zvirblis & buracas (2012). multiple criteria assessment of the country's knowledge economy...

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



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),



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



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



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



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



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



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




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.



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 .



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



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'




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.



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,



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.

zvirblis & buracas (2012). multiple criteria assessment of the country's knowledge economy...

Documents