Associating Digital Transformation, Financial Structures and Ecological Factors in Turkic Republics and EU Founding Countries: Performance Evaluation in terms of Sustainable Development

Öz

The use of natural resources and environmental degradation, which began with the Industrial Revolution, has reached new dimensions with the shift to technological innovation and the digital economy. Ensuring the sustainability of natural resources has become a global priority due to the increasing demand for raw materials. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), introduced by the United Nations in 2015, represent a universal call to end poverty, protect the planet, ensure ecological balance, and promote peace and prosperity for all by 2030. This study examines the relationship between digital transformation, financial structures, and ecological factors in the sustainable development processes of EU founding countries and Turkic Republics. By using data from 2010 to 2023, a Malmquist Productivity (MI) analysis was conducted with inputs (R&D expenditures, net domestic credit utilization, annual precipitation, and internet usage rate) and outputs (net national savings, labor force, energy use, and GDP). The results show that Turkey, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg achieved increased total factor productivity in sustainable development. However, Kazakhstan and Italy recorded efficiency scores below the threshold of "1," indicating a decline in total factor productivity performance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable Development
• Digital transformation
• Ecological Threat
• Malmquist Index.

Türki Cumhuriyetler ve AB Kurucu Ülkelerinde Dijital Dönüşüm, Finansal Yapılar ve Ekolojik Etkenlerin İlişkilendirilmesi: Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Açısından Performans Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Sanayi Devrimi ile birlikte artan doğal kaynak kullanımı ve doğa tahribatı, teknolojik inovasyon ve dijital ekonomiye geçişle çok daha farklı boyutlara ulaşmıştır. Hammaddeye yönelik yoğun talep karşısında, doğal kaynakların sürdürülebilirliğini güvence altına almak günümüzde tüm dünya ülkelerinin öncelikli gündemi haline gelmiştir. Bu bağlamda, Birleşmiş Milletler tarafından Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefleri (SKH) isimli evrensel bir eylem çağrısı yapılmıştır. 2015’te yapılan bu çağrı ile 2030 yılına kadar çevresel dengeyi sağlayıp dünyayı iklim değişikliğinden korumak ve gelir adaleti ile yoksulluğu sona erdirerek dünya ülkelerinde barışın ve refahın teminini sağlamak hedeflenmiştir. Bu hedefler, sürdürülebilirlik alanında atılan önemli bir adımı temsil etmektedir. Bu çerçevede hazırlanan bu çalışma AB kurucu ülkeleri ve Türki Cumhuriyetlerde sürdürülebilir kalkınma sürecinin dijital dönüşüm, finansal yapılar ve ekolojik etkenler arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışmada 2010-2023 yıllarına ait girdiler (araştırma ve geliştirme harcamaları, net yurtiçi kredi kullanım oranı, yıllık ortalama yağış oranı ve internet kullanan bireylerin oranı) ve çıktılardan (net ulusal tasarruflar, toplam işgücü, enerji kullanımı ve GSMH) oluşan değişkenler kullanılarak Malmquist Verimlilik (MI) analizi yapılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda Türkiye, Tacikistan Kırgızistan, Özbekistan, Hollanda ve Lüksemburg sürdürülebilir kalkınmada toplam faktör verimliliği artan ülkeler olarak tespit edilmiştir. Diğer yandan analize katılan ülkelerden Kazakistan ve İtalya’nın toplam faktör verimliliği “1” skorunun altında hesaplanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma
• Dijital dönüşüm
• Ekolojik Tehdit
• Malmquist İndeksi.

Kaynakça

1. Afonasova, M. A.; Panfilova, E. E.; Galichkina, M. A.; Ślusarczyk, B. (2019). Digitalization in economy and innovation: The effect on social and economic processes. Polish journal of management studies, 19(2), 22-32.
2. Afroz, R.; Muhibbullah, M. (2022). Dynamic linkages between non-renewable energy, renewable energy and economic growth through nonlinear ARDL approach: evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(32), 48795-48811.
3. Ahmedov, I. (2020). The impact of digital economy on international trade. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 5(4), 1-7.
4. Ahmet, Ö. Z. E. N. (Ed.). (2023). Dijital Dönüşüm ve Değişen Uygulamalar. Efe Akademi Yayınları.
5. Aksoy, A. D. (2014). Tüketimin dijitalleşmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tüketici-Pazar-Araştırma-Danışma Test ve Eğitim Merkezi Tüketici Yazıları IV, 46-64.
6. André, J. C. (2019). Industry 4.0: Paradoxes and conflicts. John Wiley & Sons.
7. Benghozi P.-J.; Salvador E.; Simon J.-P. (2021), “Strategies in the cultural and creative industries: static but flexible vs dynamic and liquid. The emergence of a new model in the digital age”, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, n. 174(2), 117-157.
8. Bilgiç, E.; Türkmenoğlu, M. A.; Koçak, A. (2020). Dijitalleşmenin lojistik yönetimi bağlamında incelenmesi. Akademik İzdüşüm Dergisi, 5(1), 56-69.

9. Bjurek, H., F. R. Førsund and L. Hjalmarsson. (1998). Malmquist Productivity Indexes: An Empirical Comparison. In R. Färe, S. Grosskopf and R. R. Russell (eds.), Index Numbers: Essays in Honour of Sten Malmquist. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10. Black, M. S.; Parry, I. W.; Zhunussova, K. (2023). Is the paris agreement working? a stocktake of global climate mitigation. International Monetary Fund.
11. Cane, R.; Steinbergs, K. (2022). The Role Of Dıgıtal Transformatıon In Creatıve Industrıes Companıes In Regıons. In Economic Science for Rural Development Conference Proceedings, 56, 424-434.
12. Caves, D. W.; Christensen, L. R.; Diewert, W. E. (1982). "The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity." Econometrica, 50(6), 1393–1414.
13. Coelli, T. J.; Rao, D. S. P.; O'donnell, C. J.; Battese, G. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. springer science & business media.
14. Çark, Ö. (2020). İşletmelerin dijital dönüşüm sürecinde “nesnelerin interneti” teknolojisinin etkisi. Turkish Studies-Economy, 15(3), 1247-1266.
15. Emrouznejad, A.; Thanassoulis, E. (2010). Measurement of productivity index with dynamic DEA. International Journal of Operational Research, 8(2), 247-260.
16. Firsova, A.; Chernyshova, G. (2020). Efficiency analysis of regional innovation development based on DEA Malmquist index. Information, 11(6), 23-48.
17. Green, H.; Facer, K.; Rudd, T.; Dillon, P.; Humphreys, P. (2005). Personalisation and digital technologies. Bristol: Futurelab.
18. Grosskopf, S. (2003). Some remarks on productivity and its decompositions. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 20, 459-474.
19. Horváthová, J.; Mokrišová, M. (2024). The Use of the Data Envelopment Analysis–Malmquist Approach to Measure the Performance of Digital Transformation in EU Countries. Economies, 12(11), 19-39.
20. Hu, W. (2024). Measuring The Efficiency of Green Development Enabled by Digital Economy in China's Provinces and Regions-Based on DEA Model and Malmquist Index. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 38, 66-75.
21. Hussain, A.H.M.B., Islam, M., Ahmed, K.J., Haq, S.M.A., Islam, M.N. (2021). Financial Inclusion, Financial Resilience, and Climate Change Resilience. In: Luetz, J.M., Ayal, D. (eds) Handbook of Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham.
22. Jones, N. (2018). How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world’s electricity. nature, 561(7722), 163-166.
23. Li, Y.; Solaymani, S. (2021). Energy consumption, technology innovation and economic growth nexuses in Malaysian. Energy, 232, 1-12.
24. Liu, X. X.; Liu, H. H.; Yang, G. L.; Pan, J. F. (2023). Productivity assessment of the real estate industry in China: a DEA-Malmquist index. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(3), 1243-1270.
25. Liu, X.; Zhang, S.; Bae, J. (2017). The nexus of renewable energy-agriculture-environment in BRICS. Applied energy, 204, 489-496.
26. Lv, C.; Song, J.; Lee, C. C. (2022). Can digital finance narrow the regional disparities in the quality of economic growth? Evidence from China. Economic Analysis and Policy, 76, 502-521.
27. O’Donnell, C. J.; Chambers, R. G.; Quiggin, J. (2010). Efficiency analysis in the presence of uncertainty. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 33, 1-17.
28. O’Donnell, C. J.; Fallah-Fini, S.; Triantis, K. (2017). Measuring and analysing productivity change in a metafrontier framework. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 47, 117-128.
29. Okumuş, S. (2023). Dijitalleşme ve Dini Pratikler: Bir Literatür Taraması. TAM Akademi Dergisi, 2(1), 101-122.
30. Pilege, E.; Plota, S.; Pilegis, G. (2020). Impact of digital technologies on development of creative industries. Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage, 10, 159-172.
31. Raihan, A.; Tuspekova, A. (2022). Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between economic growth, renewable energy use, forested area, and carbon emissions in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 15, 1-11.
32. Ray, S. C. (2004). Data envelopment analysis: theory and techniques for economics and operations research. Cambridge university press.
33. Rodríguez-Cornejo, V.; García-Valderrama, T.; Sánchez-Ortiz, J.; Cabrera-Monroy, F. (2024). R&D&I efficiency AS one OF the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) in Europe: Application of a dynamic model with network structure and Cumulative Divisional Malmquist index (CDMI). Expert Systems with Applications.
34. Sezen, H. K.; Eren Şenaras, A. (2022). "Dijitizasyon, Dijitalizasyon, Dijital Dönüşüm Kavramlarına İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme", Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 49-59.
35. Shen, G.; Yuan, Z. (2020). The effect of enterprise internetization on the innovation and export of Chinese enterprises. Economic Research Journal, 55(1), 33-48.
36. Shen, Y.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, X. (2023). Impact of digital technology on carbon emissions: Evidence from Chinese cities. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 1-17.
37. Song, Y.; Mei, D. (2022). Sustainable development of China's regions from the perspective of ecological welfare performance: analysis based on GM (1, 1) and the malmquist index. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(1), 1086-1115.
38. The Government of Japan (2021). The long-term strategy under the Paris Agreement.
39. Taşel, F. (2020). Dijitalleşmenin ticarete ve ekonomiye etkisi. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 8(2), 127-137.
40. Tehrani, R.; Mehragan, M. R.; Golkani, M. R. (2012). A model for evaluating financial performance of companies by data envelopment analysis: A case study of 36 corporations affiliated with a private organization. International Business Research, 5(8), 8-16.
41. Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European journal of operational research, 130(3), 498-509.
42. Vasylieva, T.; Lyulyov, O.; Bilan, Y.; Streimikiene, D. (2019). Sustainable economic development and greenhouse gas emissions: The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption, GDP, and corruption. Energies, 12(17), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12173289.
43. Xia, J.; Zhan, X.; Li, R. Y. M.; Song, L. (2022). The relationship between fiscal decentralization and China’s low carbon environmental governance performance: The malmquist index, an SBM-DEA and systematic GMM approaches. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1-10.
44. Yue, S.; Shen, Y.; Yuan, J. (2019). Sustainable total factor productivity growth for 55 states: An application of the new malmquist index considering ecological footprint and human development index. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 475-483.
45. Zhou, X.; Zhou, D.; Wang, Q.; u, B. (2019). How information and communication technology drives carbon emissions: A sector-level analysis for China. Energy Economics, 81, 380-392.