düzeylerinin Atkinson Eşitsizlik Endeksi Yaklaşımıyla Ölçümü

Year 2009, Issue: 1, 45 - 60, 01.01.2009

Murat Çiftçi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada sivil devlet üniversitelerindeki eczacılık fakülteleri arasında öğrenci ve öğretim üyesi sayılarının dengesiz dağılmasından kaynaklanan sosyal fayda kaybının ölçülmesine odaklanılmıştır. Materyal ve Metot: Bu çalışmada üç farklı öğretim üyesi kadrosu ve iki öğretim dönemi için Atkinson endeksleri kullanılmıştır. Uygulamada kullanılan veriler ÖSYM’nin yayınlarına dayanmaktadır. Bulgular: Hesaplanan endeks katsayıları, öğretim üyelerinin fakültelere dağılımlarının öğrenci sayılarına göre ciddi düzeyde dengesiz olduğunu ve öğrencilerin öğretim üyelerinden sağladıkları sosyal faydadan ciddi kayıplarının mevcut olduğunu göstermektedir. Hesaplanan sosyal fayda düzeyleri 2000 – 2001 öğretim yılı için profesörlerden % 89, doçentlerden % 68.4, yardımcı doçentlerden % 83.2 olmuş, 2007 – 2008 öğretim yılında ise bu oranlar % 63.2, % 82.8 ve % 77.9 düzeylerinde gerçekleşmiştir. Bu sonuçsa 2000 – 2001 öğretim yılı için eczacılık fakültelerinde görev yapan profesör başına düşen 22.9, doçent başına düşen 63.9 ve yardımcı doçent başına düşen 39.5 öğrencilik düzeyinin aynı sırayla 25.7; 93.4; 47.4 öğrenci şeklinde hissedildiği anlamında yorumlanabilir. Buna ek olarak 2007 – 2008 öğretim yılı için ise aynı sırayla 21; 50.5; 35.2 öğrencilik düzeyleri 33.3; 61; 45.1 öğrenci gibi hissedilmiştir. Sonuç: Türkiye’deki eczacılık eğitiminde sosyal fayda kaybı mevcuttur. Özellikle profesörlük için fakülteler arası dağılımdaki bozulma kabul edilebilir düzeyde değildir.

Keywords

Atkinson endeksleri, eczacılık eğitimi, eğitim politikası, sosyal politika, kalkınma ekonomisi

The Measurement of Social Utility from Academic Staff to the Students in Faculties of Pharmacy in Turkey with Atkinson Inequality Index

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate level of social utility from academic staff to the students in faculties of pharmacy in Turkey. Material and Method: In the study, the Atkinson indices were used to calculate for three different kinds of academic staff both 2000 – 2001 and 2007 – 2008. The data were take from OSYM publishing. Results: The indices have found that there are unequal distribution of academic staff and that there is serious loss of social utility for the students from academic staff. Levels of social utility from full professors were 89 % for the 2000 – 2001 academic year and 63.2 % for the 2006 – 2007 academic year . From associate professors were 68.4 % for the 2000 – 2001 academic year and 82.8 % for the 2006 – 2007 academic year . From assistant professors were 83.2 % for the 2000 – 2001 academic year and 77.9 % for the 2006 – 2007 academic year . In addition, number of students per academician as full professor, associate professor and assistant professor was different between pure ratio and sensitive ratio. Pure and sensitive ratios for students/academicians were 22.9 – 25.7 for full professor, 63.9 – 93.4 for associated professor, 39.5 – 47.4 for assistant professor in the 2000 – 2001 academic year. These ratios were 21 – 33.3 for full professor, 50.5 – 61 for associate professor, 35.2 – 45.1 for assistant professor in the 2006 – 2007 academic year. Conclusion: There is a social utility loss in pharmacy education in Turkey. Especially these corruptions among pharmacy faculties were not within acceptable levels for full time professors.

Keywords

Atkinson indices, pharmacy education, education policy, social policy, development economics

References

• 1. Güran T. (transkripsiyon) : Osmanlı Devletinin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı 1897, DİE, Ankara (1997)
• 2. ÖSYM : 2000–2001 Öğretim Yılı Yükseköğretim İstatistikleri Kitabı, Ankara, (2001)
• 3. ÖSYM : 2007–2008 Öğretim Yılı Yükseköğretim İstatistikleri Kitabı, Ankara, (2008)
• 4. Ravallion M. : Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond the Averages, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 2558, Washington, D.C. (2001)
• 5. Fedorov L. : Regional Inequality and Regional Polarization in Russia, 1990–99. World Development, 30 (3), 443–456, (2002)
• 6. Moran T. P. : On the Theoretical and Methodological Context of Cross-National Inequality Data. International Sociology, 18 (2), 351–378, (2003)
• 7. Sen A. K. : On Economic Inequality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, etc. (1973)
• 8. Chakravarty S. : A Measurement of Spatial Disparity: The Case of Income Inequality. Urban Studies, 33 (9), 1671–1686, (1996)
• 9. Duro J. A. ve Esteban J. : Factor decomposition of cross-country income inequality, 1960–1990. Economics Letters, 60, 269–275, (1998)
• 10. Çiftçi M. : Ülkelerarası Küresel Eşitsizlikte Uzun Dönemli Bozulma (1950–2001). The Journal of International Social Research, 1 (5), 156–179, (2008)
• 11. Ezcurra R. ve Pascual P. : Regional Polarisation and National Development in the European Union. Urban Studies, 44 (1), 99–122, (2007)
• 12. Ezcurra R, Gil C. Pascual P. ve Rapún M. : Inequality, Polarisation and Regional Mobility in the European Union. Urban Studies, 42 (7), 1057–1076, (2005)
• 13. Güven A. : The Role of Incentive Policy on Income Inequality between Turkish Provinces: A Decomposition Analysis. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 14, 20–38, (2007)
• 14. Gezici F. : Türkiye’nin Bölgelerarası Gelişmişlik Farkları ve Bölgesel Politikalarının Yeni Yaklaşımlar Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi. Bölge Biliminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar – Bildiriler Kitabı, 12. Ulusal Bölge Bilimi / Bölge Planlama Kongresi, Bölge Bilim Türk Milli Komitesi, İTÜ, DPT, İstanbul, (2007)
• 15. Ezcurra R. Pascual P. ve Rapun M. : Spatial Inequality in Productivity in the European Union: Sectoral and Regional Factors. International Regional Science Review, 30 (4), 384–407, (2007)
• 16. Ezcurra R. ve Rapún M. : Regional Disparities and National Development Revisited: The Case of Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13 (4), 355–369, (2006)
• 17. Benito J. M. ve Ezcurra R. : Spatial Disparities in Productivity and Industry Mix: The Case of the European Regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12, 177–194, (2005)
• 18. Sadras V. ve Bongiovanni R. : Use of Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients to assess yield inequality within paddocks. Field Crops Research, 90, 303–310, (2004)
• 19. Siew A, Lim K. ve Tang K. K. : Human Capital Inequality and the Kuznets Curve. The Developing Economies, XLVI-1, 26–51, (2008)
• 20. Lu D. : China’s Regional Income Disparity - An Alternative Way to think of the Sources and Causes. Economics of Transition, 16 (1), 31–58, (2008)
• 21. Marks G. N, Headey B. ve Wooden M.: Household Wealth in Australia: Its Components, Distribution and Correlates. Journal of Sociology, 41 (1), 47–68, (2005)
• 22. Chakravarty S.R. ve Silber J. :A generalized index of employment segregation. Mathematical Social Sciences, 53, 185–195, (2007)
• 23. Sweeney S. H. ve Goldstein H. : Accounting for migration in regional occupational employment projections. The Annals of Regional Science, 39, 297–316, (2005)
• 24. Jones M. P. ve Mainwaring S. : The Nationalization of Parties and Party Systems An Empirical Measure and an Application to the Americas. Party Politics, 9 (2), 139–166, (2003)
• 25. Dawkins C. : The Spatial Pattern of Black–White Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas: An Exploratory Analysis. Urban Studies, 43 (11), 1943–1969, (2006)
• 26. Carlino G. ve Chatterjee S. : Employment Deconcentration: A New Perspective of America’s Postwar Urban Evolution. Journal of Regional Science, 42 (2), 455–475, (2002)
• 27. Heindenreich M. : Regional Inequalities in the Enlarged Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 13, 313–333, (2003)
• 28. Alcantara V. ve Duro J. A. : Inequality of energy intensities across OECD countries: a note. Energy Policy, 32, 1257–1260, (2004)
• 29. Millimet D. M. ve Slottje D. : Environmental Compliance Costs and the Distribution of Emissions in the U.S. Journal of Regional Science, 42 (1), 87 – 105, (2002)
• 30. Utt J. ve Fort R. : Pitfalls to Measuring Competitive Balance With Gini Coefficients. Journal of Sports Economics, 3 (4), 367–373, (2002)
• 31. Schmidt M. B. ve Berri D. J. : Competitive Balance and Attendance: The Case of Major League Baseball. Journal of Sports Economics, 2 (2), 145–167, (2001)
• 32. Oberwittler D. : Disorganization Juvenile Offending: The Role of Subcultural Values and Social A Multilevel Analysis of Neighbourhood Contextual Effects on Serious. European Journal of Criminology, 1 (2), 201–235, (2004)
• 33. Jammalamadaka S. R. ve Goria M. N. : A test of goodness-of- t based on Gini’s index of spacings. Statistics & Probability Letters, 68, 177–187, (2004)
• 34. Poulin R. ve Latham A. D. M. : Inequalities in size and intensitydependent growth in a mermithid nematode parasitic in beach hoppers. Journal of Helminthology, 76, 65–70, (2002)
• 35. Harvey J. : A note on the ‘natural rate of subjective inequality’hypothesis and the approximate relationship between the Gini coefficient and the Atkinson index. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1021–1025, (2005)
• 36. García I. ve Molina J. A. : The Effects of Region on the Welfare and Monetary Income of Spanish Families. Urban Studies, 38 (13), 2415–2424, (2001)
• 37. Salas R. : Welfare-consistent inequality indices in changing populations: The marginal population replication axiom A note. Journal of Public Economics, 67, 145–150, (1997)
• 38. Pedersen A. W. : Measurement Inequality as Relative Deprivation: A Sociological Approach to Inequality. Acta Sociologica, 47, 31–49, (2004)
• 39. Atkinson A. B. : On the Measurement of Inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 1970, 2: 244–263.
• 40. Öztürk L. : Bölgelerarası Gelir Eşitsizliği: İstatistikî Bölge Birimleri Sınıflandırması’na (İBBS) Göre Eşitsizlik İndeksleri İle Bir Analiz, 1965–2001. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 10, 95–110, (2005)
• 41. Spatz J. : Poverty and Inequality in the Era of Structural Reforms: The Case of Bolivia, Springer Verlag. Berlin, (2006)
• 42. Regidor E, Calle M. E, Navarro P. ve Dominguez V. : Trends in the Association between Average Income, Poverty and Income Inequality and Life Expectancy in Spain. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 961–971, (2003)
• 43. Siew A., Lim K. ve Kitang K. : A Human Capital Inequality and the Kuznets Curve. The Developing Economies, XLVI-1, 26–51, (2008)
• 44. Agénor P.R. : The Macroeconomics of Poverty Reduction. The Manchester School, 73 (4) Special Issue, 369–434, (2005)