BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Prystrom Joanna (University of Bialystok)
Evaluation of the Innovation Level in the EU Countries in 2016 and 2011
Optimum : Economic Studies, 2020, nr 4(102), s. 109-125, wykr., tab., bibliogr. s. 124-125
Innowacje, Innowacyjność, Ewaluacja, Analiza wielokryterialna
Innovations, Innovative character, Evaluation, Multicriteria analysis
JEL Classification: O11, O39, O52
Unia Europejska (UE)
European Union (EU)
Purpose - The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the innovation level in the European Union countries, but in a different way than it was adopted in the European Union reports (European Innovation Scoreboard, and earlier Innovation Union Scoreboard). Analyses were performed in relation to INPUTS-OUTPUTS. Research method - Two methods of multi-criteria analysis were used in the calculations. The first is the popular method known as Simple Additive Weighting. The second is the method known as Processing Technique of Ratings for Ranking of Alternatives, which was developed by the author of this article. Results - The obtained results of the innovation level were analyzed. Analysis concerned two periods: 2016 and 2011 and determined aggregate ratings, which characterized the innovation level of particular European Union countries. Four classes of the innovation level were defined: innovation leaders, good innovators, week innovators and innovation outsiders. Then, based on the calculated global ratings, European Union countries have been assigned to the appropriate classes. The results of this analysis were compared with the classification of the EU Member States in terms of the innovation level that IUS / EIS reports contain. Analyses in relation to INPUTS-OUTPUTS have also made it possible to assess the usefulness of indicators from the IUS / EIS reports to measure the innovation level in such a way. Originality / value / implications / recommendations - The analysis of the innovation level was carried out using two multi-criteria analysis methods. (original abstract)
The Library of Warsaw School of Economics
The Library of University of Economics in Katowice
Full text
  1. Behzadian M., Kazemzadeh R.B., Albadvi A., Aghdasi M., 2010, PROMETHEE: A comprehesive literature review on methodologies and applications, "European Journal of Operational Research", vol. 200(1), pp. 198-215.
  2. Dunning D.J., Ross Q.E., Merkhofer M.W., 2000, Multiattribute utility analysis for addressing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, "Environmental Science and Policy", vol. 3, pp. 7-14, DOI: 10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00022- 8.
  3. EIS, 2016, European Innovation Scoreboard 2016, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on
  4. Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
  5. Figueira J., Salvatore G., Ehrgott M., 2005, Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, Springer, Berlin- Heidelberg-New York.
  6. Hall B.H., Rosenberg N., 2010a, Handbook of innovation, vol. 1, Elsevier - North Holland, Amsterdam.Hall B.H., Rosenberg N., 2010a, Handbook of innovation, vol. 1, Elsevier - North Holland, Amsterdam.
  7. Hall B.H., Rosenberg N., 2010b, Handbook of innovation, vol. 2, Elsevier - North Holland, Amsterdam.
  8. IUS, 2011, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011, innovation/facts- figures/scoreboards/index_en.htm [date of entry: 22.11.2017].
  9. IUS, 2013, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013, materials/en/system/files/ged/69%20Innovation %20Union%20Scoreboard% 202013_en.pdf [data of entry: 22.11.2017].
  10. IUS, 2014, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014, https://publications. publication-detail/-/publication/d1cb48d3-4861-41fe-a26d- 09850d32487b/langu-age-en/format-PDF [date of entry: 22.11.2017].
  11. IUS, 2015, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015, publication- detail/-/publication/b00c3803-a940-11e5-b528-01aa75ed71a1/lan-guage-en/format-PDF [date of entry: 22.11.2017].
  12. Kobryń A., Prystrom J., 2018, Processing technique of ratings for ranking of alternatives (PROTERRA), "Expert Systems", vol. 35(4), pp. 1-14, DOI: 10.1111/exsy.12279.
  13. Silverberg G., Soete L., 1994, The Economics of Growth and Technical Change, E. Elgar, Brookfield.
  14. Tofallis C., 2014, Add or multiply? A tutorial on ranking and choosing with multiple criteria, "INFORMS Transactions on Education", vol. 14(3), pp. 109-142, DOI: 10.1287/ ited.2013.0124.
  15. www 1, [date of entry: 22.11.2017]
Cited by
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu