A TOPSIS analysis of regional competitiveness at European level

7Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: The measurement of regional competitiveness is becoming essential for policymakers to address territorial disparities, while considering the issue of correlations among indicators. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to measure regional competitiveness using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) by considering different distance measures and two levels of analysis to provide a comparative and comprehensive measurement of regional competitiveness in Europe. Design/methodology/approach: The authors apply TOPSIS based on three different distance measures (the Manhattan, the Euclidean and the Mahalanobis distance measures) to the regions of the EU Regional Competitiveness Index (RCI) 2019, which is taken as the frame of reference. Findings: The authors replicate the RCI by using TOPSIS with a less preferred choice of distance measure, indicating TOPSIS as a valuable method for policymakers in the analysis of regional competitiveness. The authors argue in favour of the Mahalanobis distance measure as the best of the three, as it considers correlations among macro-economic indicators. Originality/value: This study aims to make three contributions. Firstly, by replicating the RCI by means of TOPSIS with a less preferred choice of distance measure, the paper provides a benchmark for future research on regional competitiveness. Secondly, by suggesting the use of TOPSIS with the use of the Mahalanobis distance measure, the authors show how to measure regional competitiveness by taking into account correlations among pillars. Thirdly, the authors argue in favour of considering clusters of regions when measuring regional competitiveness.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ferrarini, F., Muzzioli, S., & De Baets, B. (2024). A TOPSIS analysis of regional competitiveness at European level. Competitiveness Review, 34(7), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2024-0005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free