Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ’NİN ETKİNLİĞİNİN KAMU ÜNİVERSİTELERİ İLE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI: BİR VZA TEKNİĞİ UYGULAMASI

A Comparison Of The Effectivity Of The Cumhuriyet University With State Universities: An Applicatoin Of DEA Tecnique

Journal Name:

  • Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2007

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this study, it was compared that relative effectivity measurements of the state Universities with effectivity measurement results of the Cumhuriyet University by using DEA technique. In these calculations 53 state universities were used as a decided making unit. In the results of calculation, effective and ineffective universities were determined for 5 years. Technique and scale effectivities of the universities were determined. Resource wastes were determined of the universities. Ineffective sources were compared between all the state universities and Cumhuriyet University. When compared the effectivity of C.U. with effectivity of the other universities it was below of the average estimation and progressively going down during those 5 years. The effectivity of the C.U. was progressively going down. In effectiveness of the Turkish state universities were progressively falling down in accordance of the CCR model. In those 5 years, either average affectivity or the lowest effectivity was showed a progressive falling. It was appeared that ineffectiveness in the total performance was being common in all universities in Turkey during those 5 years, but the deepness of the ineffectiveness was reduced. In spite of these results, it was observed a progressive increase in ineffectiveness of the C.U.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada 2000-2005 yılları arasında VZA tekniği kullanılarak Kamu Üniversiteleri ile CÜ’nin etkinlik ölçüm sonuçları karşılaştırıldı. Bu hesaplamalarda 53 devlet üniversitesi karar verme birimi olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu KVB’lerin analizleri beş yıl için yapılmıştır. Hesaplamalar sonucunda beş yıl için etkin olan ve olmayan üniversiteler belirlendi. Üniversitelerin teknik ve ölçek etkinlikleri belirlendi. Üniversitelerin kaynak israfları belirlendi. Bu tüm üniversitelerin etkinsiz kaynaklar ile Cumhuriyet Üniversitesinin etkinsiz kaynakları karşılaştırıldı. CÜ etkinliği diğer Üniversite etkinliklerine göre beş yıl üst üste ortalamanın da altında kalarak sürekli kötü bir durum sergilemiştir. CÜ etkinliği gittikçe düşmektedir. CCR modeline göre Türk Kamu Üniversitelerinde etkinsizlik gittikçe artmaktadır. Etkinlik beş yıl içinde sürekli düşüş göstermiştir. Beş yıl boyunca Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin toplam performansındaki başarısızlık üniversitelere yayılmış fakat başarısızlık derinliği azalması gözlenmektedir. Buna karşın CÜ etkinsizliğinin derinliğinde artış gözlenmektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-cumhuriyet-universitesinin-etkinliginin-kamu-universiteleri-ile-karsilastirilmasi-bir-vza-teknigi-uygulamasi.pdf
  • 2
97-114
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. AYDEMİR, Zeynep (2002). “Bölgesel Rekabet Edebilirlik Kapsamında İllerin
Kaynak Kullanım Görece Verimlilikleri: Veri Zarflama Analizi
Uygulaması”. Uzmanlık Tezi
http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/aydemirz/verimlilik.pdf 41
2. AHN, Thi (1987). “Efficiency Related Issues in Higher Education: A Data
Envelopment Analysis Approach”, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at
Austin.
3. ARCELUS, F.J.; D.R. Coleman. (1995) “An Efficiency Review of University
Departments,” Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick,
mimeographed.
4. ATHANASSOPOULOS A., Shale, Etselle (1997) “Assessing the comparative
efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of data
envelopment analysis”. Education Economics,5(2), 117–134.
5. AVKIRAN, Necmi K. (2001) “Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of
Australian Universities through Data Envelopment Analysis”. Socio-
6. Economic Planning Sciences. 35, 57-80.
7. BABACAN, Adem (2006) “Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerde VZA Yöntemiyle
Verimlilik Analizi”. C.Ü.Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Doktora Tezi.
8. CHAPARRO F. Jimenez J, Smith P. (1997) “On the Role of Weight Restrictions in
Data Envelopment Analysis”. Journal of Productivity Analysis.8:215-230.
9. COELLI, Tim (1996) “Assessing the performance of Australian universities using
data envelopment analysis”. Mimeo. Center for Efficiency and Productivity
Analysis, University of New England
10. COOPER W.W, L.M Seiford, K. Tone (1999) “Data Envelopment Analysis”.
Kluwer Academic Publishers
11. COOPER W.W, L.M Seiford, J.Zhu (2004) “Handbook on Data Envelopment
Analysis”. Kluwer Academic Publishers
12. DUNDAR H, Darrell R. Lewis (1995) “Departmental productivity in American
universities: Economies of scale and scope” Economics of Education Review
V.14, 2 P.119-144
13. FORSUND Finn R.; Nikias Sarafoglou (2002) “On the Origins of Data
Envelopment Analysis”. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 17, 23–40.
14. JOHNES Geraint, Jill Johnes (1993) “Measuring the Research Performance of UK
Economics Departments: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis”.
Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 332-347
15. JENKINS, A.L (1991) “Using Data Envelope Analysis to Evaluate the Relative
Efficiency of Academic Departments”, Royal Military College, Kingston,
mimeo.
16. KISAER H, Çağla Karabacakoğlu. (2004) “Çukurova Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği
Fak. Performans Analizi”. MPM No:679.
17. KUTLAR A. Mahmut Kartal (2004) “Cumhuriyet Üniversitesinin Verimlilik
Analizi: Fakülte Düzeyinde VZA Yöntemi ile Bir Uygulama”. Kocaeli
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (8) 2: 49-79.
18. MCMILLAN, M.L., D. Debasish (1997) “The relative efficiencies of Canadian
universities: a VZA perspective”. Research paper No. 97-4, Department of
Economics, University of Alberta.
19. NORMAN, M. B, Stoker (1991) Data Envelopment Analysis: The Assessment of
Performance. John Wiley and Sons.
20. SHERMAN, H.D. (1984) “Data Envelopment Analysis as a New Manegerial Audit
Methodology- Test and Evaluation”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and
Theory.
21. SUSANNE Warning (2004) “Performance Differences in German Higher
Education: Empirical Analysis of Strategic Groups”. Cetre for European
Economic Reasearch. http://www.wiwi.uni-konstanz.de/forschergruppewiwi.
22. THANASSOULIS E.(2001). Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data
Envelopment Analysis: A Foundation Text with İntegrated Software,
Kuluwer Academic Publisher
23. TOMKINS, C; R. Gren (1988) “An Experiment in the Use of Data Envelopment
Analysis for Evaluating the Efficiency of UK University Departments of
Accounting”. Financial Accountability and Management 4:147- 64.
24. VASSILOGLOU, M; D Giokas, (1990) “A Study of The Relative Efficiency of
Bank Branches: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis”. Journal of
Operational Research Society.41:591-597

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com