Year 2018, Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 239 - 251 2018-01-31

Benchmarking International Trade Performance of OECD Countries: TOPSIS and AHP Approaches
OECD Ülkelerinin Uluslararası Ticaret Performans Değerlendirmesi: TOPSIS ve AHP Yaklaşımları

Can KARABIYIK [1] , Büşra KUTLU KARABIYIK [2]

189 363

Economic performance of countries has been evaluated on several counts from both microeconomic and macroeconomic framework in many empirical studies by using many quantitative technics such as “Multi Criteria Decision Making” methods. After all, this paper has the characteristic of first research which examines international trade performance. Today, governments as well as firms are seeking new opportunities to take a bigger share of global market through trade by managing scarce resources, trade agreements and arrangements, making innovation, increasing productivity et cetera. It is within this context that the authors aim at evaluating international trade performance of OECD countries by using TOPSIS and AHP approaches between 1999-2014 in the light of three foreign trade performance indicators, namely; Volume of Exports Per Capita, Normalized Trade Balance and Terms of Trade. Our findings indicate that Norway, Ireland and Germany are ranked among the top three countries while Turkey, USA and the Greece are the bottom three.

Ekonomilerin ekonomik performansları “Çok Kriterli Karar Verme” yöntemleri gibi çeşitli kantitatif teknikler kullanılarak hem makroekonomik hem de mikroekonomik açıdan çok sayıda ampirik çalışmada değerlendirilmiştir. Buna karşın, bu araştırma ülkelerin uluslararası ticaret performanslarını ampirik olarak karşılaştıran ilk araştırma özelliğini taşımaktadır. Günümüzde firmalar gibi hükümetler de dış ticaret vasıtasıyla kıt kaynak yönetimi, dış ticaret anlaşmaları ve düzenlemeleri, inovasyon, verimlilik artırımı vb. stratejiler izleyerek küresel piyasadan daha büyük bir pay alabilmek için yeni fırsatlar kollamaktadırlar. Bu araştırma, OECD ülkelerinin 1999-2014 yılları arasındaki uluslararası ticaret performanslarını Kişi Başı İhracat Hacmi, Normalleştirilmiş Ticaret Dengesi ve Ticaret Hadleri değişkenlerini kullanarak TOPSIS ve AHP yaklaşımları yardımıyla incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgular göstermektedir ki; Norveç, İrlanda ve Almanya uluslararası ticaret performansı değerlendirmesinde ilk üç sırayı alırken Türkiye, ABD ve Yunanistan son üç sırada yer almışlardır.

  • Alvarez, R., & López, R. a. (2005). Exporting and performance: Evidence from Chilean plants. Canadian Journal of Economics, 38(4), 1384–1400. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0008-4085.2005.00329.x
  • Araujo, R. A., & Trigg, A. B. (2015). A neo-Kaldorian approach to structural economic dynamics. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 33, 25–36. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2015.02.002
  • BULUT, K., & SOYLU, B. (2009). Öğretim Üyelerinin iş Yükü Seviyelerinin Analitik Ağ Modeli ile Değerlendirilmesi: Mühendislik Fakültesinde Bir Uygulama. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 25((1-2)), 150–167.
  • Dumanoğlu, S. (2010). Financial Performance Evaluation of Cement, 5(5), 323–340.
  • Eleren, A., & Karagül, M. (2008). 1986-2006 Türkiye Ekonomisinin Performans Değerlendirmesi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F Dergisi, 15(1), 1–14.
  • Eyüboğlu, K. (2015). Comparison of Developing Countries ’ Macro Performances with AHP and TOPSIS Methods. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2016(1), 1–16.
  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1989). Product Development and International Trade. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1261–1283.
  • Iapadre, P. L. (2001). Measuring international specialization. International Advances in Economic Research, 7(2), 173–183. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296007
  • Jeníček, V. (2003). World economy globalisation. HC Beck, Prague (in Czech).
  • Krepl, V., & Jeníček, V. (2009). The role of foreign trade and its effects. Agric. Econ.–Czech, 55(5), 211–220.
  • Lichtenberg, F. R., Pottelsberghe, B. Van, & Potterie, D. (1998). International R & D spillovers : A comment. European Economic Review, 42(8), 1483–1491.
  • Lin, M. C., Wang, C. C., Chen, M. S., & Chang, C. A. (2008). Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry, 59(1), 17–31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.013
  • Majerová, I., & Nevima, J. (2015). Exploring regional aspects of competitiveness in the selected countries of Visegrad Group Plus. Silesian University, School of Business Administration Working Papers (Vol. 17).
  • Mandic, K., Delibasic, B., Knezevic, S., & Benkovic, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30–37. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.036
  • Mangır, F., & Erdoğan, S. (2011). Comparison of Economic Performance Among Six Countries in Global Financial Crisis: The Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 6(2), 122–136.
  • Mendoza, E. G. (1997). Terms-of-trade uncertainty and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, 54(2), 323–356. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(97)00046-1
  • Özcan, T., Elebi, N., & Esnaf, A. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773–9779. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022
  • Scott, B. R., & Lodge, G. C. (1985). US competitiveness in the world economy. The International Executive, 27(1), 26.
  • Supçiller, A. A., & Çapraz, O. (2011). Ahp-topsis yöntemi̇ne dayali tedari̇kçi̇ seçi̇mi̇ uygulamasi. Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, 13, 1–22.
  • Teixeira, A. A. C., & Fortuna, N. (2010). Human capital, R&D, trade, and long-run productivity. Testing the technological absorption hypothesis for the Portuguese economy, 1960–2001. Research Policy, 39(3), 335–350. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.009
  • Urfalioğlu, F., & Genç, T. (2013). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri ile Türkiye’nin Ekonomik Performansının Avrupa Birliği Üye Ülkeleri ile Karşılaştırılması. Marmara University Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences, 35(2), 329–360.
  • Wanke, P., Azad, M. D. A. K., & Barros, C. P. (2016). Predicting efficiency in Malaysian Islamic banks: A two-stage TOPSIS and neural networks approach. Research in International Business and Finance, 36, 485–498. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.10.002
  • Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397–427. http://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291
Subjects Management
Journal Section Economics
Authors

Author: Can KARABIYIK
Institution: CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Author: Büşra KUTLU KARABIYIK
Institution: ADNAN MENDERES UNIV
Country: Turkey


APA KARABIYIK, C , KUTLU KARABIYIK, B . (2018). Benchmarking International Trade Performance of OECD Countries: TOPSIS and AHP Approaches. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17 (1), 239-251. DOI: 10.21547/jss.267381