Ekonomik Özgürlük Kavramı Açısından Ülke Karşılaştırmaları: Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımı

Öz

Ekonomik özgürlük, birçok yönü olan geniş bir terimdir. Çalışmanın amacı da, ekonomik özgürlük bileşenlerine yönelik farkındalığı artırmak ve analitik bir yaklaşım sağlamaktır. 40 ülkeyi değerlendirmek için Entropi, TOPSIS, ARAS, SAW, Borda Sayım Metodu, Kümeleme ve Spearman korelasyon yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya göre, Hong Kong, Singapur ve İsviçre gibi kişi başına düşen GSYİH'nın en yüksek olduğu ülkeler ekonomik özgürlük sıralamasında en üst sıralarda yer almaktadır. Öte yandan Polonya, Tayland ve Rusya gibi kişi başına düşen gelirin düşük olduğu ülkeler ise, en alt sıralarda yer almaktadır. Düşük puan alan ülkelerdeki hükümetler ve yetkililer, ticaret tarifeleri, enflasyon ve hesap kısıtlamaları açısından vatandaşları ve yabancı yatırımcılar için istikrar, güven ve kolaylık ortamı tesis etmelidir. Bireyler, gruplar, sivil toplum kuruluşları ve kurumlar, karar vericileri ve politikacıları vergiler, enflasyon politikaları, hesap kısıtlamaları ve daha fazla özgürlük lehine karar alma açısından yeni eylem planlarında bulunmaya ikna etmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Özgürlük
• SAW
• ARAS
• Kümeleme Analizi

Country Comparisons on the Concept of Economic Freedom: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach

Öz

Economic freedom is a broad term with numerous aspects. The aim of the study is to increase awareness of the economic freedom components and to provide an analytical approach. Entropy, TOPSIS, ARAS, SAW, Borda Count Method, Clustering, and Spearman correlation analysis were used to assess 40 nations. The countries with the greatest per capita GDP such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland are at the top of the economic freedom ranking. On the other side, countries with low per-capita income such as Poland, Thailand, and Russian Federation rank bottom. Governments and officials in low-scoring nations must provide an environment of stability, trust, and facilitation for their residents and foreign investors in terms of trade tariffs, inflation, and account restrictions. Individuals, groups, non-governmental organizations, and institutions should persuade decision-makers and politicians to take novel action plans in terms of taxes, inflation policies, account restrictions, and decision-making in favour of greater freedom.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Freedom
• SAW
• ARAS
• Cluster Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Altın, F. G., Tunca, M. Z., & Ömürbek, N. (2020). Entropi Temelli SAW ve ARAS Yöntemleri ile Nato Ülkeleri Askeri Güçlerinin Sıralanması. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 4(3), 731-753.
2. Azadnia, A. H., Ghadimi, P., & Molani-Aghdam, M. (2011). A hybrid model of data mining and MCDM methods for estimating customer lifetime value. Paper presented at the The 41st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering (CIE41), Los Angeles, United States of America, 23-26 2011.
3. Balcerzak, A. P., & Pietrzak, M. B. (2016). Application of TOPSIS method for analysis of sustainable development in European Union countries: Institute of Economic Research Working Papers.
4. Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2020). Economic freedom as a driver of trust and tolerance. Economic Freedom of the World: 2020 Annual Report.
5. Boyacı, A. Ç. (2021). Which OECD Countries Are Advantageous in Fight Against COVID-19? Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 37(1), 137-148.
6. Çakır, S. (2017). Measuring logistics performance of OECD countries via fuzzy linear regression. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 24(3-4), 177-186.
7. Dehdasht, G., Ferwati, M. S., Zin, R. M., & Abidin, N. Z. (2020). A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation. PloS one, 15(2), e0228746.
8. Gök-Kısa, A. C., Çeli̇k, P., & Peker, İ. (2021). Performance evaluation of privatized ports by entropy based TOPSIS and ARAS approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal.

9. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making Multiple attribute decision making (pp. 58-191): Springer.
10. Kahraman, Ç., Abdulhamit, E., & Özevin, O. (2017). Futbol Takımlarının Finansal Ve Sportif Etkinliklerinin Entropi ve TOPSIS Yöntemiyle Analiz Edilmesi: Avrupa’nın 5 Büyük Ligi ve Süper Lig Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(1), 199-222.
11. Lamboray, C. (2007). A comparison between the prudent order and the ranking obtained with Borda's, Copeland's, Slater's and Kemeny's rules. Mathematical Social Sciences, 54(1), 1-16.
12. Lippman, D. (2017). Math in society: David Lippman.
13. MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability.
14. Mehmet, E., & Kurt, H. S. (2019). Comparison of macroeconomic performances of Sub-Saharan African countries with TOPSIS method. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 10(3), 547-555.
15. Nuray, R., & Can, F. (2006). Automatic ranking of information retrieval systems using data fusion. Information processing & management, 42(3), 595-614.
16. Ömürbek, N., Karaatli, M., & Cömert, H. G. (2016). AHP-SAW ve AHP-ELECTRE Yöntemleri ile Yapı Denetim Firmalarının Değerlendirmesi. Journal of Administrative Sciences/Yonetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(27).
17. Orhan, M. (2020). Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri ile Avrupa Birliği üyeliğine aday olan ülkelerin makroekonomik performanslarının Aras yöntemi ile kıyaslanması. Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 10(1), 115-129.
18. Orhan, M., & Aytekin, M. (2020). Comparing the R&D Performance of Turkey And Last Members Countries of EU Using Critic Weighted MAUT and SAW Methods. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(1), 754.
19. Ozkaya, G., Timor, M., & Erdin, C. (2021). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Indicators and Comparisons of Countries through a Hybrid Model of Data Mining and MCDM Methods. Sustainability, 13(2), 694.
20. Pathak, V., & Garg, D. (2019). Analyzing problems and optimization of supply chain in different industries using SAW and TOPSIS methods. Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
21. Pekkaya, M., & Dökmen, G. (2019). OECD ÜLKELERİ KAMU SAĞLIK HARCAMALARININ ÇKKV YÖNTEMLERİ İLE PERFORMANS DEĞERLENDİRMESİ. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15(4), 923-950.
22. Poledníková, E. (2014). Comparing regions ranking by MCDM methods: the case of visegrad countries. Wseas transactions on business and economics, 11(1), 496-507.
23. Radović, D., Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Badi, I., Antuchevičiene, J., & Turskis, Z. (2018). Measuring performance in transportation companies in developing countries: a novel rough ARAS model. Symmetry, 10(10), 434.
24. Roszkowska, E., & Filipowicz-Chomko, M. (2020). Measuring sustainable development in the education area using multi-criteria methods: a case study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 28(4), 1219-1241.
25. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 11. Sliogeriene, J., Turskis, Z., & Streimikiene, D. (2013). Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: The multiple criteria assessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Procedia, 32, 11-20.
26. Soltanpanah, H., Farughi, H., & Golabi, M. (2010). Utilization and comparison of multi attribute decision techniques to rank countries upon human development rate. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 60, 175-188.
27. Stanujkic, M., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Sava, C., & Popovic, G. (2020). Comparison Of Tourism Potentials Using Preference Selection Index Method. QUAESTUS Multidiscip. Res. J, 177-187.
28. Vavrek, R., & Ardielli, E. (2018). TOPSIS as Evaluation Tool of eGovernment Development in EU Member States. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM.
29. Wang, T.-C., & Lee, H.-D. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert systems with applications, 36(5), 8980-8985.
30. Wu, S., Fu, Y., Shen, H., & Liu, F. (2018). Using ranked weights and Shannon entropy to modify regional sustainable society index. Sustainable cities and society, 41, 443-448.
31. Yeh, C. H. (2002). A problem‐based selection of multi‐attribute decision‐making methods. International Transactions in Operational Research, 9(2), 169-181.
32. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 159-172.
33. Zeleny, M. (2012). Multiple criteria decision making Kyoto 1975 (Vol. 123): Springer Science & Business Media.