ANALYSIS OF THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND SOCIETY INDEX (DESI) THROUGH A CLUSTER ANALYSIS

Öz

OBJECTIVE: This study has two main goals. The first one aims to determine how the European Union countries are clustered according to The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020 data. The second one aims to determine whether there is a similarity between the DESI cluster of the European Union countries and the social welfare regime classification. METHODS: In the research, the cluster method was used in accordance with DESI 2020 data. RESULTS: Technological and digital investments and initiatives of countries have clustered the European Union countries in 4 different groups. The countries clustered according to DESI data are shaped for investments and spending for digitalization within the scope of sub-dimensions of DESI. In this context, the welfare regimes applied by the countries affect the spending for digitalization. CONCLUSIONS: According to The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020 data has proved that there is a similarity between the classification of the European Union countries according to their welfare regimes and digitalization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• digital economy
• desi
• welfare regimes
• european union

DİJİTAL EKONOMİ VE TOPLUM ENDEKSİNİN (DESI) KÜMELEME ALGORİTMASİ İLE ANALİZİ

Öz

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın iki temel amacı bulunmaktadır. İlki, Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin Dijital Ekonomi ve Toplum Endeksi (DESI) 2020 verilerine göre nasıl kümelendiğini belirlemek. İkincisi, Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin DESI kümelenmesi ile refah rejimi sınıflandırması arasında bir ilişki olup olmadığını tespit etmek. YÖNTEM: Araştırmada DESI 2020 verilerine göre kümeleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. BULGULAR: Ülkelerin teknolojik ve dijital yatırım ve girişimleri, Avrupa Birliği ülkelerini 4 farklı grupta toplamıştır. DESI verilerine göre kümelenen ülkeler, DESI'nin alt boyutları kapsamında dijitalleşme için yatırım ve harcamalara göre şekillenmektedir. Bu bağlamda ülkelerin uyguladığı refah rejimleri dijitalleşme harcamalarını etkilemektedir. SONUÇLAR: Dijital Ekonomi ve Toplum Endeksi (DESI) 2020 verilerine göre Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin refah rejimlerine göre sınıflandırılması ile dijitalleşme arasında benzerlik olduğu kanıtlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dijital ekonomi
• desi
• refah rejimleri
• avrupa birliği

Kaynakça

1. Başol, O. and Yalçın, E. C (2020). How Does the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Affect Labor Market Indicators in EU Countries?. Human Systems Management. 39. 1 - 10. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-200904
2. Carlsson, B. (2004). The Digital Economy: what is new and what is not?. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 15. 245-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2004.02.001 Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2020
3. DESI (2020). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Thematic Chapters. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67086 Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2020
4. DESI (2020a). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index Report 2019 – Connectivity. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60010 Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2020
5. DESI (2020b). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Methodological Note. Retrieve from: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67082 Erişim Tarihi: 01.11.2020
6. DESI (2020c). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index Report 2019 – Human Capital Digital Inclusion and Skills. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=59976 Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2020
7. DESI (2020d). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Use of internet services. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67075 Erişim Tarihi: 15.11.2020
8. DESI (2020e). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Integration of digital technology. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67076 Erişim Tarihi: 152.11.2020

9. DESI (2020f). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Cybersecurity. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67080 Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2020
10. DESI (2020g). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Emerging Technologies. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67081 Erişim Tarihi: 22.11.2020
11. DESI (2020h). European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Digital Public Services. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67084 Erişim Tarihi: 17.11.2020
12. EC (2020). European Commission. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/861987/Shaping_Europes_Digital_Future_en.pdf.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2020
13. EC (2020a). European Commission. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-shaping-europes-digital-future-feb2020_en_4.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 1911.2020
14. EIB [European Investment Bank] (2020). Who is prepared for the new digital age? Evidence from the EIB Investment Survey. EIB Report. Retrieve From: https://www.eib.org/attachments/efs/eibis_2019_report_on_digitalisation_en.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2020
15. Ertz, M. & Boily, E. (2019). The Rise of The Digital Economy: Thoughts on Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrencies for The Collaborative Economy. International Journal of Innovation Studies. 3(4), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2019.12.002
16. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17. Fenger, H. J. M. (2007). Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating postcommunist countries in a welfare regime typology. Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences, 3(2), 1-30.
18. Furniss, N. & Tilton, T. A. (1977). The Case for the Welfare State. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19. Lauzadyte-Tutliene, A., Balezentis, T., Goculenko, E. (2018). Welfare State in Central and Eastern Europe. Economics and Sociology. 11(1). 100-123. https://doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-1/7
20. Leibfried, S. (1992). Towards a European Welfare State? On Integrating Poverty Regimes into the European Community. In: Social Policy in a Changing Europe, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes. Journal of European Social Policy. 2(3). 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/095892879200200301
21. OECD (2014). Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy. OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264218789-en
22. Powell, M. & Barrientos, A. (2011). An Audit of the Welfare Modelling Business. Social Policy & Administration. 45: 69-84. https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2010.00754.x
23. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital ‘Prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture. 10(1). 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673
24. Saint-Arnaud, S., & Bernard, P. (2003). Convergence or Resilience? A Hierarchical Cluster Analysis of the Welfare Regimes in Advanced Countries. Current Sociology, 51(5). 499–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030515004
25. Tatlıdil, H. (1992). Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Analiz. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
26. Titmuss, R. (1958). Essays on the Welfare State, London: Allen and Unwin Publications.
27. Tokatlıoğlu, S., ve Yalçın, E. C. (2019). Girişimci Davranışa İlişkin Bireysel Algılar: GEM Verileriyle Kümeleme Analizi. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Social Sciences, 3(1). 1-19. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiasos.2019.205.1