PRIORITIZING THE REGIONAL PREFERENCES OF TURKISH INVESTORS REGARDING FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT BY ARLON METHOD

Abstract

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) serves as a pivotal catalyst for globalization and economic development, as it enables the transnational transfer of capital, technology, skills, and knowledge. For the host country, FDI can stimulate economic growth by generating employment opportunities, improving infrastructure, and enhancing productivity levels. Conversely, for the investing country, FDI offers access to new markets, resources, and opportunities for diversification, thereby allowing companies to expand their global presence and enhance profitability. Given this significance of FDI and lack of relevant research, this study aimed to prioritize the regional preferences of Turkish investors for FDI in various countries, utilizing data provided by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade. Four distinct objective criterion weighting methods were utilized to assess the criteria, and compromise values were derived from the results obtained through these methods by employing a novel approach. To rank the nine different sub-continent groups, the “Alternative Ranking using two-step Logarithmic Normalization” (ARLON) method was employed. According to the research findings, the top three regions where Turkish investors perform best in FDI are European Union countries, other European countries and other Asian countries.

Keywords

• ARLON
• Compromise Criterion Weights
• Foreign Direct Investment
• MCDM

References

1. R. E. Caves, Ed., “The Multinational Enterprise as an Economic Organization,” in Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, 3rd ed., in Cambridge Surveys of Economic Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 1–28. [Online]. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/A9714D7800514BA2EE3B8F21FA4D795C
2. E. Borensztein, J. De Gregorio, and J.-W. Lee, “How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?,” J. Int. Econ., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 115–135, Jun. 1998, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1996(97)00033-0.
3. L. Alfaro, A. Chanda, S. Kalemli-Ozcan, and S. Sayek, “FDI and economic growth: the role of local financial markets,” J. Int. Econ., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 89–112, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00081-3.
4. J. N. Bhagwati, The Wind of the Hundred Days: How Washington Mismanaged Globalization. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/7247.001.0001.
5. R. E. Lipsey, “Foreign Direct Investment and the Operations of Multinational Firms: Concepts, History, and Data,” in Handbook of International Trade, E. K. Choi and J. Harrigan, Eds., Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003, pp. 285–319. doi: 10.1002/9780470756461.ch10.
6. B. J. Aitken and A. E. Harrison, “Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela,” Am. Econ. Rev., vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 605–618, 1999, doi: 10.1257/aer.89.3.605.
7. E. Gökçeli,”Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin İlk Yüz Yılında Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımlarının Gelişimi,” in Türkiye Ekonomisinin 100 Yıllık Panoraması II, Ö. Özçelik and R. İ. Özbek Çiftçi, Eds., Gaziantep: Özgür Yayınları, 2024, pp. 79–94. doi: 10.58830/ozgur.pub595.c2497.
8. A. Özmerdivanlı and E. Akgün, “Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar, Yüksek Teknolojili Ürün İhracatı ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: G20 Ülkelerinde Bir Uygulama,” “, vol. 15, no. 41, pp. 41–57, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.21076/vizyoner.1317473.

9. D. Pekcan and M. Arslanoğlu, “Yeni Kurumsal İktisat Çerçevesinde Türkiye’ye Gelen Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Değerlendirilmesi,” Hacet. Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Fakültesi Derg., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 267–293, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.17065/huniibf.1327102.
10. H. Çeştepe and H. Ergün Tatar, “Türkiye’de Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar ile Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi Arasında Eşbütünleşme Var Mıdır?,” Uluslar. İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Derg., no. 39, pp. 138–153, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.18092/ulikidince.1213546.
11. M. Acar, “Doğrudan Yabancı Sermayenin Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği,” Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Fakültesi Derg., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 92–105, Jul. 2016.
12. Z. Gligorić, Ö. F. Görçün, M. Gligorić, D. Pamucar, V. Simic, and H. Küçükönder, “Evaluating the deep learning software tools for large-scale enterprises using a novel TODIFFA-MCDM framework,” J. King Saud Univ. - Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 36, no. 5, p. 102079, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.102079.
13. K. Kara, G. C. Yalçın, V. Simic, Z. Baysal, and D. Pamucar, “The alternative ranking using two-step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 92, p. 101822, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2024.101822.
14. S. Biswas, B. Biswas, and K. Mitra, “A Novel Group Decision Making Model to Compare Online Shopping Platforms,” Spectr. Decis. Mak. Appl., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap2120259.
15. P. Çelebi Demirarslan, F. Sönmez Çakır, and I. Akansel, “Ranking the quality of life indexes by years in Asian countries using multi-criteria decision-making methods,” Asia-Pac. J. Reg. Sci., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 911–942, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s41685-024-00350-w.
16. P. S. Torres, C. F. S. Gomes, and M. dos Santos, “Selection of unmanned aerial vehicle systems for border monitoring using the MPSI-SPOTIS method,” J. Def. Anal. Logist., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 80–104, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1108/JDAL-12-2023-0016.
17. T. M. P. de C. Araujo, M. Dos Santos, C. F. S. Gomes, C. M. Azevedo, M. Vanzetta, and E. L. Pereira, “Proposal of a Python Streamlit APP for the MPSI-MARA Multicriteria Method,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics (ICMCSI), Nepal, Jan. 2024, pp. 189–194. doi: 10.1109/ICMCSI61536.2024.00034.
18. M. Gligorić, Z. Gligorić, S. Lutovac, M. Negovanović, and Z. Langović, “Novel Hybrid MPSI–MARA Decision-Making Model for Support System Selection in an Underground Mine,” Systems, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 248, 2022, doi: 10.3390/systems10060248.
19. D. Raj, S. R. Maity, and B. Das, “Optimization of Process Parameters of Laser Cladding on AISI 410 Using MEREC Integrated MABAC Method”, Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 10725–10739, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13369-023-08487-0.
20. İ. N. Yalman, Ş. M. Koşaroǧlu, and Ö. Işik, “2000-2020 DÖNEMİNDE TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİNİN MAKROEKONOMİK PERFORMANSININ MEREC-LOPCOW-MARCOS MODELİYLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ,” Finans Polit. Ekon. Yorumlar, vol. 60, no. 664, pp. 57–86, 2023.
21. A. Puška, D. Božanić, Z. Mastilo, and D. Pamučar, “Extension of MEREC-CRADIS Methods with Double Normalization-Case Study Selection of Electric Cars,” Soft Comput., vol. 27, pp. 7097–7113, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00500-023-08054-7.
22. R. Lukić, “Analysis of the performance of the Serbian economy based on the MEREC-WASPAS method,” MARSONIA Časopis Za Druš. Humanistička Istraživanja, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 39–52, 2023.
23. P. Rani, A. R. Mishra, A. Saha, I. M. Hezam, and D. Pamucar, “Fermatean fuzzy Heronian mean operators and MEREC-based additive ratio assessment method: An application to food waste treatment technology selection,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 2612–2647, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1002/int.22787.
24. G. Shanmugasundar, G. Sapkota, R. Čep, and K. Kalita, “Application of MEREC in Multi-Criteria Selection of Optimal Spray-Painting Robot,” Processes, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 1172, 2022, doi: 10.3390/pr10061172.
25. R. S. Ul Haq et al., “Sustainable material selection with crisp and ambiguous data using single-valued neutrosophic-MEREC-MARCOS framework,”, Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 128, p. 109546, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109546.
26. B. Ivanović, A. Saha, Ž. Stević, A. Puška, and E. K. Zavadskas, “Selection of truck mixer concrete pump using novel MEREC DNMARCOS model,” Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng., vol. 22, no. 4, p. 173, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43452-022-00491-9.
27. G. Popović, D. Pucar, and F. Smarandache, “MEREC-COBRA approach in e-commerce development strategy selection,” J. Process Manag. New Technol., vol. 10, no. 3–4, pp. 66–74, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/jpmnt10-41073.
28. E. K. Özekenci, “A Multi-Criteria Framework for Economic Decision Support in Urban Sustainability: Comparative Insights from European Cities,” Int. J. Econ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 162–181, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/ijes1412025188.
29. K. Kara, E. Akagün Ergin, G. Cihan Yalçın, T. Çelik, M. Deveci, and S. Kadry, “Sustainable brand logo selection using an AI-Supported PF-WENSLO-ARLON hybrid method,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 260, p. 125382, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125382.
30. D. Pamucar, M. Özçalıcı, and H. E. Gurler, “Evaluation of the efficiency of world airports using WENSLO-ARTASI and Monte-Carlo simulation,” J. Air Transp. Manag., vol. 124, p. 102749, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2025.102749.
31. D. Pamucar, F. Ecer, Z. Gligorić, M. Gligorić, and M. Deveci, “A Novel WENSLO and ALWAS Multicriteria Methodology and Its Application to Green Growth Performance Evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 71, pp. 9510–9525, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2023.3321697.
32. A. Kahveci and N. Keleş, “EVALUATING THE LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE EU CANDIDATE AND MEMBER COUNTRIES USING THE WENSLO AND ARTASI METHODS,” Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sos. Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg., no. 68, pp. 43–66, May 2025, doi: 10.30794/pausbed.1594714.
33. R. Kumar et al., “Revealing the benefits of entropy weights method for multi-objective optimization in machining operations: A critical review,” J. Mater. Res. Technol., vol. 10, pp. 1471–1492, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.12.114.
34. E. A. Elsayed, A. K. S. Dawood, and R. Karthikeyan, “Evaluating Alternatives through the Application of Topsis Method with Entropy Weight,” Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 60–66, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V46P211.
35. V. Modanloo, A. Doniavi, and R. Hasanzadeh, “Application of multi criteria decision making methods to select sheet hydroforming process parameters,” Decis. Sci. Lett., vol. 5, pp. 349–360, Feb. 2006, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2016.2.005.
36. H. Zhang, “Application on the Entropy Method for Determination of Weight of Evaluating Index in Fuzzy Mathematics for Wine Quality Assessment,” Adv. J. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 195–198, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.19026/ajfst.7.1293.
37. J. Huang, “Combining entropy weight and TOPSIS method For information system selection,”, in 2008 IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics, Sep. 2008, pp. 1965–1968. doi: 10.1109/ICAL.2008.4636483.
38. Z. Zou, Y. Yun, and J. Sun, “Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment,” J. Environ. Sci., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1020–1023, Sep. 2006, doi: 10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60032-6.
39. G. Çobanoğulları, K. Daldıran, and B. Daldıran, “Analysis of Innovation Performance of South- Eastern European Countries in Transition Economies: An Application of the Entropy-Based ARTASI Method,” Spectr. Oper. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 193–214, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202642.
40. K. Kara, G. C. Yalçın, E. Akagün Ergin, V. Simic, and D. Pamucar, “A neutrosophic WENSLO-ARLON model for measuring sustainable brand equity performance,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 94, p. 101918, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2024.101918.
41. G. C. Yalçın, K. Kara, S. Edinsel, E. G. Kaygısız, V. Simic, and D. Pamucar, “Authentication system selection for performance appraisal in human resource management using an intuitionistic fuzzy CIMAS-ARLON model,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 171, p. 112786, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2025.112786.
42. G. C. Yalçın et al., “A hybrid decision support system for transport policy selection: A case study on Russia’s Northern Sea route in Artic region,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 98, p. 102171, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2025.102171.
43. K. Kara, G. C. Yalcin, P. Gurol, V. Simic, and D. Pamucar, “Enhancing decision support system for finished vehicle logistics service provider selection through a single-valued neutrosophic Dombi Bonferroni-based model,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 138, p. 109441, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109441.
44. Ministry of Trade, Yurtdışı yatırım raporu - 2024, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı Uluslararası Hizmet Ticareti Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, 2024. Accessed: Feb. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5c4ac3db13b876297ce9a568/Yurtd%C4%B1%C5%9F%C4%B1%20Yat%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%20Anketi%20-%202024%20Sonu%C3%A7%20Raporu.pdf
45. M. Žižović, D. Pamučar, M. Albijanić, P. Chatterjee, and I. Pribićević, “Eliminating Rank Reversal Problem Using a New Multi-Attribute Model—The RAFSI Method,” Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1–16, 2020, doi: 10.3390/math8061015.
46. D. Pamucar, M. Zizovic, S. Biswas, and D. Božanić, “A New Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights (LMAW) For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: Application in Logistics,” Facta Univ. Ser. Mech. Eng., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 361–380, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.22190/FUME210214031P.
47. D. Pamucar, L. Vasin, and V. Lukovac, “Selection of Railway Level Crossings for Investing in Security Equipment Using Hybrid DEMATEL-MARICA Model: Application of a new method of multi-criteria decision-making,” presented at the XVI International Scientific-expert Conference on Railways, Belgrade: Railcon, Oct. 2014, pp. 89–92. doi: 10.13140/2.1.2707.6807.
48. M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, E. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene, “A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making,” Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 25–44, Sep. 2016.
49. M. Yazdani, P. Zaraté, E. K. Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis, “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems,” Manag. Decis., vol. 57, no. 9, Art. no. 3, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
50. D. S. Yakowitz, L. J. Lane, and F. Szidarovszky, “Multi-attribute decision making: dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes,” Appl. Math. Comput., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 167–181, Mar. 1993, doi: 10.1016/0096-3003(93)90057-L.
51. R. Keeney, H. Raiffa, and D. Rajala, “Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs,” Syst. Man Cybern. IEEE Trans. On, vol. 9, pp. 403–403, Aug. 1979, doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310245.
52. E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, “A New Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method in Multicriteria Decision‐Making,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 16, no. 2, Art. no. 2, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10.
53. R. V. Rao, D. Singh, F. Bleicher, and C. Dorn, “Weighted Euclidean distance-based approach as a multiple attribute decision making method for manufacturing situations,” Int J Multicriteria Decis. Mak., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 225–240, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1504/IJMCDM.2012.047845.
54. M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, and Z. Turskis,”Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS),” Informatica, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 435–451, 2015, doi: 10.15388/Informatica.2015.57.
55. C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1981.
56. K. Maniya and M. G. Bhatt, “A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method,” Des. Nanomater. Nanostructures, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1785–1789, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.020.
57. M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene, “Determination of Objective Weights Using a New Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC),” Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–20, 2021, doi: 10.3390/sym13040525.
58. C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, Jul. 1948, doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.
59. S. Biswas and D. Pamucar, “Combinative Distance based Assessment (CODAS) Framework using Logarithmic Normalization for Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Serbian J. Manag., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 321–340, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.5937/sjm16-27758.