Multidimensional Comparative Analysis of the Competitive Capacity of the European Union Countries and Geographical Regions

• Autorzy: Katarzyna Cheba , Katarzyna Szopik-Depczyńska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Research background: The basic question we ask is whether is it possible to talk in today's globalizing world about the uniform of the competitiveness of the economies? Posing such questions is particularly important in the case of political and economic structures such as the European Union. The competitiveness of the economies is now one of the most frequently discussed topics. In this work, due to the context of the conducted research (international comparisons of the EU countries' economies) the competitiveness of international economies will be considered in terms of international competitive capacity. In addition to the problems associated with defining this concept, there are also important dilemmas concerned with the measurement of the competitiveness. In the performed comparative analyses of European economies the research results presented within reports of "Global Competitiveness Index" will be used.
Purpose of the article: The main purpose of the paper is to conduct a multidimensional comparative analysis of the competitive capacity of the European Union countries and geographical regions of Europe.
Methods: In the paper, to study the spatial differentiation of the EU countries and geographical regions of Europe in the context of their competitive capacity, the taxonomic measure of development based on median vector Weber was used.
Findings & Value added: As a result, the classification and the typological groups of EU countries and geographical regions of Europe calculated on the basis of the features describing their competitive capacity arises. The value added of these research is the analysis of competitive capacity conducted not only for EU countries, but also for geographical regions of Europe. In the paper, the verification of criteria using by World Economic Forum to assess the competitive capacity of EU economies was also conducted. In this area of the research, because of high level of correlation, many features from initial database were deleted. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Economy competitiveness; Multi-dimensional comparative analysis

PL

Konkurencyjność gospodarki; Wielowymiarowa analiza porównawcza

• Czasopismo: Oeconomia Copernicana
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 8
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 487--504

Twórcy

autor

Katarzyna Cheba

• West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Poland

autor

Katarzyna Szopik-Depczyńska

• University of Szczecin, Poland

Bibliografia

• Balcerzak A.P. (2016). Technological potential of European economy. Proposition of measurement with application of multiple criteria decision analysis. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(3). doi: 10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-3/1.
• Bartłomowicz T., & Cheba K. (2017). Multidimensional comparative analysis of the European Union countries in the field of sustainable development. Research Papers of Wrocław University of Economics, 476. doi: 10.15611/pn.2017.476.11..
• Bąk I. (2014). Influence of feature selection methods on classification sensitivity based on the example of a study of Polish voivodship tourist attractiveness. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 13(2).
• Bąk I. (2015). Spatial structure and typology of crime in Poland. Econometrics, 4(50).
• Bossak J.W. (1984). The social and economic determinants of international competitive ability of the economy in Japan. Monografie i Opracowania, 153.
• Bossak J.W., & Bieńkowski W. (2004). The international competitive capacity of the country and the company. Challenges for Poland at the begining of the XXI century. Warszawa: SGH.
• Castro-Gonzales S., Pena-Vinces J., & Guillen J. (2016). The competitiveness of Latin-American economies: consolidation of the double diamond theory. Economic Systems, 40(3). doi: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2015.10.003.
• Cheba K. (2015). The influence of clusters on economic development. A comparative analysis of cluster policy in the European Union and Japan. Oeconomia Copernicana, 6(3). doi: 10.12775/OeC.2015.022.
• Dunning J.H. (2010). Towards a new paradigm of development: implications for the determinants of international business activity. England: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
• Durand M. (1986). Method of calculating effective exchange rates and indicators of competitiveness. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No 29.
• Feinberg S. (2000). Do world product mandates really matter? Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1). doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490894.
• Glonti K., Gordeev V., Goryakin Y., Reeves A., Stuckler D., McKee M., & Roberts B. (2015). A systematic review on health resilience to economic crises. PLoS One, 10(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123117.
• Hellwig Z. (1968). Zastosowanie metody taksonomicznej do typologicznego podziału krajów ze względu na poziom ich rozwoju oraz zasoby i strukturę wykwalifikowanych kadr. Przegląd Statystyczny, 15(4).
• IMD (2012). World competitiveness yearbook 2012. World Competitiveness Center. Retrieved form http://www.imd.org/wcc/wcy-world-competitivenessyearbook.
• Krugmann P. (1994). Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73(2).
• Krugmann P. (1996). Pop internationalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Lopez F. (2005). Trade and growth: reconciling the macroeconomic and microeconomic evidence. Journal of Economic Survey, 19(4). doi: 10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00264.x.
• Lopez-Claros A. (2006). Global competitiveness report 2006-2007.Geneva: World Economic Forum.
• Mandal M., & Mukhopadhyay A. (2017). Multiobjective PSO-based rank aggregation: application in gene ranking from microarray data. Information Sciences, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.12.037.
• Misala J. (2011). The international competitiveness of the national economy. Warszawa: PWE.
• Młodak A. (2014). On the construction of an aggregated measure of the development of interval data. Computational Statistics, 29.
• Nic M., & Świeboda P. (2014). Central Europe fit for the future: 10 years after EU accession. GLOBSEC Policy Institute.
• Nowak E. (1990). The taxonomic methods in classification of social and economic facility. Warszawa: PWE.
• OECD (1992). Technology and the economy: the key relationships. Paris: OECD.
• Pearce R. (2006). Globalization and development: An international business strategy approach. Transnational Corporations, 15(1).
• Pearce R., & Zhang S. (2010). Multinationals' strategies for global competitiveness and the sustainability of development in national economies. Asian Business & Management, 9(4). doi: 10.1057/abm.2010.29.
• Pietrzak M.B., & Balcerzak A.P. (2016). Assessment of socio-economic sustainability in new European Union members states in the years 2004-2012. In M. Papież & S. Śmiech (Eds.). The 10th Professor Aleksander Zelias International Conference on Modelling and Forecasting of Socio-Economic Phenomena. Conference Proceedings. Cracow: Foundation of the Cracow University of Economics.
• Porter M.E. (1988). On competition. Harvard: The Harvard business review book.
• Porter M.E. (1998). Competitive advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.
• Porter M.E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1). doi: 10.1177/089124240001400105.
• Porter M., Sachs J., & Warner A. (2000). Executive summary: current competitiveness and growth competitiveness. The Global Competitiveness Report 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schwab K. (2012). The global competitiveness report 2012-2013. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
• Schwab K. (2017). The global competitiveness report 2016-2017. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
• Stefanescu D., & On A. (2012). Entrepreneurship and sustainable development in European Countries before and during the international crisis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1067.
• Szopik-Depczyńska K., Cheba K., Bąk I., Kiba-Janiak M., Saniuk S., Dembińska I., & Ioppolo G. (2017). The application of relative taxonomy to the study of disproportions in the area of sustainable development of the European Union. Land Use Policy, 68. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.013.
• Thompson E. (2004). The political economy of national competitiveness: 'one country, two systems' and Hong Kong's diminished international business reputation. Review of International Political Economy, 11(1). doi: 10.1080/0969229042000179767.
• Weber A. (1909, reprint 1971). Theory of location of industries. New York: Russel & Russel.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24136/oc.v8i4.30