|Title:||Integrated Assessment of the Socioeconomic Systems’ Development|
Vol. 11, No 1, 2018
Published date: 30-03-2018 (print) / 30-03-2018 (online)
Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Paneuropean University in Bratislava
|Keywords:||socioeconomic systems (SES), SES development, multicriteria assessment, integrated assessment, economic development|
|JEL classification:||O10, Q01|
A permanent property applicable to every socioeconomic system (SES) is its development. SES development is an integrated process with two sides that can be distinguished, i.e. quantitative and qualitative ones. The quantitative side reflects its static aspect, i.e. the state of the development at a certain point in time. The qualitative side of development reflects its dynamics, i.e. the scope of development changes. In order to make an integrated assessment of the standing of SES development, both these aspects above have to be assessed in a quantitative manner and be further combined into one generalised value. These days, assessment of the standing of SES development is limited to evaluation of the achieved level only, i.e. its quantitative assessment. Due to the fact that all socioeconomic systems are always large and complex systems, they tend to have a multitude of aspects. The indicators that reflect such aspects form a system thereof. It is thus the basis for further multicriteria assessment of the development state. In order to reduce the number of indicators to be assessed simultaneously so that experts could establish the weights thereof in a sufficiently accurate manner, a hierarchically structured system of indicators is developed and presented here. Following this methodology, the level of economic development across Lithuanian regions has been determined. When the scope of development changes was established on that basis, the integrated indicator of the regional development state was calculated following the proposed formula. On the basis of the correlation-regression analysis, it has been determined that the scope of development changes is larger in the regions with lower level of development achieved.
1. Babu, S., Datta, S. K. (2015). Revisiting the link between socio-economic development and environmental status indicators – focus on panel data. Environment. Development and Sustainability, 17(3), 567-586.
2. Boggia, A., Cortina, C. (2010). Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2301-2306.
3. Čiegis, R., Ramanauskienė, J., Šimanskienė, L. (2010). Lietuvos regionų darnaus vystymosi vertinimas. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla. 123 p. ISBN 978-9955-18-534-5.
4. Dictionary of Foreign Words. Available from internet: http://www.zodynas2.lt/tarptautiniu-zodziu/.
5. Espinosa, S., Angela, M., Walker, J. (2011). Complexity Approach to Sustainability, A: Theory And Application. London: Imperial College Press.
6. Fernandes, S. (2013). An empirical approach of the distinctive aspects for socioeconomic development. International Journal of Social Economics, 40(11), 956-970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-02-2012-0031.
7. Ferrarini, A., Bodini, A., Becchi, M. (2001). Environmental quality and sustainability in the province of Reggio Emilia (Italy): using multi-criteria analysis to assess and compare municipal performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 117-131.
8. Ginevičius, R. (2009). Socioekonominių sistemų būklės kiekybinio įvertinimo problematika. Verslas: teorija ir praktika, 10(2), 69-83.
9. Ginevičius, R., Gedvilaitė, D., Bruzgė, Š. (2015). Assessment of a country’s regional economic development on the basis of Estimation of a Single Process (ESP) method. Entrepreneurial business and economics review (EBER), 3(2), 141-153.
10. Ginevičius, R., Gedvilaitė, D., Stasiukynas, A. (2016). Complex Assessment of the Ecological Development of the Country’s Regions. The 9th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2016”, May 12-13, Vilnius, Lithuania. Vilnius: Technika
11. 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 Energy Reviews, 15, 766-772.
12. Hak, T., Kovanda, J., Weinzettal, J. (2012). A method to assess the relevance of sustainability indicators: application to the indicator set of the Czech Republic's sustainable development strategy. Ecological Indicators, 17, 46-57.
13. Hwang, C. L., Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making – methods and applications. A state of the art survey. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
14. Ibrahim, F. I., Omar, D., Hanita, N., Mohamad, N. (2015). Theoretical Review on Sustainable City Indicators in Malaysia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 322-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.236
15. Kevin, F. R. L. (2007). Evaluating environmental sustainability: an integration of multiple-criteria decision-making and Fuzzy logic. Environmental Management, 39, 721-736.
16. Khalili, N. R., Duecker, S. (2013). Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of sustainable environmental management system framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 188-198.
17. Kondyli, J. (2010). Measurement and evaluation of sustainable development – a composite indicator for the islands of the North Aegean region, Greece. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 347-356.
18. Lapinskienė, G., Peleckis, K., Nedelko, Z. (2017). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of enterprise’s sustainability and other factors on GHG in European countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(1), 54-67. http://d
19. Leksin, V. N., Porfiryev, B. N. (2016). Evaluation of the effectiveness of government programs of socioeconomic development of regions of Russia. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 27(4), 418-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1075700716040109
20. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. M. D., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications - a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 28(1), 516-
21. Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., Halla, J. (2012). Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.001.
22. Rajnoha, R., Lesníková, P. (2016). Strategic Performance Management System and Corporate Sustainability Concept – Specific Parametres in Slovak Enterprises. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(3), 107-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.03.07.
23. Suna, X., Liub, X., Lia, F., Taoa, Y., Songa, Y. (2015). Comprehensive evaluation of different scale cities' sustainable development for economy, society, and ecological infrastructure in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015: 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/1
24. Wallis, A. M., Graymore, M. L. M., Richards, A. J. (2011). Significance of environment in the assessment of sustainable development: The case for south west Victoria. Ecological Economics, 70(4), 595-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.11.010.
25. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Kildiene, S. (2014). State of Art Surveys of Overviews on MCDM/MADM Methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037.
26. Zhou, J., Xiao, H., Shang, J., Zhang, X. (2007). Assessment of sustainable development system in Suihua City, China, Chinese. Geographical Science, 17(4), 304-310.