ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YÖNTEMLERİNDEN TOPSİS İLE AB ÜLKELERİNİN E-DEVLET PERFORMANSLARININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 101, 149 - 173

Seda Çankaya Kurnaz

https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1573330

Öz

Çağın en önemli dönüşüm süreçlerinden birini getiren dijital teknolojilerin, tüm sektörlerde olduğu gibi kamu yönetimi üzerinde de etkisi gün geçtikçe artmaktadır. Her ülkenin kendi dinamiklerine göre yürüttüğü dijital dönüşüm sürecinde Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkeleri arasında önemli farklılıklar söz konusudur. Avrupa Komisyonu 2030 yılına kadar dijital dönüşümünün sağlanması konusunda ortaya koyduğu politika ve stratejiler doğrultusunda ülkelerin dijital gelişimini teşvik etmektedir. Bu çalışma, 2016-2022 yılları AB üyesi ülkelerin E-devlet gelişimini belirlenen kriterler çerçevesinde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden olan TOPSİS ile değerlendirip karşılaştırma yapmak amacı doğrultusunda hazırlanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında 2016-2022 yılları arasında AB ülkelerinin E-devlet gelişimleri; BM E-devlet Gelişmişlik Endeksi, BM E-Katılım Endeksi, Eurostat bireylerin web siteleri aracılığı ile gerçekleştirdikleri E-devlet faaliyetleri ve Dünya Bankasının bireylerin internet kullanımına ilişkin istatistikleri olmak üzere dört kriter çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları; Finlandiya, Danimarka ve İsveç gibi Kuzey Avrupa ülkelerinin E-devlet gelişimi açısından en yüksek performansı sergilediğini; Romanya, Bulgaristan ve Polonya gibi bazı ülkelerin ise sıralamalarının oldukça düşük olduğunu göstermiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, dijital dönüşümün kaçınılmaz olduğu ve ülkelerin her geçen gün yeni gelişmeleri yönetimlerine adapte ettiği günümüzde, AB’nin ülkeler arasındaki dijital dengesizlikleri gidermek için dijitalleşme politikalarını yeniden gözden geçirmesi ve düşük performans gösteren ülkelere yönelik destek ve stratejileri artırması gerektiğini açıkça ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

AB, E-devlet, E-devlet Performansı, Politika, TOPSIS

Comparison of E-Government Performance of EU Countries with TOPSİS, A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods

Öz

Digital technologies, which bring one of the most important transformation processes of the age, are increasingly affecting public administration as well as all sectors. There are significant differences between European Countires (EU) the European Commission encourages the digital development of countries in line with the policies and strategies it has put forward to ensure digital transformation by 2030. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the E-government development of EU member countries between 2016-2022 within the framework of the determined criteria with TOPSIS, which is a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making method (MCDM). Within the scope of the study, the e-government developments of EU countries between 2016 and 2022 were evaluated within the framework of four criteria: the UN E-government Development Index, the UN E-Participation Index, Eurostat's e-government activities carried out by individuals through their websites, and the World Bank's statistics on individuals' internet use. The research results showed that Northern European countries such as Finland, Denmark and Sweden showed the highest performance in terms of E-government development, while some countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Poland had very low rankings. The findings clearly reveal that, in today's world where digital transformation is inevitable and countries adapt new developments to their management every day, the EU should reconsider its digitalization policies and increase support and strategies for low-performing countries in order to eliminate digital imbalances among countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

EU, E-government, E-government Performance, Policy, TOPSIS

Kaynakça

• Altınsoy, E., & Baki, R. (2023). OPEC üyesi ülkelerin TOPSİS tekniği aracılığıyla performans analizi. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,7(2), 224-238.
• Al-Shafi, S., & Weerakkody, V. (2009). Understanding citizens’ behavioural intention in the adoption of e-government services in the state of Qatar.[Conference presentation]. 17th European Conference on Information Systems UNDERSTA.
• Andreea, P. A. U. L., Popovici, A. C., & Călin, C. A. (2014). The attractiveness of CEE countries for FDI. A public policy approach using the TOPSIS method. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 10(42), 156-180.
• Ardielli, E., & Halásková, M. (2015). Assessment of e-government in EU countries. Acta Academica Karviniensia, 15(3), 5-17.
• Ardielli, E. (2019). Use of TOPSIS method for assessing of good governance in European Union countries. Review of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 211-231.
• Bagheri, M., Shojaei, P., & Khorami, M. T. (2018). A comparative survey of the condition of tourism infrastructure in iranian provinces using vıkor and topsıs. Decision Science Letters, 7(1), 87-102.
• Bao, Q., Ruan, D. Shen, Y., Hermans, E., & Janssens, D. (2012). Improved hierarchical Fuzzy TOPSIS for road safety performance evaluation, Knowledge-Based Systems, 32, 84-90.
• Björklund, F. (2016). E-government and moral citizenship: The case of Estonia. Citizenship Studies, 20(6-7), 914– 931.
• Can, A. (2012), Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile Samsun lojistik köyü yerinin belirlenmesi (Tez No. 346294) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Centeno, C., Van Bavel R., & Burgelman, J.C. (2005). A Prospective view of e-government in the european union. The Electronic Journal of E-Government, 3(2), 59–66.
• Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Shams, S.R. (2019). Triggering technological innovation through cross-border mergers and acquisitions: a micro-foundational perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 146, 148–166.
• Choudrie, J., Weerakkody, V., & Jones, S. (2005). Realising e‐government in the UK: Rural and urban challenges. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag., 18 (5), 568–585.
• Çankaya-Kurnaz, S., & Kurnaz, A. (2022). Major challenges for eu tourism policy. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Relationes Internationales, 15(1), 68-86.
• Çınaroğlu, E. (2022). Entropi destekli mabac yöntemi ile AB ülkeleri dijital dönüşüm performansı analizi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 12(Dijitalleşme), 18-34.
• Derse, O., & Yontar, E. (2020). SWARA-TOPSİS yöntemi ile en uygun yenilenebilir enerji kaynağının belirlenmesi. Endüstri Mühendisliği, 31(3), 389-419.
• Drechsler, W., & Madise, Ülle (2018). E-voting in Estonia. Trames, 6(56/51), 3, 234–244. Dumanoğlu, S. (2010). İMKB'de işlem gören çimento şirketlerinin mali performansının TOPSİS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F Dergisi, 29(2), 323-339.
• El Ammar, C., & Profiroiu, C. M. (2020). Innovation in public administration reform: a strategic reform through NPM, ICT, and e governance. A comparative analysis between Lebanon and Romania. Administration & Public Management Review, 35, 75-89.
• European Commission (2019a). E-government benchmark. https://app.overton.io/document.php?policy_document_id=europa59287891875c59d38aa18f05edb3a98f< [Erişim tarihi: 01.09.2024]
• European Commision (2019b). Digital government factsheets: Finland. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/Digital_Government_Factsheets_Finland_2019.pdf [Erişim tarihi: 10.09.2024]
• European Commission (2002). About e-government. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment_research/about_us/index_en.htm [Erişim tarihi: 01.09.2024]
• European Commission (2024a). EU digital strategy. https://eufordigital.eu/discover-eu/eu-digital-strategy/ [Erişim tarihi: 10.08.2024]
• European Commission (2024b). Digital tracking. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/horizontal-priorities/digitaltracking_en#digitalisation-of-businesses-and-pub [Erişim tarihi: 09.08.2024]
• Ferrarini, F., Muzzioli, S., & De Baets, B. (2024). A TOPSIS analysis of relic-servicesgional competitiveness at European level. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 34(7), 52-72.
• Geyik, O., Tosun, M., Ünlüsoy, S., Hamurcu, M., & Eren, T. (2016). Kitap basımevi seçiminde ahp ve TOPSİS yöntemlerinin kullanımı. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(6), 106-126.
• Gong, Z. T., & Shi, Z. H. (2008). The topsıs method based on covering rough sets. In Machine learning and cybernetics, 2008 International Conference on 4, (pp. 2430-2433). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2008.4620814
• Government of the Netherlands, (2016). Digital agenda for the Netherlands innovation, trust, acceleration. https://www.government.nl/topics/ict/ict-and-economy [Erişim tarihi: 10.08.2024]
• Institute of Digital Governance (2014). WASEDA-IAC 10th international e-government ranking. https://idg-waseda.jp/pdf/2014_E-Gov_Press_Release.pdf [Erişim tarihi: 10.08.2024]
• Kachwamba, M., & Hussein, A. (2009). Determinants of e-government maturity: do organizational specific factors matter? Journal of US-China Public Administration, 6 (7), 1–8.
• Kasprzyk, B. (2018). E-administration digital services in Poland. Nierówności społeczne a wzrost gospodarczy, (53), 308-319.
• Kristjan, V. (2017). Estonian e-government ecosystem: foundation, applications, outcomes https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/165711456838073531- 0050022016/original/WDR16BPEstonianeGovecosystemVassil.pdf [Erişim tarihi: 10.08.2024]
• Koç, H. (2021). Romanya’da e-devlet: uygulamalar ve sorunlar. İ. Karabıyık (Eds)., Ekonomi ve yönetim bilimleri çalışmaları içinde (ss. 203-228). Livre De Lyon.
• Kontogeorgis, G., & Varotsis, N. (2021). Reinstating greek e-governance: A framework for e-government benchmarking, improvement and government policies. Вопросы государственного и Муниципального управления., 6, 103–127.
• Lukomska-Szarek, J., Wójcik-Mazur, A., & Martynko, A. (2024). Evaluation of the budget management of local government units in Poland based on methods of multi-criteria analysis in 2019-2021. Lex localis-Journal of Local Self-Government, 22(2), 243-276.
• Maaten, E. (2004). Towards remote e-voting: Estonian case. Electronic Voting in Europe-Technology, Law. Politics and Society, 47, 83–100.
• Madanchian, M., & Taherdoost, H. (2023). A comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Sustainable Social Development, 1(1), 2220-2226.
• Nogueras-Iso, J., Latre-Abadia M. A., Muro-Medrano, P.R., & Zarazaga-Soria, F.J. (2004). Building e-government services over spatial data infrastructures, Electronic Government, 3183, 387–391.
• Nosratabadi S., Atobishi T., & Hegedűs S. (2023). Social sustainability of digital transformation: empirical evidence from EU-27 Countries. Administrative Sciences, 13(5), 1-18.
• OECD (2024). Digital government indeks. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/1a89ed5e-en.pdf?expires=1724677892&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=FD4580CCBB9BA41AAF09C279FE374EE4 [Erişim tarihi: 10.09.2024]
• Oyomno, G.Z. (2004). Towards a framework for assessing the maturity of government capabilities for E-Government, South. African J. Inf. Commun, 4, 77-97.
• Parisopoulos, K., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2007). Analyzing and comparing European e-government strategies. informatics and telematics institute. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229050529_Analyzing_and_Comparing_European_eGovernment_Strategies [Erişim tarihi: 20.09.2024]
• Paşaoğlu, D. (2017). Dünyada e-devlet uygulamaları. Güney, Y., & Okur, M.R. (Ed.). Bilgi toplumu ve e-devlet içinde (ss.90-111). Anadolu Üniversitesi.
• Raczkowska, M. H., Utzig, M., & Mikuła, A. (2023). Diversification of good governance in European Union countries using the TOPSIS method. Journal Of Modern Science, 53(4), 466-483.
• Saçak, R., Gür, Ş., & Eren, T. (2020). Maybelline super lock brow. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 335-346.
• Satı, Z. E. (2024). Comparison of the criteria affecting the digital innovation performance of the European Union (EU) member and candidate countries with the entropy weight-TOPSIS method and investigation of its importance for SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 1-20.
• Sezgin, M., Büyükipekçi M., & Kurnaz, A. (2021). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden TOPSİS ile turizm destinasyonlarının performanslarının değerlendirilmesi. Çetiner, H. (Ed), Alternatif turizm çalışmaları içinde (ss.86-114). İKSAD.
• The World Bank (2005). E-Strategies, monitoring and evaluation toolkits. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ict/resources.nsf/a693f575e01ba5f385256b500062af05/b3590b631857789885256f970057de12/$FILE/estrategiesToolkit_Jan2005.pdf [Erişim tarihi: 10.09.2024]
• Troitino, D. R., Mazur, V., & Kerikmäe, T. (2024). E-governance and integration in the European Union. Internet of Things, 2-11.
• United Nations (2024a). E-government development indeks. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/-E-Government-Development-Index [Erişim tarihi: 10.09.2024]
• United Nations (2024b). E-participation indeks. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation-Index [Erişim tarihi: 21.09.2024]
• UN & ASPA (2002). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective: Assessing the Progress of the UN Member States. New York.
• Vassil, K., Solvak, M., Vinkel, P., Trechsel, A. H., & Alvarez, R. M. (2016). The diffusion of internet voting. Usage patterns of internet voting in Estonia between 2005 and 2015. Government Information Guarterly, 33(3), 453-459.
• Vavrek, R., & Ardielli, E. (2018). TOPSIS as evaluation tool of e-government development in EU member states. In Proceedings of the 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts, (pp. 355-362) https://www.doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2018/1.2/S01.047
• Yue, Z. (2011). A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35(4), 1926–1936.
• Williams, I., Falch, M., & Tadayoni, R. (2019). Internationalization of e-government services. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8624828 [Erişim tarihi: 10.09.2024]
• Wimmer, M.A. (2002). A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1(1), 92–103.
• Zaimes, G. N., Kalampouka, K., & Emmanouloudis, D. (2012). The scope of e-government in the European Union and potential applications to the water framework directive. Sosyoekonomi, 17(1), 85-104.
• Zarali, F., Kılıçarslan, Z., & Dumrul, Y. (2024). AB ülkelerinin dijital dönüşüm performanslarının entropi tabanlı TOPSİS yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (69), 195-203.
• Zavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. M. (2016). Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems-An overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(03), 645-682.