Assessment of Sustainable Socioeconomic Development in European Union Countries

Abstract

There are still debates in the scientific literature about the factors influencing countries’ sustainable socioeconomic development. Therefore, the current article aims at determining the factors of sustainable socioeconomic development and assessing its level in the EU countries. The following methods were employed for the research: an evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA). EDAS was used to reveal which countries have the highest level of sustainable socioeconomic development, and which have the lowest. The ranking was done based on the appraisal score, which is an outcome of EDAS. Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was used for clustering the countries based on the appraisal scores in order to distinguish groups of countries having a similar level of sustainable socioeconomic development. The results revealed that the highest level of sustainable socioeconomic development is in Germany, and the lowest in Portugal. Based on HCA, the countries were divided into three groups. The first cluster’s countries have the weakest sustainable socioeconomic development, and countries assigned to the third cluster have the best. In the current research, the third cluster consists of one country, Germany, which supports the results obtained with the EDAS method, i.e., Germany is the country with the highest level of sustainable socioeconomic development in the EU.

Synergies and Trade-Offs in Reaching the Sustainable Development Goals

“…First, while we are using a global scope matching the global ambition of the agenda, our analysis conceals heterogeneity between countries that is relevant to account for when developing specific policies. Studying progress and causal relationships in select regions with a more similar baseline level of development would be valuable for informing context-sensitive strategies to achieve the SDGs, see e.g., [16,41]. Further research is also needed to understand the impact of different forms of interventions and policies targeting one goal specifically, such as development investments in specific sectors and peacekeeping missions, across a wider set of SDGs, see e.g., [42,43].…”

Tourism SME sustainability social and economic challenges during pandemic: cases of Russian Federation, Georgia and Latvia

“…The global tourism industry has been stopped and concern about overtourism has suddenly been replaced by opposite worry undertourism that can endanger future economies and social aspects of worldwide development [9] Many scholars' studies show cooperation programs are not economically effective, still some researchers see potential for socio-economic development [13] Tourism is one of the most labour-intensive sectors of the economy, and it is among those that are most affected by the pandemic and the pandemic situation pressure is pushing on both social as well as economic sustainability [14,15].Sustainable socio-economic development as such should be based on both the economic as well as social aspects, it must consider the complex balance of incomes and outcomes of resources used [16 ]. As indicated by Skvarciany, Jureviciene, Volskyte, there are not many researchers who investigate socioeconomic development specifically from the economic perspective [17]. Scientists are still discussing, which factors are influencing sustainable socio-economic development [17] The economic and social paradigm of sustainable development in Agenda 21 [18,19] as economic sustainability criteria mention growth, development, productivity, and for social sustainability equity sharing, empowerment, accessibility, participation, cultural identity, institutional stability.…”

“…As indicated by Skvarciany, Jureviciene, Volskyte, there are not many researchers who investigate socioeconomic development specifically from the economic perspective [17]. Scientists are still discussing, which factors are influencing sustainable socio-economic development [17] The economic and social paradigm of sustainable development in Agenda 21 [18,19] as economic sustainability criteria mention growth, development, productivity, and for social sustainability equity sharing, empowerment, accessibility, participation, cultural identity, institutional stability. Socio-economic sustainability includes two sustainability pillarssocial and economic; hence, where social sustainability refers to the improvement of living conditions for current and future generations [20], and economic sustainability refers to the ability of the economy to support and maintain economic growth by efficient natural resource usage.…”

“…Socio-economic sustainability includes two sustainability pillarssocial and economic; hence, where social sustainability refers to the improvement of living conditions for current and future generations [20], and economic sustainability refers to the ability of the economy to support and maintain economic growth by efficient natural resource usage. Combining both pillars, socio-economic sustainability can be described as the ability to ensure economic growth without undermining human interests and to meet their needs without harming nature [17].…”

“…General attributes of sustainable systems in MESMIS (Assessing the Sustainability of Natural Resource Management Systems) framework are social well-being as well as economic resilience, including productivity and profitability, stability of production, stability of supply, risk management, private investment, value creation, reliability, adaptability, self-reliance or so called self-empowerment, and good governance [21,17].…”