New Resonance Approach to Competitiveness Interventions in Lagging Regions: The Case of Ukraine before the Armed Conflict

Open access

Abstract

Regional competitiveness is considered to be an alternative basis for the determination of regional interventions. However, the composite competitiveness indicator is quite sensitive to the weights of sub-indicators, no matter what methodology is being used. To avoid this uncertainty in the determination of regional interventions, we proposed a new non-compensatory resonance approach that is focused on the hierarchical coincidence between weaknesses of NUTS 1 and NUTS 2 regions measuring the extensive and intensive components of competitiveness. Such a coincidence, being perceived as a resonance effect, is supposed to increase the effectiveness of interventions triggering synergetic effects and stirring up local regional potentials. The components of competitiveness are obtained through synthesising DEA methodology and Hellwig’s index, correspondingly focusing on the measurement of technical efficiency and resource level. In analysing Ukrainian regions, no correlation between resonance interventions and the composite competitiveness indicator or GDP per capita was found, pointing toward a completely different direction in resonance approach. In western Ukraine, the congestion of six NUTS 2 regions was defined as a homogeneous area of analogous resonance interventions focused on improving business efficiency.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ahner D (2009). What do you really know about European Cohesion Policy? Notre Europe Brussels. www.notre-europe.eu. (Accessed 20 February 2013).

  • Annoni P. Dijsktra L. (2013). EU Regional competitiveness Index RCI 2013 European Commission Brussels.

  • Annoni P. Dijsktra L. Kozovska K. (2011). A new Regional competitiveness Index: Theory Methods and Findings. European Commission Working Papers n. 02/2011.

  • Annoni P. Kozovska K. (2010). EU Regional competitiveness Index RCI 2010. European Commission Brussels.

  • Aranguren M. Susana F. et al. (2010). Benchmarking Regional Competitiveness in the European Cluster Observatory. European Commission.

  • Camagni R. Capello R. (2014). Rationale and Design of EU Cohesion Policies in a Period of Crisis with special reference to CEECs. GRINCOH Working Paper Series Policy Paper n. 1.

  • Camagni R. (2011). Policy options for the Latin Arc. In Camagni R. and Capello R. (eds) Spatial scenarios in a global perspective: Europe and the Latin Arc Countries. Edward Elgar Cheltenham (UK) pp. 175-185.

  • Charles V. Zegarra L.F. (2014). Measuring regional competitiveness through Data Envelopment Analysis: A Peruvian case. Expert Systems with Applications vol.41 is.11 pp. 5371-5381. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.03.003

  • Charnes A. Cooper W. W. Rhodes E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research Vol. 2 No. 4 pp. 429-444. DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8

  • Cooke P. (2007). To construct regional advantage from innovation systems first build policy platforms. European Planning Studies 15 pp. 179-194. DOI: 10.1080/09654310601078671

  • Cооке P. (2004). Competitiveness as cohesion: Social capital and the knowledge economy. Y: Boddy M. & Parkinson M. City Matters: Competitiveness Cohesion and Urban Governance 153 - 170.

  • Department of Trade and Industry (2002). A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom. DTI London.

  • European Commission. (2011). European Competitiveness Report. Brussel.

  • Fernandez E. Navarro J. et al (2013). Core: A decision support system for regional competitiveness analysis based on multi-criteria sorting. Decision support systems 54 (3) pp. 1417-1426. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.009

  • Flood R. Jackson M. (1991). Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Wiley New York: Wiley. 347 p.

  • Flood R. Romm N. (1996). Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice. Plenum Press New York 301 p.

  • Florida R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class - and how it’s transforming work leisure community & everyday life. The Perseus Books Group New York.

  • Gábor B. and Ottaviano G. (2015). Micro-founded measurement of regional competitiveness in Europe. Mimeo CERS-HAS

  • Harmaakorpi V. (2006). Regional Development Platform Method (RDPM) as a Tool for Regional Innovation Policy. European Planning Studies 14 p.1085-1114.

  • Harman H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. The University of Chicago Press Chicago. - 423 p.

  • Hellwig Z. (1968). “Usage of taxonomic methods for the typological divisions countries” Stat Overview Vol. 15 No. 4 pp. 307-327.

  • Hollanders H. Tarantola S. and Loschky A. (2009). Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2009: Methodology Report.

  • Huggins R. (2003). Creating a UK Competitiveness Index: Regional and Local Benchmarking. Regional Studies Vol. 37 pp. 89-96. DOI: 10.1080/0034340022000033420

  • Huggins R.; Davies W. (2006). European Competitiveness Index 2006-07. United Kingdom: Robert Huggins Associates Ltd. 39 p. ISBN 1-902829-03-4.

  • Hugins R. and Thompson P. (2010). UK Competitiveness INDEX 2010. Cardiff: Centre for International Competitiveness.

  • Huovari J. Kangasharju A. and Alanen A. (2001). Constructing an Index for Regional Competitiveness. Helsinki: Peelervo Economic Research Institute - Working paper No 44.

  • Jackson M. (1991). Systems methodology for the management sciences. New York: Plenum Press 398 p.

  • Kiszová Z. & Nevima J. (2012). Usage of analytic hierarchy process for evaluating of regional competitiveness in case of the Czech Republic. Proceedings of the 30th international conference MME pp. 402-407l.

  • Kuznets S. S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review 45 pp. 1-28.

  • Luhmann N. (2002). Introduction to Systems Theory. Polity press. Cambridge: 65 Bridge Street. ISBN 074-5-645-720 978-0-745-645-728.

  • Martin P. (1999). Are European regional policies delivering? EIB Papers 4 pp. 10-23.

  • Martin P. and G. I. P. Ottaviano (2001). Growth and agglomeration. International Economic Review 42 pp. 947-968. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2354.00141

  • Melecký L. Staníčková M. (2011). The Competitiveness of Visegrad Four NUTS 2 Regions and its Evaluation by DEA Method Application. Proc. 29th Inter. Conf. on Mathematical Methods in Economics p. 474-479.

  • Meyer Dietmar - Lackenbauer Jörg. (2005). „EU Cohesion Policy and the Equity Efficiency Trade-Off: Adding Dynamics to Martin’s Model”. Andrássy Working Paper Series No. XIII.

  • Midelfart K. H. (2004). Regional policy design: An analysis of relocation efficiency and equity. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4321 Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) London.

  • Midgley G. (2014). Systemic Intervention. Research Memorandum 95 November 2014. Centre for Systems Studies Hull University Business School. ISBN 978-1-906422-32-5.

  • Mingers J. Gill A. (1997). Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies. Wiley Chichester 442 p.

  • Myrdal G. (1957). Economic Theory and under-developed regions. London: Duckworth

  • Nevima J. and Ramík J. (2009). Application of multicriteria decision making for evaluation of regional competitiveness. Proceedings of the 27th international conference Mathematical methods in economics pp.239-244.

  • OECD-JRC. (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and User guide. Paris: Paris: OECD

  • Oliva M. Miguel M. (2005). Objective Competitiveness Ranking amongst EU Regions (Objective Method for Quantifying Regional Competitiveness - a case study applied to EU15 Regions). 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association.

  • Perroux F. (1955). Note sur la notion de “pôle de croissance”. Economie appliquée 1-2 pp. 307-320.

  • Pessoa A. (2013). Competitiveness clusters and policy at the regional level: rhetoric vs. practice in designing policy for depressed regions. Regional Science Inquiry Journal Vol. V (1) 2013 pp. 101-116.

  • Pluta W. (1977). Multidimensional Comparative Analysis in economic research. National Economic Publishing House Warsaw.

  • Porter M. & Ketels C. (2003). UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next Stage. DTI Economics Paper.

  • Puga D. (2002). European regional policies in light of recent location theories. Journal of Economic Geography 2 pp. 373-40. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/2.4.373

  • Pооt J. (2000). Reflections on Local and Economy- Wide Effects of Territorial Competition. In: BATEY FRIEDRICH P.: Regional Competition Springer.

  • Ramík J. and Hančlová J. (2012). Multicriteria methods for evaluating competitiveness of regions in V4 countries. Multiple Criteria Decision Making 12. Katowice: The Karol Adamiecki University of Economics.

  • Różańska-Putek J. Jappens M. Willaert D. & Van Bavel J. (2009). Recoding the Regions of the European Social Survey into the NUTS 1 Regional Classification. Illustration: regional indicators of intergenerational solidarity. Interface Demography Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussel Belgium.

  • Schaffer A.; Simar L.; Rauland J. (2011). “Decomposing Regional Efficiency” Journal of Regional Science Vol. 51 No 5 2011 p. 931-947. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00731.x

  • Snieška V. and Bruneckienė J. (2009). Measurement of Lithuanian Regions by Regional Competitiveness Index. Engineering Economics 1(61) p. 45-57.

  • Storper M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York NY: The Guilford Press.

  • Tetsuya S. Matsumoto T. (2010). “Policies to Enhance the Physical Urban Environment for Competitiveness: A New Partnership between Public and Private Sectors” OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2010/1 OECD Publishing © OECD.

  • UNDP (2008). Regional Competitiveness Index Croatia 2007. Zagreb: United Nations Development Programme.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.66

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.21
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.682

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 180 96 3
PDF Downloads 96 63 3