Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Macroeconomic Performance of MENA Countries with TOPSIS Method

  • Research
  • Published:
Operations Research Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this article is to build a robust macroeconomic performance index (MPI) of the 16 countries of the MENA region (Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates) covering the period 2000–2020. An appropriate mathematical model has been implemented to aggregate the four macroeconomic variables: real GDP growth rate, unemployment rate, inflation rate, and trade balance. The MCDM (multiple criteria decision-making) technique of the TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution) method was adopted to summarize the various facets of macroeconomic performance in a single statistic. This allows inter-temporal comparison between MENA countries. This article is the first to assess the macroeconomic performance of the Middle East and North Africa region using one of the most appropriate multicriteria decision support methods. In this regard, the paper contains political and economic recommendations for the countries of the MENA region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Laboratory in Development Economics (LED) at the University of Economics and Management of Sfax, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under licence for the current study and so are not publicly available. The data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of (LED).

References

  1. Mohanty RK, Sahoo BK (2017) Examining the eco-macroeconomic performance /index of India: a data envelopment analysis approach. Working Papers 17/202, NIPFP.

  2. Chattopadhyay S, Bose S (2015) Global macroeconomic performance: a comparative study based on composite scores. J Glob Econ Rev 4:51–68

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wang C, Le A (2018) Measuring the macroeconomic performance among developed countries and Asian developing countries: past, present, and future. Sustainability 10(10):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cherchye L (2001) Using data envelopment analysis to assess macroeconomic policy performance. Appl Econ 33(3):407–416

    Google Scholar 

  5. Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 39:13051–13069

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chakraborty S (2022) TOPSIS and modified TOPSIS: a comparative analysis. Decis Anal J 2

  7. Prasad V, Bandyopadhyay G, Adhikari K et al (2023) An integrated framework for prioritizing sustainability indicators for the mining sector with a multicriteria decision-making technique. Oper Res Forum 4:5

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rajak M, Shaw K (2019) Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Technol Soc 59:101186

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rani V, Kumar S (2023) MCDM Method for evaluating and ranking the online shopping websites based on a novel distance measure under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. SN Oper Res Forum 4(4):1–34

    Google Scholar 

  10. Roy B (1990) Decision-aid and decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 45(2–3):324–331

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yeh CH (2003) The selection of multiattribute decision making methods for scholarship student selection. Int J Sel Ass 11(4):289–296

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zavadskas EK, Mardani A, Turskis Z, Jusoh A, Nor KM (2016) Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems—an overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15(3):645–682

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ela M, Doğan A, Uçar O (2018) Comparison of EU countries and Turkey’s macroeconomics performances with Topsis Method. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2(2):129–143

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ortiz-Barrios M, Miranda-De la Hoz C, Lopez-Meza P, Petrillo A, De Felice F (2020) A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. JMCDA 27:104–128

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pamucar DS, Pejcic Tarle S, Parezanovic T (2018) New hybrid multi-criteria decision-making DEMATEL-MAIRCA model: sustainable selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics centre. Economic Research -Ekonomska istrazivanja 31:1641–1665

    Google Scholar 

  16. Peng C, Feng D, Guo S (2021) Material selection in green design: a method combining DEA and TOPSIS. Sustainability 13:5497

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu GN, Hu J, Ren H (2020) A fuzzy rough number-based AHP-TOPSIS for design concept evaluation under uncertain environments. Appl Soft Comput 91:106228

    Google Scholar 

  18. Koulinas G, Demesouka O, Marhavilas P, Vavatsikos A, Koulouriotis D (2019) Risk assessment using fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT for sustainable engineering projects. Sustainability 11:615

    Google Scholar 

  19. Singh AK, Rawani AM (2021) Industry-oriented quality management of engineering education: an integrated QFD-TOPSIS approach. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 13:904–922

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mathew M, Chakrabortty RK, Ryan MJ (2020) A novel approach integrating AHP and TOPSIS under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced manufacturing system selection. Eng Appl Artif Intell 96:103988

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wei CC, Cheng YL, Lee KL (2019) How to select suitable manufacturing information system outsourcing projects by using TOPSIS method. Int J Prod Res 57:4333–4350

    Google Scholar 

  22. Choudhury K (2015) Evaluating customer-perceived service quality in business management education in India: a study in TOPSIS modeling. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 27(2):208–225

    Google Scholar 

  23. Husain Z, Maqbool A, Haleem A, Pathak RD, Samson D (2021) Analyzing the business models for circular economy implementation: a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Oper Manag Res 14:256–271

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kizielewicz B, Baczkiewicz A, Shekhovtsov A, Wieckowski J, Sałabun W (2021) Can MCDA methods be useful in e-commerce systems? Comparative study case. International Conference on Advanced Network Technologies and Intelligent Computing. Springer, pp 546–562

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kizielewicz B, Wieckowski J, Watrobski J (2021) A study of different distance metrics in the TOPSIS method. Intelligent decision technologies. Springer, pp 275–284

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tao Z, Si Jun B, Xi Bai R (2021) Research on marketing management system based on independent ERP and business BI using fuzzy TOPSIS. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 40:8247–8255

    Google Scholar 

  27. Araujo CAS, Wanke P, Siqueira MM (2018) A performance analysis of Brazilian public health: TOPSIS and neural networks application. Int J Product Perform Manag 67(9):1526–1549

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tian C, Li H, Tian S, Tian F (2020) Risk assessment of safety management audit based on fuzzy TOPSIS method. Math Probl Eng 2020.

  29. Zytoon MA (2020) A decision support model for prioritization of regulated safety inspections using integrated Delphi, AHP and double-hierarchical TOPSIS approach. IEEE Access 8:83444–83464

    Google Scholar 

  30. Daskalopoulou I, Karakitsiou A (2022) Malliou C (2022) A multicriteria analysis of life satisfaction: assessing trust and distance effects. Oper Res Forum 3:59

    Google Scholar 

  31. Xiong L, Zhong S, Liu S, Zhang X, Li Y (2020) An approach for resilient-green supplier selection based on WASPAS, BWM, and TOPSIS under intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Math Probl Eng 2020.

  32. Zulqarnain RM, Xin XL, Siddique I, Khan WA, Yousif MA (2021) TOPSIS method based on correlation coefficient under Pythagorean fuzzy soft environment and its application towards green supply chain management. Sustainability 13(4):1642

    Google Scholar 

  33. Verma P, Kumar V, Mittal A, Gupta P, Hsu SC (2021) Addressing strategic human resource management practices for TQM: the case of an Indian tire manufacturing company. The TQM Journal 34(1):29–69

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kahraman C, Engin O, Kabak Ö, Kaya İ (2009) Information systems outsourcing decisions using a group decision-making approach. Eng Appl Artif Intell 22(6):832–841

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shyur HJ, Shih HS (2006) A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Math Comput Model 44(7–8):749–761

    Google Scholar 

  36. Agrawal V, Kohli V, Gupta S (1991) Computer aided robot selection: the ‘multiple attribute decision making’ approach. Int J Prod Res 29(8):1629–1644

    Google Scholar 

  37. Parkan C, Wu ML (1999) Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Comput Ind Eng 36(3):503–523

    Google Scholar 

  38. Feng CM, Wang RT (2001) Considering the financial ratios on the performance evaluation of highway bus industry. Trans Rev 21(4):449–467

    Google Scholar 

  39. Laroche M, Mukherjee A, Nath P (2005) An empirical assessment of comparative approaches to service quality measurement. J Serv Mark

  40. Nanayakkara C, Yeoh W, Lee A, Moayedikia A (2019) Deciding discipline, course and university through TOPSIS. Stud High Educ 45:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  41. Khan MS, Shah SIA, Javed A, Qadri NM, Hussain N (2021) Drone selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods. 2021 IBCAST. IEEE, IBCAST, pp 256–270

    Google Scholar 

  42. Chede SJ, Adavadkar BR, Patil AS, Chhatriwala HK, Keswani MP (2021) Material selection for design of powered hand truck using TOPSIS. Int J Ind Syst Eng 39(2):236–246

    Google Scholar 

  43. Akgül E, Bahtiyari MI, Aydoğan EK, Benli H (2021) Use of TOPSIS method for designing different textile products in coloration via natural source madder. J Nat Fibers 1–16

  44. Ture H, Dogan S, Kocak D (2020) Assessing euro strategy using multi-criteria decision-making methods: VIKOR and TOPSIS. Soc Ind Res 142(2):645–665

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tavana M, Hatami-Marbini A (2011) A group AHP-TOPSIS framework for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):13588–13603

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kaczyńska A, Gandotra N, Sałabun W (2022) A new approach to dealing with interval data in the TOPSIS method. Procedia Comput Sci 207:4545–4555

    Google Scholar 

  47. Altay TB, Oralhan B (2017) The comparison of Turkey and other OECD countries with multi criteria decision making methods in terms of basic macroeconomic indicators. Int J Acad Res 3(14):260–277

    Google Scholar 

  48. Eyuboglu K (2017) Comparison of macro performance of the countries in the Turkish world. Bilig Journal of Social Sciences in Turkish World 83:331–350

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sevgin H, Kundakci N (2017) Ranking of European Union member countries and Turkey according to the economic indicators with TOPSIS and MOORA methods. Anadolu Univ J Soc Sci 17(3):87–108

    Google Scholar 

  50. Masca M (2017) Economic performance evaluation of European Union countries by TOPSIS method. North Economic Review 1(1):83–94

    Google Scholar 

  51. Cihan Y, Salur M (2017) Comparison of the economic performance between Turkey and BRICS countries using TOPSIS method. JCRBE 7(2):350–358

    Google Scholar 

  52. Eyuboglu K (2016) Comparison of developing countries’ macro performances with AHP and TOPSIS method. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics 6:131–146

    Google Scholar 

  53. Göktolga, Z, Karakiş E, Türkay H (2015) “Comparison of the economic performance of Turkish Republics in Central Asia with TOPSIS method.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Eurasian Economies, 321–329.

  54. Urfalioglu F, Genc T (2013) Comparison of the economic performance between Turkey and The European Union members with multicriteria decision making methods. JEASIQ 35(2):329–360

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ozturk Z, Bayramoglu F (2018) Comparison of the macroeconomic performance of Turkey in the accession process with European Union countries. Proceedings of International Congress on Afro - Eurasian Research IV: 314–322.

  56. Giray S (2015) Comparing the effect of global crisis 2008 on the economic performance of Turkey with EU member states: factor analysis and TOPSIS application. EJEF 3(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  57. Garcia-Bernabeu A, Hilario-Caballero A, Pla-Santamaria D, Salas-Molina F (2020) A process oriented MCDM approach to construct a circular economy composite index. Sustainability 12(2):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  58. Narayan N, Singh KK, Srivastava U (2020) Developmental performance ranking of SAARC nations: an application of TOPSIS method of multi-criteria decision making. Int Multidiscip J Soc Sci 9(1):26–50

    Google Scholar 

  59. Koopmans TC (1951) An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Koopmans TC (ed) Activity analysis of production and allocation, Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, Monograph 13. Wiley, pp 33–97

    Google Scholar 

  60. Knox L, Pastor J, Turner J (1995) Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: a comparison of European and Non-European Countries. Eur J Oper Res 8(3):507–518

    Google Scholar 

  61. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer), Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

  62. Lertprapai S (2013) Review: multiple criteria decision making method with applications. Int Math Forum 8(7):347–355

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hwang C, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  64. Golan A (2006) Information and Entropy Econometrics — A Review And Synthesis. FTE 2(1–2):1–145

    Google Scholar 

  65. Maasoumi E (1993) A compendium to information theory in economics and econometrics. Economet Rev 12(2):137–181

    Google Scholar 

  66. Deng H, Yeh C, Willis R (2000) Inter- company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27(10):963–973

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zeleny M (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  68. Opricovic S, Tzeng G (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    Google Scholar 

  69. Mahmoodzadeh S, Shahrabi J, Pariazar M, Zaeri M (2007) Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique. IJHSS 1(3):135–140

    Google Scholar 

  70. Asadzadeh A, Sikder SK, Mahmoudi F, Kotter T (2014) Assessing site selection of new towns using TOPSIS method under entropy logic: a case study: New Towns of Tehran Metropolitan Region (TMR). EMSD 3(1):123–137

    Google Scholar 

  71. El-Santawy F, Ahmed N (2013) An information entropy weighting method combined to TOPSIS approach for ranking consulting firms. Life Sci J 10(1):1060–1063

    Google Scholar 

  72. Olson D (2004) Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 40(7–8):721–727

    Google Scholar 

  73. Mahalanobis P (1936) On the generalized distance in statistics. Sankhya A 80(Suppl 1):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  74. Önder E, Taş N, Hepsen A (2015) Economic performance evaluation of fragile 5 countries after the great recession of 2008–2009 using analytic network process and TOPSIS methods. Journal of Applied Finance & Banking 5(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge that this work received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LED (Laboratory in Development Economics), University of Economics and Management of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

    Zaïbi Oussama & Hachicha Ahmed

  2. Mediterranean School of Business, at South Mediterranean University, Tunis, Tunisia

    Chaabane Nabil

Authors
  1. Zaïbi Oussama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hachicha Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chaabane Nabil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chaabane Nabil.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oussama, Z., Ahmed, H. & Nabil, C. Comparison of Macroeconomic Performance of MENA Countries with TOPSIS Method. Oper. Res. Forum 5, 21 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-024-00306-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-024-00306-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation