Document Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Department of Entrepreneurship, Corporate and Spatial Economics, Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

2 Department of Law, Donetsk Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Mariupol, Ukraine

3 Vinnytsia Humanitarian and Pedagogical College, Faculty of Philology, Communal Higher Education Institution, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

4 Department of Psychology, University of Customs and Finance, Dnipro, Ukraine

5 Department Economic Theory, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

6 Vinnytsia Institute of Trade and Economics of Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

Abstract

In the context of globalization of economic development processes, the issue of determining the level of public welfare of economic agents is particularly burning. The object of ehis study is the process of assessing welfare of the economic entities system. The subject of the study is the instrumental and mathematical aspects of modeling and measuring the public welfare. The aim of the work is to develop the mathematical model for measuring the welfare of Ukraine using methods of intellectual analysis, namely, the theory of fuzzy sets. The output of the study is a new approach to objective estimation of public welfare of the state. It is proposed to assess the level of public welfare of the state on the basis of a mathematical model developed on the basis of the theory of fuzzy sets. Input factors of the model are international indices and indicators, such as Index of Economic Freedom, Global Peace Index, Democracy Index, Corruption Perceptions Index, Human Development Index, Prosperity Index, Global Competitiveness Index as well as an indicator that reflects the characteristic property of the Ukrainian economy, namely the minimum living wage. Developed mathematical model for assessment of the level of public welfare of Ukraine and made a prediction of the indicator by 2024 on the basis of the above indices. The results of the study allowed us to establish that the level of public welfare (units) in Ukraine on a scale from 0 to 100 will be equal to 25, 17, 32, 26, and 28 in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, accordingly.

Graphical Abstract

Highlights

  • Proposed a new approach to an objective estimation of the public welfare level of the state, which is based on the intellectual analysis;
  • The mathematical model of estimation of the level of public welfare of Ukraine was constructed and prediction of the obtained indicator by 2024 was made;
  • On the basis of functional dependencies developed, key factors of ensuring public welfare of Ukraine were identified;
  • The level of public welfare can be determined linguistically and take into account both quantitative and qualitative indicators of influence.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Arrow, K.J., (1951). Social choice and individual values. New Haven. New York. (99 pages).

Banerjee, A.; Duflo, E.; Kremer, M., (2016). The influence of randomized controlled trials on development economics research and on development policy. Stat Ec. State W. Conf. Proc., 11(1): 1-76 (76 pages).

Babajanian, B.V., (2008). Social welfare in post-soviet Armenia: from socialist to liberal and informal. P.-Sov. Af., 24(4): 383-404 (22 pages). 

Bell, D., (1976). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New-York, Basic Books (52 pages).

Byrdyn, A., (2008). Goals and criteria for socio-economic development of the region. St. buil., 1: 1-10 (10 pages). (in Ukrainian).

Campbell, A.; Philip, E.; Willard, L., (1976). The quality of american life: perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage (600 pages).

Carley, M.; Johnston, D., (1981). Social measurement and social indicators. An. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. S., 453: 237-253 (17 pages).

Chatterjee, S.; Gibson, J.; Rioja, F., (2018). Public investment, debt, and welfare: a quantitative analysis. J. Macroecon., 56: 204-217 (13 pages).

Diener, E.; Lucas, R.; Oishi, S., (2002). Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and life satisfaction. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2 ed.), 63-73 (11 pages).  

Disney, R.; Luo. G., (2017). The right to buy public housing in Britain: a welfare analysis. J. Hous. Econ., 35: 51-68 (17 pages).

Democracy Index, (2017). Economist intelligence unit.

Easterlin, R., (2001). Income and happiness: towards a unified theory. Econ. J., 111: 465-484 (20 pages).

Frey, B.; Stutzer, A., (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? J. Econ. Lit., 40: 402-435 (34 pages).

Griffin,  J.P., (1998). Happiness. Rout. Encyc. Phil., 4: 226-229 (4 pages).

Hafer, R.W., (2017). New estimates on the relationship between IQ, economic growth and welfare. Intell., 61: 92-101 (10 pages).

Human Development Report, (2004). Cultural liberty in today's diverse world. United Nations Development Program.

HDII, (2018). Human development indices and indicators. UNDP.

Kibler, E.; Salmivaara, V.; Stenholm, P.; Terjesen. S., (2018). The evaluative legitimacy of social entrepreneurship in capitalist welfare systems. J. World B., 53(6): 944-957 (14 pages). 

Kirilenko, V.; Strisinets, M.; Farion, M., (2007). Myrdal: a synthesis of institutionalism and the swedish school. (in Ukrainian).

Koziuk, V.; Dluhopolskyi, O., (2018). Resource curse: the role of weak institutions and cronysectors. Ideol. Pol. J., 1(9): 68-102 (35 pages). 

Kozlovski, S.; Mazur, H.; Vdovenko, N.; Shepel, T.; Kozlovskyi, V., (2018). Modeling and forecasting the level of state stimulation of agricultural production in Ukraine based on the theory of fuzzy logic. Mont. J.  Econ., 14(3): 37-53 (17 pages). 

Kozlovskyi, S.; Khadzhynov, I.; Lavrov, R.; Skydan, O.; Ivanyuta, N.; Varshavska, N., (2019). Economic-mathematical modeling and forecasting of competitiveness level of agricultural sector of Ukraine by means of theory of fuzzy sets under conditions of integration into european market. Inter. J. Rec. Techn.  Engin., 8(4): 5316-5323 (8 pages).

Kropivko, M., (2016). The theory of public well-being: conceptual approaches to the development of households. Ukr. J. App. Econ., 1(1): 114-121 (8 pages). (in Ukrainian).

Law of Ukraine, (2-017). On state social standards and state social guarantees. № 2017, from 05.10.2000. (in Ukrainian).

List, C.; Goodin, R., (2001). Epistemic democracy: generalizing the condorcet jury theorem. J. Pol. Phil., 9(3): 277-306 (30 pages).

LPI, (2018). Official site of legatum institute. The legatum prosperity index.

Lundberg, O.; Yngwe, M.; Bergqvist, K.; Sjöberg, O., (2015).  Welfare states and health inequalities. Pol. Politiq., 41(2): pp. 26-33 (7 pages).

Nikolenko, L.; Jurakovskiy, E.; Ivanyuta, N.; Andronik, O.; Sharkovska, S., (2018). Investment policy of governance of economic security of agrarian sector of Ukraine on the basis of the theory of fuzzy logics. Mont. J.  Econ., 14(4): 125-140 (16 pages).

Michalik, J.; (2011). Citizens with disability – crisis of the welfare state in Europe? Soc. Wel. Interdis. Appr., 1(1): 8-14 (6 pages).

Minfin, (2019), (2019). Living wage in Ukraine 2019. Site of analytical and financial information (in Ukrainian).

Menegaki, A.N.; Tugcu, C.T., (2017). Energy consumption and sustainable economic welfare in G7 countries; A comparison with the conventional nexus. Renew. Sustanable Energy. Rev., 69: 892-901 (10 pages).

Oueslati, W., (2015). Growth and welfare effects of environmental tax reform and public spending policy. Econ. Model., 45: 1-13 (12 pages).

Panoshichen, Y.; Kozachko, O.; Panoshichena, I., (2010). Fuzzy model for assessing the creditworthiness of individuals-borrowers of commercial banks. Vis. HNU., 1(t2): 161-168 (8 pages). (in Ukrainian).

Pareto, V., (1935). The mind and society [Trattato di sociologia generale]. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Pezzey, J., (1992). Sustainable development concepts. An economic analysis. The World bank. Washington. (92 pages).

Pigou, A., (1932). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan (837 pages).

Rimashevskaia, N., (2008). Gender stereotypes and the logic of social relation. Russ. Soc. Sci. Rev., 49(3): 35-48 (14 pages).

Rotshtein, A.; Shtovba, S., (2009). Modeling of the human operator reliability with the aid of the sugeno fuzzy knowledge base. Autom. Rem. Cont., 70: 163-169 (7 pages).

Stukalo, N.; Simakhova, A.; Shmarlouskaya, H.; (2019). Special features of formation of the source base for economic socialization. Prob. Perspec. Manage., 17(3): 271-279 (8 pages).

Smith, A., (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the welfare of nations. Metalibri, book I, II, III, IV and V. (745 pages).

Thompson, N.M.; Widmar, N.L.; Schutz, M.M.; Cole, J.B.; Wolf, C.A., (2017). Economic considerations of breeding for polled dairy cows versus dehorning in the United States. J. Dairy Sci., 100(6): 4941-4952 (12 pages).

UIR, (2019). Ukrainian institute for analysis and management of policy. Ukraine in international ratings. (in Ukrainian).

WEF, (2019). The global competitiveness report. World economic forum.

Weizsacke, E.U.; Wijkman, A., (2018). Come on! Capitalism, short-termism, population and destruction of the planet – A report to the club of Rome. Springer Science+Business Medis LLC, New York (220 pages).

Yousuf, A.; Haddad, H.; Pakurar, M.; Kozlovskyi, S.; Mohylova, A.; Shlapak, O.; Janos, F., (2019). The effect of operational flexibility on performance: a field study on small and medium-sized industrial companies in Jordan. Mont. J.  Econ.,  15(1): 47-60 (13 pages).


Letters to Editor


GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

CAPTCHA Image