SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Assessing Logistics Market Performance Through Integrated LODECI–ALPAS Methods: The Case of BRICS+ Countries and Türkiye

Entegre LODECI–ALPAS Yöntemleriyle Lojistik Pazar Performansının Değerlendirilmesi: BRICS+ Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Örneği

Muhammed Karataş(Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Bolvadin Uygulamalı Bilimler Fakültesi)0000-0002-3738-7486
Tuğrul Bayat(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-1491-6178
Yusuf Karaca(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2931-2289
Pages
303–316
Publication Date
2026-10-21
🏛️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)

Taken together, the results underline the role of maritime connectivity and the business environment in the logistics competitiveness of emerging markets.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:For emerging markets, logistics performance depends on more than domestic transport capacity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study therefore examines the logistics market performance of BRICS+ countries and Türkiye over the 2023–2025 period.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Taken together, the results underline the role of maritime connectivity and the business environment in the logistics competitiveness of emerging markets.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023–2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Lojistik Pazar Performansı · Düzenli Hat Deniz Taşımacılığı Bağlantısallığı · LODECI

Abstract

For emerging markets, logistics performance depends on more than domestic transport capacity. Access to liner shipping networks, business conditions, and international logistics opportunities also affect how these countries connect to global trade. The study therefore examines the logistics market performance of BRICS+ countries and Türkiye over the 2023–2025 period. The model uses four dimensions of the Agility Emerging Markets Logistics Index: Domestic Logistics Opportunities, International Logistics Opportunities, Business Fundamentals, and Digital Readiness. The Liner Shipping Connectivity Index is also included to capture maritime connectivity. Criterion weights are calculated with LODECI, and country rankings are obtained using ALPAS. LSCI has the highest weight in each year. Business Fundamentals and International Logistics Opportunities follow, while Domestic Logistics Opportunities receives a more moderate weight and Digital Readiness remains at the bottom of the weighting order. China and India take the first two positions in the country rankings. The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia complete the top five, whereas Türkiye stays in sixth place throughout the period. Taken together, the results underline the role of maritime connectivity and the business environment in the logistics competitiveness of emerging markets.

Özet

Gelişmekte olan pazarlarda lojistik performans yalnızca yerel taşımacılık kapasitesine bağlı değildir. Düzenli hat denizyolu taşımacılığı ağlarına erişim, iş koşulları ve uluslararası lojistik fırsatları da bu ülkelerin küresel ticaretle bağlantısını etkilemektedir. Bu bakış açısıyla çalışma, BRICS+ ülkeleri ile Türkiye’nin 2023–2025 dönemindeki lojistik pazar performansını incelemektedir. Çalışmada, Agility Gelişmekte Olan Pazarlar Lojistik Endeksi’nde yer alan Yerel Lojistik Fırsatları, Uluslararası Lojistik Fırsatları, İş Temelleri ve Dijital Hazırlık boyutları kullanılmıştır. Denizcilik bağlantısını temsil etmek amacıyla Düzenli Hat Taşımacılığı Bağlantı Endeksi de analize dahil edilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıkları LODECI yöntemiyle hesaplanırken, ülke sıralamaları ALPAS yöntemi kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. LSCI her yıl en yüksek ağırlığa sahip kriter olmuştur. Bunu İş Temelleri ve Uluslararası Lojistik Fırsatları izlerken, Yerel Lojistik Fırsatları daha orta düzeyde bir ağırlığa sahip olmuş ve Dijital Hazırlık en düşük ağırlıklı kriter olarak kalmıştır. Ülke sıralamalarında Çin ve Hindistan ilk iki sırada yer almıştır. Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri, Suudi Arabistan ve Endonezya ilk beşi tamamlarken, Türkiye dönem boyunca altıncı sıradaki yerini korumuştur. Bu bulgular, denizyolu taşımacılığı bağlantısı ile iş ortamının kalitesinin gelişmekte olan pazarlardaki lojistik rekabet gücünün önemli boyutları olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karataş, M., Bayat, T., Karaca, Y. (2026). Assessing Logistics Market Performance Through Integrated LODECI–ALPAS Methods: The Case of BRICS+ Countries and Türkiye. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1971948

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Agility. (2024). Agility emerging markets logistics index 2024. Retrieved March 10, 2026, from https://emergingmarketsindex.agility.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Agility-Emerging-Markets- Logistics-Index-2024-EN.pdf
  2. Agility. (2025). Agility emerging markets logistics index 2025. Retrieved March 10, 2026, from https://emergingmarketsindex.agility.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Agility-Emerging-Markets- Logistics-Index-2025.pdf
  3. Agility. (2026). Agility emerging markets index 2026. Retrieved March 10, 2026, from https://emergingmarketsindex.agility.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Agility-Emerging-Markets-Index- 2026-Final.pdf
  4. Akbulut, E. A., Ulutaş, A., Yürüyen, A. A., & Balalan, S. (2024). Hibrit bir ÇKKV modeli ile G20 ülkelerinin lojistik performansının ölçülmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v12i1.2300
  5. Akçakaya, E. D. U. (2025). BRICS-T ülkelerinin lojistik performanslarının MEREC ve MABAC yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Sürdürülebilirlik, Yönetim & Ekonomi Dergisi, 1(2), 129–150. https://izlik.org/JA65KW37HF
  6. Akpa, E. O. (2022). Global trade: Testing persistence in global shipping based on the Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI). South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 20(2), 127–139.
  7. Al-Ababneh, H. A., Dumanska, I., Derkach, E., Sokhetska, A., & Kemarska, L. (2021). Integration of logistics systems of developing countries into international logistics channels. Acta Logistica, 8(4), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.22306/al.v8i4.234
  8. Atacan, C., Kayıran, B., & Açık, A. (2022). Impact of liner shipping connectivity on container traffic in Turkish ports. Transactions on Maritime Science, 11(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.7225/toms.v11.n02.001
  9. Barykin, S. E., Kapustina, I. V., Korchagina, E. V., Sergeev, S. M., Yadykin, V. K., Abdimomynova, A., & Stepanova, D. (2021). Digital logistics platforms in the BRICS countries: Comparative analysis and development prospects. Sustainability, 13(20), Article 11228. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011228
  10. Božanić, D., Milić, A., Tešić, D., Salabun, W., & Pamučar, D. (2021). D numbers–FUCOM–fuzzy RAFSI model for selecting the group of construction machines for enabling mobility. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210318047B
  11. Bulut, E., & Abacıoğlu, S. (2025). How criteria weights influence performance in evaluating logistic productivity: An application in the Emerging Markets Logistics Index. Verimlilik Dergisi, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1518693
  12. Canbay, Ş. (2024). The analysis of relationships between global shipping networks and foreign trade volumes in developing countries. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 17, Article 101242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2024.101242
  13. Chen, Y.-C., & Hasan, M. K. (2023). Impacts of liner shipping connectivity and global competitiveness on logistics performance: The mediating role of the quality of port and infrastructure. Transport, 38(2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2023.19372
  14. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & supply chain management (5th ed.). Pearson UK.
  15. D’Aleo, V., & Sergi, B. S. (2017). Does logistics influence economic growth? The European experience. Management Decision, 55(8), 1613–1628. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2016-0670
  16. Del Rosal, I., & Moura, T. G. Z. (2022). The effect of shipping connectivity on seaborne containerised export flows. Transport Policy, 118, 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.01.020
  17. Demirbaş, M., Üre, S., Demir, O., Karaköy, Ç., & Ulutaş, A. (2024). The relationship between financial development and Logistics Performance Index: A panel ARDL approach in emerging markets. Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences, 2(1), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.31181/sems21202424c
  18. Durmaz, A., & Açık, A. (2024). Determining growth drivers in container shipping: A causality analysis between container throughput and liner shipping connectivity. Acta Natura et Scientia, 5(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.61326/actanatsci.v5i2.287
  19. Ekici, Ş. Ö., Kabak, Ö., & Ülengin, F. (2016). Linking to compete: Logistics and global competitiveness interaction. Transport Policy, 48, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.015
  20. Erkan, B. (2014). Türkiye’de lojistik sektörü ve rekabet gücü. ASSAM Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi, 1(1), 44–65. https://izlik.org/JA47SL82GN
  21. Fugazza, M., & Hoffmann, J. (2017). Liner shipping connectivity as determinant of trade. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-017-0019-5
  22. Hausman, W. H., Lee, H. L., & Subramanian, U. (2013). The impact of logistics performance on trade. Production and Operations Management, 22(2), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2011.01312.x
  23. Kara, K. (2022). Relationship between domestic logistics opportunity efficiency and international logistics opportunity efficiency based on market potential: Empirical research on developing countries. Journal of Management, Marketing and Logistics, 9(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1555
  24. Kara, K. (2023). Clustering of developing countries in terms of logistics market development with fuzzy clustering and discriminant analysis. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 18(69), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.1149970
  25. Kara, K., & Yalçın, G. C. (2022). Digital logistics market performance of developing countries. Uluslararası Akademik Birikim Dergisi, 5(4), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.53001/uluabd.2022.38
  26. Kara, K., Bentyn, Z., & Yalçın, G. C. (2022). Determining the logistics market performance of developing countries by Entropy and MABAC methods. LogForum, 18(4), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2022.752
  27. Manavgat, G., Demirci, A., Korkmaz, O., & Koluman, A. (2023). Global scale integrated logistics performance analysis and its spillover effect. LogForum, 19(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2023.826
  28. Munim, Z. H., & Schramm, H.-J. (2018). The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: The mediating role of seaborne trade. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0
  29. Nekhoroshkov, V., Aroshidze, A., Majercak, P., & Kurenkov, P. (2021). Features of logistics development in the BRICS countries. SHS Web of Conferences, 129, Article 11007. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112911007
  30. Nhan, L. T., & Hang, T. T. (2026). Expanding the scope of the LODECI method for criteria weight determination. Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), 31, e20250970. https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-RMAT-2025-0970
  31. Oğuz, S. (2023). Evaluation of customs, infrastructure and logistics services with multi-criteria decision- making methods: A comparative analysis for the top 10 countries in the Logistics Performance Index. Journal of Management, Marketing and Logistics, 10(4), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2023.1837
  32. Özbek, H. E., & Özekenci, E. K. (2023). Investigation of digital logistics market performance in developing countries with hybrid MCDM methods. Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 8(2), 559–576. https://izlik.org/JA52PC33ML
  33. Özdemir, M. (2025). A novel model proposal for logistics performance analysis in Fermatean fuzzy approach. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 61, Article 101415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2025.101415
  34. 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
  35. Özekenci, E. K. (2025). Assessment of green logistics market performance of selected countries: A comprehensive and novel multi-criteria decision-making approach. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 28(2), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-2025-0024
  36. Pala, O. (2024). Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, Article 121846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121846
  37. Pamučar, D., Macura, D., Tavana, M., Božanić, D., & Knežević, N. (2022). An integrated rough group multicriteria decision-making model for the ex-ante prioritization of infrastructure projects: The Serbian Railways case. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 79, Article 101098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101098
  38. 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), Article 1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051852
  39. Rodrigue, J. P. (2024). The geography of transport systems (6th ed.). Routledge.
  40. Şeker, A. (2020). The impacts of liner shipping connectivity and economic growth on international trade: Case of European countries and Turkey. In G. Ç. Ceyhun (Ed.), Handbook of research on the applications of international transportation and logistics for world trade (pp. 139–150). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1397-2.ch008
  41. Tekgün, B., Koşaroğlu, Ş. M., Zolfani, S. H., Akbulut, O. Y., & Işık, Ö. (2026). Comparative assessment of financial market development in African economies: An integrated MCDM framework based on CRISUS-LODECI- WENSLO weighting and ARTASI ranking. Mathematics, 14(10), Article 1677. https://doi.org/10.3390/math14101677
  42. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., & Ecer, F. (2025). The Alternative Prioritization and Assessment System (ALPAS) method for environmental performance evaluation. Mathematics, 13(20), Article 3333. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13203333
  43. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2026). Liner shipping: Connectivity index – Quarterly [Data set]. UNCTAD Data Hub. Retrieved March 10, 2026, from https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/
  44. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2024). Review of maritime transport 2024: Navigating maritime chokepoints. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789211065923