This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Success in inclusive growth may vary between countries and even within their geographical regions. For this reason, while creating regional development policies in today's world, it has become inevitable to design policies that minimize inclusive growth differences. Based on this approach, inclusive growth indices were created in the context of Turkey NUTS Level 2 sub-regions for 2014 and 2021, taking McKinley's (2010) study as a reference to reveal the differences in inclusiveness between regions. Based on the indicators used by McKinley to create the inclusive growth index, 10 variables were determined for each sub-region, and based on these variables, the inclusive growth index was calculated for 2014 and 2021. As a result, the inclusive growth index for Turkey increased in 2021 compared to 2014. At the regional level, it was determined that the most inclusive region was TR10 (Istanbul) in 2014 and TR42 (Kocaeli, Sakarya, Düzce, Bolu, Yalova) in 2021, while the region with the worst inclusiveness in 2014 was TRB2 (Van, Muş, Bitlis, Hakkâri), and TRA2 (Ağrı, Kars, Iğdır, Ardahan) in 2021. Improvements and declines in inclusive growth performances in the relevant period differ on a regional basis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
BERBER et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: