Analysis of Innovation Performance of South- Eastern European Countries in Transition Economies: An Application of the Entropy-Based ARTASI Method

Gökhan Çobanoğulları; Kübra Daldıran; Bünyamin Daldıran

doi:10.31181/sor31202642

Authors

Gökhan Çobanoğulları Department of Public Finance, Erciyes University, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6634-1375
Kübra Daldıran Management Department, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0201-6781
Bünyamin Daldıran Department of Business, Erciyes University, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4643-6015

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202642

Keywords:

Innovation Performance, Global Innovation Index (GII), South-Eastern European Countries, Transition Economies, Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Entropy, ARTASI

Abstract

Innovation performance has emerged as a crucial policy concern for nations undergoing institutional change and economic restructuring. Using a novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework, this study assesses the innovation capacities of five transition economies in South-Eastern Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Although the Global Innovation Index (GII) is widely regarded as a comprehensive benchmarking tool, its aggregated scoring system often obscures contextual subtleties, particularly in smaller or less-studied economies. To address these limitations, this study combines the ARTASI ranking model with objective weighting methods—Entropy and CRITIC—providing a transparent, flexible, and reproducible evaluation framework. The results indicate that output-oriented indicators—such as Knowledge and Technology Outputs, Market Sophistication, and Creative Outputs—are the most significant factors in differentiating national innovation performance. Among the analyzed countries, Serbia leads the regional ranking, followed by North Macedonia and Montenegro, while Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina exhibit notable output-related deficiencies. Robustness checks—including sensitivity analysis and cross-validation with alternative MCDM techniques—confirm the model's stability and reliability. Beyond addressing a geographic gap in innovation literature, this study offers a methodologically refined approach to innovation evaluation. The proposed framework can serve as a foundation for comparative research in similar socioeconomic contexts and guide evidence-based policy-making in transition economies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2023). Global Innovation Index 2023: Innovation in the face of uncertainty. World Intellectual Property Organization

WIPO. (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024. World Intellectual Property Organization, https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index/en/

Stojanović, I., Žižović, M., & Jovanović, D. (2022). A multi-criteria approach to the comparative analysis of the global innovation index on the example of the Western Balkan countries. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 5(2), 69–89.

Mukhametzyanov, I. (2021). Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 76–105.

Karimi, M., Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., & Mardani, A. (2019). A new hybrid MCDM approach for evaluating innovation performance: Evidence from high-tech firms. Journal of Business Research, 101, 718–730.

Pamucar, D., Simic, V., Görçün, Ö. F., & Küçükönder, H. (2024). Selection of the best Big Data platform using COBRAC-ARTASI methodology with adaptive standardized intervals. Expert Systems with Applications, 239, 122312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122312

Chen, Y., Yin, S., & Mei, L. (2018). Research on innovation capability evaluation system of technology-based enterprises. Procedia Computer Science, 139, 287–294.

Mašić, S., Begović, S., & Mekić, E. (2018). Innovation and economic growth: An empirical analysis for the countries of South-Eastern Europe. Economic Review, 49(1), 43–60.

Comes, T., Van de Walle, B., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2018). The coordination of international humanitarian organizations: The case of the logistics cluster. Journal of Operations Management, 63(4), 10–19.

Silva, M. C., Gavião, L. O., Gomes, C. F. S., & Lima, G. B. A. (2020). Global innovation indicators analysed by multi-criteria decision. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(4), e2020907.

Queirós, A., & Yáñez-Orozco, M. C. (2024). Determinants of innovation output: Evidence from the Global Innovation Index. European Journal of Innovation Management, (in press),

Huarng, K. H., & Yu, T. H. K. (2022). Unraveling the global innovation puzzle: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, 121510.

Ecer, F., & Aycin, E. (2023). Novel comprehensive MEREC weighting-based score aggregation model for measuring innovation performance: The case of G7 countries. Informatica, 34(1), 53–83.

Özmerdivanlı, A. (2025). Analysis of the financial performance of companies listed in the ISE Financial Leasing and Factoring Index by using the entropy-based ARAS method. Premium E-Journal of Social Sciences (PEJOSS), 9(51), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14975888

Özmerdivanlı, C. (2025). A hybrid Entropy–ARAS model for financial innovation performance in Türkiye. Journal of Economic Studies, 52(1), 55–72.

Krishnan, A., Venkatesh, A., & Kumar, S. (2021). Enhancing multi-criteria decision making with the CRITIC method: A modified framework based on distance correlation. Symmetry, 13(6), 973.

Elevli, B., & Elevli, S. (2024). University-based innovation evaluation in Türkiye: A hybrid Entropy-PROMETHEE approach. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 71, 101740.

García-Cascales, M. S., & Lamata, M. T. (2012). A review of ranking methods in the context of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52(3), 512–528.

Crespo, N. F., & Crespo, C. F. (2016). Global innovation index performance of European countries in the years 2010–2013. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(3), 427–439.

Omer, R., Ayeni, A., & Adegbite, O. (2020). Data-driven innovation performance assessment using machine learning: Evidence from African economies. Technology in Society, 63, 101366.

Bate, A., Lorenz, F., & Sen, A. (2023). Innovation drivers across economies: A panel data analysis. Journal of Development Studies, 59(2), 201–219.

Kizielewicz, B., & Sałabun, W. (2024). SITW Method: A New Approach to Re-identifying Multi-criteria Weights in Complex Decision Analysis. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 1(1), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor11202419

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

Clausius, R. (1865). The mechanical theory of heat – With its applications to the steam-engine and to the physical properties of bodies. London: John van Voorst.

Bhole, G. (2018). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and its applications. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology (IJRASET), 6(3), 899–915. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.5145

Pamucar, D., Özçalıcı, M., & Gurler, H. E. (2025). Evaluation of the efficiency of world airports using WENSLO-ARTASI and Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 124, 102749.

Natal, J., Avila, I., Tsukahara, V., Pinheiro, M., & Maciel, C. (2021). Entropy: From thermodynamics to information processing. Entropy, 23(10), 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23101340

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.