IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i7p1067-d379342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Complex MCDM Procedure for the Assessment of Economic Development of Units at Different Government Levels

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandra Łuczak

    (Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland)

  • Małgorzata Just

    (Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland)

Abstract

Studies on the economic development of government units are among the key challenges for authorities at different levels and an issue often investigated by economists. In spite of a considerable interest in the issue, there is no standard procedure for the assessment of economic development level of units at different levels of government (national, regional, sub-regional). This assessment needs a complex system of methods and techniques applicable to the various types of data. So, adequate methods must be used at each level. This paper proposes a complex procedure for a synthetic indicator. The units are assessed at different government levels. Each level (national, regional, and sub-regional) may be described with a particular type of variables. Set of data may include variables with a normal or near-normal distribution, a strong asymmetry or extreme values. The objective of this paper is to present the potential behind the application of a complex Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) procedure based on the tail selection method used in the Extreme Value Theory (EVT), i.e., Mean Excess Function (MEF) together with one of the most popular MCDM methods, namely the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), to assess the economic development level of units at different government levels. MEF is helpful to identify extreme values of variables and limit their impact on the ranking of local administrative units (LAUs). TOPSIS is suitable in ranking units described with multidimensional data set. The study explored the use of two types of TOPSIS (classical and positional) depending on the type of variables. These approaches were used in the assessment of economic development level of LAUs at national, regional and sub-regional levels in Poland in 2017.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandra Łuczak & Małgorzata Just, 2020. "A Complex MCDM Procedure for the Assessment of Economic Development of Units at Different Government Levels," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:7:p:1067-:d:379342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/7/1067/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/7/1067/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    2. Dhiman, Harsh S. & Deb, Dipankar, 2020. "Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy COPRAS based multi-criteria decision making for hybrid wind farms," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    3. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    4. Stanny, Monika & Rosner, Andrzej & Kozdroń, Edyta, 2016. "Changes in the Spatial Distribution of the Level and Dynamics of Socio-Economic Development of Rural Areas in Poland," Village and Agriculture (Wieś i Rolnictwo), Polish Academy of Sciences (IRWiR PAN), Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, vol. 4(173).
    5. Aleksandra Łuczak & Małgorzata Just, 2020. "The positional MEF-TOPSIS method for the assessment of complex economic phenomena in territorial units," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 21(2), pages 157-172, June.
    6. Rajak, Manindra & Shaw, Krishnendu, 2019. "Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shiyi Wu & Rui Niu, 2024. "Development of carbon finance in China based on the hybrid MCDM method," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. He, Xiaolong & Wang, Chaoyi & Yang, Xiaowei & Lai, Zhoujing, 2021. "Do enterprise ownership structures affect financial performance in China's power and gas industries?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    2. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    3. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Madjid Tavana & Akram Shaabani & Francisco Javier Santos-Arteaga & Iman Raeesi Vanani, 2020. "A Review of Uncertain Decision-Making Methods in Energy Management Using Text Mining and Data Analytics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    6. Łuczak, Aleksandra & Just, Małgorzata, 2021. "Sustainable development of territorial units: MCDM approach with optimal tail selection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 457(C).
    7. Łuczak, Aleksandra & Kozera, Agnieszka, 2021. "A model to assess the development priorities of local administrations through the hierarchy of strategic factors," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 474-492.
    8. Tofallis, C., 1996. "Improving discernment in DEA using profiling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 361-364, June.
    9. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Including management and security of supply constraints for designing stand-alone electrification systems in developing countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 359-369.
    10. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Khargotra, Rohit & Kumar, Raj & András, Kovács & Fekete, Gusztáv & Singh, Tej, 2022. "Thermo-hydraulic characterization and design optimization of delta-shaped obstacles in solar water heating system using CRITIC-COPRAS approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).
    12. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    13. Pin Li & Jinsuo Zhang, 2019. "Is China’s Energy Supply Sustainable? New Research Model Based on the Exponential Smoothing and GM(1,1) Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-30, January.
    14. P. Giovani Palafox-Alcantar & Dexter V. L. Hunt & Chris D. F. Rogers, 2020. "A Hybrid Methodology to Study Stakeholder Cooperation in Circular Economy Waste Management of Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-30, April.
    15. Wang, Jiangjiang & Zhai, Zhiqiang (John) & Jing, Youyin & Zhang, Chunfa, 2010. "Optimization design of BCHP system to maximize to save energy and reduce environmental impact," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 3388-3398.
    16. J. Granat & M. Makowski, 1998. "ISAAP - Interactive Specification and Analysis of Aspiration-Based Preferences," Working Papers ir98052, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    17. Ba, Birome Holo & Prins, Christian & Prodhon, Caroline, 2016. "Models for optimization and performance evaluation of biomass supply chains: An Operations Research perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(P2), pages 977-989.
    18. Krejci, Igor & Voriskova, Andrea, 2010. "Analysis of the Method for the Selection of Regions with Concentrated State Aid," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 1-8, September.
    19. Georgiadou, Maria Christina & Hacking, Theophilus & Guthrie, Peter, 2012. "A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 145-155.
    20. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "South Korean energy scenarios show how nuclear power can reduce future energy and environmental costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 569-578.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:7:p:1067-:d:379342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.