Share:


Quantitative assessment of dynamics of economic development in the countries of the European Union

    Rita Remeikienė Affiliation
    ; Jaroslav Belas   Affiliation
    ; Tomas Kliestik Affiliation
    ; Lubos Smrcka   Affiliation

Abstract

The European Union is made up of countries that differ significantly in their economic development. In order to develop tailored strategies for their development, it should be possible to quantify the condition at a desired point in particular time. Again, on this basis, the process of economic development can be quantified and thus typicalities identified. The process is characterized by several parameters: intensity, which reflects the quantitative side of the development process; homogeneity reflecting upon the qualitative side of the development process, and dynamics, integrating development intensity and homogeneity into one generalizing mean. The values of the economic development process make it possible to divide all the countries of the European Union into three levels. This distinction allows for a differentiated analysis of the effects of economic development of countries in terms of their social, environmental and other development.

Keyword : sustainable development, EU, quantitative assessment, GDP per capita

How to Cite
Remeikienė, R., Belas, J., Kliestik, T., & Smrcka, L. (2020). Quantitative assessment of dynamics of economic development in the countries of the European Union. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(4), 933-946. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.12892
Published in Issue
Jul 2, 2020
Abstract Views
104
PDF Downloads
70
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Babu, S., & Dutta, S. (2015). Revisiting the link between socio-economic development and environmental status indicators focus on panel data. Environment Development and Sustainability, 17(3), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9561-6

Becker, W., Saisana, M., Paruolo, P., & Vandecasteele, I. (2017). Weights and importance in composite indicators: closing the gap. Ecological Indicators, 80, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056

Bilan, Y., Vasilyeva, T., Lyeonov, S., & Bagmet, K. (2019). Institutional complementarity for social and economic development. Business: Theory and Practice, 20, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2019.10

Boggia, A., & Cortina, C. (2010). Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2301–2306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.009

Boggia, A., Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Musotti, F., & Greco, S. (2014). Assessing rural sustainable development potentialities using a dominance-based rough set approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 144, 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.021

Booysen, F. (2002). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social Indicators Research, 54(2), 115–151. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016275505152

Compagnolo, L., Carraro, C., Eboli, F., Farnia, L., Parrado, R., & Pierfederici, R. (2018). The Ex-ante evaluation of achieving sustainable development goals. Social Indicators Research, 136, 73–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1572-x

Delai, I., & Takahashi, S. (2011). Sustainability measurement system: a reference model proposal. Social Responsability Journal, 7(3), 438–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111111154563

Chowolhury, S., & Squire, L. (2006). Setting weights for aggregate indices: an application to the committment to development index and human development index. Journal of Development Studies, 42(5), 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380600741904

Čiegis, R., Ramanauskienė, J., & Šimanskienė, L. (2010). Lietuvos regionų darnaus vystymosi vertinimas. Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.

Gedvilaitė, D. (2019). The assessment of sustainable development of a country‘s regions. Technika.

Golusin, M., Munitlak, O. I., & Teodorovic, N. (2011). The review of the achieved degree of sustainable development in South Eastern Europe – the use of linear regression method. Renewable and sustainable Energic Reviews, 15, 766–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.064

Graymore, L. M., Sipe, N. G., & Rickson, R. E. (2010). An index of regional sustainability: A GIS-based multicretiria analysis decision support system for progressing sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 6(4), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.08.006

Ginevičius, R., Gedvilaitė, D., Stasiukynas, A., & Šliogerienė, J. (2018). Quantitative assessment of the dynamic of the economics development of socioeconomic systems based on the MDD method. Inzinerine ekonomika – Engineering Economics, 29(3), 531–553. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.29.3.20444

Gzzebyk, M., & Stec, M. (2015). Sustainable development in EU countries: concept and ratiny of levels of development. Sustainable Development, 23, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1577

Hamilton, C. (2007). Measuring sustainable economic welfare. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847205223.00030

Janker, J., & Mann, S. (2018). Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 1671–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0282-0

Jia, X., Foo, D. C. Y., Tan, R. R., & Li, Z. (2017). Sustainable development paths for resource – constrained process industries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 119, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.004

Eurostat. (2019). Main GDP aggregates. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/product?code=namq_10_pc

Eurostat. (n.d.). http://www.eurostat.com/

Ivanovic, O. D. M., Golusin, M. T., Dpplic, S. N., & Doolic, T. J. M. (2009). Perspectives of sustainable development in countries of South Eastern Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 2074–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.03.004

Kareivaite, R. (2012). Kompleksinis darnaus vystymosi vertinimas taikant daugiakreiterinius metodus (Daktaro disertacija). Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

Kondyli, J. (2010). Measurement and evaluation of sustainable development – a composite indicator for the Islands of the North Aeglan region, Greece. Environemental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.08.006

McLaren, D., Bullock, S., & Yousef, N. (1998). Tommorow’s world: Britain’s share in a sustainable future. Routledge.

Mally, K. M. (2018). Regional differences in Slovenia from the viewpoint of achieving Europe’s sustainable development. Acta Geographica Slovenia, 58(2), 2–46. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3309

Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(13), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551

Pehlivan, N. Y., Sahin, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2018). A comparative study of integrated FMCOM methods for evaluation of organizational strategy development. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 19(2), 360–381. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2018.5683

Prascevic, N., & Prascevic, Z. (2017). Application of fuzzy AHP for ranking and selection of alternatives in construction project management. Journal of Civil Enegineering and Management, 23(8), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1388278

Radovanovic, M., & Lior, M. (2017). Sustainable economic-environmental planning in South East Europe-beyond-GDP and climate change emphases. Sustainable Development, 25, 580–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1679

Rametsteiner, E., Alkan-Olsson, H. P. J., & Frederiksen, P. (2011). Sustainability indicator developmentscience or political negotiation? Ecological Indicators, 11, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.06.009

Rogge, N. (2018). Composite indicators as generalizes benefit-of-the-doubt-weighted averages. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(1), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.048

Rotmans, J. (2006). Tools for integrated sustainability assessment: a tow track approach. The Integrated Assessment Journal Bridging Sciences & Policy, 6(4), 35–57.

Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2015). A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 114, 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.015

Scherp, J. (1994). What does an economist need to know about the environment? Directorate-General for E economic and E – financial Affairs. Economic Papers of the European Commission, No. 107.

Schoenaker, N., Hoekstra, R., & Smits, J. (2015). Comparison of measurement systems for sustainable development at the national level. Sustainable Development, 23, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1585

Song, Y., Yao, S., Yu, D., & Schen, Y. (2017). Risky multi-criteria group decision on green capacity investment projects based on supply chain. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1331461

Spangenberg, J. H. (2012). Institutional sustainability indicators: an analysis of the institutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoringtheir effectivity. Sustainable Development, 10(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.184

Strezov, V., Evens, A., & Evans, T. J. (2017). Assessment of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of the indicators for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 25(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1649

Touceda, M. Y., Neila, F., J., & Degrez, M. (2018). Modeling socioeconomic pathways to assess sustainability: a tailored development for housing retrifit. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 710–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1194-6

Turan, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984

Turskis, Z., Morkūnaitė, Z., & Kutut, V. (2017). A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of ranking of caltural heritage strucrues for renovation projects. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 21(3), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2017.1325782

Van den Beryh, J. C. J. M. (2009). The GDP paradox. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.12.001

Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: a multiplicative approach. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9472-3

Zinatizadeh, S., Azmi, A., Monavari, S. M., & Sobhanazdakani, S. (2017). Evaluation and prediction of sustainaility of urban areas: a case study for Kermanshahsity, Iran. Cities, 66, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.03.002

Xavier, A., Costa Freitas, M. B., Fragoso, R., & Rosário, M. D. S. (2018). A regional composite indicator for analysing agricultural sustainability in Portugal: a goal programming approach. Ecological Indicators, 89, 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.048

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity. Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. Focus, 6(1), 45–60.

Wallis, A. M., Graymore, L. M., & Richards, A. J. (2011). Significance of environment in the assessment of sustainable development: the case of south west Victoria. Ecological Economics, 70(4), 545–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.11.010

Wang, J., Wei, X., & Guo, Q. (2018). A three-dimensional evaluations for regional carrying capacity of ecological environment to social economic development: model development and a case study in China. Ecological Indicators, 89, 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.005