Politická ekonomie 2024, 72(5):812-840 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.1447

Comparative Analysis of OECD Countries in Terms of Basic Science and Technology Indicators Using Entropy and WASPAS Methods

Selahattin Yavuz ORCID..., Müge Manga ORCID...
Selahattin Yavuz: Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Department of Business Administration, Erzincan, Turkey
Müge Manga: Yildirim University, Department of Economics, Erzincan, Turkey

Practical analysis of the policies implemented by countries successful in the field of science and technology is crucial, especially in the context of optimal policy selection for countries needing technological development. In this context, ranking the world's countries in terms of technological development is important for increasing the effectiveness of the policies to be implemented in this field. This study ranks 28 OECD countries on seven key science and technology indicators in 2022 using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. In the analysis, first, the importance of the variables was ranked based on the entropy method. Then, a ranking was made among the selected countries in terms of technological performance using the weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) method. The findings obtained with the WASPAS method were confirmed with the additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method. Among the identified variables, the export market (share of computer, electronics and optics sector) parameter was selected as the most dominant criterion. Korea, Germany, Japan, France and the Netherlands were determined to be the best performing in terms of basic science and technology indicators. On the other hand, it can be said that Chile, Latvia, Luxembourg and Lithuania need more effective policies in terms of technology and innovation indicators. In this context, it can be suggested that the policies implemented by countries at the forefront in technological development should be a guide for other countries.

Keywords: Main science and technology indicators, OECD countries, multi-criteria decision making methods
JEL classification: C40, O21, O32

Received: November 3, 2023; Revised: May 29, 2024; Accepted: June 12, 2024; Published: October 10, 2024  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Yavuz, S., & Manga, M. (2024). Comparative Analysis of OECD Countries in Terms of Basic Science and Technology Indicators Using Entropy and WASPAS Methods. Politická ekonomie, 72(5), 812-840. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.1447
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Adali, E. A., Isik, A. T. (2017). The Decision Making Approach Based on SWARA and WASPAS Methods for the Supplier Selection Problem. International Review of Economics and Management, 5(4), 56-77. https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.335408 Go to original source...
    2. Afrane, S., Ampah, J. D., Jin, C., et al. (2021). Techno-economic feasibility of waste-to-energy technologies for investment in Ghana: A multi-criteria assessment based on fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318, 128515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128515 Go to original source...
    3. Ali, S. I., Lalji, S. M., Ali, S. M., et al. (2024). Risk ranking of rig up operation activities using multi-criteria decision-making methods based on fuzzy environment. Journal of Engineering Research, 12(1), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2024.01.011 Go to original source...
    4. Ali, T., Nahian, A. J., Ma, H. (2020). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach to solve renewable energy technology selection problem for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 122967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122967 Go to original source...
    5. Anaeto, F. C., Asiabaka, C. C., Ani, A. O., et al. (2016). The roles of science and technology in national development. Direct Research Journal of Social Science and Educational Studies, 3(3), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.26765/DRJSSES Go to original source...
    6. Andersson, M., Ejermo, O. (2008). Technology specialization and the magnitude and quality of exports. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(4), 355-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590701279714 Go to original source...
    7. Arikan, E., Simşit-Kalender, Z. T., Vayvay, O. (2017). Solid waste disposal methodology selection using multi-criteria decision making methods and an application in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 403-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.054 Go to original source...
    8. Arsu, T. (2021). Assessment of Financial Performance by Entropy Based ARAS Method: An Application on Businesses in BIST Electricity, Gas and Steam Sector. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 39(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.740393 Go to original source...
    9. Aycin, E. (2020). Multi-Criteria Decision Making. 2nd edition. Ankara: Nobel Publications.
    10. Bahrini, R., Qaffas, A. A. (2019). Impact of information and communication technology on economic growth: Evidence from developing countries. Economies, 7(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7010021 Go to original source...
    11. Bakir, M., Atalik O., (2018). Evaluation of Service Quality in Airlines by Entropy and ARAS Methods. Journal of Business Research - Türk, 10(1), 617-638. Go to original source...
    12. Balezentis, T., Streimikiene, D., Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I. (2021). Energy storage selection for sustainable energy development: The multi-criteria utility analysis based on the ideal solutions and integer geometric programming for coordination degree. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, 106675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106675 Go to original source...
    13. Cakir, E., Akel, G., Doganer, M. (2018). Evaluation of Private Shopping Sites in Turkey by Integrated SWARA-WASPAS Method, International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 18, 599-616. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.347658 Go to original source...
    14. Çalişir, M., Gülmez, A. (2010). Teknoloji politikalari çerçevesinde ekonomik gelişim: Türkiye-Güney Kore karşilaştirmasi. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 5(1), 23-55.
    15. Ćetković, J., Kneľević, M., Vujadinović, R., et al. (2023). Selection of wastewater treatment technology: AHP method in multi-criteria decision making. Water, 15(9), 1645. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091645 Go to original source...
    16. Chakraborty, S., Zavadskas, E. K. (2014). Applications of WASPAS Method in Manufacturing Decision Making. Informatica, 25(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2014.01 Go to original source...
    17. Chakraborty, S., Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J. (2015). Applications of WASPAS Method as a Multi-criteria Decision-making Tool. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 49(1), 5-22.
    18. Coban, A., Ertis, I. F., Cavdaroglu, N. A. (2018). Municipal solid waste management via multi-criteria decision making methods: A case study in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.130 Go to original source...
    19. Correa, P. (2014). Public Expenditure Reviews in Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Guidance Note. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
    20. Dľiugaitė-Tumėnienė, R., Motuzienė, V., ©iupąinskas, G., et al. (2017). Integrated assessment of energy supply system of an energy-efficient house. Energy and Buildings, 138, 443-454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.058 Go to original source...
    21. Ecer, F., Aycin, E. (2022). Novel Comprehensive MEREC Weighting-Based Score Aggregation Model for Measuring Innovation Performance: The Case of G7 Countries. Informatica, 34(1), 53-83. https://doi.org/10.15388/22-INFOR494 Go to original source...
    22. Ekholm, T., Karvosenoja, N., Tissari, J., et al. (2014). A multi-criteria analysis of climate, health and acidification impacts due to greenhouse gases and air pollution - The case of household-level heating technologies. Energy Policy, 74, 499-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.07.002 Go to original source...
    23. Garfi, M., Tondelli, S., Bonoli, A. (2009). Multi-criteria decision analysis for waste management in Saharawi refugee camps. Waste Management, 29(10), 2729-2739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.019 Go to original source...
    24. Ghorshi Nezhad, M. R., Zolfani, S. H., Moztarzadeh, F., et al. (2015). Planning the priority of high tech industries based on SWARA-WASPAS methodology: The case of the nanotechnology industry in Iran. Economic research - Ekonomska istraľivanja, 28(1), 1111-1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1102404 Go to original source...
    25. Hausmann, R., Dominguez, J. (2022). Knowledge, Technology and Complexity in Economic Growth. [Retrieved 2024-01-15] Available at: https://rcc.harvard.edu/knowledge-technology-and-complexity-economic-growth
    26. Htun, K. S. (2019). An investigation of ICT development in Myanmar. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 85(2), e12068. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12068 Go to original source...
    27. Incekara, A., Sengun, G., Tugba, G. (2017). Measuring the technology achievement index: comparison and ranking of countries. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 4(2), 164-176. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.446 Go to original source...
    28. Isik, O., (2019). Evaluation of Financial Performance of Turkish Deposit Banking Sector Using Entropy Based Aras Method. Research of Financial Economic and Social Studies (RFES), 4(1), 90-99.
    29. Jahanger, A., Usman, M., Murshed, M., et al. (2022). The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations. Resources Policy, 76, 102569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569 Go to original source...
    30. Karaatli, M. (2016). An Integrated Entropy-Gray Relational Analysis Approach: A Study on Tourism Industry. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 21(1), 63-77.
    31. Keskin, M. (2021). In The Scope of Historical Flow Industrial Relations and Current Situation Labour Life Policies of The Republic of Korea (South Korea), Ekonomi İşletme ve Maliye Araştirmalari Dergisi, 3(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.38009/ekimad.856583 Go to original source...
    32. Lu, H., Zhao, L., Wang, X., et al. (2023). Comprehensive performance assessment of energy storage systems for various application scenarios based on fuzzy group multi criteria decision making considering risk preferences. Journal of Energy Storage, 72(B), 108408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.108408 Go to original source...
    33. Mohagheghi, V., Mousavi, S. M. (2019). A new framework for high-technology project evaluation and project portfolio selection based on Pythagorean fuzzy WASPAS, MOORA and mathematical modeling. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 16(6), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.22111/IJFS.2019.5022 Go to original source...
    34. OECD (2017). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017. [Retrieved 2024-02-10] Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264268821-en.pdf?expires=1715779460&id= id&accname= guest✓sum =0D2D94EED6F4C7B74A3947A706A65C4B
    35. OECD (2022). Main Science and Technology Indicators. [Retrieved 2024-01-25]
    36. Özsoy, S., Erguzel, O. Ş., Ersoy, A. Y., et al. (2022). The impact of digitalization on export of high technology products: A panel data approach. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 31(2), 277-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2021.1965645 Go to original source...
    37. Panda, S., Sharma, R. (2020). Does technological specialization spur high-technology exports? Evidence from panel quantile regressions. Global Economy Journal, 20(2), 2050013. https://doi.org/10.1142/S219456592050013X Go to original source...
    38. Radomska-Zalas, A. (2023). Application of the WASPAS method in a selected technological process. Procedia Computer Science, 225, 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.002 Go to original source...
    39. Reardon, S. (2023). South Korean scientists' outcry over planned R&D budget cuts. [Retrieved 2024-01-20] Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02841-w
    40. Ren, H., Gao, W., Zhou, W., et al. (2009). Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5484-5493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.014 Go to original source...
    41. Saleem, L., Ulfat, I. (2019). A Multi Criteria Approach to Rank Renewable Energy Technologies for Domestic Sector Electricity Demand of Pakistan. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 38(2), 443-452. https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.1902.18 Go to original source...
    42. Sarpong, D., Boakye, D., Ofosu, G., et al. (2023). The three pointers of research and development (R&D) for growth-boosting sustainable innovation system. Technovation, 122, 102581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102581 Go to original source...
    43. Schmoch, U. (2008). Concept of a technology classification for country comparisons. Final report to the World Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO. [Retrieved 2024-03-11] Available at: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/docs/wipo_ipc_technology.pdf
    44. Setiawan, E. A., Radevito, A., Dewi, K. (2023). A Combined Ranking and Sensitivity Analysis of Power Generation Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Monte-Carlo Simulation. Preprint. Heliyon. Available also at: s://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4542023
    45. Sharma, G. D., Rahman, M. M., Jain, M., et al. (2021). Nexus between energy consumption, information and communications technology, and economic growth: an enquiry into emerging Asian countries. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(2), e2172. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2172 Go to original source...
    46. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., Zavadskas, E. K., Streimikiene, D. (2020). Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for the assessment of renewable energy technologies in a household: A review. Energies, 13(5), 1164. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051164 Go to original source...
    47. Smirnov, D. S., Willoughby, K. W. (2021). Rethinking the dynamics of innovation, science, and technology: The curious case of Stirling engines and Stirling refrigerators. Energy Research & Social Science, 79, 102159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102159 Go to original source...
    48. Statista, (2023). Leading countries by gross research and development (R&D) expenditure worldwide in 2022. [Retrieved 2024-03-12] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/732247/worldwide-research-and-development-gross-expenditure-top-countries/
    49. Sultanuzzaman, M. R., Fan, H., Mohamued, E. A., et al. (2019). Effects of export and technology on economic growth: Selected emerging Asian economies. Economic research - Ekonomska istraľivanja, 32(1), 2515-2531. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1650656 Go to original source...
    50. Taherdoost, H., Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006 Go to original source...
    51. Taylor, M. Z. (2016). The politics of innovation: Why some countries are better than others at science and technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-060925-2. Go to original source...
    52. Torkayesh, A. E., Torkayesh, S. E. (2021). Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach. Technology in Society, 66, 101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101670 Go to original source...
    53. Tunçsiper, B., Firat, E. (2016). The Importance of R &D and Innovation in Development: The Case of South Korea. Paper presented at the International Conference on Eurasian Economies. https://doi.org/10.36880/C07.01606 Go to original source...
    54. UNESCO (2014). Guide to Conducting an R&D Survey: For countries starting to measure research and experimental development. Montréal: UNESCO. ISBN 978-92-9189-151-1.
    55. Wu, F. S., Huang, H. J. (2024). Why Do Some Countries Innovate Better than Others? A New Perspective of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Regimes and National Absorptive Capacity. Sustainability, 16(7), 2840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072840 Go to original source...
    56. Yagmahan, B., Yilmaz, H. (2023). An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(1), 96-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1 Go to original source...
    57. Yang, Y., Ren, J., Solgaard, H. S., et al. (2018). Using multi-criteria analysis to prioritize renewable energy home heating technologies. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 29, 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.06.005 Go to original source...
    58. Yin, S., Liu, L., Mahmood, T. (2023). New Trends in Sustainable Development for Industry 5.0: Digital Green Innovation Economy. Green and Low-Carbon Economy. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE32021584 Go to original source...
    59. Yücenur, G. N., Ipekçi, A. (2021). SWARA/WASPAS methods for a marine current energy plant location selection problem. Renewable Energy, 163, 1287-1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.131 Go to original source...
    60. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., et al. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810 Go to original source...
    61. Zhang, H., Gu, C.-L., Gu, L.-W., et al. (2011). The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS & information entropy - A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management, 32(2), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.007 Go to original source...
    62. Zhu, Y., Tian, D., Yan, F. (2020). Effectiveness of entropy weight method in decision-making. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020(1), 3564835. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3564835 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content