Central European Business Review X:X | DOI: 10.18267/j.cebr.408

Comparative Analysis of the Logistics Performance Index of Central and Eastern European Countries: A Hybrid LOPCOW-RAWEC Model

Emre Kadir Özekenci
Cag University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Mersin-Türkiye. E-mail: ekadirozekenci@cag.edu.tr

This study evaluates the logistics performance index of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries using a hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model. It examines the logistics performance of CEE countries from 2010 to 2023. The countries included in this study are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Ukraine. The assessment of the logistics performance is conducted based on six criteria determined through a literature review: customs, infrastructure, international shipments, logistics competencies, quality, timeliness, and tracking and tracing. Data is obtained from the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) reports published by the World Bank. The criteria weights are determined using the Logarithmic Percentage Change-driven Objective Weighting (LOPCOW) method, while the countries' logistics performance is ranked based on the Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) method. Findings from the LOPCOW indicate that infrastructure, timeliness, and tracking and tracing are the most significant criteria from 2010 to 2023. The RAWEC analysis reveals that Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Estonia performed the highest logistics performance between 2010 and 2023. Additionally, sensitivity and comparative analyses were conducted to ensure the robustness of the findings. The results of this research are expected to offer valuable insights into the logistics performance of CEE countries over the past several decades.
Implications for Central European audience: CEE should prioritize the implementation of advanced tracking and tracing systems to enhance supply chain visibility and operational efficiency. Establishing partnerships with technology providers to adopt AI and IoT solutions will enable real-time tracking and help quickly address delays.

Keywords: LPI; CEE; MCDM; LOPCOW; RAWEC

Received: January 26, 2025; Revised: March 31, 2025; Accepted: April 14, 2025; Prepublished online: June 20, 2025 

Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Akbulut, E. A., Ulutaº, A., Yürüyen, A. A., & Balalan, S. (2024). Hibrit bir ÇKKV modeli ile G20 ülkelerinin lojistik performansinin ölçülmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 12(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v12i1.2300 Go to original source...
    2. Arvis, J. F., Mustra, M. A., Panzer, J., Ojala, L., & Naula, T. (2007). Connecting to compete 2007: Trade logistics in the global economy-The logistics performance index and its indicators. World Bank.
    3. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Ulybina, D., & Wiederer, C. (2023). Connecting to compete 2023: Trade logistics in the global economy-The logistics performance index and its indicators. World Bank. Go to original source...
    4. Arvis, J. F., Ulybina, D., & Wiederer, C. (2024). From survey to big data: The new logistics performance index (Policy Research Working Paper Series 10772). World Bank. Go to original source...
    5. Bhaskar, A. S., & Khan, A. (2022). Comparative analysis of hybrid MCDM methods in material selection for dental applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 209: 118268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118268 Go to original source...
    6. Biswas, A., Gazi, K. H., Sankar, P. M., & Ghosh, A. (2025). A decision-making framework for sustainable highway restaurant site selection: AHP-TOPSIS approach based on the fuzzy numbers. Spectrum of operational research, 2(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor2120256 Go to original source...
    7. Bugarèiæ, F. ®., Skvarciany, V., & Stani¹iæ, N. (2020). Logistics performance index in international trade: case of Central and Eastern European and Western Balkans countries. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), 452-459. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.12802 Go to original source...
    8. Ceballos, B., Lamata, M. T., & Pelta, D. A. (2016). A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 315-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1 Go to original source...
    9. Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., & Pamucar, D. (2024). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 237: 121660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660 Go to original source...
    10. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112: 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690 Go to original source...
    11. Göçer, A., Özpeynirci, Ö., & Semiz, M. (2022). Logistics performance index-driven policy development: An application to Turkey. Transport policy, 124, 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.03.007 Go to original source...
    12. Hadzikadunic, A., Stevic, Z., Badi, I., & Roso, V. (2023). Evaluating the logistics performance index of European Union Countries: An integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach utilizing the Bonferroni Operator. International Journal of Knowledge and Innovation Studies, 1(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.56578/ijkis010104 Go to original source...
    13. Chejarla, K. C., Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2022). MCDM applications in logistics performance evaluation: A literature review. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 29(3-4), 274-297. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1774 Go to original source...
    14. Isik, O., Aydin, Y., & Kosaroglu, S. M. (2020). The assessment of the logistics performance index of CEE countries with the new combination of SV and MABAC methods. LogForum, 16(4), 549-559. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.504 Go to original source...
    15. Ju, M., Miroviæ, I., Petroviæ, V., Erceg, ®. & Steviæ, ®. (2024). A Novel Approach for the Assessment of Logistics Performance Index of EU Countries. Economics, 18(1): 20220074. https://doi.org/10.1515/econ-2022-0074 Go to original source...
    16. Martí, L., Puertas, R., & Garcia, L. (2014). The importance of the logistics performance index in international trade. Applied Economics, 46(24), 2982-2992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.916394 Go to original source...
    17. Me¹iæ, A., Mi¹kiæ, S., Steviæ, ®., & Mastilo, Z. (2022). Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics, 10(1), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2022-0004 Go to original source...
    18. Mi¹kiæ, S., Steviæ, ®., Tadiæ, S., Alkhayyat, A., & Krstiæ, M. (2023). Assessment of the LPI of the EU countries using MCDM model with an emphasis on the importance of criteria. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 11(3), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2023.132501 Go to original source...
    19. Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013 Go to original source...
    20. Ojala, L., & Celebi, D. (2015). The World Bank's Logistics Performance Index (LPI) and drivers of logistics performance. In Proceedings of MAC-EMM (pp. 3-30). OECD.
    21. Özekenci, E. K. (2023). Assessing the logistics market performance of developing countries by SWARA-CRITIC based CoCoSo methods. LogForum, 19(3), 375-394 . https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2023.857 Go to original source...
    22. Özekenci, E. K. (2024). Assessment of the Logistics Performance Index of OPEC Countries with ENTROPY, CRITIC and LOPCOW-based EDAS Methods. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 9(2), 260-279. https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2024.1339285 Go to original source...
    23. Özekenci, E. K. (2025). A Hybrid MPSI-Extended AROMAN Decision-making Model for Assessing Green Logistics Performance: The Case of Asia-Pacific Countries. Logforum 21(1), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.001154 Go to original source...
    24. Polat, M., Kara, K., & Acar, A. Z. (2023). Competitiveness based logistics performance index: An empirical analysis in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 24(2-3), 97-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/178359172311858 Go to original source...
    25. Pramanik, P. K. D., Biswas, S., Pal, S., Marinkoviæ, D., & Choudhury, P. (2021). A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for resource selection in mobile crowd computing. Symmetry, 13(9), 1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13091713 Go to original source...
    26. Pu¹ka, A., ©tiliæ, A., Pamuèar, D., Bo¾aniæ, D., & Nedeljkoviæ, M. (2024). Introducing a Novel multi-criteria Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) model. MethodsX, 12: 102628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102628 Go to original source...
    27. Reilly, B. (2002). Social choice in the South Seas: Electoral innovation and the Borda count in the Pacific Island countries. International Political Science Review, 23(4), 355-372. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1601538 Go to original source...
    28. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., & Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport policy, 68, 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007 Go to original source...
    29. Sampathkumar, S., Augustin, F., Kaabar, M. K., & Yue, X. G. (2023). An integrated intuitionistic dense fuzzy Entropy-COPRAS-WASPAS approach for manufacturing robot selection. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 15(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16878132231160265 Go to original source...
    30. Sumrit, D., & Keeratibhubordee, J. (2025). Risk Assessment Framework for Reverse Logistics in Waste Plastic Recycle Industry: A Hybrid Approach Incorporating FMEA Decision Model with AHP-LOPCOW-ARAS Under Trapezoidal Fuzzy Set. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 8(1), 42-81. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame812025984 Go to original source...
    31. Topal, A., & Ulutas, A. (2024). Evaluating the logistics performance of G8 nations using multi-criteria decision-making models. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 3(3), 150-158. https://doi.org/10.56578/jimd030302 Go to original source...
    32. Ulutaº, A., & Karaköy, Ç. (2019). An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model. Economics and Business Review, 5(4), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2019.4.3 Go to original source...
    33. Wieser, T., Grieveson, R., & Holzner, M. (2024). A Stronger CEE for a Stronger Europe. Policy Notes and Reports 79. Retrieved from https://wiiw.ac.at/a-stronger-cee-for-a-stronger-europe-dlp-6916.pdf

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return