The Belt and Road Initiative is the most ambitious project in the 21^st century. Its main goals are infrastructure development, financial integration, people to people connectivity. Developing countries which desperately need infrastructure upgrade welcomed Chinese investments, finding an opportunity to be connected to global economy. Although economic and political consequences are discussed in the literature, the spatial consequences of the Belt and Road Initiative are neglected. The Belt and Road Initiative lays out six main economic corridors, reconfiguring the space across the continents. Eurasia, where three of six economic corridors pass through, is mostly affected by this spatial process. The countries in Eurasia are linked with corridors on which dry ports, special economic zones, and free trade areas are set up. This signifies new spatial characteristics in Eurasia.

Globalization and related technological developments have increased competition and put organizations in a struggle to survive in an extremely difficult market condition. Organizations adopt their technologies and infrastructures to today’s conditions to gain a sustainable competitive advantage and maintain their existence. However, all these efforts of organizations are easily imitated by rival companies and may cause the loss of competitive advantage.

The resource-based view provides additional information that strategic human resource is the scarce, valuable, inimitable and non-substitutable resources of organizations, thus enabling them to gain a competitive advantage. According to this view, the competitive advantage of the organization is achieved by combining valuable internal resources. Nowadays, sustainable competitive advantage is provided not by environmental factors or physical capital but by human capital (employees) efficiency. In this context, the attitudes and behaviors of employees who make up human resources are important for their organizational success. Many studies emphasize that positive attitudes and behaviors (e.g. innovative work behavior, work engagement, job satisfaction) in employees have important contributions to the success of the organization, while similarly negative attitudes and behaviors (e.g. organizational silence, turnover intention) are one of the main reasons for the failure of the organization.

In our book, literature has been created on the definition, antecedents, and organizational results of new and current concepts that are newly conceptualized in the literature and are still in their infancy. It is considered that this cumulative literature within the book will be a source for future studies on these subjects and will provide important insights for practitioners.

Adam Smith, with “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” published in 1776 is unanimously hailed as the founder of economics as a social science and also of “economic liberalism” or “capitalism” as it is called to contrast it with “socialism”, the latter propagated by K. Marx at a later date.

The group of economists that followed A.Smith, including such notable names as D.Ricardo, N.W.Senior, John Stuart Mill, culminating in Alfred Marshall (1890: Principles of Economics) is called the “Classical School” or alternately the “Manchester School” to refer to their place of origin. Their macroeconomic system is called the “Classical System”. Having accepted the Malthusian law of population (T.Robert Malthus: 1798 Essays on the Principle of Population) D. Ricardo had come up with a model in which growth eventually comes to a halt, moving to that point, however, all along at full employment equilibrium.This was also in line with the views of Adam Smith. Marshall had introduced the concept of elasticities and used the partial method of analysis. In contrast, Leon Walras, in his “Eléments d’Economie Pure ou Theorie de La Richesse Sociale” used the general equilibrium approach to prove that the economy arrives automatically to full employment equilibrium, following Adam Smith and the Classical School.

This book offers a summary of the basic views and conclusions of Adam Smith concerning economic regime, as is also followed by the rest of the members of the Classical School: In a milieu of perfect competition prevailing in all the markets or sectors of the economy, including the labor market, full employment equilibrium will be achieved automatically. This equilibrium will, therefore, also maximize the welfare of the workers because the market wage rate, with no intrusions from the government or the unions, will have ensured full employment. Hence, there is no need for interventionism, that is, for the state to intervene prices, wages, channeling of investments and economic decisions in general.

Sizin işletmeniz / örgütünüz için hangi metodolojinin doğru olduğunu nasıl belirleyebilirsiniz? Özellikle üretim faaliyetlerini geliştirmek isteyen işletmelerde standart soru şu: Yalın, Toplam Kalite Yönetimi (TKY), Altı Sigma, Çevik, Esnek, Tepkisel, Kısıtlar Teorisi, Taguchi, Tersine Mühendislik ve diğer tüm öngörülen iyileştirme programları arasındaki farklar nelerdir? Bu sorunun altında “çözümler” ormanında mantıklı bir gezinmenin yolunu bulmaya ihtiyaç var ve tam olarak size uyan birini seçmeniz gerekmektedir. Çünkü oyalanarak zaman kaybetmeyi, katma değer sağlamayacak faaliyetlere kaynak tüketmeyi kaldıramayacak bir rekabet ortamı söz konusu.

Üretim yönetiminde kullanılan yaklaşımlar uzun bir liste oluşturabilir. Paradigma sıfatı ile eşleştirdiğimizde ise durum değişmektedir. Paradigma üzerine yapılan açıklamalar ile düşünüldüğünde Toplam Kalite Yönetimi, Yalın, Altı Sigma ve Kısıtlar Teorisinin etki düzeylerinin ve etki alanlarının yüksek olduğu ve işletmeciliğe yeni bir bakış açısı sundukları görülmektedir. Ve yaklaşık yarım asra yakın bir zamandır, halen bilinirlikleri devam etmektedir. En temel düzeyden başlarsak tüm bu metodolojilerin temel amaçları noktasında hemen bir ayrışmanın olduğu görülmektedir. Örneğin; Altı Sigma tutarlılığı sağlamada sürekliliği hedeflerken, Kısıtlar Teorisi iş hacmini arttırmayı öncelemektedir. Yalın değer üzerinden şekillenir ve müşteriye değer sunmayı amaçlar. Toplam Kalite Yönetimi ise akla gelen her alanda kaliteyi hedefler. İşletmelerin istediği para kazanmaya giden yolda hangisi ya da hangileri daha parlak sonuçlar vermektedir? Neden farklı öncelikleri var? Yoksa formül hepsinin entegrasyonunda mı gizli?