Evaluation of Countries’ Competitiveness by Entropy-Based WASPAS and PROMETHEE Methods

Abstract

Sustainable development, productivity, efficiency and increases in performance indicators of countries depend on their competitiveness. Therefore, it is important to determine the competitiveness and the current status of countries. In this context, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate the competitiveness factors of countries by using WASPAS and PROMETHEE methods. Within the scope of the study, 63 countries included in the World Competitiveness Report published by the International Institute of Management Development (IMD) in 2022 have been listed according to 4 criteria: economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency and infrastructure. In order to rank the countries according to their competitiveness, first of all, the criteria have been weighted by the Entropy method. According to the calculated weights, 63 countries have been ranked according to the WASPAS (Weighted Aggregates Sum Product Assessment) and PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation) methods and compared with the IMD World Competitiveness Report (2022). According to the results of the analysis, it has been determined that the country with the best performance in terms of competitiveness in all three of the IMD World Competitiveness Report (2022), WASPAS and PROMETHEE is Denmark, the country with the second best performance is Sweden, and the country in the last place is Venezuela.

Keywords

• Competitiveness
• Entropy Method
• WASPAS Method
• PROMETHEE Method

Ülkelerin Rekabet Edebilirliklerinin Entropi Temelli WASPAS ve PROMETHEE Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Ülkelerin sürdürülebilir kalkınmaları, verimlilikleri, etkinlikleri ve performans göstergelerindeki artışlar rekabet edebilirliklerine bağlıdır. Bu yüzden ülkelerin rekabet edebilirlikleri ve mevcut durumlarının belirlenmesi önem arz etmektedir. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmanın temel amacı ülkelerin rekabet edebilirlik faktörlerinin WASPAS ve PROMETHEE yöntemleri kullanılarak değerlendirilmesidir. Çalışma kapsamında Yönetim Geliştirme Enstitüsü (International Institute of Management Development- IMD)’nün 2022 yılında yayımladığı Dünya Rekabet Edebilirlik Raporu’nda yer alan 63 ülke; ekonomik performans, kamu etkinliği, iş etkinliği ve altyapı olmak üzere 4 kritere göre sıralanmıştır. Ülkelerin rekabet edebilirliklerine göre sıralanmasında öncelikle kriterler Entropi yöntemi ile ağırlıklandırılmıştır. Hesaplanan ağırlıklar doğrultusunda 63 ülke WASPAS (Weighted Aggregates Sum Product Assessment) ve PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation) yöntemlerine göre sıralanarak IMD Dünya Rekabet Edebilirlik Raporu (2022) ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Yapılan analiz sonuçlarına göre rekabet edebilirlik açısından IMD Dünya Rekabet Edebilirlik Raporu (2022), WASPAS, PROMETHEE olmak üzere her üç durumda da en iyi performansa sahip olan ülkenin Danimarka, en iyi ikinci performansı gösteren ülkenin İsveç, son sırada yer alan ülkenin ise Venezuela olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Rekabet Edebilirlik
• Entropi Yöntemi
• WASPAS Yöntemi
• PROMETHEE Yöntemi

References

1. Adalı, E. A. ve Işık, A. T (2017). Bir tedarikçi seçim problemi için SWARA ve WASPAS yöntemlerine dayanan karar verme yaklaşımı. International Review of Economics and Management, 5(4), 56-77.
2. Adıgüzel, M. (2013). Küresel rekabet gücünün ölçülmesi ve Türkiye bağlamında bir değerlendirme. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 37, 1-21.
3. Akçakanat, Ö., Eren, H., Aksoy, E. ve Ömürbek, V. (2017). Bankacılık sektöründe ENTROPİ ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile performans değerlendirmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 285-300.
4. Albadvi, A., Chaharsooghi, S. K. ve Esfahanipour, A. (2007). Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(2), 673-683.
5. Bayraktutan, Y. ve Bıdırdı, H. (2016). Teknoloji ve rekabetçilik: Temel kavramlar ve endeksler bağlamında bir değerlendirme. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 8(14), 1-24.
6. Bhawsar, P. ve Chattopadhyay, U. (2015). Competitiveness: Review, reflections and directions. Global Business Review, 16(4), 665-679.
7. Biswas, T. K., Chaki, S. ve Das, M. C. (2019). MCDM technique application to the selection of an Indian institute of technology. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(3), 65-76.
8. Brans, J. P., Vincke, P. ve Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238.

9. Brans, J. P. & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE Methods. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, State of the Art Survey. Chapter 5. Springer Science: New York, 163-195.
10. Brans, Jean-Pierre, Vincke, Philippe (1985). A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Management Science, 31(6), 647-656.
11. Chakraborty, S. ve Zavadskas, E. K. (2014). Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making. Informatica, 25(1), 1-20.
12. Charles, V. ve Zegarra, L. F. (2014). Measuring regional competitiveness through data envelopment analysis: A peruvian case. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(11), 5371-5381.
13. Çivi, E. ve Erol, V. D. (2008). Ulusal rekabet gücünü arttırma yolları: Literatür araştırması. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 15(1), 99-114.
14. Dağdeviren, M. ve Erarslan, E. (2008). PROMETHEE sıralama yöntemi ile tedarikçi seçimi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 69-75.
15. Eren, H. ve Gelmez, E. (2022). Ülkelerin inovasyon performansına göre kümelenmesi; ENTROPİ, COPRAS ve ARAS yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 12(3), 1546-1565.
16. Eş, A., & Kök, E. (2020). Banka performanslarının Entropi tabanlı WASPAS yöntemiyle analizi. Düzce Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 233-250.
17. Falciola, J., Jansen, M. ve Rollo, V. (2020). Defining firm competitiveness: A multidimensional framework. World Development, 129, 104857.
18. Fedajev, A., Popovic, G. ve Stanujkic, D. (2019). MCDM framework for evaluation of the tourism destination competitiveness. In Proc. of 5th International Scientific Conference Innovation as an Initiator of the Development. MEFkon 2019. Belgrade, Serbia, 112-119.
19. Güllü, K. ve Yılmaz, M. (2020). Determination of destination competitiveness of the selected mediterranean destinations by entropy based EDAS method. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 48, 486-509.
20. Hagag, A. M., Yousef, L. S. ve Abdelmaguid, T. F. (2023). Multi-criteria decision-making for machine selection in manufacturing and construction: recent trends. Mathematics, 11(3), 631.
21. Huang, J. H. ve Peng, K. H. (2012). Fuzzy Rasch model in TOPSIS: A new approach for generating fuzzy numbers to assess rhe competitiveness of the tourism industries in Asian countries. Tourism Management, 33(2), 456- 465.
22. Hussain, S. A. I. ve Mandal, U. K. (2016). Entropy based MCDM approach for Selection of material. National Level Conference on Engineering Problems and Application of Mathematics, 1-7, Erişim Tarihi: 23.01.2023.
23. Ignatius, J., Behzadian, M., Malekan, H. S. ve Lalitha, D. (2012). Financial performance of Iran’s Automotive sector based on PROMETHEE II. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation & Technology (ICMIT) (pp. 35-38). IEEE.
24. IMD (2022). IMD World Competitiveness Booklet. https://imd.cld.bz/IMD-World-Competitiveness-Booklet-2022, Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2023.
25. Ishizaka, A. ve Nemery, P. (2011). Selecting the Best Statistical Distribution with Promethee And Gaia”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(4), 958-969
26. Ju, Y. ve Sohn, S. Y. (2014). Development of a national competitiveness index based on a structural equation model. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(5), 565-579.
27. Kaplan, D. E. (2003). Measuring our competitiveness-a critical examination of the IMD and WEF competitiveness indicators for South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 20(1), 75-88.
28. Karaslan, A. ve Tuncer, G. (2010). Uluslararası rekabet gücünün artırılmasında temel devlet politikaları. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(26), 23-45.
29. Kilic, H. S., Zaim, S. ve Delen, D. (2015). Selecting “The Best” ERP system for SMEs using a combination of ANP and PROMETHEE methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5), 2343-2352.
30. Kramulová, J. ve Jablonský, J. (2016). AHP model for competitiveness analysis of selected countries. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 24(2), 335-351.
31. Li, H., Wang, W., Fan, L., Li, Q. ve Chen, X. (2020). A novel hybrid MCDM model for machine tool selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, entropy weighting and later defuzzification VIKOR. Applied Soft Computing, 91, 106207.
32. Madic, M., Gecevska, V., Radovanovic, M. ve Petkovic D. (2014). Multi-criteria economic analysis of machining processes using the WASPAS method. Journal of Production Engineering, 17(2), 79-82.
33. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N. ve Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications-a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 28(1), 516-571.
34. Miç, P. ve Antmen, Z. F. (2021). A decision-making model based on TOPSIS, WASPAS, and MULTIMOORA methods for university location selection problem. SAGE Open, 11(3), 21582440211040115.
35. Moller, İ. H. ve Larsen, J. E. (2011). Socialpolitik. Kobenhavn: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
36. Momaya, K. S. (2019). The past and the future of competitiveness research: A review in an emerging context of innovation and EMNEs. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 14(1), 1-10.
37. Nadkarni, R. R. ve Puthuvayi, B. (2020). A comprehensive literature review of multi-criteria decision making methods in heritage buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 32, 101814.
38. Oubahman, L. ve Duleba, S. (2021). Review of PROMETHEE method in transportation. Production Engineering Archives, 27(1), 69-74.
39. Perçin, S. ve Sönmez, Ö. (2018). Bütünleşik Entropi ağırlık ve TOPSIS yöntemleri kullanılarak Türk sigorta şirketlerinin performansının ölçülmesi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 18. EYİ Özel Sayısı, 565- 582.
40. Rusu, V. D. ve Roman, A. (2018). An empirical analysis of factors affecting competitiveness of CEE countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1), 2044-2059.
41. Safari, H., Fagheyi, M. S., Ahangari, S. S. ve Fathi, M. R. (2012). Applying PROMETHEE method based on entropy weight for supplier selection. Business Management and Strategy, 3(1), 97-106.
42. Sala-i-Martin, X., Blanke, J., Hanouz, M. D., Geiger, T., Mia, I. ve Paua, F. (2007). The global competitiveness index: measuring the productive potential of nations. The Global Competitiveness Report, 3-50.
43. Singh, R. K. ve Modgil, S. (2020). Supplier selection using SWARA and WASPAS-a case study of Indian cement industry. Measuring Business Excellence, 24(2), 243-265.
44. Sözer, S. (2015). Türkiye Düzey 2 Bölgelerinin rekabet edebilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
45. Stevans, L. K., Neelankavil, J. P., Mendoza, R. ve Shankar, S. (2012). The economic competitiveness of countries: a principal factors approach. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(12), 76-90.
46. Temür, A. S. (2022). Turizm işletmelerinin Covid-19 öncesi ve Covid-19 sürecindeki finansal performanslarının Entropi temelli EDAS, TOPSIS ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 418-446.
47. Urosevic, S., Karabasevic, D., Stanujkic, D. ve Maksimovic, M. (2017). An approach to personnel selection in the tourism industry based on the SWARA and the WASPAS Methods. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 51(1).
48. Vaid, S. K., Vaid, G., Kaur, S., Kumar, R. ve Sidhu, M. S. (2022). Application of multi-criteria decision-making theory with VIKOR-WASPAS-Entropy methods: A case study of silent Genset. Materials Today: Proceedings, 50, 2416-2423.
49. Yap, J. Y. L., Ho, C. C. ve Ting, C. Y. (2019). A systematic review of the applications of multi-criteria decision- making methods in site selection problems. Built environment project and asset management, 9(4), 548-563.
50. Yaralıoğlu, K. (2010). Karar verme yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
51. Yıldırım, B. F. ve Yıldırım, S. K. (2019). The evaluation of competitiveness performance for developing eight countries by Grey TOPSIS. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 70-79.
52. Yıldızoğlu, E. (2019). Venezuela krizi: Ülke nasıl bu duruma geldi?. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler- dunya-47019657 Erişim Tarihi: 15.05.2023.
53. Yusuf, A. A., Ampah, J. D., Soudagar, M. E. M., Veza, I., Kingsley, U., Afrane, S., ... & Buyondo, K. A. (2022). Effects of hybrid nanoparticle additives in n-butanol/waste plastic oil/diesel blends on combustion, particulate and gaseous emissions from diesel engine evaluated with entropy-weighted PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS: Environmental and health risks of plastic waste. Energy Conversion and Management, 264, 115758.
54. Zavadskas, E., K., Vainiūnas, P., Turskis, Z. ve Tamošaitienė, J. (2012). Multiple criteria decision support system for assessment of projects managers in construction. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11(2), 501-520.
55. Zavadskas, E., K., Antucheviciene, J., Saparauskas, J. ve Turskis, Z. (2013). MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: Verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 47(2), 1-5.
56. Zhaoxu, S. ve Min, H. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making based on PROMETHEE method. In 2010 International Conference on Computing, Control and Industrial Engineering (Vol. 1, s. 416-418). IEEE.