Güç Unsurları Bağlamında Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı Ülkelerinin Performans Analizleri ve Akılcı Güç Noktasında Öneriler

Öz

Güç konusunda hızlanan dönüşüm, yeni güç unsurlarının ortaya çıkması ve Türk Dünyası bağlamında nicel güç performans analizlerinin yapılmamış olması bu makalenin başlıca problematikleridir. Bu doğrultuda Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı üyeleri; Azerbaycan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan, Özbekistan ve Türkiye için sert ve yumuşak güç unsurlarından hareketle performans değerlendirmesi amaçlanmıştır. Güç kavramındaki dönüşüme odaklanan teorik analizlerle güç kaynaklarına yönelik niceliksel analizlerin bir arada olduğu çalışmada; ülke performans analizleri; Çok Kriterli Karar Verme yöntemlerinden ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment) ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ulaşılan başlıca teorik sonuçlar; artık sert gücün tek başına yeterli olmadığı ve yenidünya şartlarında akılcı güç doğrultusunda yapılanmanın kaçınılmazlığı şeklindedir. Ülkelere yönelik güç performans değerlendirmeleriyle ulaşılan başlıca nicel sonuçlar ise; Türkiye dışındaki devletlerin yumuşak güç noktasında oldukça yetersiz olduğu, ayrıca bu ülkelerin soğuk savaş sonrası şartlara aykırı şekilde yumuşak değil de sert güç performansında daha iyi olduklarıdır. Oysaki günümüzde politik güç bağlamında ön plandaki strateji, yumuşak güce ağırlık verilmesidir. Tüm bunlar akılcı güç potansiyeli açısından önemli eksiklerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sert Güç
• Yumuşak Güç
• Akılcı Güç
• Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• ARAS Yöntemi

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF TURKIC STATES MEMBER COUNTRIES IN THE CONTEXT OF POWER ELEMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS IN TERMS OF SMART POWER

Öz

The main problematics of this article are the accelerated transformation in power, the emergence of new power elements, and the lack of quantitative power performance analyses in the context of the Turkic World. In this direction, it is aimed to evaluate the performance of the Organization of Turkic States member countries Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey, based on the elements of hard and soft power. This study focuses on the transformation in the concept of power. It combines theoretical and quantitative analyses for power resources, and country performance analysis was carried out with ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment), one of the effective Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods. The main theoretical results reached; that hard power alone is no longer sufficient, and in the new world conditions, structuring in line with smart power is inevitable. The main quantitative results reached by power performance evaluations for countries are; States other than Turkey are quite inadequate in soft power, and these countries are better in hard power performance than soft power, contrary to the post-cold war conditions. However, today, the strategy at the forefront of political power is to focus on soft power. All these are essential shortcomings in terms of smart power potential.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hard power
• Soft power
• Smart power
• Turkic World
• Multicriteria Decision Making
• ARAS Method

Kaynakça

1. AFDB (2011). https://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/africas-middle-class-triples-to-more-than-310m-over-past-30-years-due-to-economic-growth-and-rising-job-culture-reports-afdb-7986.
2. Brown, A.,Meriton, R., DEvinney, T., Kafouros, M., Gerardo, F.S., Bhandal, R. (2021). Migrant Human and Political Capitals Value In Entrepreneur Enterprise Performance A comparative study of four emerging markets. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 665–692.
3. Butler-Bowdan, T. (2018). Joseph S Nye, 50 Political Classics, Pegasus Publishing.
4. Chatin, M. (2016). Brazil: analysis of a rising soft power. Journal of Political Power, 9:3, 369-393.
5. Chatin, M. & Gallarotti, G.M. (2016). The BRICS and soft power: an introduction. Journal of Political Power, 9:3, 335-352.
6. Çalışır, H. (2020). Seeking a Solution to the Palestinian Deadlock: Germany-Turkey Mediation. Middle East Studies. 12-1, 48-81.
7. World Bank, (2018). https://data.worldbank.org/
8. Economics and Peace Institute, (2018). https://www.visionofhumanity.org/

9. Falkowski, J. (2019). The Political Power of Large-Scale Farmers and Land Inequality: Some Evidence from Poland. Sociologia Ruralis, 59: ‏178-202.
10. Gallorotti, G.M. (2015). Smart power: Definitions, Importance, and effectiveness. Social Research, 77:4, 1049-1074.
11. Gallorotti, G.M. , (2016). Compound soft power: the BRICS and the multilateralization of soft power. Journal of Political Power, 9:3467-490.
12. Gkinopoulos, T. (2020). Identity Entrepreneurship in Political Commemorations: A Longitudinal Quantitative Content Analysis of Commemorative Speeches by Leaders of Parties in Power and Opposition Before and During the Greek Economic Crisis. Journal of Social And Political Psychology, 8:2, 582-599.
13. Gron, C. H. ve Wivel, A. (2011). Maximizing Influence in the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty: From Small State Policy to Smart State Strategy. Journal of European Integration, 33:5, 523-539.
14. Harden, J.J., Sokhey, A.E., Wilson, H. (2019). Replications in Context: A Framework for Evaluating New Methods in Quantitative Political Science. Political Analysis, 27, 119–125.
15. Heng, Y.K. (2015). Smart Power and Japan’s Self-Defense Forces. Journal of Strategic Studies, 38:3, 282-308.
16. Hoan, P.V. & Ha, Y. (2021). ARAS-FUCOM approach for VPAF fighter air craft selection. Decision Science Letters, 10(1), 202, 53-62.
17. IMF. (2020). International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook. https://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php.
18. Kalkan E. & Kılıç E. (2019). The Soft Power Crisis in the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union: Example of Ukraine. Visioning, 3:5, 193-206.
19. Karabašević, D. Paunkovic, J., Stanujkic, D. (2016). Ranking of companies according to the indicators of corporate social responsibility based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Serbian Journal of Management, 11:1, 43-53.
20. Kavas, A. (2020). The fate of Confucius institutes in the Shadow of Covid 19. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/analiz/kovid-19-golgesinde-konfucyus-enstitulerinin akibeti/1839803.
21. Kazakhstan Statistical Committee, (2021). http://stat.gov.kz/.
22. Ma, R. & Yang, J. (2019). Research On The Identification Mechanism Of University Young Teachers’ Political Institutional Based On Binary Logistic Regression Analysis. Revista de cercetareși intervenție socială, 65, 248-259.
23. Makarovic, M. & Rek, M. (2014). Power and Influence-Based Political Participation in European Democracies. Sociologia, 46(6).
24. McInnes, C. & Rushton, S. (2012). Smart power? Health interventions for strategic effect in Iraq and Afghanistan. International Political Sociology, 6:3 328–331
25. Nye, J. (2008). Smart Power, Different Voice: A Conversation with Leadership Expert Joseph S Nye by C. Diane. Harvard Business Review, 86:11, 55-59.
26. Quinn, A. (2011). The United States after unipolarity: hard power in hard times: relative military power in an era of budgetary constrain. IDEAS reports, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
27. Orakçı, S. (2011). Global Competition in Africa and Turkey. Eurasian Studies. 40, 73-96.
28. Orth, M. (2018). Ten Starting points on Africa’s Future. https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/marshall-plan-with-africa-ten-starting-points-for-africas-future.
29. Oberg, P., Lundin, M., Thelander, J.(2014). Political Power and Policy Design: Why Are Policy Alternatives Constrained?. The Policy Studies Journal, 43:1
30. Parsons, T. (2012). On the Concept of Political Power. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107:3,232-262.
31. Patterson, W. R. (2008). Smart power in reunified Germany, Journal of Power, 1:3, 339-354.
32. Pery, M.J. (2007). Hollywood vs. Bollywood. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/hollywood-vs-bollywood/.
33. Raimzhanova, A. (2015). Power in IR: Hard, Soft and Smart. Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and the University of Bucharest.
34. Resnick, E. I (2015). Will Follow: Smart Power and the Management of War time Alliances. Journal of Strategic Studies, 38:3, 383-409.
35. Rutland, P. & Kazantsev, A. (2016). The limits of Russia’s ‘soft power. Journal of Political Power, 9:3, 395-413. Sepos, A. (2013). Imperial power Europe? The EU’s relations with the ACP countries. Journal of Political Power, 6:2, 261-287.
36. ST (Statistics Times). Projected GDP Ranking. IMF World Economic Outlook October (2020), https://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php.
37. State Statistics Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, (2021). https://stat.uz/.
38. Stuenkel, O. (2016). Do the BRICS possess soft power?. Journal of Political Power, 9:3, 353-367.
39. Şahin, İ.E. & Karacan, K.B. (2020). Financial Performance Analysis of Stock Istanbul Construction Index with Entropy-based COPRAS and ARAS methods. Journal of Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute. 44, 171-183.
40. Şahin, K. (2009). Ulus Devlet (Nation State). Yeni Yüzyıl Publication.
41. Şahin, K. (2011). Transformation in sovereignty, Reel sovereignty and Turkey Türk Yurdu, 291, 199-203.
42. Thussu, D.K. (2016). The soft power of popular cinema – the case of India. Journal of Political Power, 9:3, 415-429.
43. TenHouten, W. D. (2016). The emotions of powerlessness. Journal of Political Power, 9:1, 83–121.
44. Wilson, E. J. (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 110-124.
45. Woyo, E. & Slabbert, E. (2021). Tourism destination competitiveness: A view from suppliers operating in a country with political challenges. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 24:1.
46. Yilmaz A. N. & Kılıçoğlu G. (2017). The use of soft power by European Union and its positive impact on other countries. Bartin University I. B.F. Journal, 8: 15, 83-118.
47. YÖK Data Management System. (2021). https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/.
48. Zavadskas, E. K. & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multi criteria decision‐making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16:2, 159-172.
49. Zbíral, R. (2017). Comparing the intensity of scrutiny for ‘domestic’ and implementing bills: does transposition of EU law reduce political contestation in national parliaments?. Journal of European Public Policy, 24:7, 969-988.