(This work has been supported by Eskisehir Osmangazi University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit under grant number #2977)

Geoeconomics is increasingly positioning itself as a new field of study, offering an opportunity to analyze competition on the continuously evolving global stage through various dimensions such as geography, culture, strategy, and thought structure (Conway, 2000). In the context of international relations, it is observed that states are increasingly inclined to employ economic tools within the framework of their power policies.In these relationships, while the importance of military means diminishes, the role and significance of economic tools are progressively increasing. Luttwak (1990) introduced the term "Geoeconomics" to illustrate that states are competing with each other economically rather than militarily. Huntington (1993) posited that the power hierarchy among states would be determined not by military capacity but by economic strength. Sparke (1998) emphasized that geoeconomics should be holistically approached in conjunction with cultural, political, and economic geography. Scholvin and Wigell (2018) elucidated that the concept of geoeconomics, first introduced by Edward Luttwak, represents a shift in state power politics from military to economic strength. Barton(1999) highlighted that geoeconomics gained increased prominence in the post-Cold War era.Wigell and Vihma (2016) exposed Russia's methods of establishing geoeconomic dominance through its gas exports, while Gonca(2016) discussed China's establishment of geoeconomic sovereignty via the Silk Road. Karakaş (2021) highlighted the geostrategic and geoeconomic significance of Turkey's boron resources exploring Turkey's geoeconomic position and the status of three major global powers. The concept of "Geoeconomics" has been addressed in these various contexts. However, there has been a lack of research examining this concept in the context of education. Therefore, the importance of researching the term "Geoeconomics" in an educational context has emerged, focusing on how Turkey’s economic and geographical strengths, integrated with technology, can strategically enhance its prominence on the international stage. This study investigates whether education, from a geo-economic perspective, exhibits regional differences in terms of national development. In the study conducted by Wang et al. (2017), it was noted that geo-economic relationships are influenced by factors such as geographical location, economic factors, policy, and culture. Therefore, in this research, these four factors have been recognized as geoeconomic indicators and have been examined in detail within the context of education.To date, there has been no study in the literature that concurrently addresses geoeconomics and education.It is believed that this work, by correlating geoeconomics with the field of education, will make a significant contribution to the area. Furthermore, this research presents various recommendations to educational policymakers for addressing inequalities arising from geoeconomic differences. The aim is to enhance the academic success of students in regions that are disadvantaged from a geoeconomic perspective. This study, based on the results of the Districts' Socioeconomic Development Ranking Survey (District SEGE-2022) conducted by the Ministry of Industry and Technology, was carried out in high schools of Eskişehir's Odunpazarı, which has the highest level of socioeconomic development, and Han, which has the lowest. Within the scope of the research, the regional geo-economic differences of 10 high schools in these two districts were examined, and the effects of these differences on students' academic achievements were analyzed. The primary objective of the study is to determine the reflections of geoeconomic regional differences on student success in Turkey. The sub-objectives established in line with this main goal are as follows:

1. What is the status of students in Odunpazari and Han districts in terms of geoeconomic factors?
2. What is the impact of geoeconomic differences on academic achievements of students in Odunpazari and Han districts?

In this study, a mixed-methodology approach has been adopted, utilizing the "Concurrent Triangulation" design and maximum sampling technique. The research focuses on examining the impacts of geoeconomic differences on education. For sample selection, the average scores of Basic Proficiency Test (BFT), which is first and mandatory phase for university entrance, were considered.From the high schools located in Eskişehir's Odunpazari district, three schools each with the highest, medium, and lowest BFT average scores were selected for the sample. A single high school in Han district was also included in sample.Based on these criteria, a total of 10 schools were identified. In the research, schools were named S1 (School-1), S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, and S10, according to their BFT score rankings [S1, S2, S3 (the first third in success)], [S4, S5, S6 (the second third in success)], [S7, S8, S9 (the third third in success)]. Interviews were conducted with 2 students and 2 teachers selected from each school, totaling 40 interviews. Data collected through surveys from 40 participants and 10 school principals were analyzed. Geoeconomic differences of selected schools were determined using "Geoeconomic Differences Identification Survey" developed by researcher. Geographical location, economic status, cultural and political aspects of these schools were evaluated during this process.The research simultaneously carried out identification of geoeconomic differences and their reflections on education of students in selected schools through interviews. Subsequently, quantitative and qualitative results were compared. According to Blackwill and Harris (2017), geostrategic power is contingent upon a country's local economic performance and its capacity to mobilize resources. These elements of power also define variables to be examined in this research. Within this context, quantitative aspect of study considers educational success as dependent variable and geoeconomics as independent variable.Geoeconomics is an independent variable defined through concepts such as culture, politics, economy, and geographical location.Dependent variable is academic achievement level of schools to be examined. Quantitative data were collected from school principals using a survey developed by researcher. Following analyses, impact of geoeconomics on educational success was determined. In qualitative dimension of mixed-method approach, effects of variables such as culture,politics, economy and geographical location related to geoeconomics on education were qualitatively examined through participant perceptions obtained from interviews.Findings from quantitative data were interpreted in comparison with these qualitative results. Consequently, this research analyzed the Odunpazari and Han districts of Eskişehir through lens of geoeconomic regional differences, examining how these differences reflect on education.

School-1, School-5,and School-10 demonstrate impact of socio-economic challenges.School-1 and School-5,with limited resources,and low parental educational backgrounds,likely face challenges in providing conducive learning environment.School-10,affected by familial instability and troubled neighborhood,underscores correlation between socioeconomic stressors and academic performance.School-4 presents unique case.Despite its remote location and socio-economically disadvantaged student base,it achieves moderate success,highlighting critical role of parental involvement and teacher commitment.This suggests that socio-economic disadvantages can be mitigated to an extent by strong community and educational support systems.School-2 and School-3 face infrastructural challenges.School-2, constrained by its historical status, lacks modern educational facilities, which could impede integration of technology in learning.School-3’s lack of sports facility points to limited physical development opportunities for students.School-6 and School-7 offer more diverse socio-economic backgrounds,potentially providing more balanced educational environment.School-7,with significant number of students working part-time,also reflects economic pressures on families in community.School-8 shows disparity in parental education and employment,with notable level of unemployment among mothers.This could impact level of support and resources available to students at home.School-9, located in conflict-prone area, indicates how community dynamics can directly impact school environment and student behavior, emphasizing need for safe and stable learning environments as per Edmonds' principles.These schools illustrate complex interplay between location,economic conditions,and educational outcomes.Challenges faced by schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas,such as limited resources,lower parental involvement,and familial stressors,are evident.Conversely, moderate success of School-4 despite its disadvantaged setting underscores potential of community engagement and dedicated teaching to overcome economic and geographical barriers.Analysis also highlights need for adaptive educational strategies that consider unique geoeconomic contexts of each school.Addressing technological gaps, infrastructural limitations,and community-based challenges are crucial for creating equitable educational opportunities.Moreover,critical role of parental education and employment in shaping home environment and,by extension, student performance,is apparent.This suggests that broader socio-economic policies and interventions are necessary to address root causes of educational disparities,and to enhance school effectiveness across diverse geoeconomic landscapes.

Barton, J. R. (1999). Flags of convenience: geoeconomics and regulatory minimisation. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 90, 142-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00057 Blackwill, R. D., & Harris, J. M. (2017). War by other means: Geoeconomics and statecraft. Harvard University Press. Conway, M. (2000). Geo-Economics: The New Science. Conway Data INc. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor, Educational Leadership, 37, 15–24. Gonca, İ. B. (2017). Enerji güvenliği çerçevesinde Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti'nin Orta Asya'daki jeo-ekonomik çıkarları. (Yayımlanma No. 488948) [Doktora tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp Huntington, S. P. (1993). Why international primacy matters? International Security, 17(4), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539022 Karakaş, A. V. (2021). Türkiye’de bulunan bor rezervlerinin jeostratejik ve jeoekonomik açıdan önemi. (Yayımlanma No. 679289) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp Luttwak, E. N. (1990). From geopolitics to geo-economics: Logic of conflict, grammar of commerce. National Interest, 20, 17–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42894676 adresinden 13.10.2022 Scholvin, S., & Wigell, M. (2018). Geo-economics as concept and practice in ınternational relations: Surveying the state of the art. Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) Working Paper, 102, 1-15. https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/dd73604f-ffee-44e2-8960-4ecd8927fa32 OECD, (2012). Belgium Country Note Results. from PISA 2012. http://www.oecd.org./pisa/keyfindings/PISA -2012-results-belgium.pdf. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). “Effective schools: A review”, The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı, (2022). İlçelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması SEGE-2022. Ankara. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/merkez-birimi/b94224510b7b/sege Sparke, M. (1998). From geopolitics to geoeconomics: Transnational state effects in the borderlands. Geopolitics, 3(2), 62-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650049808407619 Şirin, S. R. (2005). Socieconomic status and academik achievement: A meta analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75,417- 453. Wang, S., Xue, X., Zhu, A., & Ge, Y. (2017). The key driving forces for geo-economic relationships between China and ASEAN Countries. Sustainability, 9(12), 2363. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9122363 Wigell, M., & Vihma, A. (2016). Geopolitics versus geoeconomics: The case of Russia’s changing geostrategy and its effects on the EU. International Affairs 92(3), 605–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12600