Regional Differences And Development Agencies

Regional development differences in Turkey cause significant social, environmental and economic problems. Development differences among regions are an important issue in different scale for all countries. Many countrieshave been facing problems caused by regional development differences because of the fact that they cannot sustain a growth performance equally distributed to all regions. Therefore, in order to minimize regional differences and success equally distributed growth, countries are in pursuit of new approaches one of which is Regional Development Agencies (RDA). Especially because of globalization after 1980’s, regional development has been the center of interest and the idea of regional development agencies became popular. Implicated in many countries besides European Union, RDAs’ have been the pushing power for creating development by determining the advantageous and disadvantageous aspects of the region to stimulate the potential of it. Being a great problem in Turkey, regional development differences was tried to be diminished by central planning after 1960’s but expected influence could not be made. Some changes have arranged in regional development policies within integration to EU period and RDA model have been employed to develop underdeveloped regions. The GDP per capita of the regions, the shares of the regions in sectoral basis and the other dynamics of the regions is examined for Level 2 within the framework of Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) between 2004 and 2014 in our country by considering the regional projects and supports of the development agencies.
Key Words: Regional Difference, Development Agencies, Turkey.
JEL Codes: O18, R11-12

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Reliability of traditional development models have been questioning since globalization tendency began in 1980’s in the world and Turkey; therefore, regional development approaches have come forward. Modern bottom-to-top development policy and strategies are implicated nowadays because of the fact that traditional top-to-bottom development approaches are not sufficient in providing economic development. In this context, a series of policy and strategies has been developed by local economic development approach of many international organizations. Many countries, including Turkey, have failed to accomplish an equally distributed development and faced problems related to regional inequality. The development differences because of that inequalities leads to important social, economic and environmental problems. In order to get rid of regional inequalities, the idea of taking advantage of the region’s own resources becomes the focal point instead of only using government’s resources. In that way, regional development approach based on local resources and potential have been the main target. The most effective actor on realistically determining not only local needs and problems but also local resources and potential is the Regional Development Agencies (RDA). Being the driving force of local development, RDAs’ have leading role on development of underdeveloped regions and it is an important policy instrument on eliminating development differences between regions. In order to remove inequalities between regions and provide economic and social development, “Five-Year Development Plan” had been applied with the regional plans to stimulate the potential of different regions in Turkey at 1960’s. As a driving force of regional development, the first works in our country for development agencies, which contributed to the creation of new regional investments and employment, have been linked to compliance with the EU in the 1990s.Within the framework of harmonization with the European Union (EU), the study of "The Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)" was conducted by TSI (Turkish Statistical Institute) and the basis for development agencies was established. Within this framework, Law No. 5449 on the Establishment, Coordination and Duties of Development Agencies was adopted on 25.01.2006, and 26 separate Development Agencies were established in our country in Level 2 and started the activity. The Zafer Development Agency, which is described as TR33 Region and which includes Manisa, Uşak, Afyonkarahisar and Kütahya, was established by the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 14.07.2009 and has been active to give financial and technical support for the crucial activities of the region. The Zafer Development Agency has supported many projects with various financial support, activity support and technical support programs since 2010 and has invested more than 50 Million TL in the TR33 Region. In this way, Zafer Development Agency has increased the regional production-employment capacity and provided significant contribution to the development of our country on a local basis. In this study, the concepts of development and regional development, the establishment and aims of RDAs, the role of development agencies in Turkey and their role on regional development are investigated. Also, Zafer Development Agency's local economic contribution to the development of the TR33 region is evaluated in detail. Gaps in development may arise between countries, or between regions of a country, due to differences in spending on education, health, etc., so that the total GDP and the share of these regions in total GDP may differ. It is generally observed that the interregional differences in development are greater in less developed countries than in developed countries. Turkey is categorized as a country with inter-regional development disparities. This problem has been tried to be solved by central planning methods since 1960's.However, the proposed plans and projects did not show the anticipated effect due to lack of coordination, inefficient use of financial resources and complexity of authority. In fact, regional imbalances have tended to increase rather than diminish, and some plans and projects were abandoned by the influence of political conjuncture at that time. As a result of the increasing globalization tendency since the 1990s, the conception that the role of the state should decrease gradually in the economy has been influential in the formation of regional development policies and new governance approaches have emerged. The essence of this new understanding is to increase the effectiveness of local governments in policies to be created by region, and it involves the formation, direction and implementation of the development policies by the institutions and actors who know that region by increasing the cooperation between administrative units, private sector, non-governmental organizations and universities. It is thought that development agencies have an important role in fulfilling these purposes. This governance system has been implemented by EU countries and the EU has provided funding for Eastern European countries to adopt this system. Parallel to this, the EU, which has been in full membership negotiations with Turkey since 2005, contributes to harmonization of its regional policies to the EU, like the other candidate countries, in order to ensure that the membership process is carried out in a healthy manner. In this context, Turkey has made changes in its regional policies under the coordination of the SPO (State Planning Organization) in order to fulfill the conditions set out in the Accession Partnership Documents. While some of these changes were at the beginning of the application phase, they became a subject of considerable debate in various circles, and even became the subject of litigation. These types of barriers that emerged at the beginning of the process slightly weakened the function of the development agencies and caused a loss of time in terms of settlement of the system. The development agencies, currently operating in Turkey, support various projects with financial support programs to ensure that regions are getting stronger in various fields. Like every new application, development agencies have also points to be supported and criticized. However, considering that the system is only recently launched, only four of the 26 agents are in the call for proposals and the projects have not yet been completed, although the system is expected to be useful, there is not enough data to say clearly in this regard. This study examines regional economic data to give an idea that this new model may or may not play a more effective role in addressing regional disparities than traditional models for Turkey. In the first part of the study, the theoretical and practical literature on development agencies is emphasized. In the second part, region, region types and regional development differences are examined. This section will also discuss the changes in the economic structures of the regions of Poland, which is a country similar to Turkey in terms of socio-economic structure, taking into account some economic data before and after 1999 when the new regional policy conception occurs. After the third part of the study, which focuses on the development process of development agencies in the world and in Turkey, the study will be completed with the conclusion and evaluation parts that investigate the importance of development agencies for Turkey and the criticisms directed towards this model.

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL LITERATURE

This section will cover some theoretical and practical studies in the literature on development agencies. Aslan (2009) examines the role and impact of regional development agencies in rural development in the UK and concluded that the importance of development agencies in rural development has begun to increase after the foot and-mouth disease that occurred in 2001. As part of the study, a survey was conducted. The findings are as follows: innovation is crucial for raising wealth in rural areas, as the role of regional development agencies (RDAs) in rural development, the promotion of education and entrepreneurship is more important than advisory services, and among the most important activities of the agencies is to contribute to the establishment of business and to provide fund for the projects by taking part in EU projects. In addition to this, it is found that the most important projects are those that strengthen the agriculture and livestock sector and increase competition, the most important contribution to rural development is the creation of a qualified workforce and the agencies’ best achievement is to help the establishment of business partnerships. According to the author, the least important factor affecting rural development is the problems experienced in administrative organizations, while the most important problem in rural areas is high housing prices. On the other hand, the most important problem of the RDA is the lack of experience in strategic planning. Özer (2008) states that the global competition phenomenon leads to the search for different development policies, which means that development agencies contribute to countries becoming more active in global competition. However, it is emphasized that it is not expected that development agencies are able to contribute to regional infrastructure problems and contribute to global competition as Turkey’s regional differences in development are very evident. Yazkan (2008) points out that the development agencies can eliminate regional imbalances when they have sufficient financial resources and time, but it is a difficult process to transfer the powers of the central government to the local forces. Karaarslan (2008) states that the regional imbalances in Turkey cannot be remedied and that due to Turkey's own internal dynamics, the model of regional development agencies should be used to eliminate intra-regional imbalances instead of interregional ones. Young (2008) concludes that development agencies in Turkey could be useful in resolving regional differences in development by using comparable socio-economic data from some developing countries and Turkey. According to the author, in Turkey, the accountability mechanism of development agencies is strong through the legal framework, which will enable the development of effective projects with the support of the central government. Güner (2007) tabulates the strengths and weaknesses of regional development agencies and the opportunities and expectations for the model, and makes some inferences. Accordingly, this model has positive and negative aspect. Positives are as follows: encouraging project development, supporting regional development through competition, mediating the use of EU funds. Negatives are as follows: lack of expert staff, lack of coordination, and difficulty of public acceptance. Kaya (2007) points out that competition among countries has shifted to competition between regions because of globalization, and it is suggested that projects to be created through development agencies should cover even very specific fields. Peselioğlu (2007) presents the imbalances between regions in Turkey with graphs and multidimensional scaling analysis. The results of both analysis overlap. According to these results, the western regions, especially Istanbul, have the highest share of GDP. In addition, the changes that regions have made over the years are investigated by using the regional GDP data. In the graphical analysis of the years 1987-2001, the author concludes that regional differences in Turkey are increasingly due to the cumulative nature of economic growth. Yüceyılmaz (2007) points out the unsuccessful examples of the model. In terms of Turkey, the author underlines the concern that the model may increase regional competition while increasing the differentiation from the other side. Despite the long implementation of the RDA system in Europe, regional inequalities have not fully removed. In addition, while the development agencies in the UK were established in the troubled regions of the country, the agents in Turkey were established in all regions. Halkier (2006) introduces that regional development agencies differ from other regional policy tools, and identifies possible challenges that may arise in the application area of this model; Central government, regional and European actors. Reeves (2006) examines the pre-accession funds and structural funds provided by the EU, and provides information on the regional development programs such as the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) and the Eastern Anatolia Development Program (EADP)which are implemented within the scope of the EU regional development fund. Walburn (2006) focuses on the conditions that must be fulfilled to fulfill the functions of the RDA, the reasons that lead to RBI failure, and the golden rules that must be followed. Kovacks (2006) criticizes the development agency model established in the Southern Transdanubia Region in Hungary for not being in line with the country's highly centralized model. Harding (2006) makes recommendations for increasing the functions of the RDA by examining the structure of RDAs in two different countries, such as the UK and Romania. Koyuncu (2006) includes a questionnaire prepared by considering the criteria published by the RDA Union established in the EU. Based on the results of this questionnaire sent to development agencies in some EU member countries, it is seen that the RDA model overlaps with the today's understanding of information society and that Turkey should apply this model considering its own socio-economic structure. McMaster (2006) notes that development agencies in the Czech Republic fill the country's existing institutional void in the region, which is important for implementing integrated regionalization practices in all fields as predicted by the new regionalization theory. Yilmaz (2006) points out the danger that regional imbalances may increase as the developed regions further develop using the advantages brought by the RDA. Akın and Yıldız (2005) examine the structure, purpose and activities of development agencies in rural areas of Turkey. They conclude that development agencies in these areas could not be created as required and, therefore, they cannot be effective enough in areas where agricultural production and livestock are concentrated. Ataay (2005) states that regional development agencies in Turkey are a continuation of the post-1980 neo-liberal understanding, but a concept that completely excludes the central authority cannot be as productive as necessary. Solari (2004) states that Northeast Italy is still experiencing difficulties in industrialization and development agencies play an important role in overcoming this problem. According to the author, although there are some advantages in the region in recent times, it seems difficult to act in cooperation. The most important problem is that it is difficult to reach the resources where the development is low. Borren (2000) states that in addition to local functions such as funding, training and consultancy, development agencies also have global functions such as fair trade and the delivery of funds to international institutions.

REGION, REGION TYPES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENCES

The concept of the region does not have a clear definition not only in the world but also in Turkey because the size and content of the location unit expressed by the concept of the region may vary according to the context in which the concept is used and may also vary in the same context. For example, in the context of planning in the EU, regions are as diverse as urban and metropolitan areas, to very large rural areas. Some of them are homogeneous spaces in economic, social and cultural terms, while the others indicate the units which are functionally integrated (DPT, 2000: 7). In the study of Casellas and Galley (1998), economically, the region is defined as an area that is neither as small as a city nor as large as a country. In addition, a region should have its own social, cultural and economic characteristics. When all these characteristics are taken into consideration, the definition of the concept of the region can be rewritten. The region is a part of the country that has its own unique social, cultural and economic characteristics and it is larger than the city but smaller than the entire territory of the country (Can, 2004: 105-106; Gündüz, 2006: 2). Macroeconomically, regions are categorized as a homogeneous, plan and polarized regions. A homogeneous region corresponds to a continuous homogeneous field and is a group of adjacent fields having similar characteristics. In short, a homogeneous region can be defined as a region formed by neighboring cities with the same level of development. The plan region can be described as a territorial area within the jurisdiction of the administration in charge of implementing the regional policy, or as a whole of the areas in which the plan is applied. If a settlement center takes one or more smaller settlement centers into its influence zone, the region formed by the settlement center and its influence zone is called polarized region(Dinler, 2005: 75-85).Polarized zone separation is based not on several characteristic features such as homogeneous zone, but on the relationships between various units (Kılıç ve Mutluer, 2004: 23). Regions can be classified as underdeveloped and developed regions in terms of development level. An underdeveloped region can be defined as a region that does not have economic and social advantages compared to other regions in terms of various social and economic factors at a certain time in a country. Socially and economically, the developed region is more advanced than other regions of the country. Economic development can never begin at the same time in all the countries of the world, not at the same time in all the regions of any country. In order for economic development to start in a certain region, one or several of the reasons such as having a rich underground resources, a new invention, the geographical location of the region, etc., must coexist(Aydın, 2008: 306-307). Factors that lead to inter-regional imbalances can be listed as follows: the lack of qualified labor force, the imbalance of regional distribution of entrepreneur population and capital, rapid population movements, high population growth rate, low participation in the labor force, distribution of public investments, size of the domestic market, deficiencies in infrastructure investments in some regions, differences in transportation and communication systems, the institutional inadequacies in regional planning, especially the differences in labor productivity in the undeveloped regions, negative impacts of domestic term of trade to the agricultural sector especially since 1977, excessive variation of quality of life and standards between the regions, and socio-economic, historical and geographical factors (Kaya, 2007: 33). Regional imbalances have started to increase with industrialization and urbanization, and the underdeveloped economic conditions of Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia have continued to be a problem. In order to remedy this situation, in 1972 the "Department of Priority Regions in Development" was established and all the provinces in these two regions were included in the priority regions in development. Even though it has not been put into practice and has not been transformed into an institutional structure,the regional dimension of development in Turkey has been constantly noted in the Five-Year Development Plans (Dulupçu, 2006,235). The first practices on the development agencies in Turkey began in the 1990s.With the start of Turkey's formal candidacy to the EU, the importance given to development agents has increased.The EU wanted Turkey to change its regional policies as wanted from every candidate country and at the 1999 Helsinki summit, Turkey was introduced to development agencies.The criteria for harmonization of Turkey's regional policies with the EU are stated in the Accession Partnership Documents (Reeves, 2006:35).Developments in interregional imbalances and their elimination in Turkey have taken place in almost all of the progress reports since 1999, and regional policy issues have been addressed in these reports (Eryılmaz ve Tuncer, 2013:173). In the Accession Partnership Documents for the years 2001 and 2003, the conditions for the acceleration of Turkey's accession to the EU and the requirements to be fulfilled in the area of regional policy in order for the candidate country to benefit from the EU's financial resources have been specified. In this context, first, the Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) was carried out as it was in the EU. The aim of this is to establish statistical data more regularly, to create databases that will allow regional comparisons with the EU and within the country, and to make socio-economic analyzes of regions more accurately(Işık vd., 2010:12). With the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 22 September 2002, numbered 2002/4720, Turkey is divided into 3 Levels in terms of criteria such as population density, population size and GDP within the scope of NUTS.12 provinces are defined as Level 1, 26 provinces are defined as Level 2 in which development agencies are structured, and 81 provinces covering the whole country are defined as Level 3.

Table 1:Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics

SOME INDICATORS OF LEVEL 2 REGIONS
Table 2: GDP per capita over the years (2004-2014)

According to Table 2, the per capita GDP in Turkey in 2004 is 8536 TL, while the lowest per capita GDP is 3531 TL in the region located in TRC3 Southeast region. It can be seen that per capita GDP has increased in all regions over the years. Although it is not expected that the same growth rate will be observed for years, all regions of a developing country are expected to grow at the country's growth rate. However, growth rate of the western regions including TR22, TR33, TR71 and TRA1, and almost all of the eastern regions are below the national average.

Table 3: Sectoral Distribution of GDP by Level 2 Regions (2004-2014)

Regional distribution of GDP by sector is given in the table above. In this distribution, the contribution of 26 regions to GDP has been given over the years and the contribution of the regions over the given sectors is clearly visible. Over the years, there is a shift in Turkey from the agricultural sector to the industrial and service sector. The development of the industrial sector also expresses the level of development of a country. However, it is seen that the service sector in Turkey has become the leader and has the biggest share. If the growth of a country is predominantly realized through the service sector, this is the best indication that economy of this country is based on the import-led growth. Economics tells us that it is never possible to sustain a growth in this way. Table 3 shows that there is no change in the economical size of the regions except for the crises affecting the entire country.

GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

1. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES IN THE WORLD

Development agencies have emerged as Economic Development Agencies (EDAs) for the first time in the world. In the later period, regional development agencies have been formed by adapting a decentralized structure as a result of globalization and governance tendencies dominated the world. Although the names of the established organizations were different, their only purpose was to provide economic development. Nowadays, regional development movements have shifted from the traditional or top-down model to the innovative or bottom-up model. For example, innovative models are regional development agencies that the EU implements and which are also obligatory to be implemented by candidate countries in terms of harmonization with the EU acquis. Table 4 summarizes the differences between these two models. 

Table 4: Traditional (Top-Down) Approach vs Innovative (Bottom-Up) Approach

Source: Yılmaz, S. (2006), Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları2, www.arkitera.com/UserFiles/File/download/imp/bka_2_brosur_A4.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 10.01.2010

Table 4 shows the establishment years of development agencies in some countries. The first development agency was founded in 1933 in the United States and named the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).Such practices began to gain importance in the 1950s, with the aim of quickly eliminating regional differences in the Western Europe, which was devastated by the Second World War. For example, the regions of France except Paris were very underdeveloped during this period. On the other hand, the difference between the northern and southern regions of Italy made Italy as if two different countries. In the 1970s, a trend from the Fordist (large-scale) structure to the Post Fordist structure, which has contributed to the development of development agencies in the world and changed the production quality of the companies, began to form. The existence of firms that use a relatively more flexible mode of production in line with the Fordist structure and adapt to flexible demand conditions has increased particularly in emerging economies. It is thought that these firms would help to overcome the effects of the crises that have arisen since 1970 years in the world more easily. Today, this structure can be seen in SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises).This new trend has also contributed to the formation of the RDA (Ataay, 2005). In Europe, there are over 200 organized development agencies with representatives in major foreign centers, and that are organized under the European Association of Regional Development Agencies (EURADA)(Maç, 2006: 3). In the world, the number of organizations similar to development agencies is around 20,000 (Turan, 2007: 30).

Table 5: Development Agencies in the World

Source: Özmen, F. (2008), AB Sürecinde Türkiye’de Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının Karşılaşabilecekleri Temel Sorun Alanları, http://iibf.sdu.edu.tr/dergi/files/2008-3-17.pdf, Erişim Tarihi:09.03.2010.

Since the early 1990s, development agencies, even in various forms, have been financed by the European Union and established in other Eastern European countries. Today, there is no transition economy that does not have a development agency. For example, many development agencies have been established in Poland. Malopolska Development Agency, a development agency established in the Level 2 regions of Poland, was established with the purpose of developing the Malopolska region and through this development agency, five projects covering the labor market of the region between 2004 and 2008 were completed. Especially, two of these projects were implemented to provide employment to the unemployed people of the region. After the project, 236 unemployed women in the region established their own business, and 142 people had a job. Within another project called "Active Student", 404 of the 830 people who participated in the project started to work in various firms and 211 of them established their own business. There are also three completed projects to support entrepreneurship between 2006 and 2008, which the agency has prepared and finalized. The project included consulting, training, helping employers to meet the needs of qualified staff, and incentives up to 20,000 Zlotys. In addition to these, projects have been created aiming at advertising the region and traditional activities, increasing tourism potential of the region, and producing and marketing traditional products in the food sector. In order to support investment and entrepreneurship in these areas, projects such as marketing training and visiting organizations for different regions have been organized. It is clear that these projects have contributed to regional employment.

2. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT AGENCES IN TURKEY

In terms of regional development in Turkey, while some of our regions have reached EU level, some of them have remained at the level of African countries (Taş, 2008: 7).This situation reveals the importance of efforts to eliminate regional imbalances in Turkey. Policies aimed at eliminating regional imbalances have begun with 5-year development plans since 1960's.The objective of these policies was to ensure the socio-economic development of the underdeveloped regions of the country. Eight development plans were prepared for implementation in Turkey before the development agency model was adopted. The projects prepared under these plans have never been started or have been left unfinished. The main reasons are as follows: lack of competence, lack of coordination among institutions, and the fact that plans and projects are not based on the reality of the country but on the subjective approach of the government of the period. Some of these plans are East Marmara Planning Project, Antalya Project, Çukurova Region Project, Southeastern Anatolia Project, Zonguldak Bartın - Karabük Region Project, Eastern Anatolia Project Plan and Eastern Black Sea Region Development Plan (Yüceyılmaz, 2007: 51-52).In this process, investment incentives, priority areas in development, organized industrial areas and rural development policies have been used as a means of development policy (Tutar ve Demiral, 2007: 71). The globalization process has been the source of many innovations in the economic and social areas. This process has also changed the concept of public administration over time and new governance mechanisms (bottom-up approach) have emerged. The EU wanted Turkey to change its regional policies as wanted from every candidate country and Turkey met with development agencies at the 1999 Helsinki Summit. The criteria for harmonization of Turkey's regional policies with the EU are specified in the Accession Partnership Documents. Of the 35 chapters Turkey has negotiated, 22 are directly related to regional policies(Reeves, 2006: 35).The Accession Partnership Documents for 2001 and 2003 point out the conditions that must be fulfilled in the area of regional policy so that Turkey can accelerate its EU membership process and benefit from EU financial funds as a candidate country. These conditions apply to all countries that have already been candidate. In summary, these conditions include the development of an economic and social cohesion policy aimed at addressing regional disparities, the establishment of the legal framework for ensuring harmonization with the EU acquis in terms of regional policies, the establishment of multi-year budgeting procedures by setting priority criteria for the application of regional development policies, and the strengthening the local administrative structure to accelerate regional development. In this context, first, the Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) was carried out as it was in the EU. The aim of this is to establish statistical data more regularly, to create databases that will allow regional comparisons with the EU and within the country, and to make socio-economic analyzes of regions more accurately. Turkey is divided into 3 Levels as Level 3, Level 2 and Level 1 in terms of criteria such as population density, population size and GDP within the scope of NUTS. The Level 3 region covers all 81 provinces. The Level 2 regions are the regions where the development agencies are set up and 26 sub-regions are given by grouping the Level 3 regions. The Level 1 regions are formed by the grouping of Level 2 regions, and there are 12 Level 2 regions. Table 1 in Section 3 gives the distribution of Level 2 regions. Cukurova (TR 62) and İzmir (TR 31) development agencies started to operate on July 6, 2006 after the law on development agencies was issued by the Council of Ministers in February 2006. Following this, 8 development agencies in Level 2 regions were established. Finally, the decision on the establishment of remaining 16 development agencies in the Level 2 regions was published on 14 July 2009 and entered into force. A total of 125 million euros have been allocated from the 2009 budget for these 26 development agencies. According to the 2009 EU progress report, increasing the effectiveness of local managers and spreading development agencies to all Level 2 regions are considered positive developments. However, the fact that selection process of cities to be the center of development agencies is not transparent enough and that local managers are not active in this issue have taken place in the report as negative developments. Table 5 shows information on development agencies in the call for proposals under different financial support programs in Turkey.

Table 6: Development Agencies and Financial Support Programs in Turkey

Source: www.izka.org.tr, *www.cka.org.tr, ***www.daka.org.tr, ****www.mevka.org.tr, Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2010

As it can be seen in Table 6, in 2009 Çukurova Development Agency (ÇKA) was in the call for proposals under three separate support programs with a budget of TL 25 million and a total of 606 project proposals were submitted. On the other hand, 549 project proposals were submitted within the scope of the SME financial support program to the Eastern Anatolia Development Agency (DKA) with a budget of approximately TL 14.2 million, and 550 project proposals were submitted under the scope of two separate support programs to Mevlana Development Agency(MEVKA)with a budget of 549 million TL. Even though our people have just recently met, the number of applications is remarkable. It is expected that these projects, which include the local people who know the problems of the region better, can make a significant contribution to the development of the regions with the help of the right control and guidance mechanism. Çukurova Development Agency (ÇKA) is also the local coordinator of Turkey's Rural Development Initiative (Technology Villages) Project under the partnership of The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Intel and DPT. The purpose of this project is to ensure effective use and dissemination of information and communication technologies (ICT), and to ensure that women and men take an active role in accessing information and producing information. In line with this aim, it is aimed to reduce the digital difference by reaching the rural areas.

CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION

Development agencies are organizations that undertake coordination and implementation tasks in a country to remove the inter-regional development disparities, create a competitive environment and support the entrepreneurial spirit. The aim of this is to identify the areas where the regions have comparative advantages and to encourage investments in those areas, both nationally and internationally. One of the things to be aware of is whether it is a problem for the underdeveloped regions to compete with developed region to get the fund. However, given the fact that each region has a development potential relative to the others, there are no drawbacks in the entry of underdeveloped regions into national or even international competition. On the other hand, thanks to this model, if a region wants to develop, it has to produce a large number of projects.
Experiences indicate that the necessary success has not been achieved with the development policies prepared for a long time. It is expected that development agencies will provide positive outcomes in the long run because the needs of the regions and comparative advantages of the regions are best known by the people of that region and the increase in the authority and responsibility of local managers in the formation of regional development policies will be more efficient than the centralized planning understanding. However, it should be noted that there is not enough data to make healthy interpretations in our country because the development agencies in our country are still new.

REFERENCES

AKIN, Semiha ve Fatih Feramuz YILDIZ (2005), “Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları ve Türk Tar ımına Etkileri”, Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Türktarım Dergisi, Sayı:163:38-44. www.abuzmanlari.org.tr/web/docs/pdfs/makaleler/bolgesel_kalkinma_ajanslari_ve turktarimina_etkileri.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 10.01.2010.
ASLAN, Özlem (2009), “Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının Kırsal Kalkınmadaki Rolü ve Etkileri: İngiltere Örneği”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Şehir ve Bölge Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
ATAAY, Faruk (2005), “Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları Modelinin Kalkınma Anlayışı”, www.sendika.org/yazi.php?yazi_no=3662, Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2010.
AYDIN, Abdürrauf (2008), “İktisadi Açıdan Bölgesel Dengesizlik: Mardin İli Örneği”, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(24): 304-312.http://www.e-sosder.com/dergi/24304-312.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2010.
Bielsko-Biala Development Agency web-site: http://www.i3sme.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71, Erişim Tarihi: 08.04.2010.
BORREN, Sylvia (2000), “Development Agencies: Global or Solo Players?”, Developmentin Practice, 10, (384): 408-419.http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/44675460- 60562742/content~db=all~content=a713660452~frm=abslink, Erişim Tarihi: 08.04.2010.
CAN, Ergüder (2004), Avrupa Birliği Bölgesel Politikalarıve Yapısal Fonlar: UyumSürecinde Türkiye İçin Bir Değerlendirme, 1. Baskı, Asil Yayın, Ankara.
CASELLAS, Antonia ve Catherine C. GALLEY (1998), “Regional Definitions in the European Union: A Question of Disparities?”, Regional Studies, 33 (6):551-558. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713693580~frm=a bslink, Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2010.
Çukurova Kalkınma Ajansı web-sitesi: www.cka.org.tr, Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2010.
DİNÇER, Bülent; Metin ÖZASLAN ve Taner KAVASOĞLU (2003), “ İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması”, DPT Yayınları, No:2671. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/gosterge/2003-05.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 29.03.2010.
DİNLER, Zeynel (2005), Bölgeselİktisat, 7. Baskı, Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları, Bursa. Doğu Anadolu Kalkınma Ajansı web-sitesi: www.daka.org.tr, Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2010.
DPT (2000), “VIII. Beş yıllık Kalkınma Planı Bölgesel Gelişme Özel İhtisas Komisyon Raporu”. http://www.dpt.gov.tr/PortalDesign/PortalControls/WebIcerikGosterim.aspx?Enc= 83D5A6FF03C7B4FC49C855C86828FA2E, Erişim Tarihi: 22.03.2010.
Glossary of Statistical Terms-OECD: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7184, Erişim Tarihi: 06.04.2010.
GÜNDÜZ, Ali Yılmaz (2006), Bölgesel Kalkınma Politikası , 1. Baskı, Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları, Bursa.
GÜNER, Meltem (2007), Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarıve Türkiye Uygulaması, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kamu Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
HALKIER, Henrik, (2006), Regional Development Agencies and Multilevel Governance: European Perspectives. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim, Avrupa Perspektifi içinde, 3-15. IV. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu Ankara.
HARDING, Richard (2006), Region Development Agencies Experiences in England and Romania. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Deneyimleri içinde, 111-135. IV. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu Ankara. HM (HAZİNE MÜSTEŞARLIĞI) (2006), “Uluslararası Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar 2006 Yılı Raporu”, http://www.hazine.gov.tr/irj/go/km/docs/documents/Hazine%20Web/Arastirma%2 0Yayin/Raporlar/Yabanc%c4%b1%20Sermaye%20Raporlar%c4%b1/4875%20Say%c4%b1l%c4%b1%20Kanundan%20Sonraki%20Raporlar/Uluslararas%c4%b1%20Do%c4%9frudan%20Yat%c4%b1r%c4%b1mlar%202006%20Y%c4%b1l%c 4%b1%20Raporu.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 23.03.2010.
HM (HAZİNE MÜSTEŞARLIĞI) (2007), “Uluslararası Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar 2007 Yılı Raporu”, http://www.hazine.gov.tr/irj/go/km/docs/documents/Hazine%20Web/Arastirma%20Yayin/Raporlar/Yabanc%c4%b1%20Sermaye%20Raporlar%c4%b1/4875%20Say%c4%b1l%c4%b1%20Kanundan%20Sonraki%20Raporlar/Uluslararas%c4%b1%20Do%c4%9frudan%20Yat%c4%b1r%c4%b1mlar%202007%20Y%c4%b1l%c 4%b1%20Raporu.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 23.03.2010.
HM (HAZİNE MÜSTEŞARLIĞI) (2008), “Uluslararası Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar 2008 Yılı Raporu”. http://www.hazine.gov.tr/irj/go/km/docs/documents/Hazine%20Web/Arastirma%20Yayin/Raporlar/Yabanc%c4%b1%20Sermaye%20Raporlar%c4%b1/4875%20Sa y%c4%b1l%c4%b1%20Kanundan%20Sonraki%20Raporlar/ULUSLARARASI% 20DO%c4%9eRUDAN%20YATIRIMLAR%20RAPORU-2008.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 23.03.2010. İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı web-sitesi: www.izka.org.tr, Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2010.
KARAARSLAN, Gökçe (2008), Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de Bölgesel Politikalar ve Kalkınma Ajansları. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Ekonomi-Maliye Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
KAYA, Kılıç (2007), Bölgesel Kalkınmada Yeni Bir Model; Kalkınma Ajansları ve Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği. Atılım Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kamu Yönetimi ve Siyaset Bilimi Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
KILIÇ, Sibel E. ve Mustafa MUTLUER, (2004), “Coğrafyada ve Bölge Planlamada Bölge Kavramının İrdelenmesi”, Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 13 (2004): 17-28. http://edebiyat.ege.edu.tr/bolumler/cografya/13-3-ECEMIS_MUTLUER.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 27.03.2010
KOVACS, Palne Ilona (2006), Region-Building in Hungary-The Case of South-Transdanubia. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Deneyimleri içinde, 73-93. IV. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu Ankara.
KOYUNCU, Evrim (2006), Türkiye’de Kalkınma Sürecinde Bölgesel KalkınmaAjanslarının Rolü ve Bir Uygulama. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal BilimlerEnstitüsü Genel İktisat Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
MAÇ, Nazlı (2006), “Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslar ı ve Türkiye”, http://www.kto.org.tr/dosya/rapor/kalkinmaajans.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.04.2010
MCMASTER, Irene (2006), “Czech Regional Development Agencies in a Shifting Institutional Landscape”, Europe-Asia Studies, 58(3):347-370. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a745941755, Erişim Tarihi: 08.04.2010
Mevlana Kalkınma Ajansı web-sitesi: www.mevka.org.tr, Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2010
Molopolska Development Agency web-site: http://en.marr.pl/european-union-funds/completedprojects/, Erişim Tarihi: 08.04.2010
ÖZER, Yunus Emre (2008), “Küresel Rekabet-Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları ve Türkiye”, Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, 9(10): 389-408.http://fbe.emu.edu.tr/journal/doc/9- 10/19.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 09.03.2010
ÖZMEN, Fatma (2008), “AB Sürecinde Türkiye’de Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının Karşılaşabilecekleri Temel Sorun Alanları”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3): 327-340.http://iibf.sdu.edu.tr/dergi/files/2008-3- 17.pdf, Erişim Tarihi:09.03.2010
PEŞELİOĞLU, İ stemihan (2007), Avrupa Birliği Perspektifinde Türkiye EkonomisindeBölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının Uygulanma İmkânları. Dokuz Eylül ÜniversitesiSosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İktisat Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
REEVES, Teresa (2006), Regional Development in the EU and Turkey. Bölgesel Kalkınmave Yönetişim, Avrupa Perspektifi içinde, 29-39. IV. Bölgesel Kalkınma veYönetişim Sempozyumu Ankara.
SOLARI, Stefone (2004), “Decentralisation of Competencies and Local Development Agencies in North-Eastern Italy”, Local Economy, 19(1): 55-68. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713705734, Erişim Tarihi: 08.04.2010
TAŞ, Cesurhan (2008), “Kalkınmaya Giden Yol Kalkınma Ajanslarından mı Geçer?”, Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi. Sayı: 523, 7-17. TURAN, Seyida (2007), Bölgesel Kalkınma AjanslarıDünyadaki Uygulamalar ve TürkiyeModeli. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kamu Yönetimi AnabilimDalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Turkey-EU 2009 Progress Report (2009). http://www.euractiv.com.tr/fileadmin/Documents/TR_Rapport_to_press_13_10.pd f, Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2010.
TUTAR, Filiz ve Mehmet DEMİRAL (2007), “Yerel Ekonomilerin Yerel Aktörleri: Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 2(1): 65-83. http://iibf.ogu.edu.tr/dergi/dergi/2007-1/2007_1_4.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 09.03.2010
WALBURN, David (2006), Regional Development Agencies: The Tool to Stimulate Economic Development in Regions. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim, Avrupa Perspektifi içinde, 49-55. IV. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim SempozyumuAnkara. Web-site of European Statistics: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/regional_statistics/data/main_tables, Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2010
YAZKAN, Ebru (2008), Bölgesel Gelişme Politikalarının Başarısında KalkınmaAjanslarının Rolü. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Siyaset Bilimive Kamu Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
YILMAZ, Serkan (2006), “Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları 2”, http://www.arkitera.com/UserFiles/File/download/imp/bka_2_brosur_A4.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 10.01.2010
YOUNG, Trevor. (2008), “The Potential for Effective Regional Development Agencies in Turkey: A Comparative Analysis”, Regional and Federal Studies, 18(4): 375-402. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a901425890, Erişim Tarihi: 08.04.2010
YÜCEYILMAZ, Hilal (2007), Avrupa Birliği Sürecinde Bölgesel Gelişmeler ve KalkınmaAjansları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kamu Yönetimi AnabilimDalı. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.