Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

E-devlet Performanslarının SD Tabanlı Copras Yöntemi ile Analizi: G20 Ülkeleri Örneği

Year 2022, , 1004 - 1020, 16.10.2022

Furkan Fahri Altıntaş

https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1143706

Abstract

Özellikle büyük ekonomilere sahip olan ülkelerin e-devlet konusundaki stratejileri ve faaliyetleri küresel anlamda ekonomiyi ve ekonomi ile ilişkili olan diğer boyutları etkileyebilmektedir. Dolayısıyla büyük ekonomilere sahip olan ülkelerin e-devlet performanslarının ölçümü ve analizi büyük önem arz etmektedir. Bu kapsamda araştırmada, G20 grubunda yer alan ülke düzeyindeki 19 büyük ekonominin en son ve güncel olan 2020 yılı için E-Devlet Gelişim Endeksi (EGDI) bileşen değerleri üzerinden söz konusu ülkelerin e-devlet performansları SD (Standart Sapma) temelli COPRAS yöntemi ile ölçülmüştür. Araştırmada ilk olarak SD yöntemi ile ülkeler açısından en önemli EGDI bileşeninin ‘’Telekomünikasyon Altyapı Endeksi’’ olduğu belirlenmiştir. İkinci olarak SD temelli COPRAS yöntemine göre e-devlet performansı en fazla olan ilk üç ülkenin Güney Kore, İngiltere ve Avustralya, en az olan ilk üç ülkenin ise Hindistan, Endonezya ve Güney Afrika olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmada ayrıca ülkelerin ortalama e-devlet performansları ölçülmüş olup, söz konusu ortalama e-devlet performans değerinden fazla performansa sahip olan ülkelerin ABD, Almanya, Arjantin, Avustralya, Fransa, İngiltere, İtalya, Japonya, Kanada, Rusya ve Suudi Arabistan olduğu gözlenmiştir. Bu bulguya göre, ortalama e-devlet performans değerinin altında kalan ülkelerin küresel ekonomiye katkılarını artırmaları için e-devlet performanslarını artırmaları gerektiği değerlendirilmiştir. Üçüncü olarak yöntem açısından duyarlılık, ayırım ve korelâsyon analizlerine göre EGDI’nın SD temelli COPRAS yöntemi ile açıklanabileceği sonucuna erişilmiştir.

Keywords

E-devlet e-devlet performansı G20 ülkeleri SD SD temelli COPRAS

References

  • Akçakaya, M. (2017). E-devlet Anlayışı ve Türk Kamu Yönetiminde E-devlet Uygulamaları. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(3), 8-31.
  • Akpınar, M. E., & Özdil, T. (2022). Hotel Selection with Safe Tourism Certificates in Covid-19 Pandemic Using SWARA and Fuzzy COPRAS Methods. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2), 783-797.
  • Alhassan, U. (2022). E government and The Impact Of Remittances On New Business Creation in Developing Countries. Economic Change and Restructuring, 1-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-022-09418-z.
  • Aljarallah, S., & Lock, R. (2022). An Investigation into Sustainable e-Government in Saudi Arabia. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 18(1): 1-16.
  • Alkan, Ö., & Ünver, Ş. (2020). Türkiye’de E-Devlet Hizmetlerinin Kullanımını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Analizi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 34(4): 1431-1453.
  • Al-Sadiq, A. J. (2021). The Role of E-Government in Promoting Foreign Direct Investment Inflows. International Money Form-Working Paper(WP/21/8): 1-18.
  • Amoah, R. K., Nunoo, S., & Attachie, J. C. (2022). Selection of Optimal Locations for Electricity Generation Using Concentrated Solar Power Technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Energy Engineering, 10(1): 10-20.
  • Andersen, T. B. (2009). E-Government As An Anti-Corruption Strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21: 201–210.
  • Androniceanu, A., & Georgescu, I. (2021). E-Government in European Countries, a Comparative Approach Using the Principal Components Analysis. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2): 65-86.
  • Ardielli, E., & Halásková, M. (2015). Assessment of E-Government in EU Countries. Acta Academica Karviniensia, 15(3): 5-17.
  • Ay Türkmen, M., & Demirel, A. (2022). SWARA Ağırlıklı Bulanık COPRAS Yöntemi ile Tedarikçi Seçimi. Alanya Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 6(1): 1739-1756.
  • Ayçin, E. (2019). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme . Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
  • Aydın, Y. (2020). Yabancı Mevduat Bankalarının Performans Değerlendirmesinde SD ve COPRAS Yöntemlerinden Oluşan Hibrit Bir ÇKKV Modeli. Journal of Economics, Business & Political Studies, 7(2): 160-176.
  • Baqir, M., & Iyer, L. (2010). A Comparative Analysis of E-goverment Maturity in Select Countries Around The World. C. G. Reddick içinde, Comparative E-goverment (s. 3-22). Berlin: Springer.
  • Bathrinath, S., Saravana Kumar, P., Venkadesh, S., Suprriyan, S. S., Koppiahraj, K., & Bhalaji, R. A. (2022). A fuzzy COPRAS Approach for Analysing The Factors Affecting Sustainability in Ship Ports. Materials Today: Proceedings, 50: 1017–1021.
  • Baydaş, M., & Pamucar, D. (2022). Determining Objective Characteristics of MCDM Methods under Uncertainty: An Exploration Study with Financial Data. Mathematics, 10: 1-25.
  • Bolayır, B., & Keyifli, N. (2022). E-Devlet Uygulamalarının Yolsuzluk Üzerindeki Etkisinin Veri Zarflama Analizi Yöntemiyle İncelenmesi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 12(1): 1-18.
  • Bwalya, K. C., & Mutula, S. (2014). E-goverment: Implementation, Adoption and Synthesis in Developing Countries. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
  • Carter, L., Yoon, V., & Liu, D. (2022). Analyzing E-government Design Science Artifacts: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Information Management, 62: 1-13.
  • Castro, C., & Lopes, C. (2022). Digital Government and Sustainable Development. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13: 880–903.
  • Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2021). The Impact Of E Government on Transparency in the European Union: A Multivariate Analysis. Home Electronic Government, an International Journal Vol. 18, No. 1, 18(1): 105-118.
  • Çayalan, H., & Sadioğlu, U. (2021). E-Devlet Uygulamalarının Getirdiği Yenilik Algısının Kamu Çalışanlarında Sinizm Davranışlarına Etkisi: Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu Çalışanları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 36(2): 275-294.
  • Çilek, A. (2022). Entegre CRITIC-COPRAS Yaklaşımıyla Covid-19 Salgınının Borsa İstanbul Turizm Endeksinde İşlem Gören Şirketlerin Finansal Performansına Etkisi. Güncel Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1): 263-281.
  • Çoban, M. N. (2020). İnternet Kullanımının Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerine Etkisi: Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomileri Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(22): 57-73.
  • Delibaş, K., & Akgül, A. E. (2010). Dünyada ve Türkiye'de E-devlet Uygulamaları: Türkiye'de E-demokrasi ve E-katılım Potansiyellerinin Harekete Geçirilmesi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1): 101-144.
  • Demir, G., Özyalçın, T., & Bircan , H. (2021). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve ÇKKV Yazılımı ile Problem Çözümü. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Demirel, D. (2006). E-devlet ve Dünya Örnekleri. Sayıştay Dergisi(61): 83-118.
  • Dhaoui, I. (2021). E Government for Sustainable Development: Evidence from MENA Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00791-0.
  • Diakuolaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1994). Determining Objetive Weights in Multipl Criteria Problems: The CRITIC Method. Computer Ops Res, 27(1): 763-770.
  • Efendioğlu, A., & Sezgin, E. (2007). E-devlet Uygulamalarında Bilgi ve Paylaşım Güvenliği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(2): 219-236.
  • Ersoy, N. (2017). Measuring Corporate Sustainability Performance in The Rubber Coating Industry: An Integrated Multicriterion Framework. The Online Journal of Science and Technology, 7(4): 128-143.
  • Gençkaya, Ö. F., Gündoğdu, H. G., & Aytekin, A. (2021). Büyükşehir Belediyeleri Web Sitelerinin Yönetişim İlkeleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 16(3): 705–726.
  • Gigovič, L., Pamučar, D., Bajič, Z., & Milicevič, M. (2016). The Combination of Expert Judgment and GIS-MAIRCA Analysis for the Selection of Sites for Ammunition Depots. Sustainability, 8(232): 1-30.
  • Göktolga, O., Zeren, F., & Torun, A. (2021). E-Devlet - Şeffaflık İlişkisi: Avrupa Ülkeleri için Panel Veri Analizi. TRT Akademi, 6(12): 450-466.
  • Han, Y., Shao, X.-F., Tsai,, S.-B., & Fan, D. (2021). E-Government and Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence From Chinese Cities. Journal of Global Information Management, 29(6): 1-17.
  • Hariguna, T., Ruangkanjanases, A., & Sarmini . (2021). Public Behavior as an Output of E-Government Service:The Role of New Technology Integrated in E-Government and Antecedent of Relationship Quality. Sustainability, 13: 1-20.
  • Hartanto, D., Dalle, J., Akrim, A., & Anisah, H. U. (2021). Perceived Effectiveness of E-Governance As An Underlying Mechanism between Good Governance And Public Trust: A Case of Indonesia. Digital Policy, Regulation And Governance, s. 1-19. DOI:10.1108/DPRG-03-2021-0046.
  • Jati, H. (2011). Quality Ranking of E-Government Websites–PROMETHEE II Approach. International Conference on Informatics for Development 2011 (ICID 2011), (s. 39-45). Yogyakarta.
  • Jayashree, S., & Marthandan, G. (2010). Goverment to E-goverment to E-society. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(19): 2205-2210.
  • Kachwamba, M. (2011). Impact of E-Government on Transaction Cost and FDI Inflows: A Proposed Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11): 285-296.
  • Kaliappen, N., Ghani, A. B., Jermsittiparsert, K., Makassar, M., & Harakan, A. (2021). Can A E-goverment Proctices and Easy of Doing Business Ensure Higher Inward Foreign Direct Investment? A Panel Study of Asean Region. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(S1): 1-11.
  • Keskin , İ. (2020). COPRAS Yöntemi. M. Atan, & Ş. Altan içinde, Örnek Uygulamalarla Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemileri (s. 147-159). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Khan, G. F., Moon, J., Rhee, C., & Rho, J. J. (2010). E-goverment Skill Identification and Development Towards A Stage Based Used-Centric Approach for Devoloping Countries. Asia Pasific Journal of Information Systems, 20(1): 1-31.
  • Kim, K., & An, J. (2022). Corruption as a Moderator in the Relationship between E-Government and Inward Foreign Direct Investment. Sustainability, 14: 1-21.
  • Krishna, B., & Sebastian, M. P. (2021). Examining The Relationship Between E-Government Development, Nation’s Cyber Security Commitment, Business Usage And Economic Prosperity: A Cross Country Analysis. Information and Computer Security, 29(5): 737-760.
  • Lee, K., Choi, S. o., Kim, J., & Jung, M. (2018). A Study on the Factors Affecting Decrease in the Government Corruption and Mediating Effects of the Development of ICT and E-Government—A Cross-Country Analysis. Journal of Open Innovation:Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(41): 1-20.
  • Long, Q., & Song, K. (2021). Operational Performance Evaluation of E-government Microblogs Under Emergencies Based on a DEA Method. Information Systems Frontiers, s. 1-18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10171-3.
  • Lopatkova, Y., Agbozo, E., & Belyaeva, Z. (2019). Exploring The Relationship between E-Government And Sustainable Development. XIV International Conference Russian Regions in the Focus of Changes, (s. 80-88). Ekateringburg.
  • Masoomi , B., Sahebi, I. G., Fathi, M., Yıldırım, F., & Ghorbani, S. (2022). Strategic Supplier Selection for Renewable Energy Supply Chain Under Green Capabilities (fuzzy BWM-WASPAS-COPRAS approach). Energy Strategy Reviews, 40: 1-17.
  • Mishra, A. R., Liu, P., & Rani, P. (2022). COPRAS Method Based on Interval-Valued Hesitant Fermatean Fuzzy Sets and Its Application in Selecting Desalination Technology. Applied Soft Computing, 119: 1-17.
  • Mouna, A., Nedra, B., & Khaireddine, M. (2020). International Comparative Evidence of E-Government Success and Economic Growth: Technology Adoption as an Anti-Corruption Tool. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 14(5): 713-736.
  • Mukhametzyanov, I. Z. (2021). Specific Character of Objective Methods for Determining Weights of Criteria in MCDM Problems: Entropy, CRITIC, SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2): 76-105.
  • Nam, H., Nam, T., Oh, M., & Choi, S. (2022). An Efficiency Measurement of E-Government Performance for Network Readiness: Non-Parametric Frontier Approach. Journal of Open Innovation:Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8: 1-19.
  • Nam, T. (2018). Examining The Anti-Corruption Effect Of E-Government And The Moderating Effect of National Culture: A Cross-Country Study. Government Information Quarterly, 35: 273–282.
  • Nguyen, N.-A.-T., Wang, C.-N., Dang, L.-T.-H., Dang, L.-T.-T., & Dang, T.-T. (2022). Selection of Cold Chain Logistics Service Providers Based on a Grey AHP and Grey COPRAS Framework: A Case Study in Vietnam. Axioms, 11: 1-24.
  • Othman, M. H., Razali, R., & Faidzul, M. (2020). Key Factors for E-Government towards Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(6): 2864 - 2876.
  • Öksüzkaya, M., & Yaşar, Z. R. (2022). Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’nin 2016 – 2020 Yılları Arası Makroekonomik Performansının ARAS ve COPRAS Yöntemleri ile Karşılaştırılması. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1): 171-198.
  • Özdagoğlu, A., Öztaş, G. Z., Keleş, M. K., & Genç, V. (2022). A Comparative Bus Selection for Intercity Transportation with An Integrated PIPRECIA & COPRAS-G. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10: 993–1004.
  • Parlakkılıç, A., Şahin, A., & Ünalan, N. (2021). Türkiye'de Yapılan E-Devlet Akademik Çalışmalarının E-Devletin Gelişimine Etkisi. Türk İdare Dergisi(492): 293-330.
  • Pedawi, S., & Alzubi, A. (2022). Effects of E-Government Policy on the Management of Healthcare Systems. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 1-9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5736530.
  • Rahman, A. (2022). Revisiting the Relationship between E-Government and Corruption: An Empirical Investigation. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 9: 1-16. Sadik-Zada, E. R., Gatto, A., & Niftiyev, I. (2022). E-government and Petty Corruption In Public Sector Service Delivery. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2022.2067037.
  • Sahooa, S. K., & Choudhury, B. B. (2022). Optimal Selection of An Electric Power Wheelchair Using An Integrated COPRAS and EDAS Approach Based on Entropy Weighting Technique. Decision Science Letters, 11: 21-34.
  • Saraçoğlu, F. (2015). G20 Antalya Liderler Bildirgesi ve Matrah Aşındırma ve Kar Aktarımı (BEPS) Eylem Planı. Mali Çözüm, 25(131): 73-88.
  • Sarıçoban, K., Kösekahyaoğlu, L., & Erkan, B. (2017). G20 ÜlkelerininTeknoloji Yoğunluklarına Göre İhracat Rekabet Güçlerinin Belirlenmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(11): 594-609.
  • Satyanarayana, J. (2004). E-goverment: The Science of The Possible. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
  • Shaaban, S. M. (2021). Groundwater Assessment Using Feature Extraction Algorithm Combined with Complex Proportional Assessment Method and Standard Deviation. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 14(2): 306-313.
  • Sherif, S., Asokan, P., Sasikumar, P., Mathiyazhagan, K., & Jerald, J. (2022). An Integrated Decision Making Approach for The Selection Of Battery Recycling Plant Location Under Sustainable Environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330: 1-19.
  • Signore, O., Chesi, F., & Pallotti, M. (2005). E-goverment Challanges and Opportunities. CMG Italy-XIX Annual Confererence, (s. 1-16). Florence.
  • Siskos, E., Askounis, D., & Psarras, J. (2021). Multicriteria Decision Support For Global E-Government Evaluation. Omega, 46: 51–63.
  • Şahin, M. (2021). Location Selection by Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods Based on Objective And Subjective Weightings. Knowledge and Information Systems, 63: 1991–2021. United Nations. (2020). E-goverment Survey 2020. New York: United Nations Publication.
  • Vavrek, R., & Ardielli, E. (2018). TOPSIS As Evaluation Tool Of E-government Development in EU Member States. 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM (s. 355-362). Sofia: SGEM International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts.
  • Xiang, Z., Naseem, M. H., & Yang, J. (2022). Selection of Coal Transportation Company Based on Fuzzy SWARA-COPRAS Approach. Logistics, 6: 1-15.
  • Yuan, Y., Xu, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The DEMATEL–COPRAS Hybrid Method Under Probabilistic Linguistic Environment And Its Application in Third Party Logistics Provider Selection. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 21: 137–156.
  • Zavadskas, E. K., & Kaklauskas, A. (1996). Systemotechnical Evaluation of Buildings (Pastatų sistemotechninis įvertinimas). Vilnius: Technika, 280 p. (in Lithuanian).
  • Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Peldschus, F., & Turskis, Z. (2007). Multi-Attribute Asessmnet of Road Design Solutions By Using The COPRAS Method. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 2(4): 195-203.
  • Zhang, Y., & Kimathi, F. A. (2022). Exploring The Stages Of E-Government Development From Public. Technology in Society, 69: 1-11.
  • Zhu, X., Yang, J., Zhang, Q., & Li, F. (2011). Empirical Study on Evaluating E-Government In Promoting Local Tourism Based onFuzzy TOPSIS. International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (s. 1-4). Shanghai: IEEE.

Analysis of E-government Performances by SD-Based Copras Method: Case of G20 Countries

Year 2022, , 1004 - 1020, 16.10.2022

Furkan Fahri Altıntaş

https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1143706

Abstract

In particular, strategies and activities of countries with large economies on e-government can affect the global economy and other dimensions related to the economy. Therefore, measurement and analysis of e-government performances of countries with large economies is of great importance. In this context, in research, e-government performances of 19 major economies at the country level in G20 group were measured with the SD (Standard Deviation) based COPRAS method over the latest and current E-Government Development Index (EGDI) component values for 2020. In research, firstly, it was determined that the most important EGDI component for countries was the "Telecommunication Infrastructure Index" with SD method. Secondly, according to SD-based COPRAS method, it was found that first three countries with the highest e-government performance were South Korea, England and Australia, while first three countries with the lowest e-government performance were India, Indonesia and South Africa. In research, average e-government performance of countries was also measured, and it was observed that countries with higher performance than average e-government performance value were USA, Germany, Argentina, Australia, France, England, Italy, Japan, Canada, Russia and Saudi Arabia. According to this finding, it has been evaluated that countries that are below average e-government performance value should increase their e-government performance in order to increase their contribution to global economy. Thirdly, in terms of method, it was concluded that EGDI can be explained by SD-based COPRAS method according to sensitivity, discrimination and correlation analyses.

Keywords

E-government e-government performance G20 countries SD SD-based COPRAS

References

  • Akçakaya, M. (2017). E-devlet Anlayışı ve Türk Kamu Yönetiminde E-devlet Uygulamaları. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(3), 8-31.
  • Akpınar, M. E., & Özdil, T. (2022). Hotel Selection with Safe Tourism Certificates in Covid-19 Pandemic Using SWARA and Fuzzy COPRAS Methods. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2), 783-797.
  • Alhassan, U. (2022). E government and The Impact Of Remittances On New Business Creation in Developing Countries. Economic Change and Restructuring, 1-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-022-09418-z.
  • Aljarallah, S., & Lock, R. (2022). An Investigation into Sustainable e-Government in Saudi Arabia. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 18(1): 1-16.
  • Alkan, Ö., & Ünver, Ş. (2020). Türkiye’de E-Devlet Hizmetlerinin Kullanımını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Analizi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 34(4): 1431-1453.
  • Al-Sadiq, A. J. (2021). The Role of E-Government in Promoting Foreign Direct Investment Inflows. International Money Form-Working Paper(WP/21/8): 1-18.
  • Amoah, R. K., Nunoo, S., & Attachie, J. C. (2022). Selection of Optimal Locations for Electricity Generation Using Concentrated Solar Power Technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Energy Engineering, 10(1): 10-20.
  • Andersen, T. B. (2009). E-Government As An Anti-Corruption Strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21: 201–210.
  • Androniceanu, A., & Georgescu, I. (2021). E-Government in European Countries, a Comparative Approach Using the Principal Components Analysis. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2): 65-86.
  • Ardielli, E., & Halásková, M. (2015). Assessment of E-Government in EU Countries. Acta Academica Karviniensia, 15(3): 5-17.
  • Ay Türkmen, M., & Demirel, A. (2022). SWARA Ağırlıklı Bulanık COPRAS Yöntemi ile Tedarikçi Seçimi. Alanya Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 6(1): 1739-1756.
  • Ayçin, E. (2019). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme . Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
  • Aydın, Y. (2020). Yabancı Mevduat Bankalarının Performans Değerlendirmesinde SD ve COPRAS Yöntemlerinden Oluşan Hibrit Bir ÇKKV Modeli. Journal of Economics, Business & Political Studies, 7(2): 160-176.
  • Baqir, M., & Iyer, L. (2010). A Comparative Analysis of E-goverment Maturity in Select Countries Around The World. C. G. Reddick içinde, Comparative E-goverment (s. 3-22). Berlin: Springer.
  • Bathrinath, S., Saravana Kumar, P., Venkadesh, S., Suprriyan, S. S., Koppiahraj, K., & Bhalaji, R. A. (2022). A fuzzy COPRAS Approach for Analysing The Factors Affecting Sustainability in Ship Ports. Materials Today: Proceedings, 50: 1017–1021.
  • Baydaş, M., & Pamucar, D. (2022). Determining Objective Characteristics of MCDM Methods under Uncertainty: An Exploration Study with Financial Data. Mathematics, 10: 1-25.
  • Bolayır, B., & Keyifli, N. (2022). E-Devlet Uygulamalarının Yolsuzluk Üzerindeki Etkisinin Veri Zarflama Analizi Yöntemiyle İncelenmesi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 12(1): 1-18.
  • Bwalya, K. C., & Mutula, S. (2014). E-goverment: Implementation, Adoption and Synthesis in Developing Countries. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
  • Carter, L., Yoon, V., & Liu, D. (2022). Analyzing E-government Design Science Artifacts: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Information Management, 62: 1-13.
  • Castro, C., & Lopes, C. (2022). Digital Government and Sustainable Development. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13: 880–903.
  • Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2021). The Impact Of E Government on Transparency in the European Union: A Multivariate Analysis. Home Electronic Government, an International Journal Vol. 18, No. 1, 18(1): 105-118.
  • Çayalan, H., & Sadioğlu, U. (2021). E-Devlet Uygulamalarının Getirdiği Yenilik Algısının Kamu Çalışanlarında Sinizm Davranışlarına Etkisi: Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu Çalışanları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 36(2): 275-294.
  • Çilek, A. (2022). Entegre CRITIC-COPRAS Yaklaşımıyla Covid-19 Salgınının Borsa İstanbul Turizm Endeksinde İşlem Gören Şirketlerin Finansal Performansına Etkisi. Güncel Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1): 263-281.
  • Çoban, M. N. (2020). İnternet Kullanımının Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerine Etkisi: Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomileri Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(22): 57-73.
  • Delibaş, K., & Akgül, A. E. (2010). Dünyada ve Türkiye'de E-devlet Uygulamaları: Türkiye'de E-demokrasi ve E-katılım Potansiyellerinin Harekete Geçirilmesi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1): 101-144.
  • Demir, G., Özyalçın, T., & Bircan , H. (2021). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve ÇKKV Yazılımı ile Problem Çözümü. Ankara: Nobel.
  • Demirel, D. (2006). E-devlet ve Dünya Örnekleri. Sayıştay Dergisi(61): 83-118.
  • Dhaoui, I. (2021). E Government for Sustainable Development: Evidence from MENA Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00791-0.
  • Diakuolaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1994). Determining Objetive Weights in Multipl Criteria Problems: The CRITIC Method. Computer Ops Res, 27(1): 763-770.
  • Efendioğlu, A., & Sezgin, E. (2007). E-devlet Uygulamalarında Bilgi ve Paylaşım Güvenliği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(2): 219-236.
  • Ersoy, N. (2017). Measuring Corporate Sustainability Performance in The Rubber Coating Industry: An Integrated Multicriterion Framework. The Online Journal of Science and Technology, 7(4): 128-143.
  • Gençkaya, Ö. F., Gündoğdu, H. G., & Aytekin, A. (2021). Büyükşehir Belediyeleri Web Sitelerinin Yönetişim İlkeleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 16(3): 705–726.
  • Gigovič, L., Pamučar, D., Bajič, Z., & Milicevič, M. (2016). The Combination of Expert Judgment and GIS-MAIRCA Analysis for the Selection of Sites for Ammunition Depots. Sustainability, 8(232): 1-30.
  • Göktolga, O., Zeren, F., & Torun, A. (2021). E-Devlet - Şeffaflık İlişkisi: Avrupa Ülkeleri için Panel Veri Analizi. TRT Akademi, 6(12): 450-466.
  • Han, Y., Shao, X.-F., Tsai,, S.-B., & Fan, D. (2021). E-Government and Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence From Chinese Cities. Journal of Global Information Management, 29(6): 1-17.
  • Hariguna, T., Ruangkanjanases, A., & Sarmini . (2021). Public Behavior as an Output of E-Government Service:The Role of New Technology Integrated in E-Government and Antecedent of Relationship Quality. Sustainability, 13: 1-20.
  • Hartanto, D., Dalle, J., Akrim, A., & Anisah, H. U. (2021). Perceived Effectiveness of E-Governance As An Underlying Mechanism between Good Governance And Public Trust: A Case of Indonesia. Digital Policy, Regulation And Governance, s. 1-19. DOI:10.1108/DPRG-03-2021-0046.
  • Jati, H. (2011). Quality Ranking of E-Government Websites–PROMETHEE II Approach. International Conference on Informatics for Development 2011 (ICID 2011), (s. 39-45). Yogyakarta.
  • Jayashree, S., & Marthandan, G. (2010). Goverment to E-goverment to E-society. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(19): 2205-2210.
  • Kachwamba, M. (2011). Impact of E-Government on Transaction Cost and FDI Inflows: A Proposed Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11): 285-296.
  • Kaliappen, N., Ghani, A. B., Jermsittiparsert, K., Makassar, M., & Harakan, A. (2021). Can A E-goverment Proctices and Easy of Doing Business Ensure Higher Inward Foreign Direct Investment? A Panel Study of Asean Region. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(S1): 1-11.
  • Keskin , İ. (2020). COPRAS Yöntemi. M. Atan, & Ş. Altan içinde, Örnek Uygulamalarla Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemileri (s. 147-159). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Khan, G. F., Moon, J., Rhee, C., & Rho, J. J. (2010). E-goverment Skill Identification and Development Towards A Stage Based Used-Centric Approach for Devoloping Countries. Asia Pasific Journal of Information Systems, 20(1): 1-31.
  • Kim, K., & An, J. (2022). Corruption as a Moderator in the Relationship between E-Government and Inward Foreign Direct Investment. Sustainability, 14: 1-21.
  • Krishna, B., & Sebastian, M. P. (2021). Examining The Relationship Between E-Government Development, Nation’s Cyber Security Commitment, Business Usage And Economic Prosperity: A Cross Country Analysis. Information and Computer Security, 29(5): 737-760.
  • Lee, K., Choi, S. o., Kim, J., & Jung, M. (2018). A Study on the Factors Affecting Decrease in the Government Corruption and Mediating Effects of the Development of ICT and E-Government—A Cross-Country Analysis. Journal of Open Innovation:Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(41): 1-20.
  • Long, Q., & Song, K. (2021). Operational Performance Evaluation of E-government Microblogs Under Emergencies Based on a DEA Method. Information Systems Frontiers, s. 1-18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10171-3.
  • Lopatkova, Y., Agbozo, E., & Belyaeva, Z. (2019). Exploring The Relationship between E-Government And Sustainable Development. XIV International Conference Russian Regions in the Focus of Changes, (s. 80-88). Ekateringburg.
  • Masoomi , B., Sahebi, I. G., Fathi, M., Yıldırım, F., & Ghorbani, S. (2022). Strategic Supplier Selection for Renewable Energy Supply Chain Under Green Capabilities (fuzzy BWM-WASPAS-COPRAS approach). Energy Strategy Reviews, 40: 1-17.
  • Mishra, A. R., Liu, P., & Rani, P. (2022). COPRAS Method Based on Interval-Valued Hesitant Fermatean Fuzzy Sets and Its Application in Selecting Desalination Technology. Applied Soft Computing, 119: 1-17.
  • Mouna, A., Nedra, B., & Khaireddine, M. (2020). International Comparative Evidence of E-Government Success and Economic Growth: Technology Adoption as an Anti-Corruption Tool. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 14(5): 713-736.
  • Mukhametzyanov, I. Z. (2021). Specific Character of Objective Methods for Determining Weights of Criteria in MCDM Problems: Entropy, CRITIC, SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2): 76-105.
  • Nam, H., Nam, T., Oh, M., & Choi, S. (2022). An Efficiency Measurement of E-Government Performance for Network Readiness: Non-Parametric Frontier Approach. Journal of Open Innovation:Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8: 1-19.
  • Nam, T. (2018). Examining The Anti-Corruption Effect Of E-Government And The Moderating Effect of National Culture: A Cross-Country Study. Government Information Quarterly, 35: 273–282.
  • Nguyen, N.-A.-T., Wang, C.-N., Dang, L.-T.-H., Dang, L.-T.-T., & Dang, T.-T. (2022). Selection of Cold Chain Logistics Service Providers Based on a Grey AHP and Grey COPRAS Framework: A Case Study in Vietnam. Axioms, 11: 1-24.
  • Othman, M. H., Razali, R., & Faidzul, M. (2020). Key Factors for E-Government towards Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(6): 2864 - 2876.
  • Öksüzkaya, M., & Yaşar, Z. R. (2022). Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’nin 2016 – 2020 Yılları Arası Makroekonomik Performansının ARAS ve COPRAS Yöntemleri ile Karşılaştırılması. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1): 171-198.
  • Özdagoğlu, A., Öztaş, G. Z., Keleş, M. K., & Genç, V. (2022). A Comparative Bus Selection for Intercity Transportation with An Integrated PIPRECIA & COPRAS-G. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10: 993–1004.
  • Parlakkılıç, A., Şahin, A., & Ünalan, N. (2021). Türkiye'de Yapılan E-Devlet Akademik Çalışmalarının E-Devletin Gelişimine Etkisi. Türk İdare Dergisi(492): 293-330.
  • Pedawi, S., & Alzubi, A. (2022). Effects of E-Government Policy on the Management of Healthcare Systems. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 1-9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5736530.
  • Rahman, A. (2022). Revisiting the Relationship between E-Government and Corruption: An Empirical Investigation. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 9: 1-16. Sadik-Zada, E. R., Gatto, A., & Niftiyev, I. (2022). E-government and Petty Corruption In Public Sector Service Delivery. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2022.2067037.
  • Sahooa, S. K., & Choudhury, B. B. (2022). Optimal Selection of An Electric Power Wheelchair Using An Integrated COPRAS and EDAS Approach Based on Entropy Weighting Technique. Decision Science Letters, 11: 21-34.
  • Saraçoğlu, F. (2015). G20 Antalya Liderler Bildirgesi ve Matrah Aşındırma ve Kar Aktarımı (BEPS) Eylem Planı. Mali Çözüm, 25(131): 73-88.
  • Sarıçoban, K., Kösekahyaoğlu, L., & Erkan, B. (2017). G20 ÜlkelerininTeknoloji Yoğunluklarına Göre İhracat Rekabet Güçlerinin Belirlenmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(11): 594-609.
  • Satyanarayana, J. (2004). E-goverment: The Science of The Possible. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
  • Shaaban, S. M. (2021). Groundwater Assessment Using Feature Extraction Algorithm Combined with Complex Proportional Assessment Method and Standard Deviation. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 14(2): 306-313.
  • Sherif, S., Asokan, P., Sasikumar, P., Mathiyazhagan, K., & Jerald, J. (2022). An Integrated Decision Making Approach for The Selection Of Battery Recycling Plant Location Under Sustainable Environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330: 1-19.
  • Signore, O., Chesi, F., & Pallotti, M. (2005). E-goverment Challanges and Opportunities. CMG Italy-XIX Annual Confererence, (s. 1-16). Florence.
  • Siskos, E., Askounis, D., & Psarras, J. (2021). Multicriteria Decision Support For Global E-Government Evaluation. Omega, 46: 51–63.
  • Şahin, M. (2021). Location Selection by Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods Based on Objective And Subjective Weightings. Knowledge and Information Systems, 63: 1991–2021. United Nations. (2020). E-goverment Survey 2020. New York: United Nations Publication.
  • Vavrek, R., & Ardielli, E. (2018). TOPSIS As Evaluation Tool Of E-government Development in EU Member States. 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM (s. 355-362). Sofia: SGEM International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts.
  • Xiang, Z., Naseem, M. H., & Yang, J. (2022). Selection of Coal Transportation Company Based on Fuzzy SWARA-COPRAS Approach. Logistics, 6: 1-15.
  • Yuan, Y., Xu, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The DEMATEL–COPRAS Hybrid Method Under Probabilistic Linguistic Environment And Its Application in Third Party Logistics Provider Selection. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 21: 137–156.
  • Zavadskas, E. K., & Kaklauskas, A. (1996). Systemotechnical Evaluation of Buildings (Pastatų sistemotechninis įvertinimas). Vilnius: Technika, 280 p. (in Lithuanian).
  • Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Peldschus, F., & Turskis, Z. (2007). Multi-Attribute Asessmnet of Road Design Solutions By Using The COPRAS Method. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 2(4): 195-203.
  • Zhang, Y., & Kimathi, F. A. (2022). Exploring The Stages Of E-Government Development From Public. Technology in Society, 69: 1-11.
  • Zhu, X., Yang, J., Zhang, Q., & Li, F. (2011). Empirical Study on Evaluating E-Government In Promoting Local Tourism Based onFuzzy TOPSIS. International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (s. 1-4). Shanghai: IEEE.
There are 77 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Furkan Fahri Altıntaş 0000-0002-0161-5862

Publication Date October 16, 2022
Submission Date July 14, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022

Cite

APA Altıntaş, F. F. (2022). E-devlet Performanslarının SD Tabanlı Copras Yöntemi ile Analizi: G20 Ülkeleri Örneği. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 1004-1020. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1143706

Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY NC) ile lisanslanmıştır.