Assessing Tax Performances in Selected OECD Countries Using Entropy-Based MULTIMOORA Method

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 1153 - 1168, 30.09.2025

Uğur Çiçek

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to comparatively assess the tax performances of 18 selected OECD countries for the period 2014-2022. This paper evaluates the tax performance of countries using the entropy-based MULTIMOORA method based on tax revenue criteria. The data covers 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 using different criteria: total tax revenues, corporate tax, income tax, goods and services tax, and national income per capita to determine tax performance. The findings show that GDP per capita is the most critical criterion in general, but the corporate tax criterion has the highest weight for the first time in 2022. Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway have the best performance, while Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia have the lowest performance throughout the analysis. The differences in the rankings can be explained by the reforms in the tax performance of countries and economic transformations over time.

Keywords

Tax Performance , Tax Revenues , Multicriteria Decision Making , MULTIMOORA , Entropy

Ethical Statement

Ethics Committee approval was not required for this study. The author declares that the study was conducted in accordance with research and publication ethics. The author confirms that no part of the study was generated, either wholly or in part, using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. The author declares that there are no financial conflicts of interest involving any institution, organization, or individual associated with this article. The author affirms that the entire research process was performed by the sole declared author of the study.

References

• Akçakanat, Ö., Eren, H., Aksoy, E., & Ömürbek, V. (2017). Bankacılık sektöründe Entropi ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile performans değerlendirmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 285-300.
• Alp, İ., Öztel, A., & Köse, M.S. (2015). Entropi tabanlı MAUT yöntemi ile kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansı ölçümü: Bir vaka çalışması. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2), 65-81.
• Aytekin, A. (2016). Hastaların hastane tercihinde etkili kriterler ve hastanelerin Multimoora ile sıralanması: Eskişehir örneği. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(4), 134-143.
• Baležentis, T., & Zeng, S. (2013). Group multi-criteria decision making based upon interval-valued fuzzy numbers: an extension of the MULTIMOORA method, Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 543-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.066
• Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35(2), 445–469.
• Brauers, W. K., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.01
• Brauers, W.K.M., & Zavadskas, E.K. (2012). Robustness of MULTIMOORA: A method for multi-objective optimization. Informatica, 23(1), 1-25.
• Ceyhan, İ. F., & Demirci, F. (2017). MULTIMOORA yöntemiyle finansal performans ölçümü: Leasing şirketlerinde bir uygulama. Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(15), 277-296.
• Çoşkun, I. T. (2022). Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile elektrikli otomobil seçimi: SDMULTIMOORA yaklaşımı. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 57(1), 68-82.
• Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Liao, H., & Herrera, F. (2019). An overview of MULTIMOORA for multi-criteria decision-making: Theory, developments, applications, and challenges. Information Fusion, 51, 145-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.12.002
• Karami, A., & Johansson, R., (2014). Utilization of multi attribute decision making techniques to integrate automatic and manual ranking of options. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 30, 519-534.
• Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 6577-6585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.081
• Kenger, M. D., & Organ, A. (2017). Banka personel seçiminin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden entropi temelli ARAS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(4), 152-170. https://doi.org/10.30803/adusobed.336215
• Orakçı, E., & Özdemir, A. (2017). Telafi edici çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile Türkiye ve AB ülkelerinin insani gelişmişlik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 61-74.
• Özdağoğlu, A., Yakut, E., & Bahar, S. (2017). Machine selection in a dairy product company with entropy and SAW method integration. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2017321605
• Perçin, S., & Çakır, S. (2013). AB Ülkeleri’nde Bütünleşik Entropi Ağırlık-Topsis yöntemiyle Ar-Ge performansının ölçülmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 77-95.
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
• Shemshadi, A., Shirazi, H., Toreihi, M., & Tarokh, M. J. (2011). A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12160-12167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.027
• Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitienė, I., & Balezentis, A. (2012). Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 3302-3311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.067
• Şahin, Y. (2019). Akdeniz bölgesi’nin güneş enerjisi yatırımına yönelik özelliklerinin entegre entropi multimoora yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 6(3), 846-864. https://dx.doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.600296
• Şimşek, T. (2022). Personel seçiminde çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri kullanımının insan kaynakları yönetimi perspektifinden değerlendirilmesi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 57(3), 1514-1532. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.22.07.1819
• OECD (2023). Revenue statistics. OECD. https://www.oecd.org
• Tunca, M. Z., Ömürbek, N., Cömert, H. G., & Aksoy, E. (2016). OPEC ülkelerinin performanslarının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden entropi ve MAUT ile değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 7(14), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.245987
• Wang, Y., Zhang, H., & Lin, B. (2021). An entropy-based integrated MCDM model for energy policy selection. Energy Policy, 156, 112420.
• Yavuz, V. (2016). Coğrafi pazar seçiminde PROMETHEE ve entropi yöntemlerine dayalı çok kriterli bir analiz: mobilya sektöründe bir uygulama. Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 163-177.
• Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill.
• Zhang, H., Gu, C.L., Gu, L.W., & Zhang, Y. (2011). The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS & information ENTROPY - A case in the Yangtze river delta of China. Tourism Management, 32(2), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.007
• Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00243-0