Economic Security and Physical Safety in the European Union: A Multivariate Statistical Analysis

Öz

In recent years, scientific papers pay attention to quality-of-life indicators beyond GDP-based measurements. Material and non-material indicators have become significant parts of life quality evaluations. The economic security concept developed by European Commission consists of disposable income and economic risk measurement. Economic security is also one of the top priorities for the European Union (EU) to achieve its goals and increase its competitiveness in the world economy. EU measures economic security, in the member countries and candidates through some indicators as a sub-dimension under quality-of-life indicators. The aim of this paper is to show the changing relative performance of the old members and the new members of the EU. While the countries that joined the EU before 2004 are accepted as old members, the countries that joined the EU after 2004 are accepted as new members. In relation with this division, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Austria and Finland are accepted as old members. However, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia are the new members. We used two multivariate statistical methods, principal components analysis, and cluster analysis to show the relative and changing performance of the member countries for the years 2008 and 2021. The aim of using principal components analysis is twofold. The first aim is to decrease the dimensionality before cluster analysis. The second aim is to rank the countries in terms of chosen indicators. However, the aim of cluster analysis is to group the countries which have similar performance. According to principal components analysis results, Luxembourg is the most successful country in terms of the variables used to represent economic security and physical safety in the EU. Netherlands, Czechia, Germany, and Sweden are the countries that have the highest rankings. However, Greece is the only country with the lowest economic security and physical safety levels. Countries are grouped under four clusters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• European Union
• Economic Security
• Physical Safety
• Clustering
• Country Ranking

Avrupa Birliği'nde Ekonomik Güvenlik ve Fiziksel Güvenlik: Çok Değişkenli Bir İstatistiksel Analiz

Öz

Son yıllarda bilimsel makalelerde, GSYİH tabanlı ölçümlerin ötesinde yaşam kalitesi göstergelerine dikkat çekilmektedir. Bu çalışmalarda maddi ve maddi olmayan göstergeler, yaşam kalitesi değerlendirmelerinin önemli bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından geliştirilen ekonomik güvenlik kavramı, harcanabilir gelir ve ekonomik risk ölçümünden oluşmaktadır. Ekonomik güvenlik de Avrupa Birliği'nin (AB) hedeflerine ulaşması ve dünya ekonomisindeki rekabet gücünü artırması için en önemli önceliklerden biridir. AB, üye ve aday ülkelerdeki ekonomik güvenliği, yaşam kalitesi göstergeleri altında bir alt boyut olarak bazı göstergeler aracılığıyla ölçmektedir. Bu makalenin amacı, AB'nin eski üyeleri ile yeni üyelerinin değişen göreli performanslarını göstermektir. AB'ye 2004 yılından önce katılan ülkeler eski üye, 2004 yılından sonra katılan ülkeler ise yeni üye olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu ayrıma göre, Almanya, Fransa, İtalya, Belçika, Hollanda, Lüksemburg, İrlanda, Danimarka, Yunanistan, İspanya, Portekiz, İsveç, Avusturya ve Finlandiya eski üyeler olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bununla birlikte, Slovenya, Slovakya, Estonya, Letonya, Lituanya, Güney Kıbrıs, Malta, Polonya, Macaristan, Çekya, Bulgaristan, Romanya ve Hırvatistan yeni üyeler olarak bilinmektedir. Üye ülkelerin 2008 ve 2021 yılları için göreli ve değişen performansını göstermek için iki çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntem, temel bileşenler analizi ve küme analizi kullanılmaktadır. Temel bileşenler analizinin kullanılmasının amacı iki yönlüdür. Birinci amaç, kümeleme analizinden önce boyutsallığı azaltmaktır. İkinci amaç ise seçilen göstergeler açısından ülkeleri sıralamaktır. Ancak kümeleme analizinin amacı, benzer performansa sahip ülkeleri gruplandırmaktır. Temel bileşenler analizi sonuçlarına göre Lüksemburg, AB'de ekonomik güvenlik ve fiziki güvenliği temsil etmek için kullanılan değişkenler açısından en başarılı ülke konumundadır. Hollanda, Çekya, Almanya ve İsveç en yüksek sıralamaya sahip ülkelerdir. Ancak, Yunanistan ekonomik güvenlik ve fiziki güvenlik düzeyi en düşük olan tek ülkedir. Ülkeler dört küme altında toplanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avrupa Birliği
• Ekonomik Güvenlik
• Fiziksel Emniyet
• Kümeleme
• Ülke Sıralaması

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, T., Shaffer, P., Connelly, K., Crandall, D. and Kapadia, A. (2016), Addressing physical safety, security and privacy for people with visual impairments, Twelfth Symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2016), June 22-24, USA.
2. Artis, M. J. and Zang, W. (1998), Core and periphery in EMU: A cluster analysis. METU conference on Economics, METU, Ankara.
3. Atik, H. and Collis, C. (2000), Core and the periphery in the European Union information economy: A multivariate analysis, Yapı Kredi Economic Review, 11(2), 3-20.
4. Bosworth, K., Ford, L. and Hernandaz, D. (2011), School climate factors contributing to student and faculty perceptions of safety in select Arizona schools. Journal of School Health, 81(4), 194-201.
5. Cantó, O., García-Pérez, C. and Romaguera-de-la-Cruz, M. (2020), The dimension, nature, and distribution of economic insecurity in European countries: A multidimensional approach, Economic systems, 44(3), 100807.
6. Carton, F. L., Xiong, H. and McCarthy, J.B. (2022), Drivers of financial well-being in socio-economic deprived populations. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 34, 100628.
7. Chen, Z., Friedline, T. and Lemieux, C.M. (2022), A national examination on payday loan use and financial well-being: a propensity scores matching approach, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 1-12.
8. Diprose, R. (2007), Physical safety and security: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators of violence, Oxford Development Studies, 35:4, 431-458.

9. Emara, N. and Chiu, I-Ming (2016), The Impact of governance environment on economic growth: The case of middle eastern and north African countries, Journal of Economics Library, 3(1), 24-37.
10. Eurostat (2022a), Quality of life indicators - economic security and physical safety, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Quality_of_life_ indicators_-_economic_security_and_physical_safety. Date accessed: 25 June 2022.
11. Eurostat (2022b). Inability to face unexpected financial expenses - EU-SILC survey [ilc_mdes04]. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_mdes04/default/table? lang=en. Date accessed: 25 June 2022.
12. Eurostat (2022c), Arrears on mortgage or rent payments-EU-SILC survey [ilc_mdes06], https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_mdes06/default/table?lang=en. Date accessed: 25 June 2022.
13. Eurostat (2022d). Recorded offences by offence category-police data [crim_off_cat]. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_off_cat/default/table?lang=en . Date accessed: 25 June 2022.
14. Eurostat (2022e). Crime, violence or vandalism in the area-EU-SILC survey [ilc_mddw03], https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_mddw03/default/table?lang=en. Date accessed: 25 June 2022.
15. Everitt, B. S. (1974), Cluster Analysis. Social Science Research Council, London, UK.
16. Gidengil, E. L. (1978), Centres and peripheries: An empirical test of Galtung’s Theory of Imperialism, Journal of Peace Research, 55 (1), 51-66.
17. Hacker, J. S., Huber, G. A., Nichols, A., Rehm, P., Schlesinger, M., Valletta, R., and Craig, S. (2014), The economic security index: A new measure for research and policy analysis, Review of Income and Wealth, 60, S5-S32.
18. ILO (2004), EconomicSeurityfor A Better World.Geneva: ILO.
19. Jacquemin A., and Sapir, A. (1995), Is a European hard-core credible? A statistical analysis. CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 1242.
20. Jobson, J. D. (1992), Applied Multivariate Data Analysis: Categorical and Multivariate Methods. Vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, NewYork, USA.
21. Khatun, T. (2009), Measuring environmental degradation by using principal component analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(2), 439-457.
22. Kim, E. J., Parish, S.L. and Skinner, T. (2019), The impact of gender and disability on the economic well‐being of disabled women in the United Kingdom: A longitudinal study between 2009 and 2014, Social Policy & Administration, 53(7), 1064-1080.
23. Kleszcz, A. (2021), Principal components of innovation performance in European Union countries, The Polish Statistician, 66(8), 24-45.
24. Lyons, A. C., Grable, J. E. and Joo, S.H. (2018), A cross-country analysis of population aging and financial security, The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 12, 96-117.
25. Mahdzan, N. S., Zainudin, R., Sukor, M. E. A., Zainir, F., and Wan Ahmad, W. M. (2019), Determinants of subjective financial well-being across three different household income groups in Malaysia, Social Indicators Research, 146, 699-726.
26. Mahendru, M., Sharma, G. D., and Hawkins, M. (2022), Toward a new conceptualization of financial well‐being, Journal of Public Affairs, 22(2), e2505.
27. Manly, B. F.J. (1986), Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer, Arrowsmith, Bristo.
28. Mutchler, J. E., Shih, Y. C., Lyu, J., Bruce, E. A., and Gottlieb, A. (2015). The elder economic security standard index™: A new indicator for evaluating economic security in later life. Social Indicators Research, 120, 97-116.
29. Nam, Y., Lee, Y., McMahon, S., Sherraden M. (2016), New measures of economic security and development: Savings goals for short‐and long‐term economic needs, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(3), 611-637.
30. Noerhidajati, S., Purwoko, A. B., Werdaningtyas, H., Kamil, A. I., and Dartanto, T. (2021), Household financial vulnerability in Indonesia: Measurement and determinants, Economic Modelling, 96, 433-444.
31. Osberg, L. and Sharpe, A. (2002), An index of economic well–being for selected OECD countries, Review of Income and Wealth, 48.3: 291-316.
32. Račić, Ž. (2016), Process of ranking countries by level of development, Croatian Review of Economic, Business and Social Statistics. 4(1),53-61.
33. Romaguera‐de‐la‐Cruz, M. (2020), Measuring economic insecurity using a counting approach, An application to three EU countries, Review of Income and Wealth, 66(3), 558-583.
34. Romesbourg, C. (1984), Cluster Analysis by Researchers. New York: Belhaven.
35. Sharma, S. (2008), Principal component analysis to rank countries on their readiness for e-tail, Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, 7(2), 87-94.
36. Western, B., Bloome, D., Sosnaud, B. and Tach, L. (2012), Economic insecurity and social stratification, Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 341-59.