8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 1/15
A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas
4
ISSN 1648-4
B u i l d i n g P r o s p e r i t y t h r o u g h K n o w l e d g e D r i v e n S o c l o e G o n o m i c s E n v i ro n m
Zvirblis, A., Buracas, A. (2012), Mu ltiple Criteria Assessment of the
Coun try's K nowledge Economy D eterminants ,
Transformations in
Business &
Economics,
Vol. 1 1 , No 3 (27), pp.124-137.
-TR A N S F O R M A TI O N S IN -
BUS I NES S ECONOM I CS
© Vilnius Univereity, 2002-2012
©Bmo University ofTechnoIogy, 2002-2012
©University of Utvia, 2002-2012
M ULT IPLE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT OF THE COU NTR Y'S
KNOW LEDGE EC ONOMY DETER MINANTS
Received: N ovember, 2011
l Revision:
January, 2012
2'^Aevi5ío«: April, 2012
Accepted: September, 2012
'Algis Zvirblis
International Business School
Vilnius University
Saulétekio
a l 22
LT-10225
Vilnius
ithu ni
Tel.:+370 5 2441829
E-mail:
algiszvirblis 194 [email protected]
Antanas Buracas
International Business Schoo
Vilnius University
Saulétekio
a l 22
LT-10225
Vilnius
ithu ni
Tel.:
370
5
2706182
E-mail:
antanas0.buracas.c
'Algis Zvirblis, PhD, Habil. Dr., Full Professor in Economi
Author and co-author of more than 50 research papers, 2 mon ograph
Visiting lecturer in Sweden. Research interests: forecasting models
economics and business finance, marketing control efficiency theor
quantitative evaluation methodology pf social processes, includin
determination of national entrepreneurship competitive advantages.
^Antanas Buracas,
PhD, Professor, published 6 vol.
Referen
Dictionaiy of Banking and Comm erce (I997-20Î0)
a/o scienti
books and articles in metaeconomics, regional multiple sect
forecasting, social infi-astructure, economic terminology. Ed.-in-chie
the scientific journa l intellectual economies', vice-chairman of editi
board. Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia.
ABSTRACT.
The sustainable econom ic development in the new E
countries must be oriented t o
definitive priorities
of the
competitive
grow
abilities
as
weli
a s to
creation
of a modern
knowledge-based economy.
paper concerns the com plex assessment principles of the country
knowledge economy advancement based on the key determinants
applying multiple criteria evaluation m ethods. T h e formulated theoretic
backgrounds a r e focused on the quantitative evaluation model Thus,
evaluation, the application of different significances of composi
determinants determining the country's know ledge economy advancem e
is provided. Wold Bank expert evaluations of the essential countr
primary
indicators
and th^ rating results are in detail
analysed compa
Baltic States and Nordic countries. According to proposed evaluatio
methodology, firstly, the determinants are examined quantifiably
experts, with the significances of them established. Applying the Sim
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 2/15
Zvirblis, A . Buracas 125 ISSN 1648-446 0
B n i i d i n g P r o s p e r it y t f i r o n g h i b i o w l e d g e D r i v e n S o c i o e c o n o m i c s E n v ir o n m e n t
KEYWOR S knowledge economy, advancement, primary indicators,
composite determinants, multiple criteria SAW method.
JEL classißcadoiT. E24,123,128, J24, 01 5, O3, O47.
The enhancement of maeroeconomic development, the creation of a modem
Theoretical, as well as empirical, research works examine factors having an impact on
ng
et al
2009; Gries, Naude, 2010). Those papers also assert that sustained investments in
Cooke
(2001,
2002) presented a systematic approach on the idea and content of
utional and organ izational sup port from the private sector. Argumented the importance of
et al 2009).
The important practical
complex assessment
of knowledge economy parameters
et al
Know ledge Assessment
(KAM ) was formulated. It is designed to provide a bas ic assessment of
ntries readiness for the know ledge econom y, and identifies sectors or specific areas w here
re attention on future investments is necessary. The KAM is currently being widely applied
the perspective priorities of the cou ntry s s ustainable development.
This methodical approach was critically discussed by Berger and Bristow (2009),
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 3/15
A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas 126 ISSN 16 48 -44
B u i l d i n g P r o s p e r it y t n r o u g n K n o w l e d g e D r h fe n S o c l o e c o n o n i i c s E n v ir o n m
This paper highlights the importance of knowledge potential development for lo
term economic growth, the main determinants of contemporary knowledge economy, wh
human resources and know ledge are the main engines of economic com petitiveness (B urac
2007).
The authors detailed the knowledge economy framework asserting that susta
investments in education, innovation, information and communication technologies, and
conductive institutional environment will lead to increases in the use and creation
knowledge impact on the economic production, as consequently result in sustained econom
growth. We support the similar position of Man et al. (2008), also Booysen (2002) discus
a variety of multidimensional composite (mainly quantitative) indices of econom
development representing aggregate measures of complex development, hi terms of meth
and technique (complex measurement construct), composite indices, furthermore,
generally additive ones with equally weighted influence.
Authors provide a detailed critical interrogation of some commonly used knowled
economy indices and examines their ability to predict the economic performance.
The methods to be applied above are not oriented to multiple criteria decision maki
systems (MCDM) when validating the strategic decisions of knowledge econo
development but more connected with universal alternative evaluations helping to choo
more efficient programmed variants.
The object of this research
is a country's knowledge economy advancement.
The research aim is to develop a new theoretical approach to the complex assessm
of knowledge economy determinants as well as to its sustainable advancement in the eont
of economic competitiveness.
The task of the research is to develop the main principles and to design the b
model for measuring the country's know ledge-based economy determinants.
Research methods:
• mu lti-aspect analysis of primary know ledge econom y indices;
• mu ltiple criteria evaluation by Simple Additive We ighting (SA W \
• systemic review of scientific publications.
1 .
The Com parative Analysis of Know ledge Economy advancem ent: Baltic No
Countries
The comparative analysis of knowledge economy advancement in various countri
first-of-all in Baltic and Nordic countries could help to detail the KE development level
Lithuania, its components and indicators, determining positive changes, also tendencies a
bottlenecks.
The K4 D and Skills Innovation Policy (SIP) program developm ents by the W o
Bank Institute ' s experts are based mo stly on Sveiby s nonm aterial assets mo ni
(http://www.sveiby.com), Skandia Navigator (Intangibles Valuation), Intellectual Capi
Services, Value added intellectual coefficient (Shiu, 2006; Chu et al. 2007), innovation
intellectual potential assessment systems. The European Commission also gives big attenti
to hum an capital as main com ponent of Kn ow ledge Eco nom y (KE) in the projects of
EU's strategical programs such as Project Europe 2030 (pp.21-24) as well as US CIA
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 4/15
Zvirblis, A. Buracas 127 ISSN 1648-4460
B u i l d i n g P r o s p e n i y t h r o u g h K n o w le d g e D r iw e u S o c l o o c o n o m ic s E n w I r o u m e n t
Table I). At the
t interval at 10 poin t system ).
Table 1. Know ledge economy component evaluations in Baltic and Nordic countries
Countrii-s in
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Finland
Sweden
Norway
KniiHli-d<¡i-
hiiiniiiiiv huK-x
1.11
7.65
8.42
9.37
9.51
9.31
hiiiniimii
liiconiiM- .ind
InsiiiutiiinjI
Kvfiiiiii
7.98
8.03
8.76
9.31
9.33
9.47
lnnii\.itiii
II
6.70
6.63
7.56
9.67
9.76
9.06
1 dui itiii
n
8.40
8.35
8.32
9.77
9.29
9.60
l 1
7.99
7.58
9.05
8.73
9.66
9.10
All significances are calculated as average of normalized com ponents.
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kam2/KAM_page5.asp.
More detailed evaluation of main surrounding factors infiuencing the status of KE
its competitive development perspectives was presented in the
Global
2010-2011
Table 2).
Similar to World Economic Forum
EF) assessment system, its experts p resented the com parative impact of ICT on the
iness Index NRT) featured in the report exam ines how prep ared coun tries are to use ICT
in
the general business, regulatory and infrastructure environment. Below the
It also reveals specifics o f the KE develop men t in particular B altic and
All evaluations are presented
in
points /place rating between 138 countries. The
orked R eadiness Index NRI) featured in the report examines how prepared countries are
individuals, businesses
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 5/15
A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas 128
ISSN 1648-44
B u i l d i n g P r o s p e r t t y t t i r o u g n K n o w l e d g e D r lv e n S o c i o e c o n o m i c s E n v ir o n m
Table 2 . The competit ive surrounding of know ledge economy in Balt ic and Nordic countries 2011
Indexes
Lithuania Latvia Estonia Finland Sweden
Market environment
1.02 Financial market sophistication
1.03 A vailability of latest tech nologies
1.04 State of cluster development
1.05 Burd en of government regulation
1.06 Extent & efTect of taxation
1.07 Total tax ra te, profits
] m
5 6 37
2.9/104
2.7/114
2.7/125
38.7/64
3.9/82
5 1 65
2.9/102
3.1/87
2.9/116
38.5/63
5 2 34
5 8 31
3.1/91
4.4/6
4.3/18
49.6/101
6.1/12
6.6/4
5.1/9
4.3/9
3.0/113
44.6/85
6.4/7
6.8/1
5.1/8
4.0/15
3.0/109
54.6/110
Political and regulatory environment
2.02 Laws relating to ICT
2.03 Judicial independence
2.04 Effíciency of legal system in
settling disputes
2.06 Property rights
2.07 Intellectual property protection
2.08 Software pirac y rat e, software
installed
2.11 Internet & telephony competition,
0-6 (best)
4.5/44
3.6/72
3.5^76
4.3/67
3.5/68
54/40
5/62
3.8/80
3.7/70
2.9/116
4.3/70
3.6/63
56/45
6/1
5.9/3
5 5 24
4.3/40
5 3 33
4.6/34
50/37
5/62
5.5/7
6.3/6
5.5/7
6.4/2
6.2/2
25/5
6/1
5.9/1
6.6/2
6.1/2
6.3/5
6.2/1
25/5
6/1
Business read iness
5.03 Expenditures, R&D 31/57 2.7/93 3.3/46 5.4/5 6.0/1
Government readiness
6.01 Gov't prioritization of ICT
6.02 Gov't procurement of advanced
tech.
6.03 Impo rtance of IC T to gov 't vision
4.5/76
3.2/103
3.9/73
4.0/107
3.1/110
3.3/113
5 6 14
4.1/42
5 0 19
6.1/5
4.7/6
4.9/21
6.1/7
4.5/13
5.4/8
Individual usage
7.03 Households w/ personal
computer,
7.04 Broadband Internet
subscribers/100 pop
7.05 Intern et users/100 pop
7.06 Internet access in schools
7.07 Use of virtual social networks
7.08 Impact of ICT on access to basic
services
57.3/40
19.3/32
59.8/34
5 5 27
5 5 45
4.9/43
60.1/38
18.6/34
66.8/28
5 4 30
5 2 66
4.2/89
65.1/33
22.5/24
72.5/22
6.4/2
5 7 31
5 5 18
80.1/16
28.8/15
82.5/8
6.1/11
6.2/7
5 3 25
87.5/5
31.8/8
90.8/3
6.4/3
6.5/2
6.2/1
Business usage
8.01 Firm-level tecbnology absorption
8.02 Capacity for innovation
8.03 Extent of business Interne t use
8.06 High-tech exp orts, goods
exports
5 0 55
3.3/48
6.3/5
5 9 39
4.5/88
3.1/57
5 4 37
5 3 44
5 3 42
3.6/34
6.3/2
6.8/33
6.0/12
5.6/5
5 9 19
14.2/21
6.4/2
5.7/3
6.6/1
12.1/24
Norway
6.1/9
6.7/3
4.7/18
3.4/58
3.6/63
41.6/74
5.6/5
6.2/13
5.8/4
6.1/9
5 6 16
29/15
6/1
4.4/17
5 4 27
4.2/33
4.8/24
87.6/4
34.0/4
92.1/2
5 9 15
6.3/4
5 5 16
6.2/6
4.7/13
6.0/12
4.1/54
Source:
Compiled by authors with use
technology-report-2010-2011-0.
of W EF data ht tp: / /ww w.weforum .org/reports /global- infonnat
Different traditions in the iatellectual property protection in both groups of countri
there are many similar KE development features determined by more active penetration
Baltic countries in som e fields of ITC a/o determina nts of countries ' econo m
competitiveness
Figure 1).
According to the WEF evaluations, Lithuania achieved s
progress when ameliorating the economic and institutional surrounding but there are
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 6/15
Zvirblis A. Buraeas
• - 2 9
ISSN 1648-4460
B u i ld i n g P r o s p e r i t y t h r o u g h K n o w ie d g e B r i v e n S e c i o e c o n o m l c s E n v i r o n m e n t
Government
••} • ' ^ budget
b l
ic e
Burden
bi
7gíjvernnient...
\ Government debt
\
.. Na tiona l savings
Value chain
breath*** 11.05
Capacity for /
innovation f
State of duster
developniient \
Extent of m a r k e t y
dominance/...
\
rate
\ Extent and e f f e g ^ ¡ ^ ^
of taxation
2008
• Lithuania 2011
Total tax r a t ^ Latvia 2008
• Latvia 2011
Pay and • Estonia 2008
productivity
B Estonia 2011
/ Prevalence of
trade ba rriers
Nature o f-
competit ive...
banks
y in terest ra te
, spread
,>Eáse of access to
revalence akans
foreign ownership
Compiled by autbors witb use of WEF data: The Global Competitiveness Report.
tivenessReport_2010-ll.pdf.
Figure
I.
Comparison of Dynamic Changes of C ompetitiveness Indicators in Baltic Countries
The form of cobweb diagram under review reveal the most problematic indicators and
essfully developing areas detennining the competitiveness of Baltic countries under
the KE factors. In particular within period under review for Lithuania and Latvia
bottleneck factors become the growth of extent and effect of taxation also low capacity
Table 3. Comparison of
som
ICT iidic ator s in Baltic countries, Finland and Sweden, 2009
Indicators,
ICT development
Lithuania Latvia Estonia Finland
Sweden EU27
Business enterprises:
With internet access
Using internet for:
connections with public
authorities
filling forms
to
public
authorities
proposals
in
public
tender system
88
64
.
5
10
95
91
35
3
95
79
64
14
100
96
83
-
95
86
61
15
94
71
55
11
E-goV Srnment:
Usage by enterprises 91 54
79 96
86 71
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 7/15
A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas 130 ISSN 1648 - 44
B u i l d i n g P f o s p e i t t y t li r o u g h K n o w l e d g e D r tw e n S o c i o e c o n o m i c s E n v ir o n m
between their indicators. The business enterprises in Lithuania are below comparing w
other countries by chosen indicators having so important significance for competiti
conditions of the KE (except the usage of E-govemment services).
The additional indicators when encompass in performed analysis can be added in t
following research depending of the particular tasks of the complex assessment of K
advancement, nevertheless the assessment system has to be formed on the basis of conceptu
criteria. Therefore, these co untrie s indicators still not involved into the W EF pillars must
taking into account (or presented further). However, the World Bank methodology do n
permits of the possibility to evaluate more adequately the different influence of vario
indicators on KE advancement in the newly developing countries when the predetermin
fixed weight values are applied for the same selected indicators. Besides, the World Ba
evaluations do not present comparative evaluation of compound value (using the multip
criteria evaluation m ethods) accord ing to the totality of the state s KE indicators. Also, the K
indicators typical for most of the countries not depending from their development stage a
divided betw een various pillars, and that fact com plicates their join t evaluation. It is exped i
to apply the estimated rather than predetermined weights of primary indicators, and the mo
adequate differentiate the significance levels for the KE indicators.
2 . T he M ajor ssessment Principles and M ethodological Issues
J App licability o f M ultiple Criteria Evaluation M ethods
To construct the backgrounds for complex quantitative assessment of the knowled
economy determinants, especially for new EU members, foremost it is important
adequately evaluate the differences of their economic development potential and speci
strategic priorities. They are based on the available internal economic resources, speci
performance solutions according development stage and intemational surrounding facto
influencing economic development. Secondly, when proceed to the differentiation
significance levels for the key indicators we have such sophisticated problem. To tackle
problem on the basis of conceptual solutions for the quantitative assessment of analogo
processes as have been indicated, it is expedient to apply appropriate evaluation metho
Thirdly, it is expedient to allow the influence of multitude quantitative indexes and qualitat
indicators and characteristics on a country s k now ledge econom y developm ent level. T
variety of essential primary indicators (maximising or minimising the knowledge econom
level parameters) undoubtedly determines the required quantitative evaluation methods. T
multiple criteria evaluation methods under consideration multidimensional character of t
criteria, different directions of their influence and different significances have been recen
used (Podvezko, 2007; Tervonen, Figueira, 2008; Ginevicius et al 2008).
This study is focusing on the quantitative assessment technique which may
incorporated into MCDM system by applying appropriate multiple criteria evaluati
methods, i.e. constituting the sophisticated theoretical and methodological tools.
mentionned before, the application of complex assessment is especially important wh
taking strategic decisions or formating the program s of strategic developmen t on all level
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 8/15
Zvirblis, A. Buracas 131 ISSN 16 4 8- 44 6 0
B u l id l u g P r o s p e r i t y t h r o u g h K n o w l o d g o -D r iw e n S o c i o e c o u o m i o s E u w l r o u m o m
MCDM system permits to evaluate the decision alternatives with account of multiple
et al, 2006 ; Peldschus, 2007 ; Figueira et al, 2008; Mazum dar et
l, 2010 ; Zavadskas, Turskis, 2011). So, the wide spectrum of quantitative methods of
When analyzing the applicability of the quantitative evaluation methods, specific for
Technique for Order Preference by
ty to Ideal Solution TOPS IS), Com plex Proportional Assessment COP RAS) and
Additive W eighting SAW ). The peculiarities of these methods' application are
ed by Ginevicius, Podvezko (2005); Podvezko (2011). Naturally, the application of
The essential merit of the SAW m ethod is in its principal po ssibility to jo in the
ferent primary indices (factors) and to determine the integral value w hen all criteria are
imizing . This method may be applied wh en all factors in the system are interdependent
SA W metho d. A ccording to the last one, the significance o f any criteria
of their influence coefficients to integral parameter h ave am ount to 1, i.
100 (Chu et al, 200 7; Podv ezko, 2007). This method was applied by authors of the
Basic Assessment M odel and Evaluation Technique of Know ledge Econom y
The developed principles (measurement fi'amework) foremost are oriented to the
SAWraeûioà
ng general KE index {KEI I)) expression for newly EU coimtries:
j t , , Y ^ „ , R „ j ,
1)
where he, hs ... h„ - significance parameters of appropriate composite determinants
n - their number) influence on general KE index;
c o e c O s
...
c o „
- weights of
Ry
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 9/15
A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas 132 ISSN 16 48 -44
B u H d in g P r o s p e r ft y t h r o u g n K n o w i e ü g e D r i w e n S o c i o e c o n o m i c s E n v ir o n m
This principal model of evaluation permits to take into consideration all significanc
of composite determinants and their impact into significance of general index, primary indic
determining every composite determinant, as well as different significances of their impact.
It is impo rtant to determ ine the general index KEI I) by composite determin
evaluations and resu lts of the analysis presented ab ove, also with account of specificity of n
EU countries. Foremost the composite determinant pillar may be formed and examination
well as expert assessment of the determinants and their significances may be performed. T
other determinants which may positive influence in any case have to be involved.
Of course, part of these determinants have or have been described (immediate
indirect) as quantifiable measure (Ginevicius et al, 20 08 ), neverth eless, their ultim
evaluation in points is advisable. The composite determinants are evaluated by 10 po
system:
• 8 poin ts - excellent evaluation ;
• 6 - 7 - h i g h ;
• 5-6 - average;
• 4- 5 - week;
• 3-4 - worse.
The sum of determinant influence significances equal 100 percent. The necessa
reliability of expert examination is achieved by applying the theoretically justified methods,
any case, summing-up numbers (ratings) of determinants in a row, calculations
conco rdance coefficient W , of concordance coefficient significance param eter x2 (Pea rso
C h i -
Square Test), etc. the value of the conco rdance coefficients W amo unted to 0.7;
parameter yl to be acceptable by the pre-selected level a= 0.05 and by a= 0.01 (B urinskien
Rudzkienè, 2009).
The establishment (in points) of general index using the SA W method on basis of t
composite determinant evaluations presented in Table 5 and their significances may
realized by formula (2):
where
h\,..., h„-
param eters of significance of approp riate com posite determina
(«= 8).
Principal scheme of multiple criteria assessment of determinants is presented in Fig
Some peculiarities of expanded evaluation of the process, first-of-all, include the formati
of 2-3 pillars with task to amount more determinants concerning specific situation; they m
be formatted as a partially integrated criteria (in case under review, the determinants cons
one pillar). The next important dimension is the preparation of scenarios of every compos
determinant (when evaluating the possible impact of every primary indicator and th
comb inations) as well as compo sition of general KE advancem ent scenarios.
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 10/15
133 ISSN 1648-4460
B u i l d i n g
P r o s p e r i t y th r o u g h K n o w l e d g e B r lv e n S o c l o e c o n o m l c s E n v i r o n m e n t
Complex evaluation of the country s knowledge
economy determinants and prediction of the
programmed changes
Validation of the strategic
decisions of economic
development program
Research of the country s economic development
parameters
Identifícation of the determinants and formation of
the pillar
Scenarios of changes of
knowledge economy
detenninants
Examination and expert assessment of the
determinants and their significance
Predicted changes of
primary indicators
describing determinants
Determination of the general knowledge economy
advancement index on basis model (2)
composed by the authors.
Figure
2
Principal Scheme of Multiple Criteria ssessment
o
Knowledge Economy D eterminants and
Prediction of
th
Programmed dvancement
3 The Lithuanian Case Evaluation: Main Results of Research and its Interpretation
Taking into consideration Lithuania s situation in 2011 (I) has been evaluated with
(as a part of the whole percent) have been evaluated by experts of Intemational
{Table 4 .
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 11/15
A. Zvirblis, A. Buraeas
4 ISSN 1648-44
B u i ld i n g P f o s p e r l t t i l i r o u g h K n o H lc ü g e D r h f e n S o c l o e c o n o m i c s E n v ir o n m
Table 4. Main expert evaluation reliability parameters (W and -^ ) values
Situation
Uin=8
Values of the
concordance coefficient W
Evaluating
determinants
0.72- 0.77
0.69
0.76
Evaluating determinant
signifícances
0.71-0.75
0.71-0.75
The values of concordance coefficient
significance
x^
and min 1^1
y
de facto
24.850
24.150
irlas
a=0.01
18.475
18.475
Izólas
OF=0.05
14.067
14.067
Source: created by authors.
The main reliability parameter values are as follows: the concordance coefficient
amounted to 0.69 - 0.77 when evaluating the determinants and to 0.71 - 0.75 when evaluat
the determinant significances. Th e concord ance coefficient significance param eter x^ de fa
(number of determinants «=8; degree of freedom d. f. = 7) is higher that marginal value
min \¿] at the pre-selected level a= 0.05 and at the pre-selected level a= 0 .01 . The evalua
(in the 10-point system) shown, that the general index for the Lithuania determined on
basis of proposed model (2) of assessment is equal 4.4, its forecasted value for 2015 is eq
4.7 {Table 5).
The performed investigation and examination of Lithuania's composite determina
revealed that fields detennining the state of clusterization and marketing sophistication, a
business expenditure for R&D determinants have to be developed first of all {Table 5).
modernization of energy, as well as advancement in the application of alternative resour
(as complicated areas influencing the KE) could substantially ameliorate the general KE ind
(KEI(I)).
Table 5. The results of expert evaluations of KE composite determinants, their significance and
determination of the general index for Lithuania
Compos i te determinants o f K E( by
significance)
High-tech developm ent exports
ICT application
Formation of human resources,
changes in education
Amelioration of innovative
capacities
Internet access in business , banking,
gov ' t
Bu s in e ss e x p en d it u re f or R D ,
state programmed orientation
Modernization of energy,
application of alternative resources
State of clusterization,
marketing sophist ication
General knowledge economy index
Marks
KEi
KE2
KEi
KE4
KEs
KEe
KE7
KEs
KEI(I)
Assessment
(lOpoints
system)
2011
4.7
5.2
4.6
4.4
5.1
3.3
3.5
3.9
4.4
2015
5.1
5.4
4.3
4.8
5.6
3.9
3.9
4.2
4.7
Significances of
determina nts, in
A
15
14
14
13
12
12
11
9
100
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 12/15
A .
Buracas
135
ISSN 1648-44 60
B n i id i n g P r o s p e r it y t h r o u g h iC n o w ie d g e D r iy e n S o c i o e c o n o m i c s E n v i ro n m e n t
1 . The advancement of knowledge-based economy and growth of national economic
ds w hich are still not used adequ ately in the research work s. The formulated theoretical
a l l , for Lithuania and/or new EU coimtries.
2 . The main primary KE indicators used by World Bank experts for determining the
wa s applied to different co untries.
3 . Thus, the application of different significances of composite determinants of the
tates is mostly below the N ordic one but it is growing especially in the field of ICT .
4 . After detailing the applicabihty of multiple criteria evaluation
{SAW
method to the
5 . The multiple criteria evaluation of Lithuania's KE composite determinants was
the propos ed mo del of assessm ent is equal to 4.4, its forecasted value for 2015 -
6. The fields determining the state of clusterization and marketing sophistication, also
7 . The proposed technique allows the multiple criteria evaluation of various countries'
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 13/15
A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas 136 ISSN 16 48 -44
B u i l d i n g P f o s p e r t t y t l i r o u g f i K n o w le d g e D r h fc n S o c i o e c o n o m i c s E n v i r o n m
Booysen, F. (2002 ), An Overview and Evaluation of Com posite Indices of
Developmenf
Social Indica
Research, Vol. 59, No 2, pp.115-15 1.
Buraöas, A. (2007), The Competitiveness of the EU in the context of the intellectual capital developm en
Intellectual Economics, Vo l. 1, N ol , pp.19-28.
Burinskiene, M., Rudzkienè, V. (2009), Future insights, scenarios and expert method application in sustaina
territorial planning , Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 1 5 , No 1, p p . 10-2
Chu, M.T., Shyu, J., Tzeng, G.H., Khosia, R. (2007 ), Com parison among three analytical methods
knowledge communities group-decision analysis . Expert systems with applications. Vol. 33, No
pp.1011-1024.
Cooke, P. (2001), Regional innovative systems, clusters and the knowledge econom y . Industrial
Corporate Change. Vol. 10, No 4, pp.945-974.
Cooke, P. (2002), Knowledge
Economies,
London, Rutledge.
Figueira, J., Greco, S., Mousseau, V., Slowinski, R. (2008), Interactive M ultiobjective Optimization using a
of Additive Value Functions , in: J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen, R. Slowinski (eds.), Multiobjec
Optimization:
Interactive a n d Evolutionary
Approaches,
pp.99-122.
Gaganis, C , Pasiouras, F., Zopounidis, C. (2006), A m ulticriteria decision framew ork for measuring ban
SQxmáñGss axoMñá
ih
yNQÚá ,
Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision A nalysis,
Vol. 14, No 1-3, pp. 103
Geoff
S., Brychan, C.T., Gary, P. (2009), Opportunity and innovation: Synergy within an entrepreneu
approach to marketing . The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 10, N
pp.63- 72.
Gineviöius, R., Podvezko , V. (2005), Objective and subjective approaches to determining a criterion weigh
multicriteria models . Transport and telecomm unication. Vol. 6, No 1, pp.133-137.
Gineviöius, R., Podvezko, V., Bruzge, S. (2008), Evaluating the Effect of
tate
Aid to Business by Multicrit
Methods ,
Journal of Business Economics a nd
Management Vol. 9, No 3, pp.167-180.
The Global Competitiveness Report (2010-2011), Klaus Schwab (ed.), available
http://www .weforum.org/en/media/publications/Com petitivenessReports/index.htm, referred
23/10/2011.
Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture
(2010), available
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_G lobal_Govemance.pdf, referred on 23/10 /2011 .
Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (2008), available
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Tr«nds_Final_Report.pdf, referred on 23/10/201 1.
Gries, T., Naude, W. (2010), Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation . Small Busin
Economics, Vol. 34, No 1, pp.I3-2 9.
Grundey, D. (2008), App lying sustainability principles in the econom y . Technological and Econo
Development o f Economy, Vol. 14, No 2, pp.101-106.
Kazlauskaité, R., Buôiûnienè, I. (2008), „The Role of Human Resources and Their Management in
Establishment of Sustainable Competitive Advantage , Inzinerine Ekonomika Engineering Econo
Vol. 5,N o60,pp.78-84.
Knowledge for Development (K4D), The World Bank Group (2011), available
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kani2/KAM_pagel . a s p , referred on 17/10/2011.
Man, T., Lan, T., Snape, E. (2008), Entrepreneurial Competencies and the Performance of Small and Medi
Enterprises: An Investigation through a Framework of Competitiveness , Jou rnal of Small
Business
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 1 , No 3, pp.690-708.
Mazumdar, A., Datta, S., Mahapatra, S.S. (2010), Multicriteria decision-making models for the evaluation a
appraisal of teacher' performance .
International
Journal of
Productivity
and
Quality
Management
6,No2,pp.213-230.
Naude, W. (2010), Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: new approaches a
insights .
Small Business
Economics, Vol. 34, No 1, pp.1-12.
Peldschus, F. (2007), 'Th e effectiveness of assessment in multiple criteria decisions . International Journa
Management a nd Decision
Making
Vol. 8, No 5/6, pp.519-526.
Podvezko, V. (2007), Determining the level of agreement of expert estimates .
International Journa
Management
a n d
Decision Making Vol. 8, No 5/6, pp.586-600.
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 14/15
Zvirblis, A. Buracas 137 ISSN 16 48 -4 46 0
B u i i i l i n g P r o s p e r i t y B i r o n g h K n o w le t ig e D r i v e n S o c i o e c o n o m i c s E n v ir o n m e n t
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/en web.pdf referred on 23/10/2011.
P., Youtie, J. (2006), Measures for Knowledge-Based Economic Developm ent: Introducing Data
Mining Techniques to Economic Developers in the State of Georgia and the US South , Technological
Forecasting and Social Change Vol. 7 3, Issue 8, pp.950-965.
P., Youtie, J., Yogeesvaran, K., Jaafer, Z. (2006), Know ledge Economy M easurement: Methods,
Results and Insights from the Malaysian Knowledge Content Study ,
Research Policy
Vol. 35, No 10,
pp.1522-1537.
H.Y., Rahman, S., Chia, W.M . (2009), Economic growth and transition: a stochastic technological
diffusion model , Joumal of Economic
Development
Vol. 34, No 2, pp.11-26.
Performance: Evidence from Technological Firms , Intemational Joumal of Measurement available at,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5440/is_200606/ai_n21393124/, referred on 11/10/2011.
Intangibles Valuation (2011) available at,
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_skandi£inavigator.html, referred on 23/10/2011.
R. (2008), A survey on stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis methods ,
Joumal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Vol.
15,
No 1-2,
pp.
1-14.
Measurement of national intellectual capital application to EU countries .
An Integrated
Research Infrastructure in the Socio-economic Sciences No 13, available at,
http://iriss.ceps.lu/documents/irisswp81.pdf, referred on 21/10/2011.
(2009), available at, http://www.weforum.org/pdE'
FinancialDevelopmentReport/Report2009.pdf, referred on 22/10 /2011 .
, E.K., Turskis, Z. (2011), Multiple criteria decision m aking (MCDM) methods in economics: an
overview . Technological and Economic Development of Economy Vol. 17, No 2, pp.397-427.
s, A., Bura£as, A. (2010), 'T he consolidated measurement of
the
financial markets development: the case
of transitional economies . Technological and economic development of economy. Vol. 16, No 2 pp.266-
279.
Zvirblis Antanas BuraSas
Tvari ekonominé plétra valstybése - naujosiose ES narése - turètn büti orientuota [ konkurencingumo
ekspertii pateikti p irminiii Salies ind ikatorin iveröiai. Pazymima, kad jie neteikia kompleksinio Saliii ziniii
lygio ivertinimo. Jitpagrindu autoriai gretina Baltijos ir §iaurés äaliii ziniii ekonomikos be i susijusiii
Pagal suformuot^ aStuonin determinant^ kompleks^ ¿vertintas Lietuvos zinin ekonomikos lygis 2011
t Salies ekonom ini konkurencingum%.
¿ODÉIAI: ziniii ekonomika, vystymas , pirminiai indikatoriai, esminiai determinantai,
8/9/2019 Zvirblis & Buracas (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of the Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zvirblis-buracas-2012-multiple-criteria-assessment-of-the-countrys 15/15
Copyright of Transformation in Business & Economics is the property of Vilnius University and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.