291
Ева Адыгезалова
РОЛЬ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНОГО КАПИТАЛА В ИННОВАЦИОННОМ
ОБЩЕСТВЕ
В статье говорится об информационном обществе, как о социальной структуре и
факторах, порождающих это общество. Кроме того, обсуждается интеллектуальный капитал
во всех его формах и проявлениях. Также в статье для уточнения понятия интеллектуальный
капитал рассматриваются понятия интеллектуальная собственность и человеческий капитал.
Определяются разница и общие признаки этих понятий.
Hevva Adygezalova
THE ROLE OF INTELECTUAL CAPITAL IN AN INNOVATIVE SOCIETY
The article refers to the information society as a social structure and factors that engender
this society. In addition, intellectual capital is discussed in all its forms and manifestations. Also in
the article to clarify the notion of intellectual capital, the concepts of intellectual property and
human capital are examined. The difference and general features of these concepts are determined.
NDU-nun Elmi Şurasının 19 oktyabr 2017-cı il tarixli qərarı ilə çapa
tövsiyyə olunmuşdur. (protokol № 02).
Məqaləni çapa təqdim etdi: İqtisad üzrə elmlər doktoru, professor A.Rüstəmov
292
NAXÇIVAN DÖVLƏT UNİVERSİTETİ.
ELMİ ƏSƏRLƏR, 2017, № 6 (87)
NAKHCHIVAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
SCIENTIFIC WORKS, 2017, № 6 (87)
НАХЧЫВАНСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ.
НАУЧНЫЕ ТРУДЫ, 2017, № 6 (87)
ELCHIN ZAMANOV
Nakhchivan State University
zamanlielcin@yahoo.com
EMIL ZAMANLI
La Sapienza University, Rome İtaly
zamanliemil@yahoo.com
UOT: 631
TURKEY'S RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Açar sözlər: Aqrar inkişaf, Türkiyə, İnkişaf layihələri və proqramları, KIIDP, Aqrar
siyaset, AB
Key words: Rural development, Turkey, Development Projects and Programs, RDISP,
Agricultural policies, EU
Ключевые слова: развитие сельских районов, Турция, проекты и программы
развития, RDISP, сельскохозяйственная политика, ЕС
Introduction
Rural development, which has been widely spoken of throughout the world for the last 25
years and is becoming more and more popular every day, is a process integrated with economic and
social goals to provide a better and safer environment for the people living in rural areas and to
transform the rural community. From here it is possible to see rural development as a process of
identifying problems by making analyzes and bringing about appropriate solutions for these
problems. This process is usually carried out within the framework of programs or projects aimed at
eliminating identified problems. In this context, in the last twenty-five years, there has been
increasing interest in such rural development programs and projects, and the fact that the
development of rural areas is as important as the development of urban and industrial areas is
accepted at the social level.
Rural development issue occupying the public opinion and the agenda of Turkey an increasing
steadily. Because rural areas are socially responsible for migration due to the population they cover and
the agricultural-based employment opportunities they create, due to the difference in development
between them and the urban areas. Also, especially in the process of integration into the European
Union, rural areas and the identification of problems in this area and finding concrete solutions to the
requirements of these issues has contributed the rural development is one of the most important agenda
item in Turkey. Therefore, studies on rural development in Turkey gained momentum and has been
enriched by developing existing policy towards this issue. In this regard, within the framework of
Turkey's obligations related to the acquis in the EU accession process, rural development policies and
measures to harmonize with the EU Common Agricultural Policy has started to be given a special
importance. As stated above, in rural development policies, which are usually implemented within the
framework of programs and projects, complementarity emerges in order to increase the effectiveness of
these policy instruments and to ensure that resources are used more efficiently. This concept is
essentially a recently emerged in Turkey's rural development policy and the work of ministries or
academic work has yet to take place at the desired level. However, complementarity between rural
development programs / projects has a key role in ensuring efficiency and resource competence, in
particular in the use of EU-funded rural development funds.
Rural Development in Turkey
Rural areas have a very important place in the socio-economic life of Turkey as much as the
day-to-day history, considering the population they are living in and the volume of employment
they produce and the volume of employment they create, particularly in agriculture. Although this
293
phenomenon of rural areas in Turkey has shown a tendency to decrease over time, rural areas and
their related issues still remain on the agenda of Turkey. Because, compared with other developed
Western countries, Turkey's rural areas have a larger share of population than the larger agricultural
production volume and potential (14, p.58). Nevertheless, when compared with the countries in
question, rural areas are characterized by difficulty in farming, low productivity, unemployment,
poverty and the need for state intervention, and these areas seem to be in need of significant
improvement in the current situation of Turkey's development (1, p.30)
Nevertheless, the definition of "rural area" as an important problem area for Turkey is
emerging. The definition of a single "rural area" that reflects the basic qualities of the rural area and
can be defined from qualitative-quantitative angles has not yet been established, and there are some
problems arising from this lack. Because, in the official documents such as the NRDS-I (National
rural development strategy) and the IPARD Program (Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance in
Rural Development), which will be examined below, the population threshold is adopted and the
population living in the province, district, borders and villages with a population below 20 thousand
is evaluated as rural population. Taking into account the OECD (The Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development) criteria for rural area classification, which sets more realistic
parameters than the TSI's rural area criteria, Turkey is at the top of the EU and OECD countries
along with Ireland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark in the context of ruralism.
Table 1: Population Developmental Cycle According to
Years in Turkey
Source: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist
In Turkey, the agricultural sector and the rural area are intertwined, and the vast majority of rural
inhabitants are working in the agricultural sector. According to the above-mentioned international
OECD classification, the fact that the rural population is high causes the proportion of those working in
the agricultural sector to be high. Indeed, according to TSI reports, 20.3% of those employed in Turkey
in 2015 work in the agricultural sector. In Turkey, non-agricultural employment opportunities in rural
areas are also very limited, and the agriculture sector is the only business area for the majority of rural
inhabitants. Labor participation rates in Turkey (LFPR) are higher in rural settlements than in cities,
compared to the fact that the number of women in the workforce is high. On the contrary, the
acceleration of the retirement of women from the workforce in rural areas causes the LFPR to
experience sharper declines in rural areas. This situation indicates that the subsistence production
structure, which mostly relies on female labor, is gradually being resolved. Approximately 62% of rural
workers in Turkey work in the agricultural sector. (3, p.7.)
Today, as in the rest of the world, there are also problems with rural areas in Turkey. These
are the following:
1) The low capacity of the non-agricultural sectors to receive the workforce to be separated
from agriculture, 2) The low level of education and vocational skills of the workforce, 3) Inefficient
Census years
Rural population
Urban population
TOTAL
NUMBER
(MILLION)
Number (Million) (%) Number (Million)
(%)
1927
10,3
75,8
3,3
24,2
13,6
1940
13,4
75,6
4,3
24,4
17,8
1950
15,7
75,0
5,2
25,0
20,9
1960
18,8
68,1
8,8
31,9
27,7
1970
21,9
61,6
13,6
38,4
35,6
1980
1985
25,0
56,1
19,6
43,9
44,7
23,7
47,0
26,8
53,0
50,0
1990
23,1
41,0
33,3
59,0
56,4
2000
23,8
35,1
44,0
64,9
67,8
2010
17,5
23,7
56,2
76,3
73,7
2011
17,3
23,2
57,3
76,8
74,7
2012
17,1
22,7
58,4
77,3
75,6
2013
6,6
8,7
70,0
91,3
76,6
2014
6,4
8,2
71,28
91,8
77,69