SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Global Logistics Performance Before and After COVID-19: A Longitudinal Cluster-Based Analysis Using LPI Data

COVID-19 Öncesi ve Sonrası Küresel Lojistik Performans: LPI Verileriyle Boylamsal Kümeleme Analizi

Hümeyra Güneysu(ISTANBUL GELISIM UNIVERSITY, ACADEMY OF APPLIED SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS PR. (PAID))0009-0008-5532-6688
Mehdi Safaeı(ISTANBUL GELISIM UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-3740-9486
Pages
174–198
Publication Date
2026-10-10
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings describe relative persistence and heterogeneous score changes, not a causal pandemic effect.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:COVID-19 created major pressure on global supply chains, but it remains uncertain whether this coincided with changes in countries’ logistics performance groups.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study investigates this issue using World Bank Logistics Performance Index data for 2016, 2018 and 2023.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings describe relative persistence and heterogeneous score changes, not a causal pandemic effect.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Lojistik Performans Endeksi · K-Ortalamalar kümeleme · COVID-19

Abstract

COVID-19 created major pressure on global supply chains, but it remains uncertain whether this coincided with changes in countries’ logistics performance groups. This study investigates this issue using World Bank Logistics Performance Index data for 2016, 2018 and 2023. K-Means clustering was separately carried out on six LPI dimensions for 160 countries in both 2016 and 2018, and 139 countries in 2023. The 2023 edition reflects late-2022 survey responses. For transition analysis, 154 countries were matched in 2016–2018 and 134 in 2018–2023. In the primary three-cluster specification, 130 (84.42%) and 112 (83.58%), respectively, stayed in their former group; the latter period included 15 upward and seven downward movements. Silhouette favored two clusters, and alternative specifications changed some memberships. Five component means improved in the balanced 129-country panel in 2018–2023, while timeliness declined. The findings describe relative persistence and heterogeneous score changes, not a causal pandemic effect.

Özet

COVID-19 salgını küresel tedarik zincirleri üzerinde ağır baskı oluşturmuştur; ancak bu durumun ülkelerin lojistik performans gruplarındaki değişimlerle örtüşüp örtüşmediği belirsizdir. Bu çalışma, 2016, 2018 ve 2023 Dünya Bankası Lojistik Performans Endeksi verilerini kullanarak bu soruyu incelemektedir. Altı LPI boyutu için K-Ortalamalar kümeleme analizi 2016 ve 2018 yıllarında 160’ar ülkeye, 2023 yılında ise 139 ülkeye ayrı ayrı uygulanmıştır. 2023 raporu, 2022 sonlarında gerçekleştirilen anketin yanıtlarını yansıtmaktadır. Geçiş analizi için 2016–2018 döneminde 154, 2018–2023 döneminde 134 ülke eşleştirilmiştir. Temel üç kümeli modelde sırasıyla 130 (%84,42) ve 112 (%83,58) ülke aynı grupta kalmıştır; ikinci dönemde 15 yükseliş ve yedi düşüş görülmüştür. Silüet ölçütü iki kümeyi desteklemiş, alternatif model seçimleri bazı üyelikleri değiştirmiştir. Dengeli 129 ülkelik panelde 2018–2023 arasında beş boyutun ortalaması yükselirken zamanında teslim puanı düşmüştür. Bulgular, göreli sürekliliği ve farklılaşan puan değişimlerini betimlemekte; pandeminin nedensel etkisini belirlememektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güneysu, H., Safaeı, M. (2026). Global Logistics Performance Before and After COVID-19: A Longitudinal Cluster-Based Analysis Using LPI Data. Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 174–198. https://doi.org/10.59293/anadoluiid.1991495

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Altıntaş, F. F. (2022), “Examination of Countries in the Scope of Logistics Performance Index with K-Means Cluster Analysis”, Journal of Yaşar University, 17(68): 878-891.
  2. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Ulybina, D., Wiederer, C. (2023), Connecting to Compete 2023: Trade Logistics in an Uncertain Global Economy—The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators, World Bank, Washington, DC.
  3. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Wiederer, C., Shepherd, B., Raj, A., Dairabayeva, K., Kiiski, T. (2018), Connecting to Compete 2018: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy—The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators, World Bank, Washington, DC.
  4. Arvis, J.-F., Saslavsky, D., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Busch, C., Raj, A., Naula, T. (2016), Connecting to Compete 2016: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy—The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://wb-lpi-media.s3.amazonaws.com/LPI_Report_2016.pdf, (31. 08. 2026).
  5. Delahoz-Domínguez, E., Mendoza-Mendoza, A., Visbal-Cadavid, D. (2025), “Clustering of Countries Through UMAP and K-Means: A Multidimensional Analysis of Development, Governance, and Logistics”, Logistics, 9(3): 108.
  6. Erşen, D., Aslan, A. (2026), “G7 Ülkelerinde Küreselleşme, Enerji Tüketimi ve Hava Taşımacılığının CO₂ Emisyonları Üzerindeki Etkileri: Panel Veri Analizi”, Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 10(1): 42–59.
  7. Gürler, H. E., Özçalıcı, M., Pamucar, D. (2024), “Determining Criteria Weights with Genetic Algorithms for Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: The Case of Logistics Performance Index Rankings of European Union Countries”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 91: 101758.
  8. Haralambides, H., Akdamar, E., Akgül, E. F. (2026), “Revealing Patterns of Technology and Commerce: Evidence from Digital Competitiveness and Logistics Performance”, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 42(2): 69-83.
  9. Jonasíková, D., Konečný, V., Zuzaniak, M. (2025), “Evolution of Logistics Performance Index and Their Structure in Selected Countries”, Transportation Research Procedia, 87: 217-231.
  10. Kabak, Ö., Önsel Ekici, Ş., Ülengin, F. (2020), “Analyzing Two-Way Interaction Between the Competitiveness and Logistics Performance of Countries”, Transport Policy, 98: 238-246.
  11. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Simic, V., Baysal, Z., Pamucar, D. (2024), “The Alternative Ranking Using Two-Step Logarithmic Normalization Method for Benchmarking the Supply Chain Performance of Countries”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 92: 101822.
  12. Lukoszová, X. (2023), “Changes in Logistics Performance Indexes of European Union Countries for 2023 to the Period Before the Covid-19 Pandemic”, 17th International Scientific Conference INPROFORUM: Challenges and Opportunities in the Digital World: 71–77, České Budějovice, Czechia.
  13. MacQueen, J. (1967), “Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations”, Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1: 281-297, University of California Press, Berkeley.
  14. Martí, L., Martín, J. C., Puertas, R. (2017), “A DEA-Logistics Performance Index”, Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1): 169-192.
  15. Notteboom, T., Pallis, T., Rodrigue, J.-P. (2021), “Disruptions and Resilience in Global Container Shipping and Ports: The COVID-19 Pandemic versus the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis”, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 23(2): 179-210.
  16. OECD (2020), “COVID-19 and International Trade: Issues and Actions”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), Policy Paper.
  17. Özdil, Z., Kartal, C., Acar Karaboğa, M. (2025), “Analysis of Logistics Performance of EU 27 Countries with LOPCOW and EDAS Methods”, Third Sector Social Economic Review, 60(1): 681–693.
  18. Pehlivan, P., Aslan, A. I., David, S., Bacalum, S. (2024), “Determination of Logistics Performance of G20 Countries Using Quantitative Decision-Making Techniques”, Sustainability, 16(5): 1852.
  19. Pellegrino, R., Gaudenzi, B. (2026), “Supply Chain Resilience as a Viable Way to Cope with Disruptions: An Empirical Analysis of Italian Firms”, Review of Managerial Science, 20(5): 1459–1489.
  20. Queiroz, M. M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Fosso Wamba, S. (2022), “Impacts of Epidemic Outbreaks on Supply Chains: Mapping a Research Agenda amid the COVID-19 Pandemic through a Structured Literature Review”, Annals of Operations Research, 319(1): 1159-1196.
  21. Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987), “Silhouettes: A Graphical Aid to the Interpretation and Validation of Cluster Analysis”, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20: 53-65.
  22. Stević, Ž., Ersoy, N., Başar, E. E., Baydaş, M. (2024), “Addressing the Global Logistics Performance Index Rankings with Methodological Insights and an Innovative Decision Support Framework”, Applied Sciences, 14(22): 10334.
  23. Ulkhaq, M. M. (2023), “Clustering Countries According to the Logistics Performance Index”, JATISI: Jurnal Teknik Informatika dan Sistem Informasi, 10(1): 1010-1018.
  24. UNCTAD (2021), Review of Maritime Transport 2021, United Nations, Geneva.
  25. Visbal-Cadavid, D., Delahoz-Domínguez, E., Mendoza-Mendoza, A. (2025), “A Multiple Factor Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering of Global Logistics Governance and Development”, Decision Analytics Journal, 15: 100579.
  26. World Bank (2026), The New Logistics Performance Indicators 2.0 (LPI 2.0): Methodology and User Guide, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5bd796fe-7716-4718-9466-375ba28a66e8/content, (31. 08. 2026).
  27. Yardımcı-Coşkun, İ. (2026), “Towards Sustainable Logistics: A Clustering-Based Analysis of Global LPI and EPI Scores with a Focus on European Nations”, European Transport Research Review, 18: 36.
  28. Yıldız, A., Aydoğan, K., Kartum, G. (2020), “Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Lojistik Performans Endeksindeki Konumunun Kümeleme Analizi ile Araştırılması”, Turkish Studies–Social, 15(3): 1659–1679.