USING VIKOR METHOD FOR ANALYZING OF QUALIFICATION LEVELS AND TRANSITION TO EMPLOYMENT OF EUROPEAN UNION AND CANDIDATE COUNTRIES

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate and rank European Union and Candidate countriesindicators especially which are relevant with women. The data obtained from the “Key Data on Education in Europe 2012” report. Indicators have selected as follows: 1- proportion of tertiary education qualifications awarded to women by field of educational/professional training, 2proportion of people in employment by age group , 3- tertiary education graduates in employment of females by occupational category , 4- unemployment rates of females for the 25-64 age group by educational attainment. VIKOR Method which is one of the multi-criteria decision making techniques used in this study. By using this method, alternatives (EU and candidate countries) ranked by comparing the measure of closeness to the ideal alternative and then the best (compromise) alternative from a set of alternatives in the presence of conflicting criteria (indicators mentioned above) has selected

Keywords

• Multi Criteria Decision Making, VIKOR Method, Education, Employment

References

1. Barro, R. & Lee J., (1994), Sources of Economic Growth, Carnegie-Rochester Series on Public Policy, 40, 1-46.
2. Barro, R. & Sala-I-Martin X., (1995), Economic Growth, New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Hill, A. & King, E., (1995), Women’s Education in Development Countries, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Klasen, S., (1999), Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and Development? Evidence from Cross-country
5. Regressions, Policy Research Report on Gender and Development, Washington DC: World Bank
6. Klasen, S., (2002) ‘Low Schooling for Girls, Slower Growth for All? Cross-country Evidence on the Effect of Gender Inequality in Education on Economic Development’, World Bank Economic Review, 16(3), 345-373.
7. Klasen, S., & Lamanna, F., (2009), ‘The Impact of Gender Inequality in Education and Employment on Economic Growth: New Evidence for a Panel of Countries’, Feminist Economics, 15(3), 91-132.
8. Knowles, S., Logrelly, P.K. & Owen, P.D., (2002), Are Educational Gender Gaps a Brake on Economic Development? Some Cross-Country Empirical Evidence, Oxford Economic Papers, 54(1), 118-149.

9. Opricovic, S., (1998), Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering System. Faculty of Civil Engineering,
10. Belgrade.
11. Opricovic, S. & Tzeng, G.H., (2004), “Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis ofVIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, 156, pp.445-455.
12. Opricovic, S. & Tzeng, G.H., (2007), “Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Outranking Methods”,European Journal of Operational Research, 178, pp.514-529.
13. Tabitha W. & Nganga K., (2011), Institutions and Gender Inequality, Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA).
14. EURYDICE, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice
15. Key Data on Education in Europe (2012), http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice
16. The Current Situation of Gender Equality in Sweden – Country Profile (2013)
17. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/epo_campaign/131006_country-profile_sweden.pdf