Search results

The purpose of this paper is to measure and rank nation‐states' governance effectiveness and quality on a quantifying scientific basis, by means of data envelopment analysis.

The principles are first analyzed from a theoretical and normative standpoint, linking to earlier literature. One dimension of the approach is adding the equality in income distribution as an output. Another dimension boils down to environmental performance.

The addition of the Gini index affects the ranking of the developing countries in a more significant manner. Similar results are obtained when the authors add the environmental performance as an input. Another interesting result suggests that conventional ranking methods (i.e gross domestic product per capita or human development index) could be used for representing the country's efficiency only for developed countries.

Future research may be aimed at applying the developed methodology to more countries, both developed and developing, as well as considering inclusion of additional ranking parameters.

The obtained procedure may be regarded as a comprehensive, holistic, mostly objective, and quantifiable method of ranking countries according to their governmental performance accomplishments. The addition of the Gini index and the environmental performance influences the ranking and is a significant improvement as compared to contemporary procedures.

The innovation in this paper is that the authors suggest to measure efficiency of countries not only by their income, but also, looking on wider aspects of efficiency as equity and environmental performance.

This study aims to analyse and evaluate the methodology followed by the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (THE-IR), as well as the coverage obtained and the data offered by this ranking, to determine if its methodology reflects the degree of sustainability of universities, and whether their results are accurate enough to be used as a data source for research and strategic decision-making.

A summative content analysis of the THE-IR methodology was conducted, paying special attention to the macro-structure (university score) and micro-structure (sustainable development goals [SDG] score) levels of the research-related metrics. Then, the data published by THE-IR in the 2019, 2020 and 2021 edition was collected via web scraping. After that, all the data was statistically analysed to find out performance rates, SDGs’ success rates and geographic distributions. Finally, a pairwise comparison of the THE-IR against the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR) was conducted to calculate overlap measures.

Severe inconsistencies in the THE-IR methodology have been found, offering a distorted view of sustainability in higher education institutions, allowing different strategic actions to participate in the ranking (interested, strategic, committed and outperformer universities). The observed growing number of universities from developing countries and the absence of world-class universities reflect an opportunity for less-esteemed institutions, which might have a chance to gain reputation based on their efforts towards sustainability, but from a flawed ranking which should be avoided for decision-making.

University managers can be aware of the THE-IR validity when demanding informed decisions. University ranking researchers and practitioners can access a detailed analysis of the THE-IR to determine its properties as a ranking and use raw data from THE-IR in other studies or reports. Policy makers can use the main findings of this work to avoid misinterpretations when developing public policies related to the evaluation of the contribution of universities to the SDGs. Otherwise, these results can help the ranking publisher to improve some of the inconsistencies found in this study.

Given the global audience of the THE-IR, this work contributes to minimising the distorted vision that the THE-IR projects about sustainability in higher education institutions, and alerts governments, higher education bodies and policy makers to take precautions when making decisions based on this ranking.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this contribution is the first providing an analysis of the THE-IR’s methodology. The faults in the methodology, the coverage at the country-level and the overlap between THE-IR and THE-WUR have unveiled the existence of specific strategies in the participation of universities, of interest both for experts in university rankings and SDGs.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the ranking of countries based on the World Economic Forum's (WEF') competitiveness index is changed when the underlying primitive data dimensions of this composite index are aggregated using weights that are endogenously determined for each country, instead of aggregated using the WEF's fixed set of weights applied to all countries.

The paper presents a method based on data envelopment analysis to determine weights for aggregating the underlying primitive data dimensions of any composite indicator. The approach determines endogenously the “best” weights a given observational unit (e.g. country) on the basis of its revealed performance on each primitive sub‐dimension underlying a composite index. The ranking of countries based on the values of a composite competitiveness index that uses the proposed endogenous weight method is then compared to the ranking based on the WEF's competitiveness index for the year 2006. The rankings are then compared and assessed to determine if the observed difference in the rankings are statistically significant.

A comparison of the ranking of countries on the basis of the value of each index reveals that countries do undergo a change in their competitiveness rank when endogenous weights are used. The results suggest the WEF's competitiveness index, which uses the same fixed weights applied to every country (or group of countries), creates a bias that favors countries that score high on the “technology” sub‐dimension of the index.

The study presents an alternative to the current practice of using a fixed set of weights applied uniformly to the basic unit of analysis. The method serves as a starting‐point for further research on the biases created by different weighting schemes to construct a composite indicator that aggregates primitive data, with the resulting composite index values then used to rank entities.

The method to determine endogenously the weights to be applied to each unit of analysis when constructing a composite indicator is novel and has wide applicability to the general issue of comparing performance across different units of analysis based on a composite index of performance (i.e. benchmarking).

Do feminine cultures really behave more feminine than masculine cultures?. A comparison of 48 countries femininity‐masculineity ranking to their UN human development rankings. Reveals that feminine cultures do apply greater intensity in investing in human development programmes, including care for the weak and gender equity development than masculine cultures. States that both score low on empowerment of females, suggesting that a countrys power distance measurement affects this. Implies that managers of international firms will find greater demand for improved quality of work and female empowerment programmes in feminine/small power distance countries than feminine high power distance countries and masculine countries. Qualifies comparisons by outlining problems within the UN statistical data.

This study aims to examine decision factors for global sourcing, differentiated into transcontinental and continental sourcing to obtain insight into locational aspects of sourcing decisions and global trends. This study analyzed various country perceptions to reveal their influence on sourcing decisions. The country of origin (COO) theory explains why certain country perceptions and images influence purchasing experts in their selection of suppliers.

This study used a two-study approach. In Study 1, the authors conducted discrete choice card experiments with 71 purchasing experts located in Europe and the USA to examine the importance of essential decision factors for global sourcing. Given the clear evidence that location is a factor in sourcing decisions, in Study 2 the authors investigated purchasers’ perceptions and images of countries, adding country ranking experiments on various perceived characteristics such as quality, price and technology.

Study 1 provides evidence that the purchasers’ personal relationship with the supplier plays a decisive role in the supplier selection process. While product quality and location impact sourcing decisions, the attraction of the buying company and cultural barriers are less significant. Interestingly, however, these factors seem as important as price to respondents. This implies that a strong relationship with suppliers and good quality products are essential aspects of a reliable and robust supply chain in the post-COVID-19 era. Examining the locational aspect in detail, Study 2 linked the choice card experiments with country ranking experiments. In this study, the authors found that purchasing experts consider that transcontinental countries such as Japan and China offer significant advantages in terms of price and technology. China has enhanced its quality, which is recognizable in the country ranking experiments. Therefore, decisions on global sourcing are not just based on such high-impact factors as price and availability; country perceptions are also influential. Additionally, the significance of the locational aspect could be linked to certain country images of transcontinental suppliers, as the COO theory describes.

The new approach divides global sourcing into transcontinental and European sourcing to evaluate special decision factors and link these factors to the locational aspect of sourcing decisions. To deepen the clear evidence for the locational aspect and investigate the possible influence of country perceptions, the authors applied the COO theory. This approach enabled authors to show the strong influence of country perception on purchasing departments, which is represented by the locational effect. Hence, the success of transcontinental countries relies not only on factors such as their availability but also on the purchasers’ positive perceptions of these countries in terms of technology and price.

This study proposes a straightforward set of performance measurements for industrialized nations. The aims of this paper are twofold. First, the paper explores the notion of ranking nations based on food safety performances, beyond benchmarking. The paper appraises how a global comparative analysis could contribute to best practices and continuance improvement in food safety. Second, this paper presents an experiment in which a group of regulators took part in a workshop held in Helsinki, Finland in the Fall 2011.

A session was held in October 2011 in Helsinki, and many countries were invited. A total of 17 countries were represented. The following countries were represented: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the UK and the USA. The session was designed to be informative, interactive and flexibly tailored to the delegates' needs and experience. It was also designed to raise awareness and understanding of benchmarking and supra-national ranking systems, what it is and how it can be applied using practical examples from healthcare and across other sectors.

The session also introduced the principles of process thinking and illustrated how process benchmarking can be a useful tool for continuance improvement. The session then built upon the theory presented in the introductory portion by focusing specifically on the essence of ranking indicators. In this session, delegates spent time familiarizing themselves with indicators provided by the University of Guelph, discussing how they might implement it within their individual nations and across the trust as a whole.

The collection of primary data was also debated at the session. Public trust, for example, could easily be an indicator which could be included. Measurement of public trust in food safety might be important for governments. It could provide them with information on the performance of the food safety systems from a consumers' perspective. To be an effective indicator of performance the measurement of public trust in food safety should be liable to change. Therefore, changes in performance of the food safety systems have to be reflected through the measurement of public trust in food safety.

The Helsinki session is believed to be the first international meeting in which benchmarking metrics were discussed in order to rank countries based on food safety risk practices. Ranking programs in food safety remain controversial. Most particularly, risk assessors and the public service remain skeptical about their effectiveness. The Helsinki meeting was not met to alleviate the skepticism around ranking systems, but it did allow many to better appreciate several perspectives from around the world.

The research aims to include good governance as a facet in the measurement of human development.

A modified Human Development Index (MHDI) was computed by including a governance dimension computed using the six governance indicators published by the World Bank. The rankings using the new index were obtained and compared to the rankings of the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP's) HDI.

The rank correlation of the original and modified indices was very high, but there were many big rank changes for individual countries in each HDI group. These rank changes could be largely reconciled in the light of the rankings of these countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index and the Democracy Index.

The research considers the measurement of human development at a point in time alone and incorporates 2010 governance indicators into the 2011 HDI, which could lead to a discrepancy in time periods considered. Furthermore, the governance indicators are measures of perceptions which can be subjective. The Practical implications paper does not delve into the country-specific factors that may have caused big rank changes.

The paper builds a case for incorporating, or at least providing the option of including a governance dimension in the HDI.

The paper is a novel attempt to incorporate good governance as a dimension in the HDI. It reasserts the need for policy-makers and governments to realize that peoples' capabilities cannot be realized in the absence of good governance, and that whilst improving other facets of human development, much attention needs to be paid towards establishing good governance.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the scientific performance of universities by extending the application of the h‐index from the individual to the institutional level. A ranking of the world's top universities based on their h‐index scores was produced. The geographic distribution of the highly ranked universities by continent and by country was also analysed.

This study uses bibliometric analysis to rank the universities. In order to calculate their h‐index the numbers of papers and citations in each university were gathered from Web of Science, including the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Authority control dealing with variations in university names ensured the accuracy of each university's number of published journal papers and the subsequent statistics of their citations.

It was found that a high correlation exists between the h‐index ranking generated in this study and that produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The results confirm the validity of the h‐index in the assessment of research performance at the university level.

The h‐index has been used to evaluate research performance at the institutional level in several recent studies; however these studies evaluated institutions' performance only in certain disciplines or in a single country. This paper measures the research performance of universities all over the world, and the applicability of the h‐index at the institutional level was validated by calculating the correlation between the ranking result of the h‐index and the ranking by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

The ranking of top universities in the world has generated increased interest in the factors that enhance university performance. The purpose of this paper is to identify economic and cultural factors that affect the number of top ranking universities in each country.

This paper first identifies the number of universities ranked among the first 300 in the world. Multiple regression is used to determine the relationship between the number of top ranked universities per country and the independent variables of gross domestic product (GDP), corruption perception, press freedom, and power distance.

Regression analysis revealed that the number of top ranked universities per country increased with GDP and lack of corruption, but decreased with decreased press freedom and higher power distance.

This paper paves the way for further research on cultural, social, economic and political factors that affect university excellence. Similar research can also be conducted to investigate the impact of cultural aspects such as power distance and attitudes towards freedom, not just on institutions of higher learning, but on learning organizations in different industries.

This paper draws attention to important external factors that affect university excellence and that are usually overlooked by managers and policy makers. These managers and policy makers may minimize the negative effects that limited GDP ‐ high corruption, reduced press freedom, and high power distance ‐ may have on university performance. Some recommendations are presented to achieve this objective.

The paper describes factors affecting university excellence beyond the internal environment and processes of the university. It considers the economic factors of GDP and other national factors such us corruption levels, power distance, and press freedom. It provides a good understanding of barriers to university excellence in many countries. These barriers may also be pertinent to other institutions where learning is highly significant.

The purpose of this paper is to present an inductive methodology, which supports ranking of entities. Methodology is based on Bayesian latent variable measurement modeling and makes use of assessment across composite indicators to assess internal and external model validity (uncertainty is used in lieu of validity). Proposed methodology is generic and it is demonstrated on a well‐known data set, related to the relative position of a country in a “doing business.”

The methodology is demonstrated using data from the World Banks' “Doing Business 2008” project. A Bayesian latent variable measurement model is developed and both internal and external model uncertainties are considered.

The methodology enables the quantification of model structure uncertainty through comparisons among competing models, nested or non‐nested using both an information theoretic approach and a Bayesian approach. Furthermore, it estimates the degree of uncertainty in the rankings of alternatives.

Analyses are restricted to first‐order Bayesian measurement models.

Overall, the presented methodology contributes to a better understanding of ranking efforts providing a useful tool for those who publish rankings to gain greater insights into the nature of the distinctions they disseminate.