ANALYSIS OF DEMOCRACY PERFORMANCES OF G7 COUNTRIES: AN APPLICATION WITH PSI METHOD

Abstract

With the advancement of democracy in a country, sustainable development, innovation, economic growth and progress can be achieved. Therefore, the progress of major economies in democracy can influence the global economy. In this context, the research measured the democracy performance of G7 countries, which account for more than half of global capital, using the Democracy Index (DI) components data created by The Economist Intelligence Unit (TEIU), the most recent and up-to-date data available, through the PSI multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method. According to the PSI (Preference Selection Index) method, the democracy performance of countries was ranked as Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy, and the USA. Furthermore, the average democracy performance value of countries was calculated, and it was observed that the countries with performance lower than this value were the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy, and the USA. Therefore, it is considered that the countries with lower-than-average democracy performance need to improve their democracy performance to contribute more to the global economy. Additionally, according to sensitivity, comparative, and simulation analyses in the research, it was concluded that the democracy performance of countries can be measured using the PSI method within the scope of the DI.

Keywords

• Democracy
• Democracy Performance
• G7 countries
• PSI
• MCDM

G7 ÜLKELERİNİN DEMOKRASİ PERFORMANSLARININ ANALİZİ: PSI YÖNTEMİ İLE BİR UYGULAMA

Abstract

Bir ülkede demokrasinin ilerlemesiyle sürdürülebilir kalkınma, inovasyon ve bunlara bağlı olarak ekonomik büyüme ve gelişme sağlanabilmektedir. Dolayısıyla büyük ekonomilerin demokrasi konusundaki gelişimleri küresel ekonomiyi etkileyebilmektedir. Bu kapsamda araştırmada, küresel sermayenin yarısından fazlasına sahip olan G7 ülkelerinin demokrasi performansları en son ve güncel olan The Economist Intelligence Unit (TEIU) kurumu tarafından oluşturulan demokrasi endeksi (DI) bileşenlerine ait veriler ile PSI çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemi ile ölçülmüştür. Araştırmada, PSI yöntemine göre ülkelerin demokrasi performansları Kanada, Almanya, İngiltere, Japonya, Fransa, İtalya ve ABD olarak sıralandığı gözlenmiştir. Bunun dışında, ülkelerin ortalama demokrasi performans değeri hesaplanmış ve söz konusu değerin altında performansa sahip olan ülkelerin İngiltere, Japonya, Fransa, İtalya ve ABD olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Buna göre, ortalama demokrasi performansından düşük performansa sahip olan ülkelerin küresel ekonomiye katkılarının daha fazla olması için demokrasi performanslarını artırmaları gerektiği değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca araştırmadaki duyarlılık, karşılaştırma ve simülasyon analizlerine göre, ülkelerin demokrasi performanslarının DI kapsamında PSI yöntemi kullanılarak ölçülebileceği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Demokrasi
• Demokrasi Performansı
• G7 Ülkeleri
• PSI
• ÇKKV

References

1. Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A. and Hussain, N. (2021). Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and ecological footprint: Exploring the role of environmental regulations and democracy in sustainable development. Sustainable Development, (30), 595–605. http://doi.org/ 10.1002/sd.2251
2. Akbulut, O. Y. (2020). Gri entropi temelli PSI ve ARAS ÇKKV yöntemleriyle Türk mevduat bankalarının performans analizi. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.690432
3. Amin, M., Irawati, N., Sinaga, H., Retnosari, D., Maulani, J. and Raja, H. (2021). Decision support system analysis for selecting a baby cream product with Preference Selection Index (PSI) baby sensitive skin under 3 year. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1993(1), 1-9. https://doi.org.10.1088/1742-6596/1933/1/012035
4. Arezki , R. and Gylfason, T. (2011). Commodity price volatility, democracy, and economic growth. In O. de La Grandville (Ed.), Economic growth and development (Frontiers of economics and globalization), (pp. 9-24). Emerald Group Publishing.
5. Armutçu, B. (2022). BRICS-T ülkelerinde politik istikrar ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 21(4), 386-398. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.1085460
6. Balıkçıoğlu, N. (2023). N11 ülkeleri özelinde ekonomik büyümeyi etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi: Yapısal kırılmalı panel veri analizi. Enderun Dergisi, 7(2), 204-225. https://doi.org/10.59274/enderun.1363667
7. Bari, P. and Karande, P. (2022). Ranking of sequencing rules in a job shop scheduling problem with Preference Selection Index Approach. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 1, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10028042022b
8. Barrett, B., Dommett, K. and Kreiss, D. (2021). The capricious relationship between technology and democracy: Analyzing public policy discussions in the UK and US. Policy Internet, 13, 522–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.266

9. Budianto, R., Suranti, D. and Supardi, R. (2022). A comparative analysis of simple additive methods weighting with preference selection ındex ın the selection of the best sale. Jurnal Media Computer Science, 1(2), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.37676/jmcs.v1i2.2741
10. Campbell, D., Carayannis, E. G. and Rehman, (2015). Quadruple helix structures of quality of democracy in innovation systems: the USA, OECD countries and EU member countries in global comparison. J Knowl Econ , 6, 467–493.
11. Cengiz, O. and Manga, M. (2021). An empirical analysis of democracy and public debt ınteraction in Turkey. Sivas Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 22(1), 113-134.
12. Demir, G., Özyalçın, T. and Bircan , H. (2021). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve ÇKKV yazılımı ile problem çözümü. Nobel.
13. Demir, N. (2010). Demokrasinin temel ilkeleri ve modern demokrasi kuralları. Ege Akademik Bakış, 10(2), 597-611. Gao, Y., Zang, L., Roth, A. and Wang, P. (2017). Does democracy cause ınnovation? an empirical test of the popper hypothesi. Research Policy, 46(7), 1272-1283.
14. Ghardallou, W. and Sridi, D. (2020). Democracy and economic growth: A literature review. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 982–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00884-w
15. Gigovič, L., Pamučar, D., Bajič, Z., and Milicevič, M. (2016). The Combination of expert judgment and GIS-MAIRCA analysis for the selection of sites for ammunition depots. Sustainability, 8(232), 1-30.
16. Gorodnichenko, Y. and Roland, G. (2021). Culture, institutions and democratization. Public Choice, (187), 165–195. Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2023). Democracy index. Retrieved September 25, 2023 from http:// www.reliefweb.int
17. Jain, V., Iqbal, M. and Madan, A. K. (2021). Preference Selection Index approach as MADM method for ranking of FMS flexibility. Advances in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering , 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8542-5_46
18. Kabakcı, C. Ç. and Bilgin-Sarı, E. (2019). Türk bankacılık sektöründe finansal performansın Tercih Seçim Endeksi (PSI) yöntemiyle analizi. Ekonomi, Politika and Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 370-383. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.649038
19. Karacan, R., Yardımcı, M. E. and İşleyen, A. (2021). The effect of regime on the economic growth and the income inequality. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(Yönetim ve Organizasyon Özel Sayısı), 1163-1193. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.927567
20. Karahan, M. H. (2023). Politik istikrar ve ekonomik büyüme/kalkınma ilişkisi: MENA-T örneği. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Batman Üniversitesi.
21. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. and Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objectiveweights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
22. Kılıç, S. B. and Cin, M. F. (2017). Effects of ıncome distribution on democratic regimes. Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 21(2), 1-10.
23. Knutsen, C. H. (2012). Democracy and economic growth: A survey of arguments and result. International Area Studies Review, 15(4), 393–415.
24. Luan, N. T. and Phu, N. M. (2021). First and second law evaluation of multipass flat-plate solar air collector and optimization using Preference Selection Index Method. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5563882
25. Maniya, K. and Bhatt, M. G. (2010). A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference Selection Index Method. Materials and Design, (31), 1785-1789.
26. Muttakin, M. B., Rana, T. and Mihret, D. G. (2022). Democracy, national culture and greenhouse gas emissions: An international study. Business Strategy and Teh Environment, 31(7), 2978-2991. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3059
27. Müller, J. W. (2019). Democracy and disrespect. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 45(9-10), 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719872278
28. Nazarov, Z. and Obydenkova, A. (2021). Public health, democracy and transition: Global evidence and post communism. Social Indicators Research, (160), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02770-z
29. Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy. (2023). Democracy index. Retrieved September 26, 2023 from http:// www.nimd.org
30. Obeidat, M. and Traini, H. (2020). Ranking of water desalination technologies based on the Preference Selection Index. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, (pp. 1301-1306). IEOM Society International.
31. Olson, M. (1993). Dictatorship, democracy and development. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 567-576.
32. Orviska, M., Caplanova, A. and Hudson, J. (2014). The impact of democracy on well-being. Soc Indic Res, (115), 493–508.
33. Önder, F. (2023). Türkiye’de demokrasi ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisinin ampirik analizi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, Special Issue, 386-398. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.1357612
34. Öztürk, H. (2012). Soğuk savaş sonrası orta doğu'da demokrasinin yayılması. Bilge Strateji, 4(7), 93-106.
35. Pohoryles, R. J. (2007). Sustainable development, innovation and democracy. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 20(3), 183-190.
36. Prasad, R., Rao, C. and Raju, B. (2018). Application of Preference Selection Index (PSI) method for the optimization of turning process parameter. International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER), 5(5), 140-144.
37. Puspitasari, D., Wijaya, D. and Mentari, M. (2020). Decision support system for determining the activities of the study program using the Preference Selection Index. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 732, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012073
38. Rachdi, H. and Saidi, H. (2015). Democracy and economic growth: Evidence in MENA countries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (191), 616–621.
39. Rock, M. T. (2009). Corruption and democracy. The Journal of Development Studies, 45(1), 55-78. Sachikonye, L. M. (2002). Democracy, sustainable development and poverty: Are they compatible? Development Policy Management Forum Press.
40. Safari, A., Salehzadeh, R. and Ghaziasgar, E. (2018). Exploring the antecedents and consequences of organizational democracy. The TQM Journal, 30(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-05-2017-0057
41. Sahir, H., Afriani, J., Ginting, G., Fachri, B., Siregar, D., Simbolon, R., Lindawati, L., Syarizal, Simarmata, M., Aisyah, S., Mesran, M., Fadlina, F. and Simarmata J. (2018). The Preference Selection Index Method in determining the location of used laptop marketing. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(3-4), 260-263. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.4.19869
42. Sartori, G. (2016). The theory of democracy revisited. Columbia University Press.
43. Schmidt, A. G. (2002). Demokrasi kuramlarına giriş. (M. Köktaş, Çev.). Vadi Yayınları.
44. Schmitter, P. C. and Karl, T. L. (1991). What democray is... and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75-88.
45. Sharif, A., Afshan, A. and Khan, B. (2018). Does democracy embolden economic growth in Pakistan? Evidence from ARDL bound testing and rolling window analysis. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 15(2), 180-203. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEBR.2018.089684
46. Söderbaum, P. (2021). Democracy, ideological orientation and sustainable development. In G. Crawford and A.-G. Abdulai (Ed.), Research handbook on democracy and development (pp. 522-535). Edward Elgar Publishing.
47. Stanujkic, M., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Sava, C. and Popovic, G. (2020). Comparison of tourism potentials using Preference Selection Index method. Quaestus Multidisciplinary Research Journal, (16), 177-187.
48. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2021). Democracy index 2020 in sickness and in health?. The Economist Intelligence Press.
49. Tien, D. H., Trung, D., Thien, N. V. and Nguyen, N. T. (2021). Multi-objective optimization of the cylindrical grinding process of scm440 steel using Preference Selection Index Method. Journal of Machine Engineering, 21(3), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.36897/jme/141607
50. Topal, M. H. and Hayaloğlu, P. (2017). Farklı gelişmişlik düzeylerinde kurumsal kalitenin çevre performansı üzerindeki etkisi: Ampirik bir analiz. Sosyoekonomi, 25(32), 189-212. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.273969.
51. Türker, O. (2018). Kamu harcamalarinin dış ticaret üzerindeki etkisi: G7 ükeleri örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (27), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.16990/SOBIDER.4454
52. Tuş, A. and Adalı, E. A. (2018). Personnel assessment with CODAS and PSI method. The Journal of Operations Research, Statistics, Econometrics and Management Information Systems, 6(2), 243-255. http://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.432843
53. Verma, R., Azam, M. and Kumar, R. (2022). Performance evaluation of glass ionomer and alumina silica nanoparticle reinforced dental composite using Preference Selection Index. Polimer Composites, 43(6), 3745-3752. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.26652
54. Wagschal, U. (2022). The Influence of democracy, governance and government policies on the covid-19 mortality. Eur Policy Anal., 8, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1146
55. Wang, Q.-J., Feng, G.-F., Wang, H.-J. and Chang, C.-P. (2021). The impacts of democracy on innovation: Revisited evidence. Technovation, 8, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102333
56. Wu, J.-F. (2021). Picturebooks in the classroom: Perspectives on life skills, sustainable development and democracy and citizenship. ELT Journal, 75(4), 525-527. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab047
57. Yorulmaz, Ö. (2017). The Relationship between socio-economic development, corruption and health indicators: Application of partial least squares structural equation modeling. Alphanumeric Journal, 5(2), 191-205. http://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.323277
58. Zinchenko, V. (2018). Humanistic values and enlightenment strategies of global society in the potential of the sustainable development of democracy. American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(1), 1-13.