IPARD desteklerinin süt üretimine etkisi: TR52 Bölgesi üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu araştırma ile IPARD programının TR52 bölgesinde desteklerden yararlanan süt üreticilerine ekonomik etkisini tespit etmek amaçlanmaktadır. Bizim tespitlerimize göre TR52 bölgesi için bu konuda yapılmış benzer bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Çalışmada 2019 yılı itibariyle Türkiye’de süt üretiminin en fazla olduğu il olan Konya ve Karaman illerinde 2011-2021 döneminde IPARD I-II programlarından destek alan 101 mevcut süt üreticisi işletme ile yüz yüze görüşme yoluyla anket yapılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler bağımsız örneklem t testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi ve Ki-Kare testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgulara göre, işletmelerin büyük bir kısmının geliri, üretimi, ölçek büyüklüğü, üretim verimliliği ve istihdam ettikleri kişi sayısı önemli ölçüde artmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• IPARD programı
• süt üreticileri
• TR52 bölgesi
• EU destekleri

Proje Numarası

Necmettin Erbakan University Scientific Research Project Coordination Unit 23YDR36001

The Economic Impact of IPARD Supports: A Quantitative Analysis on Milk Producers in TR52 Region

Öz

The purpose of this study is to investigate the economic impact of the IPARD program on dairy farmers in the TR52 region who benefit from these supports. The absence of similar studies conducted on this subject for the TR52 region makes this study unique. Our research involved conducting face-to-face interviews with 101 dairy farms that received support from the IPARD I-II programs during 2011-2021 in the TR52 provinces of Karaman and Konya, which had the highest milk production in Türkiye as of 2019. The data were analyzed using independent-samples t-tests, one-way analysis of variance, and chi-square tests. The economic conditions of businesses before and after receiving IPARD support were examined in terms of variables such as income, production, employment, and productivity. In addition, we also analyzed businesses' perceptions IPARD and their attitudes towards the future. According to the findings, the vast majority of businesses have achieved significant increases in their total revenue, production levels, scale of operations, efficiency, and number of employees. Morever, it has appeared that the businesses in question are generally satisfied with the IPARD program. Another finding of this study that has potentially important implications for the sustainability of Turkish rural development is that businesses are forced to employ foreign labor, a finding that supports the dual labor market theory.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : IPARD program
• dairy farmers
• TR52 region
• EU supports

Destekleyen Kurum

Necmettin Erbakan University Scientific Research Project Coordination

Proje Numarası

Necmettin Erbakan University Scientific Research Project Coordination Unit 23YDR36001

Teşekkür

This study was produced from the doctoral thesis titled “The Effect of Pre-Accession Assistance Instrument for Rural Development (IPARD) Supports on Milk Production: The Example of TR52 Region (Konya and Karaman Provinces)”.

Kaynakça

1. Alonso, W. (1981). Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. Population and Development Review, 7(3), 527-529. https://doi.org/10.2307/1972564
2. Asan, H. (2021). Evaluation of Holstein and Simmental farms in Burdur under the IPARD program in terms of yield and profitability. [PhD Thesis, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversity Institute of Health]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
3. Asoğlu, V. (2015). Economic analysis of the enterprises supported by rural development investsments program: Şanliurfa-Diyarbakır sample. [PhD Thesis, Harran Üniversity Institute of Sciences]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
4. Bakırcı, M. (2009). Avrupa Birliği Üyelik Öncesi Destek Fonu’nun (IPA*) Kırsal Kalkınma Bileşeni (IPARD**), Türkiye’nin Durumu ve Muhtemel Etkileri. Eastern Geography Journal, 14 (21), 53-78.
5. Bilici, İ. (2016). An economic analysis of dairy farms supported under the IPARD program, their utilization characteristics, and achievements from IPARD grants in Turkey. [PhD Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs University Institute of Sciences]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
6. Cypher, J. M. (2014). The Process of Economic Development, London: Routledge, 4. Baskı. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203080580
7. Çoban, O., Çoban, A., Kurt, D. B., & Akçil, K. (2019). Sectoral Effects Of Ipard Grant: Case Of Konya Mılkıng Sector. Selçuk University, Scientific Research Projects, Research Project.
8. De Janvry, A., Elisabeth, S., & Rinku, M.(2002). Rural Development and Rural Policy. Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 2, 1593-1658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0072(02)10013-2

9. Đurić, K. and Anton P. (2018). Challenges of Using the IPARD Program in Financing Agriculture and Rural Development. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Terms of The Republic of Serbia Strategic Goals Realization Within The Danube Region: Support Programs for The Improvement of Agricultural and Rural Development, Belgrade, Serbia, Thematic Proceedings ( pp. 318-333).
10. Geray, C. (1999). İşlendirme Açısından Kırsal Gelişme Yöneltilerimiz. Ankara University SBF Journal, 54(2), 61-100.
11. Gönel, F. D. (2010). Kalkınma Ekonomisi. Efil Publishing House, 1st Print, Ankara.
12. Gülçubuk, B., Köksal, Ö., Ataseven, Y., Gül, U., & Kan, M. (2016). Effects of Rural Development Supports at The National Level: Examing of Agriculture and Rural Development Support Institution (ARDSI)’s Projects. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 2(1), 32-41.
13. İnal, M. (2020). Effect of the supports within the scope of the IPARD programme on rural development: The case of Diyarbakır Province. [Master’s Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
14. Jović, V. (2025). Organization of financial management aimed at reducing financial crisis in the work of individual agricultural producers and IPARD in the Republic of Serbia. Ekonomija-teorija i praksa, 18(1), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.5937/etp2501027J
15. Koç, A. (2016). Ipard in funding rural development in Turkey on the path towards the EU. [PhD Thesis., Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
16. Kralık, I., Marković B., & Tolušić Z. (2011). Models for Predicting The Usage of IPARD Program Funds in The Republic of Croatia. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 7, 969-979.
17. Mbrıca, A. (2013). EU Pre-Accession Assistance in Agriculture and Rural Development: A Comparison Analysis of SAPARD and IPARD Programme in Slovenia and Macedonia. [PhD Thesis., Tuscia University].
18. Mısha, A., & Malaj, A.(2015). The Rural Development in Albanıa and The Farmers’ Incomes. In A Human Being in Space and Time–Anthropological Meeting at The Institute of History, University of Lodz Law and Economic Aspects, 3(2.800), 236.
19. Nelson, R. R. (2008). Economic Development from the Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Theory. Oxford Development Studies, 36(1), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810701848037
20. Oakley, P. & Garforth, C. (1985). Guide to Extension Training, Food & Agriculture Org.
21. Otten, J. (2013). Utopia Europa? Transition and Responses to EU Rural Development Initiatives in the Republic of Macedonia’s Tikveš Wine Region. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, 102(103), 76-92.
22. Özkul, G., & Bozkurt, A. A. (2020). TKDK Desteklerinin Bölgesel Kalkınmaya ve Firma Büyüme Performansına Etkisi: Isparta Örneği. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(3), 676-698.
23. Özyücel, M. (2018). The effect of national rural development funds on milk producers: Research for milk producers in Şarkıkaraağaç district. [PhD Thesis., Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
24. Radović, G., Subić, J., & Pejanović, V. (2024). Analysis of implementation of the IPARD II program in Serbia. Ekonomika poljoprivrede, 71(3), 1017-1031. https://doi.org/10.59267/ekoPolj24031017R
25. Ravensteın, E. G. (1885). The Laws of Migration. Royal Statistical Society.
26. Spalevıc, V., Zejak, D., Skatarıc, G., Mıjanovıc, D., & Dudıc, B. (2024). Transformative Pathways: Lessons Learned From IPARD Agricultural Machinery Modernization in Montenegro. AGROFOR International Journal, 9(3), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.7251/AGREN2403022S
27. Sümbüloğlu, V., & Sümbüloğlu, K. (2000). Sağlık Bilimlerinde Araştırma Yöntemleri. Hatipoglu Publishing, Ankara, 3rd Print,.
28. Şaşmaz, M. Ü., & Yayla, Y. E. (2018). Ekonomik kalkınmanın belirleyicilerinin değerlendirilmesi: Ekonomik faktörler. International Journal of Public Finance, 3(2), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.30927/ijpf.463825
29. Şerefoğlu, Ç. (2008). Analysis of the SAPARD_IPARD programme: a research on farms participating in IPARD. [PhD Thesis., Atatürk University Institute of Sciences]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
30. Toker, A. (2021). The role of the IPARD program in rural development and its evaluation in socio-economic terms: West Mediterranean example. [PhD Thesis., Isparta Applied Sciences University Institute of Graduate Education]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
31. Toma, S. G., Grigore, A. M., & Marinescu, P. (2014). Economic development and entrepreneurship. Procedia Economics And Finance, 8, 436-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00111-7
32. TUİK. (2024). Milk Production Statistics. https:// biruni. tuik. gov.tr/ il gosterge /?locale =tr (access date: 18.10.2024).
33. Vapa Tankosić, J., Prodanović, R., & Medović, V. (2023). Analysis of agri-environmental management practices and their implementation in the agricultural policies of the Republic of Serbia. Sustainability, 15(16), 12476. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612476
34. Zekic, S., Matkovski, B., & Kleut, Z. (2016). IPARD funds in the function of the development of the rural areas of the Republic of Serbia. Economic horizons, 18(2), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekonhor1602169Z