An Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Performance of the European Union Members and Candidates with a Multi-Criteria Approach

Öz

Socio-economic sustainability (SES), defined as the ability to achieve economic growth without harming the long-term interests of the society and to meet the needs without harming the environment, is a critical agenda item for many countries. Analysing the SES levels for the European Union (EU) countries, which are faced with many social, economic, cultural, and political changes in the globalization process, is a strategic research topic. The aim of the current study is to develop an approach that can compare the SES performances of the EU member and candidate countries with a multi-criteria approach. For this purpose, a methodology based on Entropy and MAIRCA techniques has been proposed. In practice, thirty-two EU member and candidate countries were evaluated by considering ten criteria. As a result of the study, it was seen that the criteria with the highest weights were the income share of the poorest 40 percent (0.237), concentration index (0.168) and R&D expenditures (0.146). While the most successful countries in terms of SES performance are Denmark, Austria and Sweden, the most unsuccessful countries are Southern Cyprus, Greece, and Ukraine. The proposed approach will allow evaluation of both the importance of SES criteria and the status of alternatives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Socio-Economic Sustainability
• Sustainability
• European Union
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques

Avrupa Birliği Üye ve Aday Ülkelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Performanslarının Çok Kriterli Bir Yaklaşımla Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Toplumun uzun vadeli çıkarlarına zarar vermeden ekonomik büyümeyi gerçekleştirme ve çevreye zarar vermeden ihtiyaçları karşılama yeteneği olarak tanımlanan sosyo-ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik (SES), birçok ülke için kritik bir gündem maddesidir. Küreselleşme sürecinde sosyal, ekonomik, kültürel ve politik pek çok değişimle karşı karşıya kalan Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkeleri için SES seviyelerinin analiz edilmesi stratejik bir araştırma konusudur. Mevcut çalışmanın amacı çok kriterli bir yaklaşımla AB üye ve aday ülkelerin SES performanslarını kıyaslayabilecek bir yaklaşımın geliştirilmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda Entropi ve MAIRCA tekniklerini temel alan bir metodoloji önerilmiştir. Uygulamada otuz iki AB üyesi ve aday ülke, on kriter göz önünde bulundurularak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda ağırlıkları en yüksek olan kriterlerin en yoksul yüzde 40'ın gelir payı (0.237), yoğunlaşma indeksi (0.168) ve AR&GE harcamaları (0.146) olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca SES performansı bakımından en başarılı ülkelerin Danimarka, Avusturya ve İsveç, en başarısız ülkelerin ise Güney Kıbrıs, Yunanistan ve Ukrayna olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Önerilen yaklaşım, hem SES kriterlerinin önem dereceleri hem de alternatiflerin durumları hakkında değerlendirme yapılmasına imkân sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyo-Ekonomik Sürdürülebilirlik
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Avrupa Birliği
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri

Kaynakça

1. Abdel-Basset, M., Gamal, A., Chakrabortty, R.K. and Ryan, M. (2021). Development of a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for sustainability evaluation of bioenergy production technologies: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125805
2. Abdullah, L. and Otheman, A. (2013). A new Entropi weight for sub-criteria in interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS and its application. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications, 5(2), 25-33. Retrieved from https://www.mecs-press.org/
3. Balcı İzgi, B. ve Alyu, E. (2018). Yoksulluk ve gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği: OECD ve AB ülkeleri panel veri analizi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(3), 988-996. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.414774
4. Beleisyte, A., Gudauskas, R. and Snitka, V. (2014). Modeling of the socio-economic sustainability and dynamics of European regions on the bases of systems complexity. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 4(11), 1116-1125. Retrieved from https://www.aessweb.com/journals/5007
5. BMKP. (2023). Dashboard 5. Socioeconomic sustaınability (UNDP Human Development Reports). Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org/socioeconomic-sustainability
6. Boström, M. (2012). A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 8(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908080
7. Chen, Y. and Zhang, D. (2020). Evaluation of city sustainability using multi-criteria decision-making considering interaction among criteria in Liaoning province China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 59, 102211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102211
8. Çalışkan, Ş. (2010). Türkiye’de gelir eşitsizliği ve yoksulluk. Journal of Social Policy Conferences, 59, 89-132). Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iusskd/

9. Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J. and Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075
10. Ecer, F. (2022). An extended MAIRCA method using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for coronavirus vaccine selection in the age of COVID-19. Neural Computing and Applications, 34, 5603–5623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06728-7
11. Eğilmez, G., Gümüş, S. and Kücükvar, M. (2015). Environmental sustainability benchmarking of the US and Canada metropoles: An expert judgment-based multi-criteria decision making approach. Cities, 42, 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.08.006
12. Gharizadeh Beiragh, R., Alizadeh, R., Shafiei Kaleibari, S., Cavallaro, F., Zolfani, S.H., Bausys, R. and Mardani, A. (2020). An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for sustainability performance assessment for insurance companies. Sustainability, 12(3), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030789
13. Ighravwe, D.E. and Oke, S.A. (2019). A multi-criteria decision-making framework for selecting a suitable maintenance strategy for public buildings using sustainability criteria. Journal of Building Engineering, 24, 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100753
14. Ivković, A.F., Ham, M. and Mijoč, J. (2014). Measuring objective well-being and sustainable development management. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, 4(2), 1-29. Retrieved from https://www.scientificpapers.org/
15. İzgi, B.B. ve Ebubekir, A.L.Y.U. (2018). Yoksulluk ve gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği: OECD ve AB ülkeleri panel veri analizi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(3), 988-996. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.414774
16. Janeiro, L. and Patel, M.K. (2015). Choosing sustainable technologies. Implications of the underlying sustainability paradigm in the decision-making process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105, 438-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.029
17. Khoshnava, S.M., Rostami, R., Valipour, A., Ismail, M. and Rahmat, A.R. (2018). Rank of green building material criteria based on the three pillars of sustainability using the hybrid multi criteria decision making method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 82-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.066
18. Martín-Gamboa, M., Iribarren, D., García-Gusano, D. and Dufour, J. (2017). A review of life-cycle approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis within multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainability assessment of energy systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 164-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.017
19. Pamučar, D., Lukovac, V., Božanić, D. and Komazec, N. (2018). Multi-criteria FUCOM-MAIRCA model for the evaluation of level crossings: Case study in the Republic of Serbia. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 1(1), 108-129. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta190120101108p
20. Pamučar, D., Mihajlović, M., Obradović, R. and Atanasković, P. (2017). Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers: Hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model. Expert Systems with Applications, 88, 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.06.037
21. Peacock, W.G., Hoover, G.A. and Killian, C.D. (1988). Divergence and convergence in international development: A decomposition analysis of inequality in the world system. American Sociological Review, 53(6), 838-852. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095894
22. Pietrzak, M.B. and Balcerzak, A.P. (2016). Assessment of socio-economic sustainability in new European Union members states in the years 2004-2012. In M. Papiez and S. Smiech (Eds.), Conference proceedings (pp. 120-129). Paper presented at the 10th Professor Aleksander Zelias International Conference on Modelling and Forecasting of Socio-Economic Phenomena, Cracow University of Economics, Cracow: Foundation of the Cracow University of Economics.
23. Regragui, H., Sefiani, N., Azzouzi, H. and Cheikhrouhou, N. (2023). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for hospitals’ sustainability performance evaluation under fuzzy environment. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2022-0538
24. Robertson, M. (2014). Sustainability principles and practice. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429346668
25. Sánchez-Garrido, A.J., Navarro, I.J. and Yepes, V. (2022). Multi-criteria decision-making applied to the sustainability of building structures based on modern methods of construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330, 129724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129724
26. Shan, J. and Khan, M.A. (2016). Implications of reverse innovation for socio-economic sustainability: A case study of Philips China. Sustainability, 8(6), 530-550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060530
27. Skvarciany, V., Jurevičienė, D. and Volskytė, G. (2020). Assessment of sustainable socioeconomic development in European Union countries. Sustainability, 12(5), 1986-2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051986
28. Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Guth, M., Stępień, S. and Brelik, A. (2019). The influence of the European Union’s common agricultural policy on the socio-economic sustainability of farms (the case of Poland). Sustainability, 11(24), 7173. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247173
29. Vucetich, J.A. and Nelson, M.P. (2010). Sustainability: Virtuous or vulgar? BioScience, 60(7), 539-544. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.7.9
30. Yadegaridehkordi, E., Hourmand, M., Nilashi, M., Alsolami, E., Samad, S., Mahmoud, M., ... and Shuib, L. (2020). Assessment of sustainability indicators for green building manufacturing using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 122905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122905
31. Yagmahan, B. and Yılmaz, H. (2023). An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(1), 96-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1
32. Yaman, H., Çetin, D. ve Dulupçu, M.A. (2020). OECD ülkelerinde Ar-Ge harcamaları ve ileri teknoloji ihracatı: Bir panel veri analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(3), 193-208. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.801751
33. Zhao, H. and Li, N. (2015). Evaluating the performance of thermal power enterprises using sustainability balanced scorecard, fuzzy delphic and hybrid multi-criteria decision making approaches for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.141
34. Zhao, H. and Li, N. (2016). Optimal siting of charging stations for electric vehicles based on fuzzy delphi and hybrid multi-criteria decision making approaches from an extended sustainability perspective. Energies, 9(4), 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9040270