Comparing the innovation performance of EU candidate countries: an entropy-based TOPSIS approach

References

• Akal, M., & Şen, R. (2004). Economical and political implications of the European union. İktisat İsletme ve Finans, 19, 31–45. doi:10.3848/iif.2004.220ek.4152.
   Google Scholar
• Aksakal, E., & Dagdeviren, M. (2015). Integrated wind turbine selection model under multi-criteria decision making methods: Entropy and TOPSIS. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), March 3 – 5.
   Google Scholar
• Akyazı, H. (1998). European union, candidate countries and Turkey: An economic comparison. İktisat İsletme ve Finans, 13, 67–80. doi:10.3848/iif.1998.147.9516
   Google Scholar
• Akyene, T. (2012). Cell phone evaluation base on entropy and TOPSIS. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1, 09–15.
   Google Scholar
• Altuntas, S. (2014). Development of new methods for prioritization and evaluation of investment projects in the context of technology management ( Ph.D thesis. (Supervisor: Prof.Dr. Türkay Dereli)). University of Gazantep, Graduate School of Natural & Applied Science, Industrial Engineering Department.
   Google Scholar
• Altuntas, S., & Dereli, T. (2012). An evaluation ındex system for prediction of technology commercialization of investment projects. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 23, 327–343. doi:10.3233/IFS-2012-0524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archick, K., & Morelli, V. L. (2014). European union enlargement ( Congressional Research Service Report).
   Google Scholar
• Autant-Bernard, C., Chalaye, S., Manca, F., Moreno, R., & Surinach, J. (2010). Measuring the adoption of innovation. A typology of EU countries based on the innovation survey. Innovation: the European Journal of Social Science Research, 23, 199–222. doi:10.1080/13511610.2010.547739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baležentis, A., & Balkienė, K. (2014). Innovation policy measurement: Analysis of Lithuania’s case. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 27, 1–14. doi:10.1080/1331677X.2014.947103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayazit, O., & Karpak, B. (2007). An analytical network process-based framework for successful total quality management (TQM): An assessment of Turkish manufacturing industry readiness. International Journal of Production Economics, 105, 79–96. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 13051–13069. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilgin, K. S., Cin, M. F., & lopcu, K. (2006). Turkey as a candidate country for full membership in the European union: A comparison with Maastricht criteria. İktisat İsletme ve Finans, 21, 98–109. doi:10.3848/iif.2006.246.4164
   Google Scholar
• Borrás, S. (2003). The ınnovation policy of the European union. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781781009789
   Google Scholar
• Busch, M., & Molendowski, E. (2011). The global financial crisis and the problem of Iceland’s membership in the European union. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 10, 110–119. doi:10.2478/v10031-011-0004-3
   Google Scholar
• Çakır, S., & Perçin, S. (2013). R&D performance measurement in EU countries using combined entropy weight-topsis method. Uludağ Journal of Economy and Society, 32, 77–95.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, D. H. C., & Dahlman, C. J. (2005). The knowledge economy. The World Bank Washington DC: The Kam Methodology and World Bank Operations 20433.
   Google Scholar
• Dashore, K., Pawar, S. S., Sohani, N., & Verma, D. S. (2013). Product evaluation using entropy and multi criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 4, 2183–2187.
   Google Scholar
• Đekić. (2010). Transitional priorities of Serbia in the light of European integration. Megatrend Review, 7, 327–344.
   Google Scholar
• Dikbaş, A., & Akkoyun, I. (2006). ETP: European technology platforms - a challenge for Turkey’s strategic innovation agenda. ITU A|Z, 3, 53-70.
   Google Scholar
• Dodd, J. A., Franke, J., & Moody, R. (2011). Total innovation - Towards a localised, comprehensive EU innovation policy. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 16, 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Enterprise Directorate-General Innovation Directorate. (2003). Innovation policy in seven candidate countries: The challenges ( Final Report Volume 1, Contract: INNO-02-06: 1-181).
   Google Scholar
• Filippetti, A., Frenz, M., & Ietto-Gillies, G. (2011). Are innovation and internationalization related? An analysis of European countries. Industry and Innovation, 18, 437–459. doi:10.1080/13662716.2011.583461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe. (1996). Retrieved from http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/21926641EN6.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Galabova, L. P. (2012). Developing a knowledge-based economy through innovation policy: The cases of Bulgaria, Finland and Scotland. Science and Public Policy, 39, 802–814. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Innovation Index. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII-2015-v5.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Grk, S. (2012). Serbia – so close, yet so far away from Europe. Megatrend Review, 9, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Güney, A. (2005). The future of Turkey in the European union. Futures, 37, 303–316 doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashi, I., & Stojčić, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the community innovation survey 4. Research Policy, 42, 353–366. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, L. C. (2013). Investment decision making using a combined factor analysis and entropy-based topsis model. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14, 448–466. doi:10.3846/16111699.2011.633098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, P. F., & Hsu, M. G. (2008). Optimizing the information outsourcing practices of primary care medical organizations using entropy and TOPSIS. Quality & Quantity, 42, 181–201. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9040-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Human Development Report. (2015). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
   Google Scholar
• Işık, N., & Kılınç, E. C. (2012). Innovation-driven development: An examination on the European Union countries and Turkey. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 1, 31–68. (In Turkish).
   Google Scholar
• Jungmittag, A. (2004). Innovations, technological specialisation and economic growth in the EU. International, Economics and Economic Policy, 1, 247–273. doi:10.1007/s10368-004-0018-5
   Google Scholar
• KAM 2008 Booklet: Measuring knowledge in the world economies. (2008). Knowledge assessment methodology and knowledge economy ındex. Washington, DC: Knowledge For Development Program, World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Karataş, H., & Ayrım, Y. Z. (2010). “Yenilikçilik Birliği bilgi notu [Innovation Union information note].” Retrieved from http://www.abgs.gov.tr/files/SBYPB/Bilim%20ve%20Arastirma/yenilikcilikbirligi.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kaynak, S. (2010). Comparative analysis of innovation performance of EU candidate countries. In I. G. Yumuşak (Ed.), Knowledge economy and management (pp. 107–115). İstanbul: Avcı Ofset Matbaacılık.
   Google Scholar
• Khadivi, M. R., & Fatemi Ghomi, S. M. T. (2012). Solid waste facilities location using of analytical network process and data envelopment analysis approaches. Waste Management, 32, 1258–1265. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laboutkova, S. (2013). The impact of ınstitutional quality on regional innovation performance of EU countries. Proceedıngs of The 11th International Conference on Liberec Economic Forum, Sychrov, Czech Republıc, Sep16-17, 353-362.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S. K., Mogi, G., & Kim, J. W. (2008). Multi-criteria decision making for measuring relative efficiency of greenhouse gas technologies: AHP/DEA hybrid model approach. Engineering Letters, 16, 493–497.
   Google Scholar
• Leschke, J., Theodoropoulou, S., & Watt, A. (2012). How do economic governance reforms and austerity measures affect inclusive growth as formulated in the Europe 2020 Strategy. In S. Lehndorff (Ed.), A triumph of failed ideas – European models of capitalism in the crisis (pp. 243–281). Brussels: European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), ETUI aisbl.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X., Wang, K., Liu, L., Xin, J., Yang, H., & Gao, C. (2011). Application of the entropy weight and topsıs method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Engineering, 26, 2085–2091. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2410
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Zhao, L., & Suo, J. (2014). Comprehensive assessment on sustainable development of highway transportation capacity based on entropy weight and TOPSIS. Sustainability, 6, 4685–4693. doi:10.3390/su6074685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lööf, H., Heshmati, A., Asplund, R., & Nåås,S. O. (2001). Innovation and performance in manufacturing industries: a comparison of the Nordic Countries ( SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 457). Retrieved from http://swopec.hhs.se/hastef/papers/hastef0457.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Majerová, I. (2015). Measurement of innovative performance of selected economies of the European union and Switzerland. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5, 228–232. doi:10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.506
   Google Scholar
• Mavromatidis, F. (2010). The role of the European union in the name dispute between Greece and FYR Macedonia. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 18, 47–62. doi:10.1080/14782801003638703
   Google Scholar
• Mickiewicz, M., & Radosevic, S. (2001). Innovation capabilities of the six EU candidate countries: Comparative data based analysis ( Report, Contract: INNO-99-02: 1-45).
   Google Scholar
• Müller, K. (2006). Innovation performance of new EU memeber countries - situation in the Czech republic. Politická ekonomie, 54, 778–801.10.18267/j.polek.583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2014). OECD factbook 2014: Economic. Environmental and social statistics. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2014-en
   Google Scholar
• Ökem, Z. G. (2011). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne üyelik sürecinde sağlıkta inovasyon ( Publication no: TÜSİAT-T/2011/02/511). Retrieved from http://www.tusiad.org.tr/rsc/shared/file/SagliktaInovasyon-rapor.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Oprean, C., & Tănăsescu, C. (2007). The convergence degree of innovation potential of Romanian economy, by comparison with the developed economies of the EU Member States. The Romanian Economic Journal, 25, 285–304.
   Google Scholar
• Özbek, H., & Atik, H. (2013). The place of Turkey within the European union countries in terms of innovation indicators: A statistical analysis. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 42, 193–210. (In Turkish).
   Google Scholar
• Paas, T., & Poltimäe, H. (2010). A comparative analysis of national innovation performance: The Baltic states in the EU context ( Working Paper No. 78). University of Tartu Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722717 doi:10.2139/ssrn.1722717
   Google Scholar
• Pan, T. W., Hung, S. W., & Lu, W. M. (2010). Dea performance measurement of the national innovation system in Asia and Europe. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 27, 369–392. doi:10.1142/S0217595910002752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eurostat Pocketbooks. (2013). Science, technology and innovation in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Ramadani, V., Gërguri, S., Rexhepi, G., & Abduli, S. (2013). Innovation and economic development: The case of FYR of Macedonia. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 15, 324–345. doi:10.1080/19448953.2013.789326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roper, S., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Fernández-Ribas, A. (2010). Knowledge, capabilities and manufacturing innovation: A USA–Europe comparison. Regional Studies, 44, 253–279. doi:10.1080/00343400802360410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Saá-Pérez, P. D., & Díaz-Díaz, N. L. (2010). Human resource management and innovation in the Canary islands: An ultra-peripheral region of the European union. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1649–1666. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.500488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şahinli, M. A., & Kılınç, E. (2013). Innovation and innovation indicators: Compare of EU countries and Turkey. Selçuk University. The Journal of Social and Economic Research, 25, 329-355 ( In Turkish).
   Google Scholar
• Şahinöz, A. (2004). Europen union-Turkey: Commercial relations and customs union. İktisat İsletme ve Finans, 19, 28–45. doi:10.3848/iif.2004.219.7284
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, K., & Sala-i-Martín, X. (2015). The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015. World Economic Forum.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soylu, A. (2011). The comparison of innovation targets regarding “AB 2020” and “Vision 2023” strategies. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, 14, 105–122.
   Google Scholar
• Suurna, M., & Kattel, R. (2010). Europeanization of innovation policy in central and eastern Europe. Science and Public Policy, 37, 646–664. doi:10.3152/030234210X12778118264459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tokgöz, E., Gürel, Ş. S., Uygur, E., Manisali, E., Zeytinoğlu, Y., & Şahinöz, A. (2002). Türkiye AB ilişkilerinde neredeyiz? İktisat İsletme ve Finans, 17, 13–44. doi:10.3848/iif.2002.196.3104
   Google Scholar
• Tokumasu, S., & Watanabe, C. (2008). Institutional structure leading to the similarity and disparity in innovation inducement in EU 15 countries-finnish conspicuous achievement triggered by Nokia’s IT driven global business. Journal of Services Research, 8, 1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Torun, H., & Çiçekci, C. (2007). Innovation: Is the engine for the economic growth?. Retrieved from http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/yeni/iletisimgm/Innovation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ünlü, F. (2013). European union innovation scoreboard and Turkey: A comparatıve assessment. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 42, 161–192 (In Turkish).
   Google Scholar
• Ünlükaplan, İ. (2009). The spesification of the relationship between economic development, competitiveness and innovation in European union using canonical correlation analysis. Maliye Journal, 157, 235-250(In Turkish).
   Google Scholar
• Uzagalieva, A., Kočenda, E., & Menezes, A. (2012). Technological innovation in new EU markets. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 48, 48–65. doi:10.2753/REE1540-496X480503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaidere, I. (2011). The Paradigm of competitiveness and impact of innovations on regional development in the EU. Human Resources: The Main Factor of Regional Development, 5, 282–291.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, T. C., & Lee, Hsien-Da (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8980–8985. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, S. (2010). Iceland and EU membership. European View, 9, 285–286. doi:10.1007/s12290-010-0148-9
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved March 09, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/files/ius-2015_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://www.worldbank.org
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://go.worldbank.org/Q08GIVEDK0
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved March 10, 2014, from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kam2/KAM_page5.asp
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved March 06, 2016, from http://www.ekonomi.gov.tr/portal/faces/home/disIliskiler/ulkeler/ulke-detay/İzlanda
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved March 06, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsc00001&plugin=1
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved March 06, 2016, from http://www.mfa.gov.tr
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/serbia/gdp-per-capita
   Google Scholar
• Innovation Union Scoreboard. (2015). European commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/files/ius-2015_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Retrieved February 10, 2014, from www.worldbank.org/kam
   Google Scholar
• Yesilada, B. A. (2002). Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership. Middle East Journal, 56, 94–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Q. H., Zhou, X., Xie, R. F., & Li, Z. C. (2011). Comparison of three weighing methods for evaluation of the HPLC fingerprints of cortex fraxini. Journal of Liquid Chromatography & Related Technologies, 34, 2008–2019. doi:10.1080/10826076.2011.582912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar