“Demokratik hukuk devletlerinde yönetilenlerin yönetenlerin haksız uygulamalarına karşı korunmasını sağlamak açısından başvurdukları önemli denetim mekanizmalarından bir tanesini Ombudsmanlık veya diğer ifade ile Kamu denetçiliği kurumu oluşturmaktadır.  Türkiye’de Ombudsmanlık Kurumu adlı çalışma öncelikle dünyada ve Türkiye’de kamu denetçiliği kurumunun teorik ve pratik gelişim sürecinden bahsetmektedir. Ombudsmanlık kurumunun yargısal ve idari olarak devletin iş yükünü hafifleten yönüne vurgu yapılan çalışmada, Ombudsmanlık kurumunun bu işlevlerinin bilinirliğini saptamaya yönelik olarak Türkiye’nin geleceğini oluşturacak olan üniversite öğrencilerinin gözünden Ombudsmanlık kurumu analiz edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda kaleme alınan çalışmayla alana ilgisi olan başta akademisyen ve öğrenciler olmak üzere tüm ilgilenenlere katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.”

The change of the geopolitical realities, the emergence of new regional dynamics and the perception of security in Central Asia have also changed current perspectives in the region. Fully revised and updated to cover the latest informations and developments, the book will provide comprehensive, accessible and successful introduction for those who are interested in the Central Asia region. As the editors, we have filled a long-neglected gap by producing a volume that authoritatively covers the states of the region. The book will become a definitive text for the teaching as it presents in-depth explorations of systemic and sophisticated way of understanding the actors and processes and offers case study encompassing many subjects about Central Asia. It conbines old and new perspectives with discerning care.

This book –The Changing Perspectives of Central Asia in the 21^st Century- has provided readers with prominent knowledge of independence period, actors, minority issues, nation-state building process, energy, security, water, boundary, regional integration and foreign policies of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan with each other and with Russia, China, America, the EU and Turkey. The book claims that geopolitical realities, regional dynamics and the perception of security in Central Asia have changed. Thus, the book focuses on environmental degradation, cyber insecurity and social unrest triggered by sovereign debt traps. These discussions highlight the necessity to reconsider the traditional perception of security as the analysis has to go beyond the state to address a wide range of security threats.

Dr. Murat YORULMAZ is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Organization at Trakya University, Edirne.

Dr. Serdar YILMAZ is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla.

In this book, we attempt to make a comparative evaluation of modern macroeconomic schools: Monetarism and New Classical School based on the Classical System that envisage automatic full employment or natural rate of unemployment (NRU) equilibrium (AFNE or ANRUE) vs. New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian Economics based on the Keynesian System which gives unemployment equilibrium (UNE) or non-automatic NRU equilibrium (NANRUE) due to insufficiency of aggregate demand.

In order to determine which school is relevant, first the basic assumptions of these systems are compared: i) rational vs. adjusted vs. heterogeneous expectations, ii) existence of perfect competition in all markets leading to flexibility of prices and wages vs. imperfect competition giving rise to rigidities, and iii) presence or lack of coordination between markets.

In the final phase of our evaluations the performance of the developed economies are surveyed to establish whether we meet with AFNE or ANRUE or else UNE or NANRUE; and whether policy prescriptions devised by respective schools solve or alleviate the problem at hand when implemented.

Our investigations point out that New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian schools are more relevant compared to Monetarism and New Classical School. The choice between New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian Economics, however, is more difficult to make although New Keynesian Economics seems more widespread than Post-Keynesian Economics. Objectively, Post-Keynesian assumptions seem more realistic; normatively, however, New Keynesian stands seems more fit to the present day move towards globalization.