Evaluation of Sectoral Credit Performances of Metropolitan Municipalities in Turkey Using The CRITIC-CODAS Method (2014 and 2024)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63556/tisej.2025.1589Keywords:
Credit Performance, Regional Disparities, CRITIC Method, CODAS Method, Credit RiskAbstract
This study aims to comparatively analyze the sectoral credit performance of metropolitan cities in Turkey between 2014 and 2024. Regional disparities in credit allocation, sectoral credit risks, and repayment performance constitute the main areas of analysis. For this purpose, 15 criteria were identified; their weights were calculated using the CRITIC method, and the credit performance rankings were obtained through the CODAS method. The findings reveal that provinces with strong financial structures, such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Kocaeli, demonstrate high performance, while Mardin, Şanlıurfa, and Diyarbakır remain weak. Moreover, while stable performance was observed in industry and production sectors, increasing risks were identified in construction and personal loan categories. The results indicate that credit allocation policies should be redesigned by taking regional disparities into account. The study provides policymakers and the banking sector with data-driven strategic recommendations to enhance financial stability.
References
Akbulut, O. Y. (2019). CRITIC ve EDAS yöntemleri ile Türkiye bankacılık sisteminin 2010–2018 yılları arasındaki performansının analizi. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 249–263.
Akpınar, S., & Kara, M. (2021). Bankacılık sektörü kredileri ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Assam Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi, 8(18), 66–86.
Altunbaş, Y., Gambacorta, L., & Marques Ibáñez, D. (2010). Bank risk and monetary policy. Journal of Financial Stability, 6(3), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2009.07.001
Atan, M., Öksüzkaya, M., & Atan, S. (2018). Türkiye’de bankacılık sektöründe il bazında mevduat ve kredi etkinliği. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 22(2), 343–374.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2020). A supply chain transparency and sustainability technology appraisal model for blockchain technology. International Journal of Production Research, 58(7), 2142–2162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1708989
BDDK, Seçilmiş Sektörel Krediler. https://www.bddk.org.tr/BultenFinTurk 02.05.2025 21.42
BDDK. (2023). Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 17(1).
https://www.bddk.org.tr/Content/docs/bddkDergiTr/dergi_0036_03.pd
Beck, T., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2009). Financial institutions and markets across countries and over time: Data and analysis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 4943.
Beck, T., Levine, R., & Loayza, N. (2000). Finance and the sources of growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 261–300.
Černevičienė, J., & Kabašinskas, A. (2022). Review of multi-criteria decision-making methods in finance using explainable artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 827584. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.827584
Çakmak, İ., & Örkçü, H. H. (2016). Türkiye’de illerin sosyo-ekonomik etkinlik düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi: VZA uygulaması. Sosyoekonomi, 24(28), 13–34.
Çubuk, M. (2022). Türkiye’de büyükşehirlerin sağlık turizmi potansiyellerinin CRITIC ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile karşılaştırılması. Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 147-174.
Demireli, E. (2010). TOPSIS çok kriterli karar verme sistemi: Türkiye’deki kamu bankaları üzerine bir uygulama. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 5(1), 97–108.
Demirgüç Kunt, A., & Detragiache, E. (2002). Does deposit insurance increase banking system stability? An empirical investigation. Journal of Monetary Economics, 49(7), 1373–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00171-X
Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
Ertuğrul, İ., & Karakaşoğlu, N. (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.014
Ginevičius, R. (2011). A new determining method for the criteria weights in multicriteria evaluation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(6), 1067–1095. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622011004713
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046
Hou, H. (2025). Utility theory application in decision-making behavior for energy use and management: A systematic review. Energies, 18(8), 2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18082125
Karahan, M., & Peşmen, S. (2020). İllerarası rekabet gücünün promethee gaia yöntemiyle analizi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (49), 272-287.
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2016). CODAS: A new MCDM method with the combinative distance-based assessment of alternatives. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 50(4), 25–44.
Kiyotaki, N., & Moore, J. (1997). Credit cycles. Journal of Political Economy, 105(2), 211–248.
Kou, G., Chao, X., Peng, Y., Alsaadi, F. E., & Herrera Viedma, E. (2019). Machine learning methods for systemic risk analysis in financial sectors. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(5), 716–742. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.8740
OECD. (2022). *Regions and cities at a glance 2022*. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/regional/oecd-regions-and-cities-at-a-glance-14108660.htm
Özbekler, M. D. (2019). Sektörel kredi yoğunlaşmasının banka performansı üzerindeki etkisi [Uzmanlık yeterlilik tezi, TCMB].
Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
Razzaq, A., Riaz, M., & Aslam, M. (2024). Efficient picture fuzzy soft CRITIC-CoCoSo framework for supplier selection under uncertainties in Industry 4.0. AIMS Mathematics, 9(1), 665–701. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2024035
Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M. K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Nobar, H. B. K. (2018). Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS–CRITIC approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.071
Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2023). Root Assessment Method (RAM): A novel multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications in sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 423, 138695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138695
Taşpınar, Z. T., (2023). Türkiye’de sektör kredilerinin kompozisyonu: Son yirmi yılın analizi. BETAM Çalışma Raporu, (20). https://betam.bahcesehir.edu.tr
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
Tunay, K. B. (2015). Kredi portföylerinde sektörel yoğunlaşma ve risk ilişkisi: Türk ticari bankacılık sektörü üzerine bir analiz. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 9(1), 127–147.
World Bank. (2018). Financial inclusion overview. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion
Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2016). State of the art surveys of MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(2), 165–192.
Zhao, T., & Murinde, V. (2011). Bank deregulation and performance in Nigeria. Review of Development Finance, 1(3–4), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8268.2010.00270.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Third Sector Social Economic Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
