Determining Iran's Competitive Priorities Based on the Global Competitiveness Index

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, department of business management, faculty of management , University Of Tehran,Tehran, Iran

2 Msc,department of industrial management, faculty of management, university of Tehran,, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD Student, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Extended Abstract     
Introduction
National competitiveness as an important economic goal in the context of globalization has been considered by many policymakers around the world. In the Iran, national competitiveness has been considered by officials and the government of men, so that achieving Iran's top economic, scientific, and technological position among the countries, especially among the countries of Southwest Asia, is one of the most important goals in the 20-Year Vision Document. Therefore, providing a framework for identifying and prioritizing factors that help improve Iran's competitiveness can be effective in achieving this goal.
 
Methodolog
This study intends to provide a new framework based on the Global Competitiveness Index to prioritize the competitiveness pillars to increase the national competitiveness of Iran and determine the benchmark countries. This framework is implemented in three stages. The countries of the world are first clustered on the basis of competitive pillars using the fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm to distinguish the countries that are more similar in terms of national competitiveness. The competitiveness pillars in each cluster are then weighted using the CCSD weighting method. The weights obtained indicate the importance and priority of competitive factors. Finally, the WASPAS method is used to rank the countries in each cluster. These rankings are used to identify benchmark countries in each cluster.
 
Results and Discussion
Based on the results of this study, the countries of the world were first classified into three clusters. Clusters 1, 2 and 3 represent the developing, least developed, and the developed countries, respectively. After clustering the countries, competitive pillars were weighed using the CCSD weighting method. Accordingly, the labor market in cluster 1, the product market in cluster 2, and macroeconomic stability in cluster 3 had the highest weights. The higher the weight of a pillar, the higher its importance and priority in terms of competitiveness. For the Iran, labor market, macroeconomic stability and infrastructures were the most important competitiveness factors, respectively. Finally, the countries of each cluster were ranked using the WASPAS method. Latvia, Thailand, and Cyprus in cluster 1, Namibia, Kenya, and Macedonia in cluster 2, and Singapore, United States and Switzerland were top three ranked countries. Iran, with a rank of 58, is among the last countries in cluster 1 in this ranking. Latvia, Thailand, and Cyprus, which have the highest rankings in Cluster 1, can be used as benchmark countries for Iran.
 
Conclusions
 National competitiveness has become the main focus of policymakers and governments. Therefore, in this study, a framework based on national competitiveness index was presented to determine the national competitiveness priorities as well as benchmark countries for Iran. In this framework, the countries of the world were first clustered based on competitive pillars using fuzzy c-means algorithm. Competitive columns were then weighed in each cluster using CCSD method. Finally, the countries of each cluster were ranked using the WASPAS method. Based on the proposed framework, competitive factors and priorities as well as benchmark countries for the Iran were determined.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahmadi, S. A.; Badiee Azondahi, M; Heidari Mosello, T. (2017). The Theoretical Explanation of the Nature of the Geopolitical Regions in Competition of the Powers, Geopolitics Quarterly, 13(47), 55–78. Retrieved from http://journal.iag.ir/article_55807.html. [In Persian]
  2. Amirkhanloo, M.; Safdari, F. (2017). Iran’s Competitiveness Status in the 2018-2017 Global Competitiveness Report. Retrieved from http://otaghiranonline.ir/ UFiles/Docs/2017/10/23/Doc20171023114256160.pdf.
  3. Artadi, V.; Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). The global competitiveness index. World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, 2005, 51–80.
  4. Badalpur, M.; Nurbakhsh, E. (2019). An application of WASPAS method in risk qualitative analysis: a case study of a road construction project in Iran. International Journal of Construction Management, 21(9). 910-918.
  5. Bezdek, J. C. (1981). Objective function clustering. In Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms, PP 43–93, Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0450-1_3
  6. Bujancă, G.-V.;Ulman, S.-R. (2015). The impact of the economic freedom on national competitiveness in the main economic power centres in the World. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 94–103.
  7. Caliński, T.; Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 3(1), 1–27.
  8. Chakraborty, S.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Antucheviciene, J. (2015). Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria decision-making tool. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 49(1), 1–17. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84934757178&partnerID=40&md5=c9bf98fd63c635fb3ca949fe669ac770.
  9. Chen, W.; Zou, Y. (2017). An integrated method for supplier selection from the perspective of risk aversion. Applied Soft Computing, 54, 449–455.
  10. Diakoulaki, D.; Mavrotas, G.; Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770.
  11. Dunn, J. C. (1973). A fuzzy relative of the ISODATA process and its use in detecting compact well-separated clusters.
  12. Hafeznia, M. R.; Ezati, E.; Lashgari, E. (2014). Theoretical Explanation of Strategic Region Concept After the Cold War, Geopolitics Quarterly, 10(35), 1–19. Retrieved from http://journal.iag.ir/article_55862.html. [In Persian]
  13. Hill, C. (2008). International business: Competing in the global market place. Strategic Direction, 24(9).
  14. (2011). IPS National Competitiveness Research 2011.
  15. Jani, S. (2011). Explanation and Analysis of Competitivness in the Countries Considered in Iran’s 20-Year Vision Plan and Iran’s Priorities for Enhancing Competitiveness. Imps, 16(2), 140–147. Retrieved from http://jpbud.ir/article-1-340-fa.html. [In Persian]
  16. Karimi, M. (2014). Rivalry of global powers in Central Asia after the Cold War, Geopolitics Quarterly, 10(36), 122–148. Retrieved from http://journal.iag. ir/article_55907.html. [In Persian]
  17. Lall, S. (2001). Competitiveness indices and developing countries: an economic evaluation of the global competitiveness report. World Development, 29(9), 1501–1525.
  18. Mardani, A.; Nilashi, M; Zakuan, N.; Loganathan, N.; Soheilirad, S.; Saman, M. Z. M.; Ibrahim, O. (2017). A systematic review and meta-Analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments. Applied Soft Computing, 57, 265-292.
  19. Necadova, M.; Scholleova, H. (2012). Competitiveness and innovation performance of the Czech Republic in international rankings. Research Journal of Economics, Business and ICT, 4.
  20. Odu, G. O. (2019). Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(8), 1449–1457.
  21. Pérez-Moreno, S.; Rodríguez, B.; Luque, M. (2016). Assessing global competitiveness under multi-criteria perspective. Economic Modelling, 53, 398–408.
  22. Poorahmady, H.; Hosseini Karani, S. R. (2009). The Geopolitics of the Oil-rich Countries of the Persian Gulf and Defiance of Globalization: (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Iraq), Geopolitics Quarterly, 5(14), 102–136. Retrieved from http://journal.iag.ir/article_57028.html. [In Persian]
  23. Priede, J.; Neuert, J. (2015). Competitiveness Gap of the European Union Member Countries in the Context of Europe 2020 Strategy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 690–699.
  24. Rosselet-McCauley, S. (2007). Methodology and principles of analysis. World Competitiveness Yearbook.
  25. Sadeghi, M.; Rabiee, H.; Ghourchi, M.; Abdi, A. (2020). Explaining the Role of Capitalist Economics and Space of Flow in the Emergence and Role-Playing of Global Cities, Geopolitics Quarterly, 16(57), 110–137. Retrieved from http://journal.iag.ir/article_92880.html. [In Persian]
  26. Sahoo, P.; Satpathy, M. P.; Singh, V. K.; Bandyopadhyay, A. (2018). Performance evaluation in CNC turning of AA6063-T6 alloy using WASPAS approach. World Journal of Engineering.
  27. Simmons, B. A.; Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 171–189.
  28. Thore, S.; Tarverdyan, R. (2016). The sustainable competitiveness of nations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 106, 108–114.
  29. Turok, I. (2004). Cities, regions and competitiveness. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1069–1083.
  30. Wan, S.; Yuan, F.; Dong, J. (2017). Extended VIKOR method for multiple criteria decision-making with linguistic hesitant fuzzy information. Computers & Industrial Engineering.
  31. Wang, Y.-M.; Luo, Y. (2010). Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(1), 1–12.
  32. (2017). The Global Competitiveness report 2017-2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
  33. (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report 2019.
  34. Xu, X. (2004). A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 530–532.
  35. Xue, Y.-X.; You, J.-X.; Lai, X.-D.; Liu, H.-C. (2016). An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information. Applied Soft Computing, 38, 703–713.
  36. Zavadskas, E K; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3–6.
  37. Zavadskas, E.K; Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397–427.
Geopolitics Quarterly
Volume 19, Issue 69
January 2023
Pages 245-268

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 November 2020
  • Revise Date: 16 February 2022
  • Accept Date: 16 February 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics