The Digital Competitiveness of European Countries: A Multiple-Criteria Approach

Abstract

High-quality digital infrastructure is the basis of almost every sector of a modern and innovative economy and society. As a part of the overall competitiveness concept, digital competitiveness is a multidimensional structure that encompasses various factors of the process of digital transformation through the ability of learning and application of new technologies, technology factors that enable digital transformation, and digital readiness factors that assess the preparedness of an economy and citizens to assume digital transformation. The paper aims to propose a methodology for measuring digital competitiveness using a composite index approach including a variety of various indicators. To assess the digital competitiveness of European countries, a multi-criteria analysis was applied in a two-stage procedure integrating CRITIC and TOPSIS as weighting and aggregation methods. The sample includes thirty European countries and the research is based on thirteen indicators provided in the database Eurostat Digital Economy and Society. In addition, a ranking of sample countries according to digital competitiveness is presented. Finally, a cluster analysis was conducted to examine relations between digital competitiveness and several economic performances such as GDP pc, labour productivity and employment rates. The results indicate that Nordic countries have achieved the highest digital competitiveness, while most Eastern European countries still lag behind.

Full text

117
The Digital Competitiveness of European Countries:
A Multiple-Criteria Approach
▪Jelena J. Stankovic, Ivana Marjanovic, Sasa Drezgic, Zarko Popovic
Abstract
High-quality digital infrastructure is the basis of almost every sector of a modern and innovative
economy and society. As a part of the overall competitiveness concept, digital competitiveness
is a multidimensional structure that encompasses various factors of the process of digital
transformation through the ability of learning and application of new technologies, technology
factors that enable digital transformation, and digital readiness factors that assess the preparedness
of an economy and citizens to assume digital transformation. The paper aims to propose a
methodology for measuring digital competitiveness using a composite index approach including
a variety of various indicators. To assess the digital competitiveness of European countries, a
multi-criteria analysis was applied in a two-stage procedure integrating CRITIC and TOPSIS
as weighting and aggregation methods. The sample includes thirty European countries and the
research is based on thirteen indicators provided in the database Eurostat Digital Economy
and Society. In addition, a ranking of sample countries according to digital competitiveness
is presented. Finally, a cluster analysis was conducted to examine relations between digital
competitiveness and several economic performances such as GDP pc, labour productivity and
employment rates. The results indicate that Nordic countries have achieved the highest digital
competitiveness, while most Eastern European countries still lag behind.
Keywords: digital competitiveness, CRITIC method, TOPSIS method, cluster analysis
JEL Classification: C38, C44, O52, L86
Received: October, 2020
1st Revision: April, 2021
Accepted: April, 2021
1. INTRODUCTION
Constant technological progress and the constant acceleration of the pace of technological
change have become basic features in countries around the world. According to projections,
by the end of 2020, one million new devices were set be available online every hour (Yoo et al.,
2018). The impact of the Internet of Things and digitization is pervasive. The application of ICTs
(information and communication technologies) can transform the way businesses operate and how
people live as well as drive global innovation. However, the rapid emergence of new technologies
creates many new challenges. The risks inherent in new technologies further complicate the
Stankovic, J. J., Marjanovic, I., Drezgic, S., & Popovic, Z. (2021). The Digital Competitiveness of
European Countries: A Multiple-Criteria Approach. Journal of Competitiveness, 13(2), 117–134. https://doi.
org/10.7441/joc.2021.02.07
joc2021-2-v3.indd 117 29.6.2021 14:27:44

Journal of Competitiveness 118
problems facing policymakers. The role of government is becoming more and more important,
as it is necessary to strike a balance between protecting the country’s fundamental interests
on the one hand and the ability to ensure national competitiveness and accelerate economic
growth on the other through the use of new technologies. There is evidence that digitization
can enable countries to maintain global competitiveness, increase GDP, stimulate innovation
and create jobs (Yoo et al., 2018). It is recognized that ICTs play a crucial role in connecting
people and communities, increasing innovation and productivity, improving living standards,
strengthening competitiveness, supporting economic and social modernization, and reducing
poverty worldwide.
The paper aims to examine the level of digital competitiveness of European countries by
proposing a methodology for a composite index of digital competitiveness using multi-criteria
decision-making methods in the process of aggregation data. In the primary step of the creation
of a composite index, the proposed methodology determines the relative importance of indicators
in the model using an objective statistical approach based on decision matrix data. In this
segment, the paper contributes to existing methodologies which measure digital competitiveness
by aggregation based on a linear combination, aggregation with equal criteria importance, or
subjectively determined weighting coefficients. The method of choice for objective importance
assessment of single indicators within the composite index is CRiteria Importance through
Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC). The methodology applied to aggregate weighted data
is Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Additionally,
the sub-objective of the analysis is to identify countries with similar digital competitiveness
and economic performances. The basic hypothesis is that the countries with better economic
performance have higher levels of digital competitiveness.
The paper is structured as follows: In the first section, the role of the digital economy for
competitiveness is presented, accompanied by methods for assessment of ICT development
impact on country economic performances. In the second section, the research methodology,
model development and the data used are described, while in the third section, the research results
and a discussion of results are offered. Concluding remarks pointing to scientific contribution
and further research directions are put forth in the last section.
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DIGITAL COMPETITIVENESS
FOR THE ECONOMY
The digital economy and digital competitiveness are among the most commonly used terms
referring to the socio-economic development perspectives of contemporary society. In a broader
sense, the digital economy describes the development of a technological society and implies
the widespread use of ICTs in all spheres of human activity. ICTs enable people to perform
ordinary tasks more efficiently and have emerged as a response to societal needs (Sendlhofer
& Lernborg, 2018). In addition to the impact on individuals, ICTs also have an important
impact on companies, since they provide new opportunities for companies and facilitate the
worldwide availability of their products and services (Elia et al., 2016). ICTs have contributed to
transforming the nature and handling of the uncertainties typical for the entrepreneurial process
joc2021-2-v3.indd 118 29.6.2021 14:27:44

119
and its outcomes (Nambisan, 2017). The advantages of applying ICTs in companies are numerous
(Rossato & Castellani, 2020): improved efficiency and effectiveness of business processes,
improved understanding of user experience, increased creation and transfer of knowledge,
increased awareness of the cultural value of the company’s heritage, and the development of
state-of-the-art employee skills. The advent of the digital economy was facilitated by the digital
revolution, also known as digitalization, which represents a transition from analogue or physical
technologies to digital data systems (Dufva & Dufva, 2019).
Carlsson (2004) states that digitalization of information, combined with the Internet, creates
a wide range of various combinations of information and knowledge use through which the
application of modern technologies and the availability of greater technical possibilities can be
turned into economic possibilities. The Internet of Everything, aided by economies of scale
and platforms such as consumer electronics, mobile devices, and urban infrastructure, enable
the wide availability of services to consumers as well as easier access to potential consumers
(Leviäkangas, 2016).
The relationship between ICTs and economic growth is an issue of particular interest in terms
of both theory and practice. There are two prevailing understandings about the impact of ICTs
application on economic growth (Thompson Jr & Garbacz, 2011): direct impact, which implies
productivity improvements resulting from the application of ICTs, and indirect impact, which
means the materialization of externalities resulting from the application and development of
ICT. Several studies have reported a positive link between the development and implementation
of ICTs and economic growth (Myovella et al., (2020). Portillo et al., 2020; Vu et al., 2020;
Bahrini & Qaffas, 2019; Nair et al., 2020). Evidence indicates that ICTs improve various aspects
of productivity (Skorupinska & Torrent-Sellens, 2017; Corrado et al., 2017; Pieri et al., 2018;
Kılıçaslan et al., 2017, Ivanović-Đukić, et al., 2019; Haller & Lyons, 2019;). The digitalization and
digital economy contribute to productivity growth in many ways (Wyckoff, 2016): by creating
new innovative businesses and reducing the number of businesses with outdated, non-innovative
operations; enabling smarter, more efficient use of labour and capital to create so-called multi-
factor productivity growth through which even older firms can improve; introducing new
opportunities and services for individuals previously removed from the global economy (such
as farmers and local producers); and enhancing the efficiency of inventory management and
shipping.
Examining the impact of ICTs on economic growth is of great importance to policymakers, as
it provides them with guidance for creating development strategies. Nevertheless, it should be
borne in mind that a large number of indicators of digital development and competitiveness
exist, and that most research uses only some of these as proxies, thus all aspects of digital
competitiveness have not been covered. The following are most commonly used as proxies in
the literature: mobile and fixed broadband (Thompson Jr & Garbacz, 2011), broadband speed
(Mayer et al., 2020), fixed and mobile phone subscriptions (Albiman & Sulong, 2017), and digital
subscriber line broadband services (Haller & Lyons, 2019), investments in ICT (Niebel, 2018).
For a detailed overview of digital development proxies, see Vu et al. (2020).
Measuring and comparing countries based on digital competitiveness is a topical issue, where
several methodologies for quantification have been proposed. World Economic Forum has
joc2021-2-v3.indd 119 29.6.2021 14:27:44

Journal of Competitiveness 120
offered the Networked Readiness Index (NRI) for measuring the propensity of a country to
take advantage of the opportunities offered by ICTs (NRI, 2019). This index measures the
performance of economies in using ICTs to boost competitiveness, innovation and well-being.
Another methodology is the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI, 2019) developed by the
European Commission. It is a complex index that summarizes relevant indicators on European
digital performance and tracks the development of EU Member States in digital competitiveness.
In 2017 the DECA (Digital Economy Country Assessment) program was developed and tested
(Ashmarina et al., 2020). DECA is a multivariate model that involves analysing the readiness,
use and impact of digital transformation on national socio-economic progress. The DECA
methodology is focused on assessing the current level of development of the digital economy
to identify critical shortcomings, challenges and opportunities for future growth, as well as
areas that require more careful analysis. The United Nations International Telecommunication
Union published the ICT Development Index (IDI, 2018) aimed at comparing and monitoring
the development of ICT between countries and over time. E-government Development Index
(EGDI, 2021) was developed to examine the development of e-government in the member
states of the United Nations. Additionally, several authors have proposed composite indices of
digitalization and digital competitiveness (Yoo et al., 2018; Milenkovic et al., 2016; Nair et al.,
2020; Ali et al., 2020a; Ali et al., 2020b).
The construction of composite indices has specific critical steps on which the whole process
depends and which are primarily related to the determination of appropriate weighting and
aggregation methods (Saisana & Tarantola, 2002). When it comes to weighting methods when
constructing composite indices, they can be grouped into three main categories (El Gibari et
al., 2019): equal weighting, data-based methods, and participation-based methods. The equal
weighting method has the least computational complexity but has drawbacks reflected in the
loss of information (Nardo et al., 2005). The participation-based methods incorporate intuition,
the subjective system of values and knowledge of the decision-maker or group, which is also a
disadvantage of this approach because the weighting coefficients depend on their subjective
assessment and perception. The data-based methods perform criteria weights determination
based on data from the decision matrix, which eliminates the subjectivity of decision-makers,
and weight determination is performed using mathematical and statistical methods based on
information from the model. Yet, despite the apparent shortcomings, most of the stated indices
of digital competitiveness use equal weights when determining weights (Pérez-Castro et al.,
2021).
When it comes to aggregation methods, criteria can be aggregated into a composite index in
several ways: linear aggregation, geometric aggregation or multicriteria analysis. Each method
implies different assumptions and has specific consequences (Nardo, 2005). Still, it should be
noted that one of the advantages of multicriteria analysis methods is that the application of
these methods leads to the creation of composite indices that are non-compensatory or partially
compensatory.
The need to create an adequate composite measure for assessing and monitoring the digital
competitiveness of countries stems from the fact that accelerated technological development
imposes the urge to make effective strategic decisions related to the digital future, as well as
joc2021-2-v3.indd 120 29.6.2021 14:27:44

121
to assess the level of digital development and competitiveness of countries (Alam et al., 2018).
Having in mind the diversity and variety of indicators, it is desirable to create a unique composite
indicator of digital development and competitiveness that will include various aspects of
digitalization. The digital economy and digital competitiveness have a multidimensional nature
and can be defined as a multiple-criteria phenomenon (Balcerzak & Bernard, 2017). Therefore,
this paper aims to create the composite index for the measurement of digital competitiveness on
the sample of European countries using multi-criteria analysis methods.
The contribution of the paper is reflected in the creation of a new composite index of digital
competitiveness, which, unlike most existing composite indices, uses objectively determining
weighting coefficients. Namely, most of the proposed composite indices for measuring digital
competitiveness give equal importance to the indicators that make up the composite index, which
makes some indicators overestimated or underestimated. The proposed model uses an objective
approach to determining weights, which determines the weights of criteria in a multi-criteria
model based on data from the decision matrix, thus eliminating the subjectivity of decision-
makers and determining weights based on information from the model itself. To summarize,
the methodology used in this analysis makes three contributes to the construction of a complex
digital competitiveness index: (i) demonstrates the possibility of creating objective data-based
weights of criteria by which the composite index is aggregated; (ii) points to the possibility of
weights to provide adequate information to policymakers regarding the identification of priority
areas when it comes to digital competitiveness of countries; and (iii) leads to the elimination
of decision-maker subjectivity that may result in biased results. In addition, most of the above-
mentioned composite indices were created by aggregating data from diverse sources. However,
the use of data from different sources can jeopardize the correctness and reliability of the data
used, which can inadvertently affect the obtained results (Akande et al., 2019). To obtain reliable
and verifiable results, it is desirable to use data from a single, dependable database, such as
Eurostat. Therefore, only data from the Eurostat database on the digital economy and society
were used in this paper to assess the digital competitiveness of European countries.
3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE, METHODOLOGY AND DATA
The main objective of this paper is to assess the digital competitiveness of European countries
using a two-step analysis. In the first step, the weighting coefficients of the criteria will be
obtained using CRITIC methods. In contrast, in the second step, the assessment and ranking
of countries according to the achieved level of digital competitiveness will be performed using
TOPSIS methods. Additionally, the sub-objective of the paper is to identify the groups of
European countries with similar digital competitiveness and economic performances.
3.1 CRITIC method
CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) was proposed by Diakoulaki
et al. (1995) as one of the possible ways to determine the objective values of the weighting
coefficients of criteria. The method is based on the difference and the conflict between the
criteria inherent to multi-criteria decision-making problems. The CRITIC method represents
a correlation method where the process of determining the criteria weights requires the use of
joc2021-2-v3.indd 121 29.6.2021 14:27:44

standard deviation of the normalized criteria values, as well as the correlation coefficients of
all pairs of criteria (Žižović et al., 2020). The CRITIC method algorithm consists of six steps
(Diakoulaki et al., 1995):
Step 1: Normalization of criteria values using the linear normalization relations depending on
the type of criteria:
rij = (xij- xi jmin)/(xijma x - xijmin) (1)
rij = (xijmax - xij)/(xijma x - xijmin) (2)
wherein xi jmax = max(i)xij a nd xijmin = min(i)xij , i = 1, 2,…,m, j = 1, 2,…, n.
Step 2: Determination of the standard deviation σj of each vector rj in the normalized decision
matrix.
Step 3: Construction of a symmetric matrix with elements Rij representing the correlation
coefficients between each pair of normalized criteria in the model.
Step 4: Determination of the measure of conflict between criteria:
∑nj=1 (1-Rij) (3)
Step 5: Determination of the amount of information Cj emitted by the jth criterion:
Cj = σj ∑nj=1 (1-Rij) (4)
The larger the value of Cj, the greater is the amount of information contained in a given criterion,
and, consequently, that criterion has greater relative importance.
Step 6: Determination of the criteria weighs using the relation:
wj = Cj/( ∑nj=1Cj ) (5)
3.2 TOPSIS method
TOPSIS represents an acronym for The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution. It is a multi-criteria analysis method developed by Hwang & Yoon (1981). The essence of
this method is that the optimal solution should be closest to the Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and
farthest from the Negative Ideal Solution (NIS) in a geometric sense (Chen et al., 2020). The ideal
solution is the point where the utility for the decision-maker is greatest, that is, the point where the
value of the revenue criteria is the highest. At the same time, the value of the expenditure criteria
is the lowest. The ideal solution is usually not achievable, but all multi-criteria analysis methods
tend to keep the optimal solution as close as possible to the ideal one. The main advantage of
the TOPSIS method is its low mathematical complexity and ease of use (Rajak & Shaw, 2019). In
addition, the attractiveness of the TOPSIS method is enhanced by the fact that it requires minimal
inputs from decision-makers, i.e., the only subjective data required are criteria weight (Olson, 2004).
The TOPSIS method can be represented by the following algorithm (Yoon & Hwang, 1995; Kuo,
2017):
Step 1. The beginning of the TOPSIS method algorithm requires the determination of a
normalized decision matrix with rij coefficients, whereby rij coefficients are determined using
the following relation:
joc2021-2-v3.indd 122 29.6.2021 14:27:44

123
 =




, = 1,2 … ,= 1,2 … 
(6)
 =   (7)
=
,
, … , 
, … , 
,=(max
   )(min
|  ), = 1,2, …  (8)
=
,
, … , 
, … , 
,=(min
   )(max
|  ), = 1,2, …  (9)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (10)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (11)
(6)
Step 2. In this step, the coefficients vij that form a preferentially normalized matrix are calculated.
The calculation of the vij coefficients is done by applying the relation:
vij = rij∙wj (7)
Step 3. The third step of the TOPSIS method algorithm involves determining the PIS and the
NIS. The elements of the PIS vj* and the NIS vj- are determined using relations:
 =




, = 1,2 … ,= 1,2 …  (6)
 =   (7)
=
,
,…,
,…,
,=(max
   )(min
|  ), = 1,2, … 
(8)
=
,
, … , 
, … , 
,=(min
   )(max
|  ), = 1,2, …  (9)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (10)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (11)
(8)
 =




, = 1,2 … ,= 1,2 …  (6)
 =   (7)
=
,
,…,
,…,
,=(max
   )(min
|  ), = 1,2, …  (8)
=
,
, … , 
, … , 
,=(min
   )(max
|  ), = 1,2, … 
(9)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (10)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (11)
(9)
where J1 is a set of revenue criteria and J2 is a set of expenditure criteria.
Step 4. The main step of the TOPSIS method involves determining the distance of an alternative
from the PIS and the NIS. The relation for determining the distance between the alternative and
the PIS is given by:
 =




, = 1,2 … ,= 1,2 …  (6)
 =   (7)
=
,
,…,
,…,
,=(max
   )(min
|  ), = 1,2, …  (8)
=
,
, … , 
, … , 
,=(min
   )(max
|  ), = 1,2, …  (9)
=( )

 , = 1,2 … 
(10)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (11)
(10)
On the other hand, the relation for determining the distance between the alternative and the
NIS is given by:
 =




, = 1,2 … ,= 1,2 …  (6)
 =   (7)
=
,
,…,
, … , 
,=(max
   )(min
|  ), = 1,2, …  (8)
=
,
,…,
, … , 
,=(min
   )(max
|  ), = 1,2, …  (9)
=( )

 , = 1,2 …  (10)
=( )

 , = 1,2 … 
(11)
(11)
Step 5. In this step, the approximation index (Ci*) is determined, that is, the relative proximity of
the considered alternative to the PIS according to the relation:
Ci* = (Si-)/(Si*+Si- ), i = 1,2,….m (12)
Step 6. In the final step of the TOPSIS method, alternatives are ranked based on the approximation
index in descending order to obtain the best alternative.
3.3. Cluster analysis
Cluster analysis represents one of the most proficient methods for data processing used to
identify homogeneous sets within a heterogeneous group (Fox et al., 1991). It is an approach
used to detect complex relationships between variables. Cluster analysis involves grouping a set
of objects in a way that the objects in one group are similar to each other, and at the same time,
differ from objects in other groups (Esmalifalak et al., 2015). The ease of use of cluster analysis
is the reason for the popularity of this approach. Variables applied in the cluster analysis have the
same importance (there are no dependant and independent variables) since the purpose of cluster
analysis is to recognize patterns among variables rather than predicting a particular value. Each
object in the cluster analysis represents a separate point in multidimensional space defined by the
values of its attributes, where the similarity between the two objects is determined based on their
joc2021-2-v3.indd 123 29.6.2021 14:27:44

Journal of Competitiveness 124
distance (Zeng et al., 2008). The clustering process aims to identify similarities in the variable
structure and create homogeneous groups of objects based on the identified similarities. Several
cluster procedures can be identified, whereby an agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis will
be applied in this paper. The essence of this approach is that it starts with each of the n objects
being a cluster, with similar objects being merged in each subsequent step until each of the
objects is deployed into relatively homogeneous groups. Therefore, the agglomerative clustering
strategy is considered a bottom-up strategy since each object represents a separate cluster at the
beginning. Then the cluster pairs merge as the hierarchy increases (Chakraborty et al., 2020).
The first step in the cluster analysis is the determination of the distance between objects. There
are various methods for determining the distance between objects (such as Euclidean distance,
squared Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, Maximum distance, Mahalanobis distance),
whereby squared Euclidean distance will be used in this paper. In the next step, the grouping
of objects is performed. There are various agglomeration methods (Olson, 1995), whereby in
the paper, Ward’s procedure will be applied. The essence of this method is not to calculate
the distance between the clusters but to maximize the homogeneity within the cluster. Ward’s
method has several advantages (Ünal & Shao, 2019): it allows maximizing homogeneity within
the cluster, allows minimizing cluster heterogeneity, and leads to the robustness of results. The
outcomes of hierarchical clustering are usually represented in the form of a dendrogram which
illustrates the clusters as the nodes of a tree-like data structure (Chakraborty et al., 2020).
3.4 Data and model development
Digital competitiveness is estimated for a sample of 30 European countries based on data
regarding the digital economy and society obtained from the Eurostat Digital Economy and
Society database for the year 2019 (Eurostat, 2020a). As data on the ICT sector were not available
for all countries, nor for 2019, indicators related to the ICT sector were not taken into account in
the analysis, as the sample size would be significantly reduced. Therefore, the indicators used to
assess digital competitiveness include 13 indicators grouped into three categories.
The first category, named ICT usage in households and by individuals, encompasses indicators
such as the percentage of individuals that has used the Internet in the last three months (Internet
use), the percentage of households with Internet access (Connection to the Internet and computer
use), the percentage of individuals that has used the Internet to obtain the services of public
institutions or administrative entities within last 12 months (E-government), the percentage
of individuals that used the Internet to purchase products or services in the last three months
(E-commerce) and the percentage of individuals that has used computers, laptops, smartphones,
tablets or other portable devices at work (ICT usage at work). The second category referred to
as ICT usage in enterprises includes indicators related to the percentage of enterprises that have
a website (Website and use of social media), the percentage of enterprises with ERP software
package to share information between different functional areas (E-business), the percentage of
enterprises with e-commerce sale (E-commerce), the percentage of employees using computers
with Internet access compared to the total number of employees (Connection to the Internet),
the percentage of enterprises that have Internet access relative to the total number of enterprises
in the country, and the percentage of enterprises that use strong password authentication as an
joc2021-2-v3.indd 124 29.6.2021 14:27:44

125
ICT security measure (ICT security). The third category, named digital skills, involves indicators
such as the percentage of the population with low digital skills (ICT users), the percentage of
employed ICT specialists as a share of total employment (ICT specialists in employment), and
the percentage of enterprises that have provided training for employees to develop or improve
digital skills (ICT training).
Categories represent criteria in the model, while the indicators represent sub-criteria (Figure 1).
Fig. 1 – Hierarchical structure of the model. Source: own research
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Using the CRITIC methods, the following weights of criteria and sub-criteria were determined
(Table 1):
Tab. 1 – Relative significance of criteria and sub-criteria. Source: own research
Criteria Sub-criteria Sub-criteria weights Criteria weights
ICT
usage in
households
and by
individuals
Internet use 0.062287121
0.3201145
Connection to the Internet and
computer use 0.080473564
E-government 0.057049018
E-commerce (online purchase in the
last three months) 0.065249476
ICT usage at work 0.055055319
Ranking European countries according to digital
competitiveness composite index
C1. ICT usage in
households and by
individuals
EU 28, Norway, Serbia
C2. ICT usage in
enterprises
C3. Digital skills
C1.1. Internet use
C1.2. Connection to the Internet
and computer use
C1.3. E-government
C1.4. E-commerce (online
purchase in last three months)
C1.5. ICT usage at work
C2.1. Websites and use of social media
C2.2. E-business
C2.3. E-commerce (enterprises with e-
commerce sales)
C2.4. Connection to the Internet
(enterprises with internet access)
C2.5. ICT security (security measure used)
C3.1. ICT users
C3.2. ICT specialists in
employment
C3.3. ICT training
Fig. 1 – Hierarchical structure of the model. Source: own research
joc2021-2-v3.indd 125 29.6.2021 14:27:44

Journal of Competitiveness 126
ICT
usage in
enterprises
Websites and use of social media 0.064372506
0.46628311
E-business 0.111007268
E-commerce (enterprises with
e-commerce sales) 0.092766335
Connection to the Internet
(enterprises with internet access) 0.077118394
ICT security (security measure used) 0.121018607
Digital
skills
ICT users 0.080599667
0.21360239ICT specialists in employment 0.062194305
ICT training 0.070808420
Based on the obtained results, it can be noted that the category ICT usage in the enterprises has the
highest relative importance in assessing the achieved level of digital competitiveness. Regarding
sub-criteria, the most important sub-criteria in assessing countries’ digital competitiveness is
related to ICT security and E-business. This means that the digital performance of the country
is most significantly affected by the level of development of the ICT sector in enterprises. In
contrast, the usage of ICT in households is not crucial. Also, the level of digital skills is less
important than the importance of ICT usage in enterprises. Additionally, when looking at the
sub-criteria within the criteria of ICT usage in enterprises, it can be noticed that the criteria
related to the commercial use of ICT (such as e-commerce) are less important than the criteria
related to non-commercial use of ICT (such as online security), which is following the results
obtained by Milošević et al. (2018).
In the second part of the analysis, the TOPSIS method was applied to evaluate and rank countries
based on their digital competitiveness. The results are shown in Table 2.
Tab. 2 – Country rankings according to the level of achieved digital competitiveness. Source:
own research
Country Digital com-
petitiveness
index
Rank Country Digital com-
petitiveness
index
Rank
Finland 0.762145886 1 Slovenia 0.484931879 16
Netherlands 0.740252087 2 Spain 0.479319590 17
Denmark 0.737697856 3 Estonia 0.476872351 18
Sweden 0.704007455 4 Portugal 0.449256463 19
Norway 0.696300532 5 Serbia 0.437748381 20
Belgium 0.664988713 6 Slovakia 0.392472813 21
United Kingdom 0.596010034 7 Cyprus 0.380482019 22
Ireland 0.576294361 8 Latv ia 0.372013043 23
Austria 0.569541227 9 Croat ia 0.358278487 24
joc2021-2-v3.indd 126 29.6.2021 14:27:44

127
Germany 0.565424996 10 Italy 0.357726914 25
Czech Republic 0.563265193 11 Poland 0.322461394 26
Luxembourg 0.539312451 12 Greece 0.318395071 27
France 0.525897882 13 Hungary 0.260716169 28
Malta 0.520077868 14 Bulgaria 0.167774072 29
Lithuania 0.487942569 15 Romania 0.105482473 30
The results indicate that Nordic countries achieve the highest values of digital competitiveness,
while most of the Eastern European countries are at the bottom of the list. If the obtained
results are compared with similar indices measuring the level of digital development, such as
the Network Readiness Index (NRI, 2019), ICT Development Index (IDI, 2018), IMD World
Digital Competitiveness Ranking (IMD, 2019), and Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI,
2019), similarities can be seen both in the countries at the top of the list and in the countries
at the bottom of the list. According to DESI (2019), Finland, Sweden, Denmark and the
Netherlands scored the highest. Similarly, the results of NRI (2019) indicate that eight European
nations rank among the top ten countries in the world: Sweden (1), the Netherlands (3), Norway
(4), Switzerland (5), Denmark (6), Finland (7), Germany (9), and the United Kingdom (10). In
addition, Nordic countries, the Netherlands and Switzerland can be found among the highest-
ranked countries in the IMD World Digital Competitiveness Ranking. The similarities in ranking
indicate the validity of the proposed methodology.
The results of the correlation analysis indicate that the application of equal weights leads to
moderate rank reversal (the value of Kendall’s tau is 0.903). Therefore, whenever possible it is
desirable to apply objective methods of weight determination. Regarding the sensitivity of the
results, although there is a rank reversal, it is not intensely expressed, a finding which supports
the robustness of the results.
To determine groups of countries with similar digital competitiveness and economic performances,
a cluster analysis was performed, for which the first and the most important step is the selection
of the variables. Besides the assessed digital competitiveness, three more variables were used in the
analysis which reflects the economic performance of analysed countries (Table 3).
Tab. 3 – Variables for cluster analysis. Source: own research
Variable Description Source
Digital competitive-
ness
Assessed value based on the data related to the
digital economy and society using integrated
CRITIC-TOPSIS method
Own research
Labour productivity Output per worker (GDP constant 2011 inter-
national $ in PPP) ILOSTAT (2020)
Employment rate Share of employed persons aged 20 to 64 in the
total population of the same age group Eurostat (2020b)
joc2021-2-v3.indd 127 29.6.2021 14:27:44

Journal of Competitiveness 128
Median equalised net
income
The median of the total income of all house-
holds after tax and other deductions that is
available for spending or saving, divided by the
number of household members converted into
equivalised adults
Eurostat (2020c)
After selecting appropriate variables, a cluster analysis was applied and four distinct groups of
countries were identified (Table 4).
Tab. 4 – Composition of clusters. Source: own research
Cluster 1 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain
Cluster 2 Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia
Cluster 3 Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway
Cluster 4 Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg
Cluster 1 is the largest one, including one-third of the countries, while Cluster 4 is the smallest
with five countries. The clusters obtained include a set of geographically heterogeneous countries.
Cluster 1 has the highest diversity, consisting of countries primarily from Central and Southern
Europe and Baltic countries. Cluster 2 encompasses Balkan countries and some of the Central
European countries. Cluster 3 includes Northern and most Western European countries, while
Cluster 4 includes Western and Northern European countries.
If the data are analysed by clusters, it can be noticed that high digital competitiveness
is accompanied by better economic performance and vice versa (Table 5). Hence, there is a
link between the level of digital competitiveness and a country’s economic performance. The
difference in the global competitiveness of countries and their economic performance largely
depends on the availability, level of acceptance, and use of ICT (Mitrović, 2020). Regarding
digital competitiveness and economic performance of the clusters, Cluster 2 has the lowest
average value of digital competitiveness and also indicates the existence of considerable economic
deprivation, signifying that a lower level of digital competitiveness is associated with lower
economic performance. Regarding the countries in Cluster 1, they have higher average values
of all variables than the countries in Cluster 2. Countries in the fourth cluster have a relatively
high value of digital competitiveness and the highest values of GDP per capita and labour
productivity. In contrast, countries in Cluster 3 have the highest values of digital competitiveness
and the highest employment rates. Considering Clusters 3 and 4, it can be concluded that higher
digital competitiveness is associated with better economic performance.
Tab. 5 – Mean value of variables within clusters. Source: own research
Variable Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Digital competitiveness 0.4607 0.2911 0.6585 0.6137
Labour productivity 69,711.00 61,755.75 98,138.29 129,323.60
Employment rate 76.01 69.21 79.37 72.86
Median equalized net income 11,600.00 7,130.00 27,094.00 26,793.00
joc2021-2-v3.indd 128 29.6.2021 14:27:44

129
5. CONCLUSION
The overall development of the information society should be directed towards harnessing the
potential of ICTs to increase efficiency, economic growth, and higher employment to improve
the quality of life of all citizens of the countries. Digital transformation is an opportunity for
European countries to address a number of their structural economic, political and social
challenges. In recent decades, the importance of digitalization has become the subject of
numerous researches, as digitalization has changed the lives of groups and individuals in many
ways. Nevertheless, when it comes to measuring digitalization and digital competitiveness of
countries, no consensus has emerged regarding a composite indicator that would cover all
aspects of digitalization.
This paper has proposed a multi-criteria approach to create a composite measure of digital
competitiveness. Nordic countries were shown to achieve the highest degree of digital
competitiveness, while countries in Eastern Europe lag behind. Furthermore, the results
indicate that ICT usage in the enterprises has the highest relative importance with regard to
the assessment of the achieved level of digital competitiveness, which indicates that the digital
performance of a country is most significantly affected by the level of development of the ICT
sector in enterprises. In contrast, the usage of ICT in households is not crucial. Also, the level of
digital skills is less important than the importance of ICT usage in enterprises. Additionally, the
criteria related to the commercial use of ICT (such as e-commerce) are less important than the
criteria related to non-commercial use of ICT (such as online security).
Regarding the identification of groups with similar digital competitiveness and economic
performances, four distinct geographically dispersed groups of countries were identified:
countries primarily from Central and Southern Europe and Baltic countries, Balkan countries
along with some Central European countries, Northern and most Western European countries,
while the smallest fourth group includes one Western and one Northern European country. The
results indicate that groups with a low average value of digital competitiveness also have lower
economic performance, while economically advanced countries can be found in the groups of
countries with high digital competitiveness.
These results contribute to existing research on how to measure the digital economy by offering an
empirical example of assessing the digital competitiveness of European countries. Furthermore,
the results may have implications for policymakers as well as serve as a guideline for making
strategic decisions aimed at planning the digital future of the country.
Nevertheless, the proposed study has some limitations. Due to the unavailability of data,
the research does not take into account the supply side of digitalization related to regulatory
frameworks nor the countries’ investments in ICTs. Future studies will be aimed at eliminating
these shortcomings and including these variables, as they represent valuable indicators of digital
competitiveness.
Acknowledgments: The research in this paper was conducted within the framework of activities
on the bilateral cooperation project “Researching capacity for the implementation of smart cities
as the basis for sustainable urban development” financed by Ministry of Education, Science
and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia as well as the Ministry of Science
joc2021-2-v3.indd 129 29.6.2021 14:27:44

Journal of Competitiveness 130
and Education of the Republic of Croatia. It has also been supported by the University of
Rijeka under the project “Smart cities in function of development of national economy” (uniri-
drustv-18-255-1424).
References
1. Akande, A., Cabral, P., Gomes, P., & Casteleyn, S. (2019). The Lisbon ranking for smart
sustainable cities in Europe. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44 (1), 475–487.
2. Alam, K., Erdiaw-Kwasie, M. O., Shahiduzzaman, M., & Ryan, B. (2018). Assessing regional
digital competence: Digital futures and strategic planning implications. Journal of rural studies,
60, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.02.009
3. Albiman, M. M., & Sulong, Z. (2017). The linear and non-linear impacts of ICT on economic
growth, of disaggregate income groups within SSA region. Telecommunications Policy, 41 (4),
555–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.07.007
4. Ali, M. A., Alam, K., Taylor, B., & Rafiq, S. (2020a). Does ICT maturity catalyse economic
development? Evidence from a panel data estimation approach in OECD countries. Economic
analysis and policy, 68, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.09.003
5. Ali, M. A., Alam, K., & Taylor, B. (2020b). Incorporating affordability, efficiency, and quality
in the ICT development index: Implications for index building and ICT policymaking. The
Information Society, 36 (2), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2019.1702601
6. Ashmarina, S., Mesquita, A., & Vochozka, M. (2020). Digital Transformation of the Economy:
Challenges, Trends and New Opportunities. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
7. Bahrini, R., & Qaffas, A. A. (2019). Impact of information and communication technology
on economic growth: Evidence from developing countries. Economies, 7 (1), 21. https://doi.
org/10.3390/economies7010021
8. Balcerzak, P., & Bernard, M. P. (2017). Digital economy in Visegrad countries. Multiple-
criteria decision analysis at regional level in the years 2012 and 2015. Journal of Competitiveness, 9
(2). https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2017.02.01
9. Carlsson, B. (2004). The Digital Economy: what is new and what is not?. Structural change and
economic dynamics, 15 (3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2004.02.001
10. Chakraborty, S., Paul, D., & Das, S. (2020). Hierarchical clustering with optimal transport.
Statistics & Probability Letters, 163, 108781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2020.108781
11. Chen, Y., Li, W., & Yi, P. (2020). Evaluation of city innovation capability using the TOPSIS-
based order relation method: The case of Liaoning province, China. Technology in Society,
63, 101330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101330
12. Corrado, C., Haskel, J., & Jona-Lasinio, C. (2017). Knowledge spillovers, ICT and productivity
growth. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 79 (4), 592–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/
obes.12171
13. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in
multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22 (7), 763–770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-h
joc2021-2-v3.indd 130 29.6.2021 14:27:44

131
14. DESI (2019). Digital Economy and Society Index. Retrieved October 05, 2020, from https://
ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi
15. Dufva, T., & Dufva, M. (2019). Grasping the future of the digital society. Futures, 107, 17–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.11.001
16. EGDI (2021). E-Government Development Index. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from
https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/-E-Government-
Development-Index
17. El Gibari, S., Gómez, T., & Ruiz, F. (2019). Building composite indicators using multicriteria
methods: a review. Journal of Business Economics, 89 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-
018-0902-z
18. Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Petti, C. (2016). An operational model to develop technology
entrepreneurship “EGO-System”. International Journal of Innovation and Technolog y Management, 13
(05), 1640008. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219877016400083
19. Esmalifalak, H., Ajirlou, A. I., Behrouz, S. P., & Esmalifalak, M. (2015). (Dis) integration
levels across global stock markets: A multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Expert
Systems with Applications, 42 (22), 8393–8402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.053
20. Eurostat (2020a). Digital Economy and Society. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from https://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/data/database
21. Eurostat (2020b). Employment - annual statistics. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment_-_annual_
statistics
22. Eurostat (2020c). Median equalized net income. Retrieved April 22, 2021, from http://appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_di04
23. Fox, W. R., Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1991). Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction
to Cluster Analysis. Applied Statistics, 40 (3), 486. https://doi.org/10.2307/2347530
24. Haller, S. A., & Lyons, S. (2019). Effects of broadband availability on total factor productivity
in service sector firms: Evidence from Ireland. Telecommunications Policy, 43 (1), 11–22. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.09.005
25. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple
attribute decision making, 58–191. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-642-48318-9_3
26. IDI (2018). Measuring the Information Society Report. Retrieved September 10, 2020, from
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2018/MISR-2018-
Vol-2-E.pdf
27. ILOSTAT (2020). Labour productivity. Retrieved September 15, 2020, from https://ilostat.ilo.
org/topics/labour-productivity/
28. IMD (2019). World Digital Competitiveness Ranking. Retrieved September 10, 2020,
from https://www.imd.org/wcc/world-competitiveness-center-rankings/world-digital-
competitiveness-rankings-2019/
29. Ivanović-Đukić, M., Stevanović, T., & Rađenović, T. (2019). Does digitalization affect the
joc2021-2-v3.indd 131 29.6.2021 14:27:44

Journal of Competitiveness 132
contribution of entrepreneurship to economic growth? Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta
u Rijeci: časopis za ekonomsku teoriju i praksu, 37 (2), 653–679. https://doi.org/10.18045/
zbefri.2019.2.653
30. Kılıçaslan, Y., Sickles, R. C., Kayış, A. A., & Gürel, Y. Ü. (2017). Impact of ICT on the
productivity of the firm: evidence from Turkish manufacturing. Journal of Productivity Analysis,
47 (3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-017-0497-3
31. Kuo, T. (2017). A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of
Operational Research, 260 (1), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.052
32. Leviäkangas, P. (2016). Digitalisation of Finland’s transport sector. Technolog y in Society, 47,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.07.001
33. Mayer, W., Madden, G., & Wu, C. (2020). Broadband and economic growth: a reassessment.
Information Technology for Development, 26 (1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1
586631
34. Milenkovic, M. J., Brajovic, B., Milenkovic, D., Vukmirovic, D., & Jeremic, V. (2016).
Beyond the equal-weight framework of the Networked Readiness Index: a multilevel
I-distance methodology. Information Development, 32 (4), 1120–1136. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0266666915593136
35. Milošević, N., Dobrota, M., & Barjaktarović Rakočević, S. (2018). Digital economy in Europe:
Evaluation of countries’ performances. Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci: časopis za
ekonomsku teoriju i praksu, 36 (2), 861–880. https://doi.org/10.18045/zbefri.2018.2.861
36. Mitrović, Đ. (2020). Measuring the efficiency of digital convergence. Economics Letters, 188,
108982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.108982
37. Myovella, G., Karacuka, M., & Haucap, J. (2020). Digitalization and economic growth: A
comparative analysis of Sub-Saharan Africa and OECD economies. Telecommunications Policy, 44
(2), 101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101856
38. Nair, M., Pradhan, R. P., & Arvin, M. B. (2020). Endogenous dynamics between R&D, ICT
and economic growth: Empirical evidence from the OECD countries. Technolog y in Society, 62,
101315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101315
39. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Tools for composite indicators
building (Scientific and Technical Research Report EUR 21682 EN). Ispra: European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the
Citizen, Econometrics and Statistical Support to Antifraud Unit.
40. Niebel, T. (2018). ICT and economic growth–Comparing developing, emerging and
developed countries. World Development, 104, 197–211. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2560771
41. Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41 (6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/
etap.12254
42. NRI (2019). Networked Readiness Index. Retrieved from: https://networkreadinessindex.org/
nri-2019-countries/#complete-ranking
43. Olson, C. F. (1995). Parallel algorithms for hierarchical clustering. Parallel computing, 21 (8),
1313–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8191(95)00017-i
joc2021-2-v3.indd 132 29.6.2021 14:27:44

133
44. Olson, D. L. (2004). Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer
Modelling, 40 (4), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2004.10.003
45. Pérez-Castro, M. Á., Mohamed-Maslouhi, M., & Montero-Alonso, M. Á. (2021). The digital
divide and its impact on the development of Mediterranean countries. Technolog y in Society, 64,
101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101452
46. Pieri, F., Vecchi, M., & Venturini, F. (2018). Modelling the joint impact of R&D and ICT
on productivity: A frontier analysis approach. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1842–1852. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.013
47. Portillo, A. F., Almodovar-González, M., & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2020). Impact of ICT
development on economic growth. A study of OECD European union countries. Technolog y in
Society, 63, 101420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101420
48. Rajak, M., & Shaw, K. (2019). Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth)
applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Technolog y in Societ y, 59, 101186. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101186
49. Rossato, C., & Castellani, P. (2020). The contribution of digitalisation to business longevity
from a competitiveness perspective. The TQM Journal. 32 (4), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1108/
tqm-02-2020-0032
50. Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and
practices for composite indicator development (Scientific and Technical Research Report EUR
20408 EN). Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection
and the Security of the Citizen, Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit.
51. Sendlhofer, T., & Lernborg, C. M. (2018). Labour rights training 2.0: the digitalisation of
knowledge for workers in global supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 616–630.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.173
52. Skorupinska, A., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2017). ICT, innovation and productivity: Evidence
based on eastern European manufacturing companies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8 (2),
768–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0441-1
53. Thompson Jr, H. G., & Garbacz, C. (2011). Economic impacts of mobile versus fixed
broadband. Telecommunications Policy, 35 (11), 999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
telpol.2011.07.004
54. Ünal, E., & Shao, J. (2019). A taxonomy of circular economy implementation strategies for
manufacturing firms: Analysis of 391 cradle-to-cradle products. Journal of Cleaner Production,
212, 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.291
55. Vu, K., Hanafizadeh, P., & Bohlin, E. (2020). ICT as a driver of economic growth: A survey
of the literature and directions for future research. Telecommunications Policy, 44 (2), 101922.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101922
56. Wyckoff, A. (2016). Digital economy: Why a brighter future could be in our pocket. OECD
Observer. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/digital-economy-why-a-
brighter-future-could-be-in-our-pocket_33b6d23a-en
57. Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. New York:
SAGE publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985161
joc2021-2-v3.indd 133 29.6.2021 14:27:45

Journal of Competitiveness 134
58. Yoo T., de Wysocki M. & Cumberland A. (2018). Country Digital Readiness: Research to
Determine a Country’s Digital Readiness and Key Interventions. Retrieved September 01,
2020, from https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/assets/csr/pdf/Country-Digital-Readiness-White-
Paper-US.pdf
59. Zeng, S. X., Liu, H. C., Tam, C. M., & Shao, Y. K. (2008). Cluster analysis for studying
industrial sustainability: an empirical study in Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (10),
1090–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.004
60. Žižović, M., Miljković, B., & Marinković, D. (2020). Objective methods for determining
criteria weight coefficients: A modification of the CRITIC method. Decision Making:
Applications in Management and Engineering, 3 (2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.31181/
dmame2003149z
Contact information
Assoc. Prof. Jelena J. Stankovic, Ph.D.
University of Niš
Faculty of Economics
Serbia
E-mail: jelena.stankovic@eknfak.ni.ac.rs
ORCID: 0000-0002-9875-9861
TA Ivana Marjanovic, M.Sc.
University of Niš
Faculty of Economics
Serbia
E-mail: ivana.veselinovic@eknfak.ni.ac.rs
ORCID: 0000-0002-9526-0467
Assoc. Prof. Sasa Drez gic, Ph.D.
University of Rijeka
Faculty of Economics
Croatia
E-mail: sasa.drez gic@efri.hr
ORCID: 0000-0002-7712-8112
Prof. Zarko Popovic, Ph.D.
University of Niš
Faculty of Economics
Serbia
E-mail: zarko.popovic@eknfak.ni.ac.rs
ORCID: 0000-0002-4347- 6960
joc2021-2-v3.indd 134 29.6.2021 14:27:45