Financial Market Sophistication and Global Innovation Ranking Among Upper-Middle-Income Countries

Year 2025, Volume: 33 Issue: 66, 265 - 288, 21.10.2025

Naci Yılmaz , Mehmet Civelek

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.04.12

Abstract

The study's primary purpose is to create a list of innovation rankings for 21 “upper-middle-income” countries based on their performance from 2011 to 2021. Moreover, this paper aims to determine which criteria affect innovation performance more and vice versa. BWM+SD and CoCoSo methods, which are multi-criteria decision-making methods, were used to compare the innovation performances of these countries based on WIPO’s criteria and data. According to the BWM and SD methods, “Knowledge and technology outputs” and “Market sophistication” are the most crucial criteria that affect innovation performance. According to the CoCoSo method, the countries with the highest and the lowest innovation performance are China and Algeria, respectively. The integration of different techniques and the investigation of many countries over a long period represent the uniqueness of this study.

Keywords

Financial Development , Economic Development , Sustainability , Global Innovation Index , Financial Performance

Üst-Orta Gelir Grubundaki Ülkeler Arasında Finansal Piyasa Gelişmişliği ve Küresel İnovasyon Sıralaması

Abstract

Çalışmanın öncelikli amacı, “üst-orta gelirli” 21 ülkenin 2011-2021 döneminde sergiledikleri inovasyon performanslarını dikkate alarak, bir başarı listesi oluşturabilmektir. Ayrıca, seçilen kriterlerden hangilerinin inovasyon performansını daha çok, hangilerinin daha az etkilediklerini saptamak amaçlanmıştır. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden BWM+SD ve CoCoSo yöntemleri kullanılarak bu ülkelerin WIPO’nun kriterleri ve raporundaki veriler doğrultusunda performansları kıyaslanmıştır. BWM ve SD yöntemlerine göre inovasyon performansını en çok etkileyen kriterler “bilgi ve teknoloji çıktıları” ve “piyasa gelişmişliği” olmuştur. CoCoSo performans sıralama yaklaşımına göre ise inovasyon performansı en yüksek ve en düşük ülkeler sırasıyla Çin ve Cezayir’dir. Farklı metotların entegre edilmesi ve birçok ülkenin uzun bir zaman diliminde incelenmesi bu çalışmanın emsalsiz olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Finansal Kalkınma , Ekonomik Kalkınma , Sürdürülebilirlik , Küresel İnovasyon Endeksi , Finansal Performans

References

• Akbulut, O.Y. & A. Hepşen (2021), “Finansal Performans ve Pay Senedi Getirileri Arasındaki Ilişkinin Entropi ve CoCoSo ÇKKV Teknikleriyle Analiz Edilmesi”, Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 681-709.
• Akgül, Y. (2021), “Borsa İstanbul’da İşlem Gören Ticari Bankaların Finansal Performansının Bütünleşik CRITIC CoCoSo Modeliyle Analizi”, Ekonomi ve Finansal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(2), 71-90.
• Ayçin, E. & E. Çakın (2019), “Ülkelerin Inovasyon Performanslarının Ölçümünde Entropi ve MABAC Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Bütünleşik Olarak Kullanılması”, Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 19(2), 326-351.
• Aytekin, A. et al. (2022), “Global Innovation Efficiency Assessment of EU Member And Candidate Countries Via DEA-EATWIOS Multi-Criteria Methodology”, Technology in Society, 68, 101896.
• Bakır, S. & S. Çakır (2021), “Seçilmiş Ülkelerin Yenilik Performanslarının Bütünleşik CRITIC-EVAMIX Yöntemleriyle Ölçümü”, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 17(4), 971-992.
• Block, J. et al. (2023), “Are Family Firms Doing More Innovation Output With Less Innovation Input? A Replication and Extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(4), 1496-1520.
• Bogliacino, F. & M. Pianta (2010), “Innovation and Employment: A Reinvestigation Using Revised Pavitt Classes”, Research Policy, 39(6), 799-809.
• Bogliacino, F. & M. Vivarelli (2012), “The Job Creation Effect of R&D Expenditures”, Australian Economic Papers, 51(2), 96-113.
• Bogliacino, F. et al. (2012), “R&D and Employment: An Application of the LSDVC Estimator Using European Microdata”, Economics Letters, 116(1), 56-59.
• Brown, R. et al. (2022), “Innovation and Borrower Discouragement in SMEs”, Small Business Economics, 59(4), 1489-1517.
• Çilek, A. (2022), “Bütünleşik SV-CoCoSo Teknikleriyle Etkinlik Analizi: Mevduat Bankaları Gruplarında Bir Uygulama”, Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14 (26), 52-69.
• Cirillo, V. et al. (2018), “Technology and Occupations in Business Cycles”, Sustainability, 10(2), 463.
• Deveci, M. et al. (2021), “Fuzzy Power Heronian Function Based CoCoSo Method for The Advantage Prioritization of Autonomous Vehicles In Real-Time Traffic Management”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 69, 102846.
• Dutta, S. et al. (eds.) (2023), Global Innovation Index 2023 Innovation in the face of uncertainty, 16th Edition, WIPO-World Intellectual Property Organization.
• Dwivedi, A. & N. Pawsey (2023), “Examining The Drivers of Marketing Innovation in SMEs”, Journal of Business Research, 155(Part B), 113409.
• Ecer, F. & D. Pamucar (2020), “Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Novel Integrated Fuzzy Best Worst Method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo’B) multi-criteria model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121981.
• Harrison, R. et al. (2014), “Does Innovation Stimulate Employment? A Firm-Level Analysis Using Comparable Micro-Data From Four European Countries”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 35, 29-43.
• Huarng, K.H. & T.H.K. Yu (2022), “Analysis of Global Innovation Index by Structural Qualitative Association”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121850.
• Jin, L. et al. (2023), “The Difference of Investment Efficiency Between Family And Non-Family Firms: An International Scope”, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 88, 101839.
• Kabadurmus, O. & F.N.K. Kabadurmus (2019), “Innovation in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach”, Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(3), 98-121.
• Le, T.T. & M. Ikram (2022), “Do Sustainability Innovation And Firm Competitiveness Help Improve Firm Performance? Evidence From The SME Sector in Vietnam”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 588-599.
• Leung, T.Y. & P. Sharma (2021), “Differences in The Impact of R&D Intensity and R&D Internationalization on Firm Performance-Mediating Role of Innovation Performance”, Journal of Business Research, 131, 81-91.
• Lopes, V. et al. (2016), “Innovation Management: A Systematic Literature Analysis of The Innovation Management Evolution”, Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(1), 16-30.
• Lucchese, M. & M. Pianta (2012), “Innovation and Employment in Economic Cycles”, Comp Econ Stud, 54, 341-359.
• Majerová, I. (2015), “Measurement of Innovative Performance of Selected Economies of The European Union and Switzerland”, International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(3), 228-232.
• Medhioub, N. & Y. Boujelbene (2025), “Does Digitalization Moderate The Link Between Innovation And Economic Growth? A Two-Step Difference Gmm Analysis of Developed And Developing Countries”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16(1), 339-365.
• Öncü, E. (2021), “Balkan Ülkelerinde Banka Karlılığını Etkileyen Faktörler”, ABAD Anadolu ve Balkan Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(8), 479-492.
• Oralhan, B. & M.A. Büyüktürk (2019), “Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri ve Türkiye’nin İnovasyon Performansının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleriyle Kıyaslanması”, Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (16), 471-484.
• Özdağoğlu, A. et al. (2020), “The Ranking of Turkish Universities With COCOSO and MARCOS”, Economics Business and Organization Research, 2(Special Issue), 374-392.
• Paredes-Frigolett, H. et al. (2021), “On The Performance And Strategy of Innovation Systems: A Multicriteria Group Decision Analysis Approach”, Technology in Society, 67, 101632.
• Piva, M. & M. Vivarelli (2018), “Is Innovation Destroying Jobs? Firm-level Evidence From the EU”, Sustainability, 10(4), 1279.
• Ren, J. et al. (2017), “Urban Sewage Sludge, Sustainability, And Transition for Eco-City: Multicriteria Sustainability Assessment of Technologies Based on Best-Worst Method”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 29-39.
• ReportLinker (2023), European ICT Industry Share in GDP by Country Percent of GDP 2023, <https://www.reportlinker.com/dataset/d101ee3ac7bddbdef94144783a03ba77b574185d#:~:text=The%20European%20ICT%20industry%20exhibits,%25%20and%20Malta%20at%207.65%25>, 05.03.2025.
• Rezaei, J (2016), “Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Some Properties And A Linear Model”, Omega, 64, 126-130.
• Rezaei, J. (2015), “Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method”, Omega, 53, 49-57.
• Satı, Z.E. (2024), “Comparison of The Criteria Affecting The Digital Innovation Performance of The European Union (EU) Member And Candidate Countries With The Entropy Weight-TOPSIS Method And Investigation of Its Importance For Smes”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123094.
• Silva, M.D.C. et al. (2020a), “Global Innovation Indicators Analysed By Multicriteria Decision”, Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(4), 1-17.
• Silva, M.D.C. et al. (2020b), “Multicriteria Decision Choices For Investment In Innovative Upper-Middle Income Countries”, Innovation & Management Review, 17(3), 321-347.
• Şimşek-Yağlı, B. & S. Zengin-Taşdemir (2023), “Bütünleşik BWM ve TOPSIS Yöntemleri Kullanılarak OPEC Üyesi Ülkeler İçin Kurumsal Gelişmişlik Analizi”, Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 119-135.
• Statista (2024), Share of the information, communications, and technology (ICT) sector in the gross domestic product (GDP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 2021, by selected country, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/1393918/cee-share-of-ict-sector-in-gdp/>, 01.03.2025.
• Stojanović, I. et al. (2022), “A Multi-criteria Approach To The Comparative Analysis of The Global Innovation Index on The Example of The Western Balkan countries”, Economics, 10(2), 9-26.
• Toha, M.A. et al. (2020), “Firm’s Sustainability And Societal Development From The Lens of Fishbone Eco-Innovation: A Moderating Role of ISO 14001-2015 Environmental Management System”, Processes, 8(9), 11-52.
• Tran, H.T. et al. (2022), “Open Innovation Knowledge Management in Transition to Market Economy: Integrating Dynamic Capability And Institutional Theory”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31(7), 575-603.
• Trinugroho, I. et al. (2021), “Effect of Financial Development on Innovation: Roles of Market Institutions”, Economic Modelling, 103, 105598.
• TÜİK (2023), Üretim Yöntemine Göre GSYH Hesabında Sektörlerin Payları, Cari Fiyatlarla, 2022, 2023, <https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Yillik-Gayrisafi-Yurt-Ici-Hasila-2023-53450#:~:text=Gayrisafi%20yurt%20i%C3%A7i%20has%C4%B1lada%20en,ula%C5%9Ft%C4%B1rma%20ve%20depolama%20sekt%C3%B6r%C3%BC%20izledi>, 08.03.2025.
• Tunsi, W. & H. Alidrisi (2023), “The Innovation-based human Development Index Using Promethee II: The context of G8 Countries”, Sustainability, 15(14), 11373.
• Ulutaş, A. et al. (2020), “Location Selection For Logistics Center With Fuzzy SWARA and CoCoSo methods”, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(4), 4693-4709.
• United Nations (2024), Sustainable Development Goals, <https://sdgs.un.org/goals>, 06.06.2024.
• World Bank (2021), GDP (current US$) - Turkiye, <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?most_recent_year_desc=true&locations=TR>, 15.05.2024.
• World Bank (2021), New World Bank country classifications by income level: 2021-2022, <https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2021-2022#:~:text=The%20World%20Bank%20assigns%20the,%2C%20and%20high%2Dincome%20countries>, 06.06.2024.
• World Bank (2021), Research and development expenditure (% of GDP), <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true>, 28.07.2024.
• World Bank (2023), Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP), <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.WD.GD.ZS>, 28.02.2025.
• World Bank (2023), Trade (% of GDP), <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS>, 10.03.2025.
• Yazdani, M. et al. (2019), “A Combined Compromise Solution (Cocoso) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems”, Management Decision, 57(9), 2501-2519.