IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i5p4604-d1087791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Countries in Terms of Artificial Intelligence Technologies: PROMETHEE and GAIA Method Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gokhan Ozkaya

    (Department of Business Administration, Yildiz Technical University, 34220 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Ayse Demirhan

    (Department of Business Administration, Yildiz Technical University, 34220 Istanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

Artificial intelligence development and research leaders in business, industry, and nations gain a major competitive edge. Additionally, it is clear that nations with a well-established national artificial intelligence policy have an edge over others, both technologically and economically. To further their artificial intelligence capability, nations also seek to develop a strategy, vision, structure, and working environment that encourages collaboration between the public sector, private industry, and educational institutions. Artificial intelligence is thought to be a tool that will help bridge the gap between powerful and developing countries growing in the future. Using data from “The Global AI Index” for 2021, this study aims to examine and analyze the present state of artificial intelligence management in 62 nations in terms of talent, infrastructure, business environment, development and research government policy, and commercial efforts. The research used PROMETHEE, which is widely used in multi-criteria decision-making evaluations, and its geometric representation, the GAIA plane. This study also found that the United States of America is the world leader in artificial intelligence (AI) research and development as well as AI investment. The United Kingdom, China, Israel, Canada, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Germany all rank well. China is rapidly catching up to the USA. At the very bottom of the list are nations such as Armenia, Kenya, Egypt, South Africa, and Pakistan. Turkey’s values are more similar to those of nations towards the bottom of the list than of those in the top half. There is a significant gap between the top three countries and the rest of the world in all parameters included in the survey. Except for the ‘State Strategy’ category, Turkey scores quite low compared to the top-performing countries. Decision makers are expected to address the identified global challenges of the study by creating a more comprehensive national AI strategy, both financially and in terms of content.

Suggested Citation

  • Gokhan Ozkaya & Ayse Demirhan, 2023. "Analysis of Countries in Terms of Artificial Intelligence Technologies: PROMETHEE and GAIA Method Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-27, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4604-:d:1087791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4604/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4604/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Trends and priority shifts in artificial intelligence technology invention: A global patent analysis," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 60-69.
    2. Ernst Ekkehardt & Merola Rossana & Samaan Daniel, 2019. "Economics of Artificial Intelligence: Implications for the Future of Work," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Sciendo & Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, June.
    3. Mareschal, Bertrand & Brans, Jean-Pierre, 1988. "Geometrical representations for MCDA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-77, February.
    4. Davenport, Thomas H., 2018. "The AI Advantage: How to Put the Artificial Intelligence Revolution to Work," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262039176, April.
    5. Nasrollahi, Sadaf & Kazemi, Aliyeh & Jahangir, Mohammad-Hossein & Aryaee, Sara, 2023. "Selecting suitable wave energy technology for sustainable development, an MCDM approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 756-772.
    6. Feijóo, Claudio & Kwon, Youngsun & Bauer, Johannes M. & Bohlin, Erik & Howell, Bronwyn & Jain, Rekha & Potgieter, Petrus & Vu, Khuong & Whalley, Jason & Xia, Jun, 2020. "Harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) to increase wellbeing for all: The case for a new technology diplomacy," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
    7. Virginija Grybaite & Jelena Stankeviciene & Giedre Lapinskiene & Askoldas Podvezko, 2022. "Comparison of the Environment of EU Countries for Sharing Economy State by Modern Multiple Criteria Methods," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 24(59), pages 194-194.
    8. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    9. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1984. "Prométhée: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9305, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    2. Arévalo Quijada, Mª T. & Gómez Domínguez, D. & Vázquez Cueto, Mª J. & Zapata Reina, A., 2002. "Un estudio de las Cajas de Ahorros Andaluzas mediante el método multicriterio promethee," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 20, pages 5-27, Abril.
    3. Alessio Ishizaka & Philippe Nemery, 2013. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 773-799, July.
    4. Damioli, G. & Van Roy, V. & Vertesy, D. & Vivarelli, M., 2021. "May AI revolution be labour-friendly? Some micro evidence from the supply side," GLO Discussion Paper Series 823, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    5. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    6. Paweł Ziemba & Jarosław Wątróbski & Magdalena Zioło & Artur Karczmarczyk, 2017. "Using the PROSA Method in Offshore Wind Farm Location Problems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Vögele, Stefan & Teja Josyabhatla, Vishnu & Ball, Christopher & Rhoden, Imke & Grajewski, Matthias & Rübbelke, Dirk & Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm, 2023. "Robust assessment of energy scenarios from stakeholders' perspectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    8. Mutascu, Mihai, 2021. "Artificial intelligence and unemployment: New insights," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 653-667.
    9. Lei Wang & Provash Sarker & Kausar Alam & Shahneoaj Sumon, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Economic Growth: A Theoretical Framework," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business (continues Analele Stiintifice), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 68(4), pages 421-443, November.
    10. Mareschal, Bertrand & Mertens, Daniel, 1993. "Évaluation financière par la méthode multicritère GAIA : application au secteur de l’assurance en Belgique," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 206-228, mars.
    11. Jarosław Wątróbski & Krzysztof Małecki & Kinga Kijewska & Stanisław Iwan & Artur Karczmarczyk & Russell G. Thompson, 2017. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-34, August.
    12. da Cunha, Richard Alex & Rangel, Luís Alberto Duncan & Rudolf, Christian A. & Santos, Luiza dos, 2022. "A decision support approach employing the PROMETHEE method and risk factors for critical supply assessment in large-scale projects," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    13. de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira & Vetschera, Rudolf, 2012. "A note on scale transformations in the PROMETHEE V method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 198-200.
    14. Gokhan Ozkaya & Mehpare Timor & Ceren Erdin, 2021. "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Indicators and Comparisons of Countries through a Hybrid Model of Data Mining and MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-49, January.
    15. Damioli, Giacomo & Van Roy, Vincent & Vertesy, Daniel & Vivarelli, Marco, 2021. "Will the AI revolution be labour-friendly? Some micro evidence from the supply side," MERIT Working Papers 2021-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    16. Anjali Singh & Anjana Gupta & Aparna Mehra, 2017. "Energy planning problems with interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic information," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 821-848, October.
    17. Tsuen-Ho Hsu & Ling-Zhong Lin, 2014. "Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 299-323, March.
    18. Duch-Brown, Néstor & Gomez-Herrera, Estrella & Mueller-Langer, Frank & Tolan, Songül, 2022. "Market power and artificial intelligence work on online labour markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    19. Arcidiacono, Sally Giuseppe & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore, 2018. "GAIA-SMAA-PROMETHEE for a hierarchy of interacting criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(2), pages 606-624.
    20. Thyago C. C. Nepomuceno & Cinzia Daraio & Ana Paula C. S. Costa, 2021. "Multicriteria Ranking for the Efficient and Effective Assessment of Police Departments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4604-:d:1087791. 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.