Abstract
Decision makers have to analyze both social and economic situation of the cities because of the budget constraint of the governments while considering investment to the cities. In this respect, data envelopment analysis (DEA) has been widely used to determine the efficiency of the cities and to make clear the needs of the cities calling decision making units. In this study, socio-economic ranking of the cities of Turkey is presented by using DEA and linear discriminant analysis and the cities are compared to each other according to the socio-economic development efficiency scores. Then, the highlighted inferences about the cities are presented according to the NUTs-1 classification.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler, N., Yazhemsky, E., & Tarverdyan, R. (2010). A framework to measure the relative socio-economic performance of developing countries. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 44(2), 73–88.
Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39(10), 1261–1264.
Andersen, T. R., Hollingsworth, K. B., & Inman, L. B. (2002). The fixed weighting nature of a cross evaluation model. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 18(1), 249–255.
Atan, M., Özgür, E., & Güler, H. (2004). Comparison of development levels of cities with multivariate statistical analyses and DEA. Gazi University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 6(2), 25–42.
Çakmak, E., & Örkçü, H. H. (2016). The evaluation of efficiency of provinces in Turkey by socio-economic main indicators using data envelopment analysis. Karabük University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 1, 6.
Chang, D. S., & Kuo, Y. C. (2008). An approach for the two-group discriminant analysis: An application of DEA. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 47, 970–981.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.
Fisher, R. A. (1938). The statistical utilization of multiple measurements. Annals of Eugenics, 8(4), 376–386.
Golany, B., & Thore, S. (1997). The economic and social performance of nations: Efficiency and returns to scale. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 31(3), 191–204.
Gonçalves, A. C., Almeida, M. V. R., Lins, M. P. E., & Samanez, C. P. (2013). Canonical correlation analysis in the definition of weight restrictions for data envelopment analysis. Journal of Applied Statistics, 40(5), 1032–1043.
Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kocher, M. G., Luptacik, M., & Sutter, M. (2006). Measuring productivity of research in economics: A cross-country study using DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 40(4), 314–332.
OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey. (2016). http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-surveys-turkey-2016_eco_surveys-tur-2016-en.
Örkçü, H. H., & Bal, H. (2007). Data envelopment analysis approach to two-group classification problems and an experimental comparison with some classification models. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 36(2), 169–180.
Örkçü, H. H., & Bal, H. (2012). A new approach to cross efficiency in data envelopment analysis and performance evaluation of Turkey cities. Gazi University Journal of Science, 25(1), 107–117.
Poldaru, R., & Roots, J. (2014). A PCA–DEA approach to measure the quality of life in Estonian counties. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48(1), 65–73.
Poveda, A. C. (2011). Economic development and growth in Colombia: An empirical analysis with super-efficiency DEA and panel data models. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 45(4), 154–164.
Premachandra, I. M. (2001). A note on DEA vs principal component analysis: An improvement to Joe Zhu’s approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 132, 553–560.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. Economic and Social Indicators. http://www.mod.gov.tr/Pages/EconomicandSocialIndicators.aspx.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. Socio-economic rankings of development of provinces and regions in Turkey. General Directorate of Regional Development, Ankara, Turkey.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock. TRC Southeastern Anatolia region agriculture master plan.http://www.tarim.gov.tr/SGB/TARYAT/Belgeler/bolge_master_plan/TRC_GDAMP.pdf.
Şengül, Ü., Eslemian, S., & Eren, M. (2013). Economic activities of regions of level 2 according to statistical regional units classification (NUTS) in Turkey determining by using DEA and tobit model application. Journal of Management Sciences, 11(21), 75–99.
Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extension. In R. H. Silkman (Ed.), Measuring efficiency: An assessment of data envelopment analysis (pp. 73–105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sinuany-Stern, Z., & Friedman, L. (1998). DEA and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units. European Journal of Operational Research, 111, 470–478.
Zhu, J. (1998). Data envelopment analysis vs principal component analysis: An illustrative study of economic performance of Chinese cities. European Journal of Operational Research, 111, 50–61.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ünsal, M.G., Nazman, E. Investigating socio-economic ranking of cities in Turkey using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Ann Oper Res 294, 281–295 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2748-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2748-0