ISSN: 2056-3736 (Online Version) | 2056-3728 (Print Version)
Jean-Charles Marin, Bryan B-Trudel, Kazimierz Zaras and Mamadou Sylla
Correspondence: Jean-Charles Marin, jcmarin2@me.com
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, Canada
pdf (1156.44 Kb) | doi: https://doi.org/10.47260/bae/721
The objectives of this article is to target poverty using Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA) to help the United Nation’s Countries develop objectives for sustainable development. There are 12 variables divided into 2 perspectives. The first is an economical and technological perspective composed of 6 variables. The second is a sociological and political perspective composed of 6 variables. The methodology proposed classifies all the United Nation’s countries according to three different categories: [A] Developed countries; [B] Emerging economies that need support to acquire category A status; [C] Under Developed countries ranked the lowest and needing special support with regard to the criterion or criteria considered. Using this classification, DRSA provides decision rules to explain the classification and indicating precisely what are the conditions to be part of a higher category. Also, the results indicate what are the conditions to be part of the Under Developed countries category and therefore helps targeting poverty and proposing, at the same time, objectives to improve this classification. Finally, we used Multiple Linear Regressions with selected decision rules to test selected decision rules as the Gross National Income per capita as the dependent variable.
International development, United Nations States, International aid, Economic growth, Strategic objectives, Sustainable Development.
Boudreau-Trudel, B., Marin, JC., Zaras, K. (2018) « Idenfifying Strategic Development Objectives for African Countries with an Approach for International Development Using Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach: The Poverty String Theory », Modern Economy, vol. 9.CPIA database 2018 World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.TRAN.XQ?view=chart>.Emam, O., Farhan, M., Abohany, A. (2017) Faults Repairing Analysis Using Rough Sets after Implementation of Labor Force Redistribution Algorithm: A case Study in Telecom Egypt, Information Sciences Letter, 6, No. 3, 39-48.Grego, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R. (1999) The Use of Rough Sets and Fuzzy Sets in MCDM, Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, 14.1-14.59.Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, J. Stefanowski (2000) An Algorithm for Induction of Decision Rules Consistent with the Dominance Principle, Conference: Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, Second International Conference, RSCTC 2000, Canada, October, 16-19Greco, S., Matarazzo, B. and Słowiński, R. (2001) Rough Sets Theory for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. European, Journal of Operational Research, 129, 1-47.Ho, H., Fann, W., Chiang, H., Nguyen, P., Pham, D., Nguyen, P., and Nagai, M. (2016) Application of Rough Set, GSM and MSM to Analyze Learning Outcome—An Example Introduction to Education, Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications, 8, 23-38.International Institute for Strategic Studies 2018. http://maps.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2017.Marin, J., Zaras, K. and Boudreau-Trudel, B. (2014) Use of the Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach as a Decision Aid Tool for the Selection of Development Projects in Northern Quebec, Modern Economy, 5, 723-741.Marin, J.C., Trudel, B. Zaras, K. (2019) “Defining Poverty Using DBRSA and Proposing Strategic Objectives for the United Nations Developing Countries”, Modern Economy, vol. 10, pp. 547-573.Pawlak, Z. (1982) Rough Set. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 11, 341-356.Pawlak, Z. (1991) Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3534-4Pawlak, Z. and Slowinski, R. (1994) Rough Set Approach to Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 72, 443-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90415-4Pawlak, Z. (2002) Rough Set Theory and Its Applications. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Theory, 3,7-10.Prema S. and Umamaheswari, P. (2016) Multitude Classifier Using Rough Set Jelinek-Mercer Naïve Bayes for Disease Diagnosis”, Circuits and Systems, 7, 701-708.Renaud, J., Thibault, J., Lanouette, R., Kiss, L.,N, Zaras, K. and Fonteix, C. (2007) Comparison of Two Multi-Criteria Methods: Net Flow and Rough Set Methods for aid to Decision Making in a High Yield Pulping Process, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 177, no.3, 1418-1432.Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B. (2001) International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Elsevier. Oxford Science Ltd.Songbian Z. (2016) Business Intelligence from Customer Review Management Using Rough Set Model, International Journal of Advanced Research, 4, 816-824.The Economist 2018, The Intelligence Unit, http://maps.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2017Transparency International (2018). https//www.transparency.orgUnited Nations (2018) UN Data. http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx?d=UNODCWagle, U. (2002) « Rethinking Poverty: Definition and Measurement », International Social Science Journal, Volume 54, page 155-165.World Bank (2018) Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicatorZaras, K. (2004) Rough Approximation of a Preference Relation by a Multi-Attribute Stochastic Dominance for Deterministic, Stochastic and Fuzzy Evaluation Problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159, 196-206.Zaras, K., Marin, J.-C. and Boudreau-Trudel, B. (2012) Dominance Rough Set Approach as a Decision-Making Method for the Selection of Sustainable Development Projects. American Journal of Operational Research, 2, 506.Transparency International (2018). https//www.transparency.org