Assesstment of Macroeconomic and Financial Performance of Fragile Five and MINT Countries Using TOPSIS Method

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 171 - 192, 01.10.2020

Özge Demirkale Çiğdem Özarı

Öz

The main purpose of this research is to measure the performance of Fragile
Fives and MINT countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey,
Mexico, and Nigeria), based on macroeconomic and financial indicators
between 2015-2019. For this purpose, the TOPSIS method, which is
one of the multi-criteria models in decision making, was used. In this
method, stock market index, exchange rate, inflation and interest rate were
decided to use as the main evaluation criteria. According to the findings
obtained from the research, Turkey, which is a member of both MINT
and the Fragile Five group, was found to be the country with the lowest
macroeconomic and financial performance and Indonesia was found to be
the best performing country. In addition, this research presents a numerical
application to illustrate the use of the TOPSIS method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

TOPSIS, Macroeconomic and Financial Indicator, Fragile Fives, MINT

Kaynakça

• [1] Ashourian. M. (2012). Evaluating the Rank of Performance of Countries of the Middle East and North Africa with MADM. Journal of Informatics and Mathematical Sciences. Vol. 4. No. 3. 285-292.
• [2] Balcerzak A.P. & Pietrzak. M.B. (2016). Application of TOPSIS Method for Analysis of Sustainable Development in European Union Countries. The 10th International Days of Statistics and Economics. Prague. September 8(10). 82-92.
• [3] Cihan. Y. & Salur. M. N. (2017). Comparison of the Economic Performance between Turkey and Brics Countries Using TOPSIS Method. Journal of Current Research on Business and Economics. 7(2). 350-358.
• [4] Dağdeviren, M., Eren, T. (2001). Tedarikçi Firma Seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ve 0-1 Hedef Programlama Yöntemlerinin Kullanılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16, No. 2, 41-52.
• [5] De Almeida, A. T. (2007). Multicriteria decision model for outsourcing contracts selection based on utility function and ELECTRE method. Computers & operations research, 34(12), 3569-3574.
• [6] Ela. M.. Doğan. A. and Uçar. O. (2018). Comparıson of EU Countrıes and Turkey’s Macroeconomıc Performannces wıth TOPSIS Method. Osmaniye Korkut Ata University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Vol: 2. Issue: 2. December 2018. pp. 129-143.
• [7] Ersöz, F. & Kabak, M. (2010). “Savunma Sanayi Uygulamalarında Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Literatür Araştırması”, Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt 9, Sayı 1: 97-125.
• [8] Eyüboğlu. K. (2016). Comparison of Developing Countries’ Macro Performances with AHP and TOPSIS Methods. Cankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences. 6(1). 131-146.
• [9] Feng, C. M & Wang, R. T. (2000). “Performance Evaluation for Airlines Including the Consideration of Financial Ratios”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 6: 133-142.
• [10] Genç. T. ve Masca. M. (2013). The Comparıson of the Outrankıng Results of TOPSIS and Promethee Methods.KOCATEPE IIBF Journal of İİBF Dergisi. 15(2). 539-567.
• [11] Hayaloğlu, P. (2015). How Democracy Effects Economic Growth in MINT Countries? International Journal of Economics and Innovation, 1(1), 17-29.
• [12] Huang. I. & Keisler B. J. & Linkov I. (2011). Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Sciences: Ten Years of Applications and Trends. Science of the Total Environment. 409(19). 3578-3594.
• [13] Jahanshahloo. G. R.. Lotfi. F. H.. Izadikhah. M. (2006). An Algorithmic Method to Extend TOPSIS for Decision-Making Problems with Interval Data. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 175 (2). 1375-1384.
• [14] Krivka. A. (2014). Complex Evaluation of the Economic Crisis Impact on Lithuanian Industries. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 15(2). 299-315.
• [15] Künç. G.Y. & Yaşa. A.A. (2019). Comparion of the Budget Indicators of Turkey and OECD Countries with TOPSIS and VIKOR Methods. BEÜ SBE Journal. 8(2). 366-384.
• [16] Özcan U.. Doğan A.. Söylemez İ. (2016b). Evaluation Of Research Projects Of Undergraduate Students İn An Engineering Department Using TOPSIS Method. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences (EPESS). 5(1). 420-424.
• [17] Özden, Ü. H. (2011). Topsis Method With The European Union Member States Of The Candidate And Mapping Of Economic Indicators. Trakya University Journal of Social Science .13(2), 215-236.
• [18] Sevgin H. & Çağlar A.(2017). Comparison of the Islamic Conference Member Countries via Data Envelopment Analysis and TOPSIS Method. Ordu University Journal of Social Science Research. 7(2). 221-244. July. 2017.
• [19] Sevgin. H.&Kundakçı. N. (2017). Ranking of European Union Member Countries and Turkey According to the Economic Indicators with TOPSIS and MOORA Methods. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences. 17(3). 87-107.
• [20] Stanley, M. (2013). Global EM Investor Fragile Five, http://graphics8. nytimes.com/packages/p df/business/MorganStanleyFragileFive.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2019.
• [21] Topçu, A.B.& Oralhan. B. (2017). The Comparison of Turkey and Other OECD Countries with Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods in Terms of Basic Macroeconomic Indicators. International Journal of Academic Value Studies. 3(14). 260-277.
• [22] Urfalıoğlu. F. & Genç. T. (2013). Comparison Of The Economic Performance Between Turkey And The European Union Members With Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods. Marmara University Journal of İ.İ.B. XXXV(II). 329-359.
• [23] Yeh, C.H. (2003). “The Selection Of Multiattribute Decision Making Methods For Scholarship Student Selection”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(4): 289-296.
• [24] Zeleny, M., Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Mc-Graw-Hill, New York, 13-47, 1986.