BİR KUŞAK BİR YOL GİRİŞİMİ KAPSAMINDA KUZEY, ORTA VE GÜNEY KORİDOR ÜLKELERİNİN LOJİSTİK PERFORMANSLARININ HİBRİT ÇKKV YÖNTEMLERİYLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Küresel ticaret ulaştırma koridorları ile şekillenmekte, ülkelerin küresel ticaretteki başarıları da bu koridorlara entegre olarak gösterdikleri lojistik performans ile doğrudan ilişkili olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Çin’in “Bir Kuşak Bir Yol” girişimi kapsamında yer alan kara güzergâhlarındaki ülkelerin lojistik performanslarını analiz etmektir. Özellikle Türkiye’nin de dâhil olduğu orta koridor (Trans-Hazar Uluslararası Taşımacılık Rotası), alternatif güzergahlar olan kuzey ve güney koridorlar ile karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Lojistik performans endeksi verileri 2012, 2016, 2018 ve 2023 yıllarına ait olarak dikkate alınmış ve çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden MEREC, CRITIC, CWM, AWM ve MABAC yöntemleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, Çin tüm yıllarda en yüksek lojistik performansına sahip ülke olarak öne çıkarken, Polonya ve Türkiye üst sıralarda yer almıştır. Tacikistan ve Kırgızistan gibi ülkeler düşük performanslarıyla dikkat çekmiştir. CRITIC ve MEREC yöntemleriyle belirlenen kriter ağırlıkları yıllara göre farklılık göstermiş CWM ve AWM ortak ağırlıklandırma yöntemleri ile elde edilen sonuçlar ise benzer olarak bulunmuştur. Gümrük işlemleri, takip ve izleme, altyapı gibi kriterler dönemsel olarak ön plana çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ulaştırma Koridorları
• Uluslararası Ticaret
• LPI
• Bir Kuşak Bir Yol Girişimi
• ÇKKV

EVALUATION OF THE LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE OF NORTH, MIDDLE AND SOUTH CORRIDOR COUNTRIES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ONE BELT ONE ROAD INITIATIVE USING HYBRID MCDM METHODS

Öz

Global trade is increasingly driven by transport corridors, and a nation’s competitiveness in global trade is closely linked to its logistics performance within these routes. This research explores the logistics efficiency of countries positioned along land-based segments of China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative. Specifically, the study compares the middle corridor “formally known as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route and inclusive of Türkiye” with the northern and southern corridors. Logistics performance index data for the years 2012, 2016, 2018, and 2023 were assessed using five multi-criteria decision-making methods: MEREC, CRITIC, Common Weighting Method (CWM), Aggregate Weighting Method (AWM) and MABAC. Results indicate that China consistently holds the top position in logistics performance, while Poland and Türkiye also demonstrate strong rankings. Conversely, countries such as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan exhibit notably low performance levels. The criterion weights determined using the CRITIC and MEREC methods varied from year to year, while the results obtained using the CWM and AWM common weighting methods were found to be similar. The weighting of performance criteria -such as customs efficiency, tracking capabilities, and infrastructure- varied across years, with different criteria gaining prominence at different times depending on the method used.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Transport Corridors
• International Trade
• LPI
• One Belt One Road Initiative
• MCDM

Kaynakça

1. Akçay, N., & Changgang, G. (2023). Türkiye’s middle corridor and China’s BRI: Identification and assessment. Insight Turkey, 25(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2023251.4
2. Amar, M., Smiljka, M., Zeljko, S., & Zoran, M. (2022). Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics, Sciendo, 10(1), 13-34.
3. Ampleman, L. (2021). Transport geopolitics: Decoding and understanding: Transport as a source of conflicts. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4967-7
4. Andrejic, M., & Kilibarda, M. (2014). Global logistics efficiency index. 8th International Quality Conference. Serbia: University of Kragujevac, 857-862.
5. Arıkan Kargı, V. S. (2022). Evaluation of logistics performance of the OECD member countries with integrated ENTROPY and WASPAS method. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 29(4), 801-811. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.1067480
6. Arman, K., & Organ, A. (2023). AB’ye üye ve aday ülkelerin lojistik performanslarının MEREC ve CoCoSo yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Ticaret ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 36-46. https://doi.org/10.30711/utead.1360959
7. Arvis, J. F., Mustra, M. A., Panzer, J., Ojala, L., & Naula, T. (2007). Connecting to compete: trade logistics in the global economy the logistics performance index and its indicators. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/180751468165888570
8. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Ulybina, D., & Wiedener, C. (2023). Connecting to compete 2023 trade logistics in an uncertain global economy the logistics performance index and its indicators. Technical Report, World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099042123145531599

9. Ayçin, E., & Arsu, T. (2022). Sosyal gelişme endeksine göre ülkelerin değerlendirilmesi: MEREC ve MARCOS yöntemleri ile bir uygulama. İzmir Yönetim Dergisi, 2(2), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.56203/iyd.1084310
10. Ayesu, E. K., Sakyi, D., & Baidoo, S. T. (2024). The effects of seaport efficiency on trade performance in Africa. Maritime Policy & Management, 51(3), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2022.2135178
11. Baydaş, M., Elma, O. E., & Stević, Ž. (2024). Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return. Financial Innovation, 10(4), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x
12. Beifert, A., Jintchveleishvili, T., & Gvarjaladze, V. (2025). Efficiency of the middle corridor: Analysis based on empirical evidence from Georgia’s transport sector. Kabashkin, I., Yatskiv, I., & Prentkovskis, O. (Eds.), Reliability and statistics in transportation and communication: Human sustainability and resilience in the digital age (376-387). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-87532-8_33
13. Biro, D., & Vasa, L. (2024). Unveiling the strategic significance of the middle corridor in global trade and geopolitical dynamics. The Economy Strategy And Practice, 19(2), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.51176/1997-9967-2024-2-70-83
14. Biswas, S. & Anand, O. P. (2020). Logistics competitiveness index-based Comparison of BRICS and G7 countries: An integrated PSI-PIV approach. The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, 27(2), 32-57.
15. Cengiz, Ö. (2023). Rusya-Ukrayna savaşının Türkiye’den geçen orta lojistik koridora etkileri. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(27), 485-505. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2023.019
16. Çalık, A., Erdebilli, B., & Özdemir, Y. S. (2022). Novel integrated hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for logistics performance index. Transportation Research Record, 2677(2), 1392-1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221113314
17. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995) Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22, 763-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
18. Dijk, M. P., & Martens, P. (2016). The silk road and Chinese interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus: The case of Georgia. Conference Paper, MSM 2016 Research Conference, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
19. Ece, N. J. (2023). Bir kuşak bir yol projesi’nin Türkiye ve Türk Cumhuriyetleri açısından önemi. Mersin Üniversitesi Denizcilik ve Lojistik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 38-56. https://doi.org/10.54410/denlojad.1297932
20. Ecemiş, O., & Avşar, İ. İ. (2023). Türkiye’nin önde gelen ticaret ortaklarının lojistik verimliliklerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 142-163. https://doi.org/10.21180/iibfdkastamonu.1192728
21. Ecer, F. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme: Geçmişten günümüze kapsamlı bir yaklaşım. Seçkin Yayınevi.
22. Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525 https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
23. Gök Kısa, A. C., & Ayçin, E. (2019). OECD ülkelerinin lojistik performanslarının SWARA tabanlı EDAS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.18074/ckuiibfd.500320
24. Hadžikadunić, A., Stević, Ž., Badi, I., & Roso, V. (2023). Evaluating the logistics performance index of european union countries: An integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach utilizing the bonferroni operator. International Journal of Knowledge and Innovation Studies 1(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.56578/ijkis010104
25. Hassan, I., Alhamrouni, I., & Azhan, N. H. (2023). A CRITIC–TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making approach for optimum site selection for solar pv farm. Energies, 16(10), 4245. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104245
26. Hussain, E. (2022). The belt and road initiative, the middle corridor and Turkey’s Asia policy: An analysis. Anas, O. (Ed.), Turkey’s Asia Relations (233-250). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93515-3_10
27. Kemoklidze, N. (2021). China’s belt and road initiative: Opportunities and challenges for Georgia. Lex Portus, 7(2), 64-105. https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.7.2.2021.4
28. Kenderdine, T., & Bucsky, P. (2021). Middle corridor—policy development and trade potential of the trans-caspian ınternational transport route. ADBI Working Paper 1268. Asian Development Bank Institute. https://www.adb.org/ publications/middle-corridor-policy-development-trade-potential
29. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
30. Kopuk, E., & Bayraç, H. N. (2021). Bir kuşak bir yol projesi ve ekonomik etkileri. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 5(3), 1353-1374. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.865522
31. Kurtoğlu, A. B. & Tatar, V. (2023). Avrupa Birliği ulaştırma politikası kapsamında doğu-batı koridoru: Bakü-Tiflis-Kars demiryolu ve olası işlevleri. İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü Disiplinlerarası Yenilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 31-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.56723/dyad.1230868
32. Malik, Z. (2021). Globalization with Chinese characteristics: A case study of OBOR and CPEC (2013-2020). International Journal of Political Studies, 7(2). 59-75. https://doi.org/10.25272/j.2149-8539.2021.7.2.04
33. Mardell, J. (2025, April 21). On the ‘middle corridor’ China is largely absent. Berlin Policy Journal. https://berlinpolicyjournal.com/on-the-middle-corridor-chinais-largely-absent/
34. Martí, L., Martin, J. C., & Puertas, R. (2017). A Dea-Logistics performance index. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1), 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(17)30008-9
35. Meral, İ. G. (2024). Türkiye ve Türki Cumhuriyetlerde sürdürülebilir kalkınma performansının CRITIC-LOPCOW ve CoCoSo yöntemleriyle incelenmesi. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(2), 619-645.
36. Miškić, S., Stević, Z., Tadić, S., Alkhayyat, A., & Krstić, M. (2023). Assessment of the LPI of the EU countries using MCDM model with an emphasis on the importance of criteria. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 11(3), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2023.132501
37. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2025, April 10). Türkiye’s multilateral transportation policy. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye_s-multilateral-transportation-policy.en.mfa
38. Mungurbayar, N. (2020). The “China-Mongolia-Russia” economic corridor in the frame of the “belt and road” initiative (Master’s thesis, University of Kocaeli)
39. Mutlu, Necmettin. (2021). Kuşak ve yol girişimi (KYG) projelerinin incelenmesi; Türkiye için öneriler. Asya Araştırmaları Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 5(2), 129-150. https://doi.org/10.34189/asyam.5.2.002
40. Notteboom, T., Pallis, A., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2022). Port economics, management and policy (1st ed.) Routledge.
41. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2023, December 13). Realising the potential of the middle corridor. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/realising-the-potential-of-the-middle-corridor_635ad854-en.html
42. Oğuz, S., Alkan, G., & Yılmaz, B. (2019). Seçilmiş asya ülkelerinin lojistik performanslarının TOPSIS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Özel Sayı), 497-507. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.613421
43. Omonkulov, O. (2020). Kuşak ve yol projesi bağlamında Çin-Orta Asya ilişkileri. Bölgesel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 45-115.
44. Orhan, M. (2019). Türkiye ile Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin lojistik performanslarının ENTROPI Ağırlıklı EDAS yöntemiyle karşılaştırılması. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (17), 1222-1238. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.657693
45. Özdil, Z., Kartal, C., & Acar Karaboğa, M. (2025). Analysis of logistics performance of EU 27 countries with LOPCOW and EDAS methods. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 60(1), 681-693. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.25.02.2540
46. Özekenci, E. K. (2024). Assessment of the logistics performance index of OPEC countries with ENTROPY, CRITIC and LOPCOW-based EDAS methods. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 9(2), 260-279. https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2024.1339285
47. Özekenci E. K. (2025). Evaluation of the logistics performance index of OECD countries based on hybrid MCDM methods. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 47(1), 47-76. https://doi.org/10.14780/ muiibd.1469898
48. Öztürk, B. (2025). The Development Road Project (DRP): Transforming the nature of Türkiye-Iraq relations. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs, 29(2), 196-213.
49. Öztürkçü, N., & Aydemir, M. F. (2024). Hibrit çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile uluslararası hedef pazar seçimi: Ayakkabı sektörü üzerine bir uygulama. İKSAD. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14538319
50. Palu, R., & Hilmola, O.-P. (2023). Future potential of trans-caspian corridor: Review. Logistics, 7(39). https://doi.org/10.3390/ logistics7030039
51. Pehlivan, P., Aslan, A. I., David, S., & Bacalum, S. (2024). Determination of logistics performance of G20 countries using quantitative decision-making techniques. Sustainability, 16(5), 1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051852
52. Peng, X., & Huang, H. (2020). Fuzzy decision making method based on CoCoSo with critic for financial risk evaluation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(4), 695-724. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.11920
53. Rentschler, J., Reinhardt, A., Elbert, R., & Hummerl, D. (2025). The trans-caspian corridor–geopolitical implications and transport opportunities. Journal of Transport Geography, 125, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104211
54. Rodrigue, J. P., Comtois, C. & Slack, B. (2006). The geography of transport systems (6th ed.) Routledge.
55. Sarker, M., Hossin, M., Yin, X., & Sarkar, M. (2018) One belt one road initiative of China: Implication for future of global development. Modern Economy, 9(4), 623-638. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2018.94040
56. Senol, C., & Ucisik Erbilen, S. (2022). Analysis of the impact of the middle corridor on Türkiye in terms of geopolitics and economy in the OBOR initiative. Cografya Dergisi, 45, 161-180. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2022-1159338
57. Stević, Ž., Ersoy, N., Başar, E. E., & Baydaş, M. (2024). Addressing the global logistics performance index rankings with methodological insights and an innovative decision support framework. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10334. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210334
58. Stojanović, I., & Puška, A. (2021). Logistics performances of gulf cooperation council’s countries in global supply chains. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104174s
59. Summers, T. (2016). China’s ‘new silk roads’: sub-national regions and networks of global political economy. Third World Quarterly, 37(9), 1628–1643. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1153415
60. Tehrani, M. J., & Khavas, R.G. (2024). Analyzing the potential of the southern corridor in competition with China-Europe freight transport corridors using multi-criteria decision-making. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 22, 2283-2302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-024-01011-x
61. Ulutaş, A., & Karaköy, Ç. (2019). An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model 1. Economics and Business Review, 5(4), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2019.4.3.
62. World Bank (2023). The middle trade and transport corridor: policies and ınvestments to triple freight volumes and halve travel time by 2030. https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/middle-trade-and-transport-corridor
63. Yermekbayev, A., Delovarova, L., & Kaliyeva, A. (2024). Trans-caspian international transport route: A Kazakhstani perspective on challenges, opportunities, and prospects. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 79(2), 312-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702024125763
64. Yılmaz, S. (2020). Bir kuşak bir yol projesinin iktisadi kapasitesi ve Çin tarafından uygulanan borç diplomasisi. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (24), 631-648.
65. Yılmaz, S. (2020). Bir kuşak bir yol projesinin Azerbaycan, Kazakistan ve Türkiye’ye etkisi. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi. 16(32), 5274-5301. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.774914
66. Yılmaz, B. (2025). Determining The digitalization levels of leading countries in logistics performance index: An application with CRITIC-TOPSIS approach. Verimlilik Dergisi, 59(2), 433-452. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1541480
67. Yii, K.-J., Bee, K.-Y., Cheam, W.-Y., Chong, Y.-L., & Lee, C.-M. (2018). Is transportation infrastructure important to the one belt one road (OBOR) initiative? Empirical evidence from the selected asian countries. Sustainability, 10(11), 4131. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114131
68. Ying, Y. (2017, May 09). Backgrounder: Economic corridors under belt and road initiative http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/09/c_136268314.htm
69. Yürüyen, A. A., & Altay, H. (2025). Evaluating the logistics performance of one belt one road project countries with multi criteria decision making methods. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 12(2), 750-774. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1609904
70. Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036
71. Zhumanov, A., Kegenbekov, Z., & Tolujevs, J. (2024). Trans-caspian international transport route infrastructure assessment using simulation modelling. Transport and Telecommunication, 25(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2024-0002