ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME PERSPEKTİFİNDEN DİJİTAL DİPLOMASİ İNDEKSİNE GÖRE G20 ÜLKELERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2024, Volume: 25 Issue: 1, 242 - 274, 25.03.2024

Nuh Keleş , Fatma Sönmez Çakır

https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1293377

Abstract

Günümüzde teknolojinin ilerlemesi ve sürekli geliştirilmesiyle birlikte klasik haberleşme araçlarından dijital/internet ortamındaki iletişime doğru bir kayma olmuştur. Bu çalışma bireylerin oluşturduğu hükümetlerin/ülkelerin dijital ortamdaki etkinliklerine göre dijital diplomasi gelişmişliklerini ortaya çıkartmayı amaçlamaktadır. Dijital diplomasi göstergelerine ait ağırlıklar dört farklı yöntemden (CRITIC, LOPCOW, CVM, SD) türetilen altı farklı yaklaşımdan ortaya konulan ortalama düzeyde ağırlıklara göre belirlenmiştir. Dijital diplomasi indeksi kriterlerinden diğerlerine göre daha önemli olan ‘biçim yeterliliği-%14,12’ ilk sırada, ardından ‘diplomatik merkezilik-%12,27’ ikinci sırada ve daha az önemli olan ‘küresel görünürlüğü-%9,58’ son sırada bulunmuştur. Alternatiflerin ikili üstünlüklerine göre karşılaştırma yapmaya imkân sağlayan ELECTRE I yöntemiyle farklı sıralamalar temelinde G20 grubundaki ülkeler değerlendirilmiştir. Karşılaştırmalar için PROMETHEE II, MEREC, MEREC-G, Entropy, Entropy-Corr ve MEREC-Corr yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Ortalama düzeyde elde edilen kriter ağırlıkları kullanılarak ELECTRE I yöntemiyle yapılan değerlendirmede Hindistan ilk sırada, ABD ikinci, Fransa üçüncü ve Rusya dördüncü sırada yer almıştır. Ülkelerin dijital diplomaside öne çıkmak için görsel veya video içeren etkinliklerini ve diplomatik ağ takipçilerini artırması tavsiye edilebilir. Çalışmada kullanılan ağırlık belirleme yöntemlerinin çeşitliliği ve yenilikleriyle literatüre önemli katkılarda bulunulduğu düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Dijital Diplomasi İndeksi, ELECTRE, CRITIC, LOPCOW, CVM

AN EVALUATION OF G20 COUNTRIES BY THE DIGITAL DIPLOMACY INDEX FROM MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

Today, there has been a shift from classical communication tools to communicating in the digital/internet environment with the advancement and continuous development of technology. This study aims to reveal the development of digital diplomacy according to the activities of governments/countries formed by individuals in the digital environment. Digital diplomacy criteria weights were determined according to the average level weights revealed from six different approaches derived from four different methods (CRITIC, LOPCOW, CVM, SD). Among the digital diplomacy index criteria, ‘format proficiency-14.12%’, which is more important than the others, is in the first rank, followed by ‘diplomatic centrality-12.27%’, and less important ‘global country visibility-9,58%’ is in the last rank. The countries in the G20 group were evaluated on the basis of different rankings with the ELECTRE I method, which allows comparisons according to the pairwise superiorities of the alternatives. For comparisons used PROMETHEE II, MEREC, MEREC-G, Entropy, Entropy-Corr, and MEREC-Corr methods. India ranked first, USA ranked second, France third, and Russia fourth in the evaluation made with the ELECTRE I method using the criteria weights obtained at the average level. It can be recommended that countries increase their visual or video activities and diplomatic network followers to stand out in digital diplomacy. It is thought that significant contributions have been made to the literature with the variety and innovations of the weight-determination methods used in the study.

Keywords

Digital Diplomacy Index, ELECTRE, CRITIC, LOPCOW, CVM

References

• Akram, M., Sultan, M., & Alcantud, J. C. R. (2023). An integrated ELECTRE method for selection of rehabilitation center with m-polar fuzzy N-soft information. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 135, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102449.
• Ardil, C. (2022). Freighter Aircraft Selection Using Entropic Programming for Multiple Criteria Decision Making Analysis. International Journal of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, 15(12), 119-126.
• Baştan, Y., & Karagül, S. (2021). Diplomasinin dönüşümü ve dijital diplomasi. TroyAcademy, 6(3), 777-803. doi: 10.31454/troyacademy.959312.
• Biswas, S., & Joshi, N. (2023). A Performance based ranking of initial public offerings (IPOs) in India. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 3(1), 15-32. doi: 10.31181/10023022023b.
• Çelik, P., & Ustasüleyman, T. (2014). Electre I ve PROMETHEE yöntemleri ile GSM operatörlerinin hizmet kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (12), 137-160. doi: 10.18092/ijeas.19566.
• Corneliu, B., & Marcus, H. (2015). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. Oxon: Routledge. Datareportal. (2023). Digital 2023: Global overview report. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-global-overview-report adresinden erişildi.
• DDI (2023). Digital Diplomacy Index. https://digital-diplomacy-index.com/index/ adresinden erişildi.
• Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770. doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.
• Durucasu, H., Aytekin, A., Saraç, B., & Orakçı, E. (2017). Current application fields of ELECTRE and PROMETHEE: A literature review. Alphanumeric Journal, 5(2), 229-270. doi: 10.17093/alphanumeric.320235.
• Ecer, F., and Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 1-17. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690.
• Ersoy, N. (2022). Kriter ağırlıklandırma yöntemlerinin ÇKKV sonuçları üzerindeki etkisine yönelik gerçek bir hayat uygulaması. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(4), 1449-1463. doi: 10.33206/mjss.1026666.
• Fahrizal, M., Sundari, R., Shiddiqi, M. A. A., & Rani, F. (2022). The strategy of the Indonesian government in implementing the Wonderful Indonesia Digital Diplomacy Program. KEMUDI. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 7(1), 47-65. doi: 10.31629/kemudi.v7i1.4814.
• Fei, L., Xia, J., Feng, Y., & Liu, L. (2019). An ELECTRE-based multiple criteria decision making method for supplier selection using Dempster-Shafer theory. IEEE Access, 7, 84701-84716. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2924945.
• Fei, W. U., & Yao, J. I. (2022). The development and game of US digital diplomacy Under Geopolitics. International Relations, 10(5), 197-206. doi: 10.17265/2328-2134/2022.05.001.
• Habibullah, & Xiguang, L. (2022). Exploring the extent of digitalisation and digital diplomacy in Pakistan embassies. The Journal of International Communication, 28(2), 206-227. doi: 10.1080/13216597.2022.2073255.
• Hacıgökmen, F. (2019). Ekonomik Kırılganlıklar; G-20 ülkeleri üzerinde bir inceleme. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 3(2), 192-213. doi: 10.30586/pek.615073.
• Halisoğlu, T. A. (2022). Avrupa Birliği’nin yeni yumuşak güç unsuru: Dijital diplomasi. Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi E-Dergi, 11(2), 163-178. doi: 10.47934/tife.11.02.05.
• Kaya S. K., Ayçin E., & Pamucar D. (2022). Evaluation of social factors within the circular economy concept for European countries. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 31, 73-108, doi: 10.1007/s10100-022-00800-w.
• Keleş, N. (2022). Türkiye’deki 52 Havalimanının CRITIC, COCOSO ve WASPAS Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi. N. Altuntepe (Ed.), Disiplinlerarası yaklaşımlarla uygulamalı sosyal bilimler (s. 225-265). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Keleş, N. (2023a). Türkiye’nin 81 ilinin sağlık performansının güncel karar verme yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (75), 120-141. doi: 10.51290/dpusbe.1134082.
• Keleş, N. (2023b). Measuring performances through multiplicative functions by modifying the MEREC method: MEREC-G and MEREC-H. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 5(3), 181-199. doi: 10.1108/IJIEOM-12-2022-0068.
• Keleş, N., & Pekkaya, M. (2023). Evaluation of logistics centers in terms of sustainability via MCDM methods. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 20(2), 291-309. doi: 10.1108/JAMR-04-2022-0087.
• Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. doi: 10.3390/sym13040525.
• Kumar, B. S., Varghese, J., & Jacob, J. (2022). Optimal thermochemical material selection for a hybrid thermal energy storage system for low temperature applications using multi criteria optimization technique. Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 5, 452-472. doi: 10.1016/j.mset.2022.10.005.
• Liu, W., Li, Q., & Zhao, J. (2018). Application on floor water inrush evaluation based on AHP variation coefficient method with GIS. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 36, 2799-2808. doi: 10.1007/s10706-018-0502-2.
• 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. doi: 10.31181/dmame210402076i.
• Ong’ong’a O. D. (2020) Syndrome-analysis of new media and political economy in 21st century. Journal of New Media and Mass Communication, 6(1): 8-11. doi: 10.18488/journal.91.2020.61.8.11.
• Pala, O. (2023). MEREC-CORR ve SAW temelli lojistik performans değerlendirme. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(25), 117-135. doi: 10.53092/duiibfd.1130928.
• Pekkaya, M., & Dökmen, G. (2019). OECD ülkeleri kamu sağlık harcamalarının ÇKKV yöntemleri ile performans değerlendirmesi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15(4), 923-950. doi: 10.17130/ijmeb.2019456391.
• Google Scholar. (2023). CRITIC Method, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=CRITIC+method&btnG= adresinden erişildi.
• Statista (2023). Number of social media users worldwide from 2017 to 2027. https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ adresinden erişildi.
• Sun, Y., Liang, X., & Xiao, C. (2019). Assessing the influence of land use on groundwater pollution based on coefficient of variation weight method: A case study of Shuangliao City. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 34964-34976. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06598-6.
• Triwahyuni, D. (2022). Indonesia digital economic diplomacy during the Covid-19 global pandemic. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research, 9(1), 75-83. doi: 10.15549/jeecar.v9i1.880.
• Ulutaş, A., Balo, F., & Topal, A. (2023). Identifying the most efficient natural fibre for common commercial building insulation materials with an integrated PSI, MEREC, LOPCOW and MCRAT Model. Polymers, 15(6), 1-23, 1500. doi: 10.3390/polym15061500.
• Valkenburg, P. M. (2022). Social media use and well-being: What we know and what we need to know. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101294. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.006
• Vavrek, R., & Bečica, J. (2022). Similarity of TOPSIS results based on criterion variability: case study on public economic. Plos One, 17(8), e0271951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271951.
• Vysochan, O., Vysochan, O., Hyk, V., & Boychuk, A. (2022). Multi-criteria evaluation of innovative projects by means of ELECTRE application. Business: Theory and Practice, 23(2), 445-455.
• Zhang, Y., & Ong’ong’a, D. O. (2022). Unveiling China’s digital diplomacy: A comparative analysis of CGTN Africa and BBC News Africa on Facebook. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 7(3), 661-683. doi: 10.1177/20578911211068217.
• Zinovieva, E. V., & Bulva, V. I. (2022). Digital diplomacy in Russia–Europe relations: Cross-cultural aspects. The Russian Journal of Cultural Studies and Communication, 1(1-2), 84-93. doi: 10.24833/2541-8831-2021-4-20-30-40.