Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/JECS2020-0020   IUP :10.26650/JECS2020-0020    Tam Metin (PDF)

Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları

Emine TahsinFurkan Börü

Gelişmekte olan ülkeler grubu içinde yer alan Türkiye’de, hizmetler, sanayi ve tarım sektörlerinin yarattığı istihdam ve katma değerde, 2001 yılı sonrası dönemde önemli değişimler meydana gelmiştir. Meydana gelen bu değişimler, gelir dağılımı üzerinde de önemli etkiler yaratmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2006 ve 2018 arasındaki dönemde, Türkiye’de gerçekleşen bu yapısal dönüşüm sürecini bölgesel düzeyde analiz etmek ve bu yapısal dönüşüm süreci ile gelir eşitsizliği arasında bulunan ilişkileri incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, ilk olarak, 2006 ile 2018 yılları arasındaki dönemde, Türkiye’de gerçekleşen istihdam değişiminin NUTS-1 düzeyinde sektörel bazlı analizi, shifts share (pay değişim analizi) yöntemi kullanılarak yapılmıştır. İkinci aşamada ise, panel veri yöntemi yardımıyla, gelir eşitsizliği ile sanayi ve hizmet istihdamı arasındaki ilişkiler araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın ulaştığı ilk önemli sonuç, 2006 ile 2018 döneminde, Türkiye bölgelerinin sanayisizleşme sürecine eşlik eden hizmetleşme sürecine doğru bir yapısal dönüşüm geçirdiğidir. En fazla istihdam artışının hizmetler sektöründe yaşandığı bu dönemde, sanayi sektörü ikinci planda kalmıştır. Çalışmanın ulaştığı ikinci önemli sonuç, Türkiye’nin ilgili dönemde geçirdiği bu yapısal dönüşüm süreci ile gelir eşitsizliği arasında bulunan ilişki ile ilgilidir. 2006 ile 2018 yılları arasında, sanayi istihdamının gelir eşitsizliği verilerini belirleme gücünün zayıflamış, hizmet istihdamının ise kuvvetlenmiştir. Hizmet istihdamı, gelir eşitsizliğini artıran sonuçlara neden olmaktadır.

JEL Classification : O14 , O15 , R11 , O5
DOI :10.26650/JECS2020-0020   IUP :10.26650/JECS2020-0020    Tam Metin (PDF)

Structural Transformation, Income Inequality, and Employment Linkages in Turkey’s Regions

Emine TahsinFurkan Börü

During the post-2001 period of Turkey, the services, industry and agricultural sectors’ employment and value added share have undergone significant changes. The main purpose of this study is to investigate structuralist transformation at a regional level for Turkey and set up links between structural transformation and income inequality for the years between 2006 and 2018. In this context, primarily, sectoral shifts in employment share has been analysed by using shift share analysis at NUTS-1 level. Secondly, a fixed effects panel data model has been implemented for the analysis of linkages between income inequality and sectoral employment shares. The first conclusion is that, Turkey’s region has undergone structural transformation meanwhile deindustrialization is accompanied by tertiarisation. The greatest increase has been realised in the service employment share and the industry has become of secondary importance. The second main conclusion is related with the linkages between income inequality and sectoral employment shares. At NUTS-1 level, the relation between the industrial employment share and income inequality is found to be weak. Additionally, the share of service employment is found to be significant in determining income inequality data. Briefly the service employment share has consequences that have a negative impact on income equality.

JEL Classification : O14 , O15 , R11 , O5

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


During the post-2001 period of Turkey, it is observed that the services industry and agricultural sectors’ employment and value added share have undergone significant changes. As a matter of fact, these changes have had a detrimental effect on income inequality data. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the structural transformation process at a regional level for Turkey and set up links between structural transformation and income inequality for the years between 2006 and 2018. In doing so, recent empirical evidence that investigate the relation between sectoral shifts and income inequality will be considered. Especially after the 1990s, it is observed that patterns of structural transformation for the developing countries have consequences that are different from Kuznets’ hypothesis. Given that it would be suggested that shifts in sectoral employment share determine the path of structural transformation and income inequality dynamics differ from the traditional Kuznets’ inverse -Urelation. It is observed that in structurally developing countries’ shifts from agricultural employment to service employment is more common, whereas shifts from agricultural employment to manufacturing employment have stagnated. As a consequence of these, it is expected that deindustrialization and tertiarisation affect income inequality dynamics differently. It is clear that the manufacturing employment share has a positive effect on income inequality and Kuznets’ hypothesis is more likely found to be valid for the service sector’s employment share. Turkey is among the specific countries that has also gone structural transformation meanwhile deindustrialisation accompanies this structural transformation phase. As structural transformation and income inequality dynamics have been investigated for the post-2001 period, it is found that non-tradable sectors are more likely to affect the inequality and poverty rate. However, the relation between the sectoral employment share and income inequality at regional level need to be investigated in detail. In regard to these, it is suggested that at regional level structural transformation might have different dynamics. In this context, primarily, sectoral shifts in employment has been analysed by using shift share analysis at NUTS-1 level. The main evidence of the shift share analysis lead us to classify the structural transformation path of the regions and sectoral shifts related to the employment share. Secondly, a fixed effects panel data model was implemented for the empirical analysis of linkages between income inequality and sectoral employment shares. In doing so, the Gini coefficient, the share of the bottom 40 percent (D1-D4) and the ratio of non-poor have been estimated as income inequality data. The Gini coefficient and the D1-D4 income share data have been defined as dependent variables whereas sectoral employment share and household mean income and non-poor ratio have been utilised as dependent variables. It is assumed that the economy has either industry or service led growth and given that linkages between sectoral employment shares and income inequality have been estimated. The first conclusion is that, for the given period, Turkey’s region has gone structural transformation meanwhile deindustrialization is accompanied by tertiarisation. The greatest increase has been realised in the service employment share and the industry has become of secondary importance. Besides these, it could be suggested that the pattern of structural transformation is not homogenous at a regional level. Significantly shifts from the agricultural employment to the service employment could even become more important. Rather than there being an increase in the share of industry’s employment, stagnation in employment creation is suggested to be more critical. The second main conclusion of the analysis is related to the linkages between income inequality and the sectoral employment share. At NUTS-1 level during this period the relation between the industrial employment share and income inequality is found to be weak. Additionally, the share of service employment is found to be significant in determining income inequality data. The Gini coefficient has -U- relation with the service employment share and an opposite trend could be estimated for the D1-D4 income deciles. Briefly, the service sector’s employment share has consequences that have a negative impact on income equality. As a whole, the structural transformation of Turkey’s regions at NUTS-1 level indicate opposite trends from the traditional Kuznets’ inverse -U- hypothesis. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Ahluwalia, M. S. (1976). Inequality, poverty and development. Journal of Development Economics, 3(4), 307–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(76)90027-4 google scholar
  • Alisjahbana, A., Kim, K., Sen, K., Sumner, A., & Yusuf, A. (2020). “The developers dilemma” UNU-WIDER Working Paper Series, (2020-35). google scholar
  • Akıncı, M., Yılmaz, Ö., (2013). Türkiye’de sektörel istihdam ve bölgesel kalkınma ilişkisi: Shift – Share (değişim payı) analizi. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası,63(2), 25–51. google scholar
  • Anand, S.,& Kanbur, S.R. (1993). The Kuznets process and the inequality development relationship. Journal of Development Economics,40, 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(93)90103-T google scholar
  • Angeles, Luis (2010). An alternative test of Kuznets’ hypothesis. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 8(4), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-009-9117-4 google scholar
  • Bakır, E., Özçelik, E., Özmen, E. ve Taşıran, A.C (2017). Türkiye’de erken sanayisizleşme, M. Koyuncu, H. Mıhcı ve E. Yeldan (Ed.) Geçmişten Geleceğe Türkiye Ekonomisi içinde (s157–192). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Bayar, A. A. (2016). “The decomposition of regional income inequalities of Turkey” Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from: https.//www.aeaweb.org/conference/2016/retrieve.php?pdfid=1382,10.02. 2018 google scholar
  • Bayar, A. ve Günçavdı, Ö. (2018), “Türkiye’de sanayisizleşme ve yoksulluk ”, Efil Journal, 1(4), 36–71. google scholar
  • Baymul, C. & Sen, K. (2018). “Was Kuznets right? New evidence on the relationship between structural transformation and inequality.” ESRC GPID ResearchNetwork WorkingPaper. 10. google scholar
  • Baymul, C. & Sen, K. (2020). Was Kuznets right? New evidence on the relationship between structural transformation and inequality. The Journal of Development Studies, 56(9). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1702161 google scholar
  • Baymul, Ç., & Sen, K. (2019). Kuznets revisited: What do we know about the relationship between structural transformation and inequality?. Asian Development Review, 36(1), 136–167. https://doi.org/10.1162/adev_a_00126. google scholar
  • Bourguignon, F., & Morrisson, C. (1990). Income distribution, development and foreign trade: A cross-sectional analysis. European Economic Review, 34(6), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(90)90071-6 google scholar
  • Dastidar, A. (2012). Income distribution and structural transformation: Empirical evidence from developed and developing countries. Seoul Journal of Economics, 25(1), 25–56. google scholar
  • Dinç, Ç., & Haynes, K. (1999). Sources of regional ineffciency: An integrated shift-share, data envelopment analysis and input-output Approach? The Annals Of Regional Science,33, 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680050116 google scholar
  • Doğruel, F., & Doğruel, S. (2010). The deindustrialization of Istanbul. Munich PersonalRePEc Archive. Paper No. 27070. google scholar
  • Doğruel, F., ve Doğruel, S. (2017). Türkiye’de sanayileşme ve kriz. Koyuncu, M., Mıhcı, H., Yeldan, E. (Ed), Geçmişten geleceğe Türkiye ekonomisi içinde (s. 45–73). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Doğruel, F. ve Doğruel, S. (2018a). Türkiye’de yapısal ve teknolojik değişme. Engin, E., Aslanoğlu, O., Erdoğan, B., Karahasan, B. C., ve K. Tata (Ed), Türkiye ekonomisinde kalkınma ve dönüşüm Taner Berksoy’a armağan içinde (s. 267 – 286). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Doğruel, F. ve Doğruel, S. (2018b). Two phases of deindustrialızation policies in İstanbul. Marmara İktisat Dergisi, (2), 186-201. google scholar
  • Elburz, Z., & Gezici, F. (2012, August). Regional development policies and industrial employment change in Turkey: a shift share analysis (1992–2008). 52. In ERSA Congress (pp. 21-25). Bratislava. google scholar
  • Fabricant, S. (1942). Employment in manufacturing, 1899-1939: An analysis of its relation to the volume of production. National Bureau of Economic Research. New York.Felipe, J., & Mehta, A. (2016). Deindustrialization? A global perspective. Economics Letters,149, 148–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.10.038 google scholar
  • Felipe, J., Mehta, A., & Rhee, C. (2019). Manufacturing matters... but it’s the jobs that count. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 43(1), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex086 google scholar
  • Filiztekin, A. ve Çelik, M. A. (2010). “Regional income inequality in Turkey”, Megaron, 5(3), 116–127. Günçavdı, Ö., & Bayar, A. A. (2020). Structural transformation and income distribution in Turkey. In A.S. Akad & S. Gürsel (Eds.), Turkey at crossroad (pp.1–43.). London: World Scientific Publishing Co. google scholar
  • Haynes, K., & Dinç, Ç. (1997). Productivity change in manufacturing regions: A multifactor/shift-share approach. Growth and Change, 28(2), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.1997.tb00770.x google scholar
  • Herrendorf, B., Rogerson, R.,& Valentinyi, Á. (2014). Growth and structural transformation, In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (pp. 855–941). Amsterdam: Elsevier. google scholar
  • Kaldor, N. (1967). Strategic factors in economic development. Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press. google scholar
  • Kaplinsky, R. (2013). Global value chains, where they came from, where they are going and why this is important. IKD Working Paper, 68, 1–28. google scholar
  • Karaca, O. (2018). Türkiye’de bölgesel yakınsamanın 50 yılı: yeni veri seti ve 1960-2010 dönemi analizi”, Sosyoekonomi, 26, 207–228. google scholar
  • Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review,45(1), 1–28. google scholar
  • Kuznets, S. S. (1966). Modern Economic Growth. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. google scholar
  • Lavopa, A. (2015). Technology-driven structural change and inclusiveness. The role of manufacturing. Inclusive and Sustainable Development Working Paper Series WP 14/2015 Retrieved from: https://www.unido.org/api/opentext/documents/download/9923942/unido-file-9923942 google scholar
  • Lavopa, A., & Szirmai A. (2012). Industrialization, employment and poverty. UNU-MERIT Working Paper, 2012-081 Retrieved from:http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/abstract/?id=4831 google scholar
  • Markusen, A., Noponen, H. &Driessen, K. (1991). International trade, productivity, and U.S. regional job growth: A shift share interpretation. International Regional Science Review, 14(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769101400102 google scholar
  • Meçik, O. ve Afşar, M. (2014). Türkiye ekonomisinde yapısal dönüşümler ve işgücü piyasasındaki gelişmeler. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi,1(2).1–23. google scholar
  • Meçik, O. ve Aytun, U. (2018). Türkiye ekonomisinde erken sanayisizleşmeye bölgesel bir yaklaşım. METU Studies in Development, 45(1), 59 –81. google scholar
  • Mıhcı, H. (2015). Türkiye ekonomisinin sektörel dönüşüm sorunları, İktisat ve Toplum, (61),1–9. google scholar
  • Oyvat, C. (2010). How urbanization affects the inequality in developing countries: A critique of Kuznets Curve”, University of Massachusetts New School University Economics Graduate Student Workshop. google scholar
  • Palma, J. G. (2005). Four sources of ‘de-industrialization’ and a new concept of the ‘Dutch Disease’. In Ocampo J. A. (Ed.), Beyond reforms: Structural dynamics and macroeconomic vulnerability (pp.71–116). google scholar
  • Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press and the World Bank. google scholar
  • Ravallion, M., & Chen S. (2007). China’s (uneven) progress against poverty. Journal of Development Economics, 82(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.07.003 google scholar
  • Ravallion, M., & Datt G. (1996). How important to India’s poor is the sectoral composition of economic growth? The World Bank Economic Review,10(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/10.1.1 google scholar
  • Rodrik, D. (2013). Unconditional convergence in manufacturing. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1),165–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs047 google scholar
  • Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature de-industrialization. Journal of Economic Growth,21(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-015-9122-3S google scholar
  • chettkat, R., & Yocarini, L. (2006). The shift to services employment: A review of the literature. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,17(2),127 –147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2005.04.002 google scholar
  • Selim, R., Günçavdı, Ö. ve Bayar, A. A. (2014), “Household income inequality in Turkey: Functional income sources and regional ineqaulities,” TUSIAD Report, TÜSİAD-T/2014-6/554. google scholar
  • Stimson, R., Stough, R., & Roberts, B. (2006). Regional Economic Development. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer google scholar
  • Suryahadi, A, Suryadarma, D., & Sumarto, S. (2009). The effects of location and sectoral components of economic growth on poverty: evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Development Economics,89(1), 109–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.08.003 google scholar
  • Syrquin, M. (1988). Patterns of structural change. Handbook of Development Economics, 1, 203–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4471(88)01010-1 google scholar
  • Szirmai, A., & Verspagen, B. (2015). Manufacturing and economic growth in developing countries, 1950–2005.Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 34, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2015.06.002 google scholar
  • Tahsin, E. (2019). An investigation of the Palma Ratio for Turkey both on national and regional level. Sosyoekonomi, 27(41), 151 –182. google scholar
  • Tansever, S. S., ve Kent O. (2018). Earnings inequality in Turkey: A regional perspective. Marmara İktisat Dergisi,2(1), 117–136. google scholar
  • Taymaz, E. ve Voyvoda, E. (2017). Yapısal dönüşüm, sanayileşme ve sanayi politikaları: Küresel eğilimlerden Türkiye ekonomisine kısa bir gezinti. M. Koyuncu, H Mıhcı, A. E.ç Yeldan (Ed.), Geçmişten geleceğe Türkiye ekonomisi, (s. 11-44) .İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Timmer, M. P., Erumban, A. A., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & De Vries, G. J. (2014).Slicing up global value chains. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 28(2), 99 –118. DOI: 10.1257/jep.28.2.99 google scholar
  • Timmer, M., de Vries, G. J., & De Vries, K. (2015). Patterns of structural change in developing countries. In J. Weiss & M.Tribe (Eds), Routledge handbook of industry and development (pp.79–97), New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar
  • Tokatlıoğlu, İ. ve Atan, M (2007). Türkiye’de bölgeler arası gelişmişlik düzeyi ve gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği: Kuznets Eğrisi geçerli mi?. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 18(65), 25–58. google scholar
  • TUİK(2019). Gelir Dağılımı ve Yaşam Koşulları İstatistikleri, Retrieved from: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1011 google scholar
  • TUİK(2020).www.tuik.gov.tr UNCTAD (2017).The structural transformation process. trends, theory, and empirical findings. Virtual Institute Teaching Material on Structural Transformation and Industrial Policy Module 1. Retrieved from: https.//vi.unctad.org/stind/m1.pdf google scholar
  • UNIDO (2015). Industrial development report 2016: The role of technology and innovation in inclusive and sustainable industrial development. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Vienna, Retrieved from:https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2015-12/EBOOK_IDR2016_FULLREPORT_0.pdf google scholar
  • Van Neuss, L. (2018). Globalization and deindustrialization in advanced countries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 45, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2018.02.002 google scholar
  • Yeldan, E. (2008). Küreselleşme sürecinde Türkiye ekonomisi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2012). Panel veri ekonometrisi. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Yusuf A. , Sumner A. (2018). Poverty, Inequality and Jobs.How Does the Sectoral Composition of Employment Affect Inequality? UNU WIDER Conference ThinkDevelopment Think WIDER, 13-15 September 2018, Retrieved from https.//www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Events/PDF/Slides/ThinkDevConf-Yusyf-and Sumner.pdf google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Tahsin, E., & Börü, F. (2020). Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, 0(62), 91-121. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020


AMA

Tahsin E, Börü F. Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society. 2020;0(62):91-121. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020


ABNT

Tahsin, E.; Börü, F. Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 62, p. 91-121, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Tahsin, Emine, and Furkan Börü. 2020. “Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0, no. 62: 91-121. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020


Chicago: Humanities Style

Tahsin, Emine, and Furkan Börü. Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0, no. 62 (Jul. 2021): 91-121. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020


Harvard: Australian Style

Tahsin, E & Börü, F 2020, 'Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları', Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 62, pp. 91-121, viewed 26 Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Tahsin, E. and Börü, F. (2020) ‘Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları’, Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, 0(62), pp. 91-121. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020 (26 Jul. 2021).


MLA

Tahsin, Emine, and Furkan Börü. Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 62, 2020, pp. 91-121. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020


Vancouver

Tahsin E, Börü F. Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society [Internet]. 26 Jul. 2021 [cited 26 Jul. 2021];0(62):91-121. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020 doi: 10.26650/JECS2020-0020


ISNAD

Tahsin, Emine - Börü, Furkan. Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları”. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0/62 (Jul. 2021): 91-121. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0020



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim19.02.2020
Kabul10.08.2020
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma19.11.2020

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.