ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE SELECTION OF THE SITE-LOCATION FOR HEALTH FREE ZONE IN TURKIYE

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze the factors affecting the location selection for Health Free Zone in Turkey if established. Since 1980’s various transformations are experienced in health sector worldwide with the effects of global neo-liberal policies. New products, new methods, and new markets are emerged. Health tourism and Health Free Zones (SASEB) are at the forefront of these developments. First, the health tourism entered the world agenda in 1990s, and since the 2000s, Health Free Zones have followed this trend. The Health Free Zone project attracts the attention of many countries that want to get a big share from the global health tourism market, to attract foreign direct investments (FDI), to benefit from technology transfer, to increase health quality and standards, to exchange information and experience, and to attract specialist physicians and health personnel. United Arab Emirates was the first country in the world to realize this project in 2002, and in the following years, China, South Korea, Indonesia and Nigeria started the implementation steps, and countries such as Turkey and India could not continue despite their rapid start. Although the Health Free Zone project, which came to the fore in Turkey in 2010, aroused great excitement in the whole country, the project could not be realized. With the change of the minister and senior bureaucrats of the period, the interest of the government in SASEB project decreased. Although attempts have been made by the private sector in various provinces, no results have been achieved until today. Methodology- In this study, an answer has been sought to the question of what are the factors that affect the selection of the location for SASEB. The study was conducted with a sample group consisting of those working in the health sector or related fields in Turkey. A total of 518 persons have participated in the study, in which a 5-point Likert scale and quantitative method was used. Parametric analyses were carried out with the data obtained from the remaining 491 individuals, after subtracting 27 units from the data, which hindered the normal distribution of the data. Frequency charts of demographic data belonging to the sample group were drawn by using SPSS v.23, and the obtained data were also subjected to t-test and ANOVA analysis. Findings- The analysis reveals that the majority of the sample group confirmed that Istanbul (89,6%), Izmir (88,4%), Antalya (87,3%) and Ankara (83,9%) were the most appropriate provinces for the SASEB project. The strategic situation of the location has a significant impact on the decision processes (92,3%), followed by other factors such as the availability of transportation facilities (91,7%) and the availability of airport facilty in the region (90,1%). Conclusion- Based upon the analyisis, it has been revealed that Istanbul is the most appropriate city for SASEB project, due to its sea, airport, road accessibility and other infrastructure possibilities, followed by İzmir

Keywords

• Health free zone
• sağlık serbest bölgesi
• medical tourism
• SASEB
• health tourism

References

1. Ağaoğlu, F. O., Karagöz, N., & Zabun, S. (2019). Sağlık Turizmi uygulamaları ve türkiye’ye getirilerine ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 428-450.
2. Dixit, A., Clouse, C., & Turken, N. (2019). Strategic business location decisions: Importance of economic factors and place image. Rutgers Business Review, 4(1).
3. EU. (2021). Free zones. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/free-zones_en
4. FATF. (2010). Money Laundering Vulnerabilities of Free Trade Zones. The Financial Action Task Force.
5. Güvenen, O. (2016). Transdisciplinary Science Methodology as a Necessary Condition in Research and Education. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.22545/2016/00080
6. ILO. (2003). Employment and Social Policy in Respect of Export Processing Zones (EPZs) (GB.286/ESP/3).
7. Kılıç, B., & Güler, E. G. (2021). Turist rehberlerinin arıcılık turizmine yönelik bilgi ve algı düzeylerinin tavsiye niyetine etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 10(4), 813-823.
8. Krugman, P. (1999). The role of geography in development. International Regional Science Review, 22(2), 142-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001799761012307

9. OECD. (2009). Towards Best Practice Guidelines for the Development of Economic Zones.
10. Salem, M. E., & Eknoyan, G. (1999). The Kidney in Ancient Egyptian Medicine: Where Does It Stand? American Journal of Nephrology, 19(2), 140-147. https://doi.org/10.1159/000013440
11. Tengilimoğlu, D. (2020). Sağlık Turizmi (3.baskı) Siyasal Kitabevi.
12. WCO. (2021). World Customs Organization. http://www.wcoomd.org/en/search.aspx?keyword=free+zone
13. WHO. (2021). Constitution of the World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
14. Yılmaz, C. (2011). Medikal Turizm Araştırması 2011 (2011. bs). Sağlık Bakanlığı.
15. Yılmaz, C. (2023). Türkiye ve Dünyada Sağlık Serbest Bölgesi Girişim ve Uygulamaları; Tarihsel Arka Plan, Kavramsal Çerçeve ve İhtiyaç Analizi [Doktora Tezi]. İstanbul Gedik Üniversitesi