Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

ISSN 1648-4460

124

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

Building Prosperity through Knowledge-Driven SocloeGonomics Environment


-TRANSFORMATIONS IN -

Zvirblis, A., Buracas, A. (2012), "Multiple Criteria Assessment of the


Country's Knowledge Economy Determinants", Transformations in
Business & Economics, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), pp.124-137.

BUSINESS & ECONOMICS


Vilnius Univereity, 2002-2012
Bmo University ofTechnoIogy, 2002-2012
University of Utvia, 2002-2012

MULTIPLE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTRY'S


KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY DETERMINANTS
'Algis Zvirblis

Antanas Buracas

International Business School


Vilnius University
Saultekio al. 22
LT-10225 Vilnius

International Business School


Vilnius University
Saultekio al. 22
LT-10225 Vilnius

Lithuania
Tel.:+370 5 2441829
E-mail: algiszvirblis 194 J@gmail.comancy

Lithuania

Tel.: +370 5 2706182


E-mail: antanas0.buracas.com

'Algis Zvirblis, PhD, Habil. Dr., Full Professor in Economics.


Author and co-author of more than 50 research papers, 2 monographs.
Visiting lecturer in Sweden. Research interests: forecasting models in
economics and business finance, marketing control efficiency theory,
quantitative evaluation methodology pf social processes, including
determination of national entrepreneurship competitive advantages.
^Antanas Buracas, PhD, Professor, published 6 vol. Reference
Dictionaiy of Banking and Commerce (I997-200) a/o scientific
books and articles in metaeconomics, regional multiple sector
forecasting, social infi-astructure, economic terminology. Ed.-in-chief,
the scientific journal intellectual economies', vice-chairman of editing
board. Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia.
Received: November, 2011
l" Revision: January, 2012
2'^Aevi5o: April, 2012
Accepted: September, 2012

ABSTRACT.
The sustainable economic development in the new EU
countries must be oriented to definitive priorities of the competitive growth
abilities as weli as to creation of a modern knowledge-based economy. This
paper concerns the complex assessment principles of the country's
knowledge economy advancement based on the key determinants by
applying multiple criteria evaluation methods. The formulated theoretical
backgrounds are focused on the quantitative evaluation model Thus, by
evaluation, the application of different significances of composite
determinants determining the country's knowledge economy advancement
is provided. Wold Bank expert evaluations of the essential country's
primary indicators and th^ rating results are in detail analysed comparing
Baltic States and Nordic countries. According to proposed evaluation
methodology, firstly, the determinants are examined quantifiably by
experts, with the significances of them established. Applying the Simple
Additive Weighting method, secondly, the general knowledge economy
advancement index as a consolidated measure has been determined.
Lithuania's knowledge economy advancement has been evaluated
according to the 2011 situation and with account of prospective situation
scenario according proposed assessment process has been forecasted.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS ^ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

125

ISSN 1648-4460

Bniiding Prosperity tfirongh ibiowledge-Driven Socioeconomics Environment


KEYWORDS:
knowledge economy, advancement, primary indicators,
composite determinants, multiple criteria SAW method.
JEL classicadoiT.

E24,123,128, J24, 015, O3, O47.

Introduction
The enhancement of maeroeconomic development, the creation of a modem
knowledge-based economy and growth of national economic competitiveness are the
priorities of the sustainable development in the transitional economies in Eastem Europe, as
well as in the new EU Member States (Beck, Laeven, 2006; Naude, 2010; Zvirblis, Buracas,
2010).
Theoretical, as well as empirical, research works examine factors having an impact on
sustainable economic development in new EU countries, highlight the importance of
knowledge factors for long-term economic growth (Shapira, Youtie, 2006; Grundey, 2008;
Sng et al, 2009; Gries, Naude, 2010). Those papers also assert that sustained investments in
education, information and communication technologies, innovations as well as in a
favourable economic and institutional environment will lead to increases in the use and
creation of knowledge in economic production, and consequently result in sustained growth of
economic competitiveness.
Cooke (2001, 2002) presented a systematic approach on the idea and content of
regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy. Author considered the
conditions and criteria for examination of innovation activity, and emphasized, that the future
will require widespread evolution of regional innovation systems along with stronger
institutional and organizational support from the private sector. Argumented the importance of
systemic conceptual approach to the sustainable development of knowledge economy and its
complex evaluation. Some publications (Kazlauskait, Bucinien, 2008) detailed the
influence of human resource management on competitiveness, formation of individual
competencies on strategic development, some of them - on problem aspects of innovation
efficiency evaluations (Geoff et al, 2009).
The important practical complex assessment of knowledge economy parameters
leading to interstate rankings was fulfilled by The Knowledge for development (K4D),
affiliated with the World Bank experts, also developed by other researches (Shapira et al,
2006; Shapira, Youtie, 2006; Weziak, 2007). In order to facilitate the evaluations of the
transition coxmtries developing the knowledge economy (KE), the Knowledge Assessment
Methodology (KAM) was formulated. It is designed to provide a basic assessment of
countries' readiness for the knowledge economy, and identifies sectors or specific areas where
more attention on future investments is necessary. The KAM is currently being widely applied
for different World Bank research projects, and it frequently facilitates the discussions
concerning the perspective priorities of the country's sustainable development.
This methodical approach was critically discussed by Berger and Bristow (2009),
especially the validity of indices used to measure national economic performance and
competitiveness. As a result, a review of related researches has shown that the complex
assessment of the country's knowledge-based economy determinants is not analytically
detailed.
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS (y ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

126

ISSN 1648-4460

Building Prosperity tnrougn Knowledge-Drhfen Socloecononiics Environment


This paper highlights the importance of knowledge potential development for longterm economic growth, the main determinants of contemporary knowledge economy, where
human resources and knowledge are the main engines of economic competitiveness (Buracas,
2007). The authors detailed the knowledge economy framework asserting that sustained
investments in education, innovation, information and communication technologies, and a
conductive institutional environment will lead to increases in the use and creation of
knowledge impact on the economic production, as consequently result in sustained economic
growth. We support the similar position of Man et al. (2008), also Booysen (2002) discussing
a variety of multidimensional composite (mainly quantitative) indices of economic
development representing aggregate measures of complex development, hi terms of method
and technique (complex measurement construct), composite indices, furthermore, are
generally additive ones with equally weighted influence.
Authors provide a detailed critical interrogation of some commonly used knowledge
economy indices and examines their ability to predict the economic performance.
The methods to be applied above are not oriented to multiple criteria decision making
systems (MCDM) when validating the strategic decisions of knowledge economy
development but more connected with universal alternative evaluations helping to choose
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 assessment
of knowledge economy determinants as well as to its sustainable advancement in the eontext
of economic competitiveness.
The task of the research is to develop the main principles and to design the basic
model for measuring the country's knowledge-based economy determinants.
Research methods:
multi-aspect analysis of primary knowledge economy indices;
multiple criteria evaluation by Simple Additive Weighting (SA W)\
systemic review of scientific publications.
1. The Comparative Analysis of Knowledge Economy advancement: Baltic & Nordic
Countries
The comparative analysis of knowledge economy advancement in various countries,
first-of-all in Baltic and Nordic countries could help to detail the KE development level hi
Lithuania, its components and indicators, determining positive changes, also tendencies and
bottlenecks.
The K4D and Skills & Innovation Policy (SIP) program developments by the World
Bank Institute ' s experts are based mostly on Sveiby ' s nonmaterial assets monitor
(http://www.sveiby.com), Skandia Navigator (Intangibles Valuation), Intellectual Capital
Services, Value added intellectual coefficient (Shiu, 2006; Chu et al. 2007), innovation and
intellectual potential assessment systems. The European Commission also gives big attention
to human capital as main component of Knowledge Economy (KE) in the projects of the
EU's strategical programs such as Project Europe 2030 (pp.21-24) as well as US CIA - in
their evaluations of global development trends (Global Trends, 2008; Global Governance
2010).
The K4D comparative evaluations are based on four KE pillars: economic and
institutional regime, education and human resources, innovation systems, information and
communication technologies (ICTs). Their indices measured by points fixed the distance
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

127

ISSN 1648-4460

Building Prospeniy through Knowledge-DriweuSoclooconomicsEnwIroument


between knowledge advancement factors in Baltic and Nordic countries and directions where
the retardation was more substantial especially in the field of innovations (Table I). At the
same time, the differences in expert evaluations of education levels were only within one
point interval (at 10 point system).
Table 1. Knowledge economy component evaluations in Baltic and Nordic countries
Countrii-s in

hiiiniimii

KniiHli-d<ihiiiniiiiiv huK-x

liiconiiM- .ind
InsiiiutiiinjI
Kvfiiiiii

lnnii\.itiii
II

Lithuania
1.11
7.98
6.70
6.63
7.65
8.03
Latvia
8.42
8.76
7.56
Estonia
9.31
9.67
9.37
Finland
9.51
9.33
9.76
Sweden
9.47
9.06
9.31
Norway
Notes: All significances are calculated as average of normalized components.

1 dui.itiii

l( 1

8.40
8.35
8.32
9.77
9.29
9.60

7.99
7.58
9.05
8.73
9.66
9.10

Source: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kam2/KAM_page5.asp.

More detailed evaluation of main surrounding factors infiuencing the status of KE


determining its competitive development perspectives was presented in the Global
Information Technology Report 2010-2011 (Table 2). Similar to World Economic Forum
(WEF) assessment system, its experts presented the comparative impact of ICT on the
development process and the competitiveness of 138 economies worldwide. The Networked
Readiness Index (NRT) featured in the report examines how prepared countries are to use ICT
effectively in the general business, regulatory and infrastructure environment. Below the
comparative evaluation of main factors in Baltic and Nordic countries according to main
pillars reveal the premises, sources, perspective resources of KE potential and some results of
their interaction. It also reveals specifics of the KE development in particular Baltic and
Nordic coxuitries depending from market size, development level of fmance and/or ICT
sectors etc.
All evaluations are presented in points /place rating between 138 countries. The
Networked Readiness Index (NRI) featured in the report examines how prepared countries are
to use ICT effectively on three dimensions: the general business, regulatory and infrastructure
environment for ICT; the readiness of the three key societal actors - individuals, businesses
and governments - to use and benefit from ICT; and their actual usage of available ICT.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS (y ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

128

ISSN 1648-4460

Building Prospertty ttirougn Knowledge-Drlven Socioeconomics Environment


Table 2. The competitive surrounding of knowledge economy in Baltic and Nordic countries, 2011
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Market environment
1.02 Financial market sophistication
A.]m
3.9/82
5.2/34
6.1/12
6.4/7
6.1/9
5.6/37
5.1/65
5.8/31
6.6/4
6.8/1
6.7/3
1.03 Availability of latest technologies
2.9/104
2.9/102
5.1/8
4.7/18
1.04 State of cluster development
3.1/91
5.1/9
1.05 Burden of government regulation
2.7/114
3.1/87
4.4/6
4.3/9
4.0/15
3.4/58
1.06 Extent & efTect of taxation
2.7/125
2.9/116
4.3/18
3.0/113
3.0/109
3.6/63
41.6/74
38.7/64
38.5/63
49.6/101
44.6/85
54.6/110
1.07 Total tax rate, % profits
Political and regulatory environment
4.5/44
3.8/80
5.5/7
5.9/1
5.6/5
2.02 Laws relating to ICT
5.9/3
6.6/2
2.03 Judicial independence
3.6/72
3.7/70
5.5/24
6.3/6
6.2/13
2.9/116
5.5/7
6.1/2
5.8/4
2.04 Effciency of legal system in 3.5^76
4.3/40
settling disputes
4.3/67
4.3/70
5.3/33
6.4/2
6.3/5
6.1/9
2.06 Property rights
2.07 Intellectual property protection
3.5/68
3.6/63
4.6/34
6.2/2
6.2/1
5.6/16
56/45
50/37
25/5
25/5
29/15
2.08 Software piracy rate, % software 54/40
installed
2.11 Internet & telephony competition, 5/62
6/1
5/62
6/1
6/1
6/1
0-6 (best)
Business readiness
5.03 Expenditures, R&D
31/57
2.7/93
3.3/46
5.4/5
6.0/1
4.4/17
Government readiness
6.01 Gov't prioritization of ICT
4.5/76
4.0/107
5.6/14
6.1/5
6.1/7
5.4/27
6.02 Gov't procurement of advanced 3.2/103
3.1/110
4.1/42
4.7/6
4.5/13
4.2/33
tech.
3.9/73
3.3/113
4.9/21
5.4/8
4.8/24
6.03 Importance of ICT to gov't vision
5.0/19
Individual usage
87.6/4
7.03
Households
w/
personal 57.3/40
60.1/38
65.1/33
80.1/16
87.5/5
computer,%
18.6/34
22.5/24
34.0/4
7.04
Broadband
Internet 19.3/32
28.8/15
31.8/8
subscribers/100 pop
59.8/34
72.5/22
92.1/2
7.05 Internet users/100 pop
66.8/28
82.5/8
90.8/3
7.06 Internet access in schools
5.5/27
5.4/30
6.4/2
6.1/11
6.4/3
5.9/15
5.5/45
5.2/66
5.7/31
6.2/7
6.5/2
6.3/4
7.07 Use of virtual social networks
7.08 Impact of ICT on access to basic 4.9/43
5.5/18
5.3/25
6.2/1
5.5/16
4.2/89
services
Business usage
6.0/12
6.4/2
8.01 Firm-level tecbnology absorption
5.0/55
4.5/88
5.3/42
6.2/6
8.02 Capacity for innovation
3.6/34
5.6/5
5.7/3
4.7/13
3.3/48
3.1/57
6.3/2
6.6/1
6.0/12
8.03 Extent of business Internet use
6.3/5
5.4/37
5.9/19
4.1/54
8.06 High-tech exports, % goods 5.9/39
5.3/44
6.8/33
14.2/21
12.1/24
exports
Source: Compiled by authors with use of WEF data http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-infonnationtechnology-report-2010-2011-0.
Indexes

Different traditions in the iatellectual property protection in both groups of countries,


there are many similar KE development features determined by more active penetration of
Baltic countries in some fields of ITC a/o determinants of countries ' economic
competitiveness (Figure 1). According to the WEF evaluations, Lithuania achieved some
progress when ameliorating the economic and institutional surrounding but there are not
enough of substantial achievements within directions of innovative system, human resotirce
and education developments.

TRANSFORMATIONS

IN BUSINESS f-ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buraeas

ISSN 1648-4460

-29

Building Prosperity through Knowiedge-Briven Secioeconomlcs Environment


Government
,,},' '^"budget bala ice

Burden biF
7gjvernnient...
\ Government debt
' \
.. National savings
rate

\
Value chain

breath*** 11.05

Extent and e f f e g ^ ^ ^
of taxation

2008

Lithuania 2011
Capacity for /

Total tax r a t ^ Latvia 2008

innovation f
Latvia 2011
State of duster
developniient

Pay and
\

Estonia 2008

productivity

Extent of markety

B Estonia 2011

/ Prevalence of

dominance/...

trade barriers

Nature o f -

yinterest rate
,
,,
spread
,>Ese of access to
revalence akans
foreign ownership

competitive...
banks

Source: Compiled by autbors witb use of WEF data: The Global Competitiveness Report.
http://www3.wefonun.org/docsAVEF_GlobalCompeti tivenessReport_2010-ll.pdf.
Figure I. Comparison of Dynamic Changes of Competitiveness Indicators in Baltic Countries
The form of cobweb diagram under review reveal the most problematic indicators and
successfully developing areas detennining the competitiveness of Baltic countries under
influence of the KE factors. In particular, within period under review for Lithuania and Latvia
the bottleneck factors become the growth of extent and effect of taxation, also low capacity
for innovation.
Table 3. Comparison of some ICT iidicators in Baltic countries, Finland and Sweden, 2009
Indicators,
ICT development
With internet access
Using internet for:
connections with public
authorities
filling forms to public
authorities
proposals
in
public
tender system

Lithuania
88

Latvia

Estonia

Business enterprises:
95
95

Finland

^ Sweden

EU27

100

95

94

64

91

79

96

86

71

. 51

35

64

83

61

55

10

23

14

15

11

96

86
95

71
74

E-goV'Srnment:
Usage by enterprises
91
54
79
On-line availability
60
55
90
Source: composed by G. Prause, M. Reidolf 2011.

89

The comparison of expert evaluations of the internet access as most decisive indicators
of ICT in Baltic countries, Finland and Sweden {Table 3) revealed diminishing distance
TRANSFORMATIONS nSf BVSnSIESS i" ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

130

ISSN 1648 - 4460

Building Pfospeitty tlirough Knowledge-Drtwen Socioeconomics Environment


between their indicators. The business enterprises in Lithuania are below comparing with
other countries by chosen indicators having so important significance for competitive
conditions of the KE (except the usage of E-govemment services).
The additional indicators when encompass in performed analysis can be added in the
following research depending of the particular tasks of the complex assessment of KE
advancement, nevertheless the assessment system has to be formed on the basis of conceptual
criteria. Therefore, these countries' indicators still not involved into the WEF pillars must be
taking into account (or presented further). However, the World Bank methodology do not
permits of the possibility to evaluate more adequately the different influence of various
indicators on KE advancement in the newly developing countries when the predetermined
fixed weight values are applied for the same selected indicators. Besides, the World Bank
evaluations do not present comparative evaluation of compound value (using the multiple
criteria evaluation methods) according to the totality of the state's KE indicators. Also, the KE
indicators typical for most of the countries not depending from their development stage are
divided between various pillars, and that fact complicates their joint evaluation. It is expedient
to apply the estimated rather than predetermined weights of primary indicators, and the more
adequate differentiate the significance levels for the KE indicators.
2. The Major Assessment Principles and Methodological Issues
2J Applicability of Multiple Criteria Evaluation Methods
To construct the backgrounds for complex quantitative assessment of the knowledge
economy determinants, especially for new EU members, foremost it is important to
adequately evaluate the differences of their economic development potential and specific
strategic priorities. They are based on the available internal economic resources, specific
performance solutions according development stage and intemational surrounding factors
influencing economic development. Secondly, when proceed to the differentiation of
significance levels for the key indicators we have such sophisticated problem. To tackle the
problem on the basis of conceptual solutions for the quantitative assessment of analogous
processes as have been indicated, it is expedient to apply appropriate evaluation methods.
Thirdly, it is expedient to allow the influence of multitude quantitative indexes and qualitative
indicators and characteristics on a country's knowledge economy development level. The
variety of essential primary indicators (maximising or minimising the knowledge economy
level parameters) undoubtedly determines the required quantitative evaluation methods. The
multiple criteria evaluation methods under consideration multidimensional character of the
criteria, different directions of their influence and different significances have been recently
used (Podvezko, 2007; Tervonen, Figueira, 2008; Ginevicius et al, 2008).
This study is focusing on the quantitative assessment technique which may be
incorporated into MCDM system by applying appropriate multiple criteria evaluation
methods, i.e. constituting the sophisticated theoretical and methodological tools. As
mentionned before, the application of complex assessment is especially important when
taking strategic decisions or formating the programs of strategic development on all levels business subjects, regional or state one. It permits to formate the programic attitudes more
single-mindedly and to achieve most effective programmed variant. The task of programmed
complex assessment is the reasoning of final programmed variant according to formulated
criteria system of assessment. The programmed alternatives ranked according to some criteria
must be analyzed and revealed those best evaluated, and the priority variant determined at
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS -ECONOMCS, Vol. 1, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

131

ISSN 1648-4460

Bulidlug Prosperity through Knowlodgo-Driwen Socioecouomios Euwlroumom


last. MCDM system permits to evaluate the decision alternatives with account of multiple
tasks and criteria (Gaganis et al, 2006; Peldschus, 2007; Figueira et al, 2008; Mazumdar et
al, 2010; Zavadskas, Turskis, 2011). So, the wide spectrum of quantitative methods of
assessment permitting to evaluate the alternatives according to their features and common
tasks is necessary to be discussed.
When analyzing the applicability of the quantitative evaluation methods, specific for
measurement of analogous social processes, foremost the exclusive approach may be applied
to the group of multiple criteria evaluation methods: Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) and
Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). The peculiarities of these methods' application are
discussed by Ginevicius, Podvezko (2005); Podvezko (2011). Naturally, the application of
these methods request to have adequate information, and the preconditions of evaluation may
be determined or undetermined. The multiple criteria methods of assessment are most
widespread for the solution of determined tasks when the totality of alternatives is determined
previously by one or other way.
The essential merit of the SAW method is in its principal possibility to join the
different primary indices (factors) and to determine the integral value when all criteria are
maximizing. This method may be applied when all factors in the system are interdependent
also in the case when their interaction in the system and its influence to the integral value is
insignificant. It is important to formate adequate system of the valuation criteria and indices
when applying the SA W method. According to the last one, the significance of any criteria
have to be determined (according to theory of restrictions, the most significant have to be
revealed) and the sum of their influence coefficients to integral parameter have amount to 1, i.
e. 100% (Chu et al, 2007; Podvezko, 2007). This method was applied by authors of the
article when evaluating the business finance systems by complex way and in other cases
(Zvirblis, Buracas, 2010). By applying this method, the significances of the essential factors'
influence may be determined by calculations both on the basis of objective information or by
expert way; besides, minimizing indices have to be transfered to maximizing so as absolute
and relative indices having various dimensions may be included.
2.2 The Basic Assessment Model and Evaluation Technique of Knowledge Economy
Determinants
The developed principles (measurement fi'amework) foremost are oriented to the
assessment of the composite non-dimensional determinants. When applying the SAWraeio
we have the following 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


(/=1,2,...,, here n - their number) influence on general KE index; coe, cOs ... co - weights of
primary indicators conditioning the influence on appropriate composite determinant value; Ry
- primary indicators conditioning composite determinant De (j=l,2,...,ke, here ke - their
number); R^ - primary indicators conditioning composite determinant Ds (j=l,2,...,ks, here ks their number); Rj - primary indicators conditioning composite determinant D (j=l,2,...,k,
here k - their number).
TRANSF0RAL4TI0NS IN BUSINESS y ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

132

ISSN 1648-4460

BuHding Prosperfty througn Knowiege-Driwen Socioeconomics Environment


This principal model of evaluation permits to take into consideration all significances
of composite determinants and their impact into significance of general index, primary indices
determining every composite determinant, as well as different significances of their impact.
It is important to determine the general index KEI (I) by composite determinant
evaluations and results of the analysis presented above, also with account of specificity of new
EU countries. Foremost the composite determinant pillar may be formed and examination as
well as expert assessment of the determinants and their significances may be performed. The
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 or
indirect) as quantifiable measure (Ginevicius et al, 2008), nevertheless, their ultimate
evaluation in points is advisable. The composite determinants are evaluated by 10 point
system:
8 points - excellent evaluation;
6-7-high;
5-6 - average;
4-5 - week;
3-4 - worse.
The sum of determinant influence significances equal 100 percent. The necessary
reliability of expert examination is achieved by applying the theoretically justified methods, in
any case, summing-up numbers (ratings) of determinants in a row, calculations of
concordance coefficient W, of concordance coefficient significance parameter x2 (Pearson's
Chi- Square Test), etc. the value of the concordance coefficients W amounted to 0.7; the
parameter yl to be acceptable by the pre-selected level a= 0.05 and by a= 0.01 (Burinskien,
Rudzkien, 2009).
The establishment (in points) of general index using the SA W method on basis of the
composite determinant evaluations presented in Table 5 and their significances may be
realized by formula (2):

where h\,..., h-

parameters of significance of appropriate composite determinants

(= 8).
Principal scheme of multiple criteria assessment of determinants is presented in Figure
2. Some peculiarities of expanded evaluation of the process, first-of-all, include the formation
of 2-3 pillars with task to amount more determinants concerning specific situation; they may
be formatted as a partially integrated criteria (in case under review, the determinants consist
one pillar). The next important dimension is the preparation of scenarios of every composite
determinant (when evaluating the possible impact of every primary indicator and their
combinations) as well as composition of general KE advancement scenarios.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS (-ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

133

ISSN 1648-4460

Building Prosperity through Knowledge-Brlven Socloeconomlcs Environment

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

Identifcation of the determinants and formation of


the pillar

Examination and expert assessment of the


determinants and their significance

Scenarios of changes of
knowledge economy
detenninants

Predicted changes of
primary indicators
describing determinants

Determination of the general knowledge economy


advancement index on basis model (2)

Source: composed by the authors.


Figure 2. Principal Scheme of Multiple Criteria Assessment of Knowledge Economy Determinants and
Prediction of the Programmed Advancement
2.3 The Lithuanian Case Evaluation: Main Results of Research and its Interpretation
Taking into consideration Lithuania's situation in 2011 (I) has been evaluated with
account of prospective 2015 situation (H) according proposed assessment process has been
forecasted. The composite determinants (according to the 10 point scale) and their
significance (as a part of the whole percent) have been evaluated by experts of Intemational
Business School at Vilnius University. The necessary reliability of expert examination has
been achieved {Table 4).

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS y ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

ISSN 1648-4460

134

A. Zvirblis, A. Buraeas

Building Pfosperltt ilirough KnoHlcge-Drhfen Socloeconomics Environment


Table 4. Main expert evaluation reliability parameters (W and -^ ) values

Situation

Uin=8)

Values of the
concordance coefficient W
Evaluating
Evaluating determinant
determinants
signifcances
0.72- 0.77
0.71-0.75
0.69 - 0.76
0.71-0.75

The values of concordance coefficient


significance x^ and min 1^1

Izlas

irlas

y
de facto
24.850
24.150

OF=0.05

a=0.01

18.475
18.475

14.067
14.067

Source: created by authors.

The main reliability parameter values are as follows: the concordance coefficient W
amounted to 0.69 - 0.77 when evaluating the determinants and to 0.71 - 0.75 when evaluating
the determinant significances. The concordance coefficient significance parameter x^ de facto
(number of determinants =8; degree of freedom d. f. = 7) is higher that marginal values min \] at the pre-selected level a= 0.05 and at the pre-selected level a= 0.01. The evaluation
(in the 10-point system) shown, that the general index for the Lithuania determined on the
basis of proposed model (2) of assessment is equal 4.4, its forecasted value for 2015 is equal
4.7 {Table 5).
The performed investigation and examination of Lithuania's composite determinants
revealed that fields detennining the state of clusterization and marketing sophistication, also
business expenditure for R&D determinants have to be developed first of all {Table 5). The
modernization of energy, as well as advancement in the application of alternative resources
(as complicated areas influencing the KE) could substantially ameliorate the general KE index
(KEI(I)).
Table 5. The results of expert evaluations of KE composite determinants, their significance and
determination of the general index for Lithuania

Composite determinants of KE(by


significance)
High-tech development & exports
ICT application
Formation of human resources,
changes in education
Amelioration
of
innovative
capacities
Internet access in business, banking,
gov't
Business expenditure for R & D ,
state programmed orientation
Modernization
of
energy,
application of alternative resources
State of clusterization,
marketing sophistication
General knowledge economy index
Source: created by authors.

Marks

Assessment
(lOpoints
system)

KEi

2011
4.7

KE2

5.2

KEi

4.6

KE4

4.4

KEs

5.1

KEe

3.3

KE7

3.5

KEs

3.9

KEI(I)

4.4

Significances of
determinants, in %

2015
5.1
5.4

A
15

4.3

14

4.8
5.6
3.9
3.9
4.2
4.7

14

13
12
12
11
9
100

The knowledge development strategy could be grounded by modeling the programmed


alternatives with account of both primary indicators and composite determinants also different
parameters of their impact significance when fulfilling multivariate calculations.
TRANSFORMATIONS

IN BUSINESS <'ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

135

ISSN 1648-4460

Bniiding Prosperity through iCnowiedge-Driyen Socioeconomics Environment


Conclusions
1. The advancement of knowledge-based economy and growth of national economic
competitiveness in the new EU Member States are the priorities of the sustainable
development. The complex assessment principles of the country's knowledge economy (KE)
advancement may be based on the key determinants by applying multiple criteria evaluation
methods which are still not used adequately in the research works. The formulated theoretical
backgrounds are focused on the quantitative KE determinants evaluation model applicable,
first-of all, for Lithuania and/or new EU coimtries.
2. The main primary KE indicators used by World Bank experts for determining the
ultimate rank of a country, the average estimates of the values obtained in applying methods
under review revealed some practical weakness of applied technique. The last one was used
uniformly to all countries on the basis of the system of predetermined and fixed indicator
weight values and was applied to different countries.
3. Thus, the application of different significances of composite determinants of the
coimtry's KE advancement is discussed comparing their parameters characterizing the Nordic
and Baltic states and measuring the distance of the last retardation. The competitive strength
of Baltic States is mostly below the Nordic one but it is growing especially in the field of ICT.
4. After detailing the applicabihty of multiple criteria evaluation {SAW) method to the
complex of the KE determinants, the essence of sophisticated evaluation principles was
revealed, also integration of the general criterion, applicable expert methods (for the
assessment of composite determinants) and quantitative evaluation methods was groimded.
The specified identification of essential KE composite determinants, their quantitative
assessment by experts and determination of general KE advancement index may be applied
for valuating Baltic States and other new EU countries, according to the KE advancement
criterion.
5. The multiple criteria evaluation of Lithuania's KE composite determinants was
performed according to the proposed assessment process in the situation 2011 and in
forecasted prospective situation (2015). For this purpose, the adequate pillar including 8
composite determinants was created with account of practice of intemational institutions and
results of the analysis of the Lithuania's situation done by the authors. The evaluation (in the
10-point system) has shown, that the general index for the Lithuania determined on the basis
of the proposed model of assessment is equal to 4.4, its forecasted value for 2015 adequately 4.7.
6. The fields determining the state of clusterization and marketing sophistication, also
business expenditure for R&D determinants have to be first of all developed in Lithuania. The
modernization of energy, as well as advancement in the application of altemative resources
(as complicated areas infiuencing the KE) could substantially ameliorate the general KE
index.
7. The proposed technique allows the multiple criteria evaluation of various countries'
KE determinants oriented to the national strategic priorities, regional specificity and based on
the constmcted adequate composite determinant pillar.
References
Beck, T., Laeven, L. (2006), "Institution building and growth in transition economies", Joumal of Economic
Growth, Vol. 11, No 2, pp.157-186.
Berger, T., Bristow, G. (2009), "Competitiveness and the Benchmarking of Nations - A Critical Reflection",
Intemational Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 15, No 4, pp.378-392.
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS ^ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

136

ISSN 1648-4460

Building Pfospertty tlirougfi Knowledge-Drhfcn Socioeconomics Environment


Booysen, F. (2002), "An Overview and Evaluation of Composite Indices of Developmenf, Social Indicators
Research, Vol. 59, No 2, pp.115-151.
Buraas, A. (2007), "The Competitiveness of the EU in the context of the intellectual capital development".
Intellectual Economics, Vol. 1, Nol, pp.19-28.
Burinskiene, M., Rudzkien, V. (2009), "Future insights, scenarios and expert method application in sustainable
territorial planning", Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 15, No 1, pp. 10-25
Chu, M.T., Shyu, J., Tzeng, G.H., Khosia, R. (2007), "Comparison among three analytical methods for
knowledge communities group-decision analysis". Expert systems with applications. Vol. 33, No 4,
pp.1011-1024.
Cooke, P. (2001), "Regional innovative systems, clusters and the knowledge economy". Industrial and
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 Multiobjective Optimization using a Set
of Additive Value Functions", in: J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen, R. Slowinski (eds.), Multiobjective
Optimization: Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches, pp.99-122.
Gaganis, C, Pasiouras, F., Zopounidis, C. (2006), "A multicriteria decision framework for measuring banks'
SQxmGss axoM ihQ yNQ", Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Vol. 14, No 1-3, pp.103-111.

Geoff, S., Brychan, C.T., Gary, P. (2009), "Opportunity and innovation: Synergy within an entrepreneurial
approach to marketing". The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 10, No 1,
pp.63- 72.
Gineviius, R., Podvezko, V. (2005), "Objective and subjective approaches to determining a criterion weight in
multicriteria models". Transport and telecommunication. Vol. 6, No 1, pp.133-137.
Gineviius, R., Podvezko, V., Bruzge, S. (2008), "Evaluating the Effect of State Aid to Business by Multicriteria
Methods", Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 9, No 3, pp.167-180.
The Global Competitiveness Report (2010-2011),
Klaus
Schwab
(ed.), available
at,
http://www.weforum.org/en/media/publications/CompetitivenessReports/index.htm,
referred
on
23/10/2011.
Global
Governance
2025:
At
a
Critical
Juncture
(2010),
available
at,
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Govemance.pdf, referred on 23/10/2011.
Global
Trends
2025:
A
Transformed
World
(2008),
available
at,
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trnds_Final_Report.pdf, referred on 23/10/2011.
Gries, T., Naude, W. (2010), "Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation". Small Business
Economics, Vol. 34, No 1, pp.I3-29.
Grundey, D. (2008), "Applying sustainability principles in the economy". Technological and Economic
Development of Economy, Vol. 14, No 2, pp.101-106.
Kazlauskait, R., Buinien, I. (2008), The Role of Human Resources and Their Management in the
Establishment of Sustainable Competitive Advantage", Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics,
Vol. 5,No60,pp.78-84.
Knowledge for
Development
(K4D), The World Bank Group (2011), available at,
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kani2/KAM_pagel .asp, referred on 17/10/2011.
Man, T., Lan, T., Snape, E. (2008), "Entrepreneurial Competencies and the Performance of Small and Medium
Enterprises: An Investigation through a Framework of Competitiveness", Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 21, No 3, pp.690-708.
Mazumdar, A., Datta, S., Mahapatra, S.S. (2010), "Multicriteria decision-making models for the evaluation and
appraisal of teacher' performance". International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol.
6,No2,pp.213-230.
Naude, W. (2010), "Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: new approaches and
insights". Small Business Economics, Vol. 34, No 1, pp.1-12.
Peldschus, F. (2007), 'The effectiveness of assessment in multiple criteria decisions". International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No 5/6, pp.519-526.
Podvezko, V. (2007), "Determining the level of agreement of expert estimates". International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No 5/6, pp.586-600.
Podvezko, V. (2011), "The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS", Inzinerine
Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, Vol. 22, No 2, pp. 134-146.
Prause, G., Reidolf, M. (2011), "What do SMEs expect from E - government services?", Business-ScienceGovemment Partnership: Fostering Country competitiveness. Conference Proceedings, International
Business School at Vilnius University, Vilnius, 21-23 Sept.
Project Europe 2030 (2010), Challenges and opportunities. A report to the European Council, available,
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS <y ECONOMICS, Vol. 11, No 3 (27), 2012

A. Zvirblis, A. Buracas

137

ISSN 1648-4460

Buiiiling Prosperity Birongh Knowletige-Driven Socioeconomics Environment


http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/en web.pdf, referred on 23/10/2011.
Shapira, P., Youtie, J. (2006), "Measures for Knowledge-Based Economic Development: Introducing Data
Mining Techniques to Economic Developers in the State of Georgia and the US South", Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73, Issue 8, pp.950-965.
Shapira, P., Youtie, J., Yogeesvaran, K., Jaafer, Z. (2006), "Knowledge Economy Measurement: Methods,
Results and Insights from the Malaysian Knowledge Content Study", Research Policy, Vol. 35, No 10,
pp.1522-1537.
Sng, H.Y., Rahman, S., Chia, W.M. (2009), "Economic growth and transition: a stochastic technological
diffusion model", Joumal ofEconomic Development, Vol. 34, No 2, pp.11-26.
Shiu, H.J. (2006), The Application of the Value Added Intellectual Coeficient to Measure Corporate
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.
Skandia
Navigator.
Intangibles
Valuation
(2011)
available
at,
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_skandiinavigator.html, referred on 23/10/2011.
Tervonen, T., Figueira, J.R. (2008), "A survey on stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis methods",
Joumal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Vol. 15, No 1-2, pp. 1-14.
Weziak, D. (2007), "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.
World Economic Forum 2009 Report (2009), available at,
http://www.weforum.org/pdE'
FinancialDevelopmentReport/Report2009.pdf, referred on 22/10/2011.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z. (2011), "Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an
overview". Technological and Economic Development ofEconomy, Vol. 17, No 2, pp.397-427.
Zvirblis, A., Buraas, A. (2010), 'The consolidated measurement of the financial markets development: the case
of transitional economies". Technological and economic development of economy. Vol. 16, No 2, pp.266279.
DAUGIAKRITEMS ALIES ZINIV EKONOMIKOS DETERMINANTV VERTINIMAS
Algis Zvirblis, Antanas BuraSas
SANTRAUKA
Tvari ekonomin pltra valstybse - naujosiose ES narse - turtn bti orientuota [ konkurencingumo
didinimo galimybs ir modemios, ziniomis grindziamos, ekonomikos prioritetus. Straipsnyje nagrinjami Salies
ziniu ekonomikos pltros determinantu kompleksinio vertinimo principai, grindziami daugiakriteriniais
metodais. Akcentuojamos teorins kiekybinio vertinimo modelio sudarymo prielaidos. Irykinamas skirtingas
sudtiniit determinant^ reikmingumas lemiant Salies ziniii ekonomikos pazang^. Detaliai nagrinjami Pasaulio
Banko ekspertii pateikti pirminiii Salies indikatorin iveriai. Pazymima, kad jie neteikia kompleksinio Saliii ziniii
ekonomikos lygio ivertinimo. Jitpagrindu autoriai gretina Baltijos ir iaurs aliii ziniii ekonomikos bei susijusiii
makroekonominiij. veiksniii ivertinimus. Silomas vertinimo procesas pirmiausia numato kiekybini (balais)
ekspertini determinante vertinim^ drauge nustatant kiekvieno determinanto itakos reikmingumo parametrus.
Autorin pateiktas modelis skirtas vertinti suformuotq^ sudtiniii determinantu kompleks%. Jo pagrindu, taip pat
taikant kriterijn reikSmiu ir jii reikmingumii sandaugii sumavimo metod^ gali bti nustatomas bendrasis Salies
ziniit ekonomikos iSvystymo indeksas. Sis vertinimo procesas gali bti itrauktas t kompleksinio pltros
sprendimii daugiakriterinio pagrindimo sistem% Taip gali bti optimizuotos programins ziniii ekonomikos
pltros nuostatos.
Pagal suformuot^ aStuonin determinant^ kompleks^ vertintas Lietuvos zinin ekonomikos lygis 2011
metis ir apskaiiuotas bendrasis indeksas pagal perspektyvins pltros scenarijn. Rezultatai gali bti panaudoti
vertinant Salies ekonomini konkurencingum%.
REIKSMINIAI
ODIAI: ziniii ekonomika, vystymas, pirminiai indikatoriai, esminiai determinantai,
determinant^ blokas, daugiakriterinio vertinimo metodas.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS eyECONOMICS,Vol 11, No 3 (27), 2012

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.