Global scale integrated logistics performance analysis and its spillover effect

• Autorzy: Manavgat Gökçe , Demirci Ayhan , Korkmaz Oya , Koluman Ahmet

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17270/J.LOG.2023.826

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: Countries that are efficient in terms of logistics infrastructure have easy access to different markets in terms of production and foreign trade and thus achieve economic prosperity. In order to compare the performance of countries in logistics processes, there are international logistics indexes published by various organizations for different country categories. Each of these indexes is used to follow the performance of the logistics infrastructures of the countries and the logistics operations accordingly. Methods: The aim of this study is calculation and comparison of the integrated logistics performance of 101 countries with the ROC-based WASPAS method and the presence of spatial autocorrelation between the obtained integrated logistics performance values by using four different international logistics indexes (Logistics Performance Index (LPI) (2018), Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI) (2021), Enabling Trade Index (ETI) (2016), and Availability and Quality of Transport Infrastructures (AQTI) (2016)) data. Results: It has been determined that the top five countries with the highest integrated logistics performance are Singapore, Germany, China, Japan, England, and USA, respectively. On the other hand, Sierra Leone, Congo, Mauritania, Gabon, Liberia, and Madagascar are the weakest countries. Integrated logistics performance of a country is generally significantly affected by the logistics performance of the neighboring country, albeit limited. This is especially prevailing for USA, Canada, and Western Europe. Conclusion: For the global integrated logistics performance analysis, countries with strong production capacity and logistics infrastructure are in first place, and there is a positive spatial autocorrelation in terms of integrated logistics performance among some countries in Western Europe and the Americas.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

logistics performance; multi-criteria decision-making techniques; ROC; WASPAS; spatial autocorrelation

PL

wydajność logistyki; wielokryterialne techniki podejmowania decyzji; WASPAS; autokorelacja przestrzenna

• Wydawca: Wyższa Szkoła Logistyki
• Czasopismo: LogForum
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 19, no. 2
• Strony: 245--262
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 35 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Manavgat Gökçe

• International Trade and Logistics, Toros University, Mersin, Turkey

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3729-835X

autor

Demirci Ayhan

• International Trade and Logistics, Toros University, Mersin, Turkey

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3788-4586

autor

Korkmaz Oya

• International Trade and Logistics, Tarsus University, Mersin, Turkey

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-803X

autor

Koluman Ahmet

• International Trade and Lojistics, Tarsus University, Mersin, Turkey

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-803X

Bibliografia

• 1. Ahn, B.S. 2011. Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 212, 552-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.02.017
• 2. Alsamawi, A., Cadestin, C., Jaax, A., Guilhoto, J., Miroudot, S. & Zürcher, C. 2020. Returns to intangible capital in global value chains: New evidence on trends and policy determinants. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 240. https://doi.org/10.1787/4cd06f19-en
• 3. Ambroziak, Ł. 2018. The CEECs in global value chains: The role of Germany. Acta Oeconomica, 68(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1556/032.2018.68.1.1
• 4. Anselin, L. 1995. Local indicators of spatial association–LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x
• 5. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Wiederer, C., Shepherd, B., Raj, A., Dairabayeva, K. & Kiiski, T. 2018. Connecting to compete: Trade logistics in the global economy. The World Bank, Washington DC.
• 6. Barron, F. H. & Barrett B. E. 1996. Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42(11), 1515–1523. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.11.1515
• 7. Beysenbaev, R. & Dus, Y. 2020. Proposals for improving the logistics performance index. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 36(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.10.001
• 8. Ekici, Ş. Ö., Kabak, Ö. & Ülengin, F. 2016. Linking to compete: Logistics and global competitiveness interaction. Transport Policy, 48, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.015
• 9. European Commission. 2015. Fact-finding studies in support of the development of an EU strategy for freight transport logistics: Analysis of the EU logistics sector. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4c60a2c5-969e-11e7-b92d-01aa75ed71a1, Date of access: 30.01.2023.
• 10. Ferdows, K. 1997. Making the most of foreign factories. Harvard Business Review, 75, 73-91.
• 11. Fischer, M. M. & Wang, J. 2011. Spatial data analysis: models, methods and techniques. Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
• 12. Friedman, L. T. 2006. The world is flat – a brief history of the twenty-first century. Picador, New York.
• 13. Işık, Ö., Aydın, Y. & Koşaroğlu, S. 2020. The assessment of the logistics performance index of CEE countries with the new combination of SV and MABAC methods. LogForum. 16(4), 549-559. http://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.504
• 14. Jahan, A. 2018. Developing WASPAS-RTB method for range target-based criteria: Toward selection for robust design. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(4), 1362-1387. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1295288
• 15. Kısa, A. & Ayçin, E. 2019. Evaluation of the logistics performance of OECD countries with EDAS method based on SWARA. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics, 9(1), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.18074/ckuiibfd.500320
• 16. LeSage, J. P. 1999. The theory and practice of spatial econometrics. Deparment of Economics, University of Toledo. http://www.spatial-econometrics.com/html/sbook.pdf, Date of access: 02.01.2023.
• 17. Manavgat, G. & Demirci, A. 2021. Investigation of consistency of logistics performance index using ordered logistic regression model. Journal of Yaşar University, 16(64), 1856-1871. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.934418
• 18. Martí, L., Martín, J. C. & Puertas, R. 2017. A DEA-logistics performance index. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1), 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(17)30008-9
• 19. Martí, L., Puertas, R. & García, L. 2014. The importance of the logistics performance index in international trade. Applied Economics, 46(24), 2982-2992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.916394
• 20. Meixell, M. J. & Gargeya, V. B. 2005. Global supply chain design: A literature review and critique. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 41(6), 531-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2005.06.003
• 21. Mešić, A., Miškić, S., Stević, Ž. & Mastilo, Z. 2022. Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics, 10(1), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2022-0004
• 22. Mudambi, R. & Puck, J. 2016. A global value chain analysis of the ‘regional strategy’ perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 1076-1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12189
• 23. Nguyen, P. H., Nguyen, T. L., Nguyen, T. G., Nguyen, D. T., Tran, T. H., Le, H. C. & Phung, H. T. 2022. A cross-country European efficiency measurement of maritime transport: A data envelopment analysis approach. Axioms, 11(5), 206. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11050206
• 24. Nordas, H. K. 2006. Time as a trade barrier: Implications for low-income countries. OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publications and Information Centre, No. 42. https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_studies-v2006-art4-en
• 25. Ravenhill, J. 2014. Global value chains and development. Review of International Political Economy, 21(1), 264-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2013.858366
• 26. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S. & Tavasszy, L. 2018. Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using best worst method. Transport Policy, 68, 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007
• 27. Sternad, M., Skrucany, T. & Jereb, B. 2018. International Logistics Performance Based on the DEA Analysis. Communications-Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina, 20(4), 10-15.
• 28. Ulutaş, A. & Karaköy, Ç. 2019. An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model. Economics and Business Review, 5(4), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2019.4.3
• 29. UNCTAD. 2022. Handbook of Statistics 2022. https://unctad.org/webflyer/handbook-statistics-2022, Date of access: 21.12.2022.
• 30. WEF. 2016. The Enabling Trade Index 2016, https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-enabling-trade-report-2016/, Date of access: 30.12.2022.
• 31. World Shipping Council. 2019. http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/global-trade/top-50-world-container-ports. Date of access: 30.12.2022.
• 32. Yalçın, B. & Ayvaz, B. 2020. Evaluation of logistic performance with multi criteria decision making techniques. İstanbul Commerce University Journal of Science, 19(38), 117-138. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ticaretfbd/issue/58122/847231
• 33. Yapraklı, T. Ş. & Ünalan, M. 2017. The global logistics performance index and analysis of the last ten years logistics performance of Turkey. Trends in Business and Economics, 31(3), 589-608. http://hdl.handle.net/11508/8945.
• 34. Yu, M. M. & Hsiao, B. 2015. Measuring the technology gap and logistics performance of individual countries by using a meta-DEA–AR model. Maritime Policy & Management, 43(1), 98-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2015.1037372
• 35. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. & Zakarevicius, A. 2012. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 6 (122), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810