Using multiobjective mathematical programming to link national competitiveness, productivity, and innovation

• Carayannis, E., & Grigoroudis, E. (2012). Linking innovation, productivity, and competitiveness: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 199–218.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Carayannis, E. G., & Gonzalez, E. (2003). Creativity and innovation = competitiveness? When, how, and why? In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 587–606). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: Towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Carayannis, E. G., & Sagi, J. (2001). “New” vs. “old” economy: Insights on competitiveness in the global IT industry. Technovation, 21(8), 501–514.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Carayannis, E. G., & Sagi, J. (2002). Exploiting opportunities of the new economy: Developing nations in support of the ICT industry. Technovation, 22(8), 517–524.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). Innovation and productivity: An analysis of the chemical, textiles and machine tool industries in the US. Research Policy, 19(3), 257–269.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Clark, J., & Guy, K. (1998). Innovation and competitiveness: A review. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(3), 363–395.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Diewert, W. E., & Nakamura, A. O. (2007). The measurement of productivity for nations. In J. J. Heckman & E. E. Leamer (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics, 6 Part A (pp. 4501–4586). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  Google Scholar 

• Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: Harper and Row.

• Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multicriteria optimization. Berlin: Springer.

  Google Scholar 

• Ehrgott, M., & Wiecek, M. M. (2005). Multiobjective programming. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 667–722). New York: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• European Union. (2012). European competiveness report 2012: Reaping the benefits of globalization. European Commission, Brussels.

• Grigoroudis, E., & Siskos, Y. (2002). Preference disaggregation for measuring and analysing customer satisfaction: The MUSA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 143(1), 148–170.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Grigoroudis, E., & Siskos, Y. (2010). Customer satisfaction evaluation: Methods for measuring and implementing service quality. New York: Springer.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Grupp, H., & Schubert, T. (2010). Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance. Research Policy, 39(1), 845–860.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Guan, J. C., Yam, R. C. M., Mok, C. K., & Ma, N. (2006). A study of the relationship between competitiveness and technological innovation capability based on DEA models. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(3), 971–986.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International.

  Google Scholar 

• Hollanders, H. (2009). Measuring innovation: The European Innovation Scoreboard. In E. Villalba (Ed.), Measuring creativity. European Commission Joint Research Centre Luxembourg, pp. 27–40.

• Hollanders, H., & Arundel, A. (2007). Differences in socio-economic conditions and regulatory environment explaining variation in national innovation performance and policy implications. European Commission, Brussels: INNO-Metrics Thematic Paper.

  Google Scholar 

• Hollanders, H., & van Cruysen, A. (2008). Rethinking the European Innovation Scoreboard: A new methodology for 2008–2010. INNO Metrics Thematic Paper, European Commission, Brussels.

• IMD. (2003). World competitiveness yearbook 2003. Institute for Management Development, Lausanne.

• IMD. (2010). World competitiveness yearbook 2010. Institute for Management Development, Lausanne.

• Jansen, J. J. P. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kao, C., Wu, W.-Y., Hsieh, W.-J., Wang, T.-Y., Lin, C., & Chen, L.-H. (2008). Measuring the national competitiveness of Southeast Asian countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 187(2), 613–628.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. London: Harvard University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.

  Google Scholar 

• Kirkwood, C. W. (1997). Strategic decision making: Multi-objective decision analysis with spreadsheets. Belmont: Duxbury Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Krugman, P. (1994). Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 28–44.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mirkin, B. (2011). Core concepts in data analysis: Summarization, correlation and visualization. London: Springer.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Myatt, G. J. (2007). Making sense of data: A practical guide to exploratory data analysis and data mining. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Statistical Working Papers 2005/3, OECD Publications, Paris.

• OECD. (2001). Measuring productivity: Measurement of aggregate and industry-level productivity growth. Paris: OECD Publications.

• Paas, T., & Poltimäe, H. (2010). A comparative analysis of national innovation performance: The Baltic states in the EU context. Working Paper, 78, University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Tartu.

• Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Simon and Schuster.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Pro Inno Europe. (2010). European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2009: Comparative analysis of innovation performance. Enterprise & Industry, Brussels, European Commission.

• Pro Inno Europe. (2011). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011. Enterprise & Industry, Brussels, European Commission.

• Reinert, E. S. (1995). Competitiveness and its predecessors: A 500-year cross-national perspective. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 6(1), 23–42.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Shane, S. A. (2004). \(50^{\rm th}\) Anniversary article: Technological innovation, product development, and entrepreneurship in Management Science. Management Science, 50(2), 133–144.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Multivariate analysis. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• Tofallis, C. (1999). Model building with multiple dependent variables and constraints. The Statistician, 48(3), 371–378.

  Google Scholar 

• WEF. (2012). The global competitiveness report 2012–2013. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

• WEF. (2013). Rebuilding Europe’s competitiveness. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

• Yu, P. L. (1973). A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science, 19(3), 936–946.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yu, P. L. (1985). Multiple criteria decision making: Concepts, techniques and extensions. New York: Plenum Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Zeleny, M. (1974). A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Computers and Operations Research, 1(3–4), 479–496.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw Hill.

  Google Scholar 

Download references