CC BY
1
Vol. 6, No. 4, 2020 -
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2020-6-4-1-8
SPATIAL DIVERSITY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN COMMUNES OF THE SWI^TOKRZYSKIE VOIVODSHIP IN 2009-2017
Pawet Dziekanski1, Adrian Lipa2, Anna Novoseletska3
Abstract. The region includes a part of the economic space separated from the environment that is developed by a given community and interrelated economic entities. Owned territorial capital means that regions differ in the scale of entrepreneurship. The purpose of the article is to analyze and evaluate the spatial diversity of entrepreneurship in municipalities using a synthetic measure. The analysis was made in the system of 102 rural communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship. The source material was data from the Local Database of the Central Statistical Office for 2009-2017. In analyzing the diversity of entrepreneurship in communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship, synthetic measure based on the TOPSIS method was used. In 2017, TOPSIS's synthetic measure of entrepreneurship ranged from 0.39 (Wasniow (2)) to 0.81 (Kielce (1)). The best group includes units with an industrial function and a developing labor market, a developed tourist or spa function. The group of Kielce (1), Sandomierz (1), Skarzysko-Kamienna (1) and Ostrowiec Swiftokrzyski (1), as the leading units in the analyzed period, is also indicated by gravity analysis (indicating the concentration of the phenomenon in the central region of the region). As a result of the analysis, it has been established that the condition for creating growth is the creation of permanent spatial systems resulting from the activities of enterprises. In the short term, enterprises generate local economic growth.
Key words: synthetic measure, entrepreneurship, municipalities, Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship.
JEL Classification: C38, H76, L26, M19, O12
1. Introduction
The region is a social and economic system comprising a separate part of the economic space developed by a given community and functioning of the various interrelated economic entities (Huczek, 2016). The development possibilities of the regions are determined by their endogenous (territorial) capital and exogenous environment. A. Klasik and F. Kuznik define regional development as a long-term increase in the economic potential of regions, their competitive strength and the quality of life of residents. The essence of regional development is to ensure cohesion in its three dimensions: economic, social and territorial (Klasik, Kuznik, 2001).
The structural features of regions and their territorial capital strengthen regional diversity and the scale of entrepreneurial activity. Factors creating or blocking entrepreneurship in the region include: demographic region, regional labor market, quality of human capital,
Corresponding author:
1 Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4065-0043 E-mail: pdziekan@interia.eu
ResearcherlD: H-4658-2016
2 Scientific and Educational Consortium in Kielce, Poland. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7949-3044 E-mail: adrianlipa@konsorcjum.edu.pl
3 National University of Ostroh Academy, Ukraine. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2992-5237 E-mail: anna.novoseletska@oa.edu.ua
entrepreneurship of the region, housing resources, infrastructure equipment. Entrepreneurship is an interdisciplinary, multifaceted and complex concept. It is important for social and economic development. Entrepreneurship is considered in terms of process, set of features, innovation and as a factor influences regional development (Milek, Kantarek, 2017).
Entrepreneurship, as E. Skawinska indicates, plays an important role in the efficient allocation of existing resources of the region. It concerns the actions of people in the process of seeking innovation and detecting new relationships in the economic and social system (Skawinska, 2009). A. Klasik indicates that entrepreneurship is the basis of the attractiveness of the regional economies and their communities. It is a socially conditioned process of creating opportunities for creating wealth, using financial and material resources as well as human capital in an innovative way (Klasik, 2006).
2. Material and research method
The purpose of the article is to analyze and evaluate the spatial diversity of entrepreneurship in municipalities using a synthetic measure. The analysis was made in the system of 102 rural communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship. The material used was the data from the Local Data Bank of the Central Statistical Office for 2009-2017.
In analyzing the diversity of entrepreneurship in communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship, a synthetic measure based on the TOPSIS method was used. The following stages were used in the conducted research:
I. The stimulant and destimulant sets were determined and presented in the form of an observation matrix x v:
xii xi2 x2i x22
X1m X2,
(1),
where xiy - denotes the values of the j-th feature for the i-th object (i = 1, 2, ..., n; j = 1, 2, ..., m).
From the set of variables, those with low spatial variability (coefficient of variation less than 0.10) and high correlation of variables (according to the inverse correlation matrix) were removed (Malina, 2004). The set of variables selected for analysis is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
List of variables describing entrepreneurship potential in communes
Variables S/D
Entities entered into REGON register S
Newly registered units in the REGON register S
Units removed from the REGON register D
Self-employed persons S
Net migration rate S
Registered unemployed persons D
Employed in communes S
as - stimulant; d - destimulant
Source: study based on data available at the Central Statistical Office of Poland (CSO)
II. Selected destimulants were a stimulant according to the formula; 1
replaced with
(2).
III. Stimulants were subjected to the unitarization procedure zeroed according to the formula:
for stimulants z„
- when x, e S
(3)
where: S - stimulant, D - destimulant; i = 1, 2... n; j = 1, 2... n, xij - means the value of the j-th feature for the examined unit, max - the maximum value of the j-th feature, min - the minimum value of the j-th feature (Wysocki, Lira, 2005; Kukuia, 2000; Miodak, 2006). As a result of the unitarisation process, the matrix of property values was obtained ztj :
Z11 Z12 Z21 Z2'
(4),
where zij is the unified value of xj. IV. The measure of entrepreneurship was determined based on the TOPSIS method. As part of the method, Euclidean distances of communes from the pattern (= 1) and antipattern (= 0) were determined, according to the following formulas:
d+=J 15 )2
z- )2
(5)
(6)
where n - stands for the number of variables making up the synthetic measure, zv - stands for the unified value of the j-th feature for the tested unit, z*,zj - stands for the pattern or antipattern object (Wojcik-Len, Len, Mika, Kryszk, Kotlarz, 2019; Behzadian, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, Yazdani, Ignatius, 2012; Zalewski, 2012).
The synthetic measure (TOPSIS) was determined for municipalities based on the formula:
qt =—d-, whereO < qt <1,i = 1,2,...,«; (7)
d + d*
with: qi e [0; 1]; d- means the distance of the object from the antipattern (from 0), d+ means the distance of the object from the pattern(from 1). A higher value of measure indicates a better situation of the individual in the studied area1.
V Finally, the study area was divided into 4 quartile groups. The first, second and third quartiles were used as threshold values. The size of the synthetic measure in the first group means a better unit, the weakest in the last one. The mutual compliance of the results obtained was also verified based on the correlation coefficient. A scatter chart with an adjustment line for synthetic measures is also presented (Zelias, Malina, 1997).
3. Entrepreneurship and regional development
Municipalities do not develop evenly. This is due to uneven access to factors of production. The endogenous
1 C.L. Hwang, K. Yoon, 1981, Multiple attribute decision making. Methods and applications, Springer, Berlin, For: A. Bieniasz, Z. Goias, A. tuczak, 2013, Zrôznicowanie kondycji finansowej gospodarstw rolnych wyspecjalizowanych w chowie owiec i kôz w krajach Unii Europejskiej, Roczniki Ekonomii Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarow Wiejskich, T. 100, z. 1; M.B. Pietrzak, 2016, The problem of the inclusion of spatial dependence within the TOPSIS Method. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, vol. 12(3), p. 69-86.
Z
•j
Z
X
y
X
x
•j
x
•j
potential of the individual, the potential inherent in people and local entrepreneurship is also important. It should be remembered that development is not only the effect of the activities of the administration but also of the simultaneous operation of enterprises. According to J. Paryska, local development is a long-term process of social and economic development, using local development factors (Parysek, 2001). R. Brol defines local development as the activity ofthe local community, local authority and business entities operating in the commune. Their activities are aimed at creating new and improving the existing utility and competitive values of the commune and creating favorable conditions for the local economy (Brol, 1998).
The development of communes can be considered on its three main planes: social, ecological and economic. A characteristic feature of development is the relatively low mobility of major development factors. These include, among others: the state of infrastructure, qualifications of the workforce, social structure, branch structure of the local economy. There are dependencies between external and internal factors of development. These relationships are an important driving force for development. Internal and external factors (entrepreneurship, economic, social, spatial, political and ecological, unique to the local system) can interact with different strength and character (Korenik, 1999).
R. Brol indicates that entrepreneurship should be treated as an endogenous factor in the development of the regional economy (Brol, 2006). In addition to the economic function, it carries out a social, economic and ecological function. T. Markowski indicates that entrepreneurship is an attribute of social capital (Markowski, 2008). W. Kosiedowski emphasizes the economic dimension of entrepreneurship in shaping regional development (Kosiedowski, 2008). In order for entrepreneurship to have a real impact on the development of the region, favorable economic, mental, legal and institutional conditions must exist (Kola-Bezka, 2010) in it.
Factors affecting the level of entrepreneurship include: demographics of the region, labor market, economic structures of the region, human capital, housing resources, infrastructure equipment. The development of entrepreneurship should be considered in the broader context of the elements constituting local development. These elements are: environment, culture, community, economy and power.
Entrepreneurship plays an important role in the process of economic development of the region. It provides an opportunity to increase development potential. It enables the effective use of endogenous resources of the region and obtaining exogenous ones. Creating the right conditions for the development of
local entrepreneurship is one of the main tasks of local government. In this respect, municipalities have, among others, short- and long-term financial instruments and technical infrastructure, with the help of which they can influence local economic life.
There are many entrepreneurship development barriers and their rank is different. Some of them have the nature of macroeconomic restrictions related to solutions resulting from the socio-economic policy of the state, the economic system and formal and legal solutions (Zar^bski, 2002). Others regarding the amount of taxes, as well as fees provided for by law, lack of suitably qualified employees, waiting time for payment from a contractor, barriers to innovation and access to information.
4. Diversification of entrepreneurship in rural communes of the Swi^tokrzyskie Voivodship
The Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship is located in the southeastern part of Poland. The area of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship is 11691.05 km2, 66% of the area of the Voivodship is the protected area. Swiftokrzyskie has an industrial and agricultural character2. The main industries of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship are: metallurgical (Ostrowiec Swiftokrzyski), metal (Skarzysko-Kamienna), machine (Starachowice), construction materials (Kielce), ceramic, foundry (Konskie), food (Pinczow, Kielce). The economy of the Swiftokrzyskie region is based on the mining industry in the field of construction materials (limestone, dolomites, marls, gypsum, sandstone), due to which the voivodship has gained the name of the capital of the Polish construction. The agricultural south is the base for the production of organic food (Jozwiak, Jozwiak, Strzyz, 2010).
In 2017, the synthetic measure of TOPSIS entrepreneurship ranged from 0.39 (Wasniow (2); Ostrowiecki County) to 0.81 (Kielce (1), regional capital). The best group A includes units with an industrial function (Kielce (1), Sandomierz (1), Skarzysko-Kamienna (1), Ostrowiec Swiftokrzyski -cities of the region) and a developing (developed) labor market, developed tourist or spa function (e.g. Busko-Zdroj (3). In the weakest group D and units with an agricultural function (e.g. Dzialoszyce (3), Klimontow (2), Koprzywnica (3), Michalow (2), Ruda Maleniecka (2), Wasniow (2), Iwaniska (2), Nowy Korczyn (2)3, the process of human capital leaching and the weak market work (see Figure 1).
The dispersion analysis (Figure 2) of the measure of synthetic entrepreneurship in communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship in 2009 and 2017 indicates a slight increase in diversity. Outliers were Kielce
2 Charakterystyka dotyczy przewagi danego rodzaju dzialalnosci w regionie: przemyslowa polnoc i rolnicze poludnie.
3 (1) gminy miejskie, (2) gminy wiejskie, (3) gminy miejsko-wiejskie
bardzodobra (A) I : : : a =>
Figure 1. Spatial differentiation of the synthetic measure TOPSIS entrepreneurship of communes of the Swiçtokrzyskie Voivodship in 2009 and 2017
Source: the author's own development based on BDL GUS
(1), Sandomierz (1), Skarzysko-Kamienna (1), Maslow (2), Busko-Zdroj (3), Ostrowiec Swifto-krzyski (1), Miedziana Gora (2), Konskie (3). These are units located in the central part of the region with a developed industrial function and a developing labor market.
Measures of spatial differentiation indicate the relative stability of communes in the aspect of entrepreneurship measure (Table 2). In 2017, compared to 2009, the results show stability according to the standard
deviation (0.06-0.06), the classic coefficient of variation (0.13-0.13), the quarterly range (0.05-0.05). The range of 0.33-0.41 indicates an increase in diversity (small changes in the area under study).
Pearson's correlation coefficient between the value of the synthetic entrepreneurship measure in 2017 in relation to 0.953 in 2009 (Figure 3). It can be assumed that the spatial diversity of the studied area was quite stable, and the units reacted similarly to changes in the economy. Outstanding units are: Kielce (1), Sandomierz
0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35
Figure 2. Dissipation of the synthetic measure of entrepreneurship TOPSIS of communes of the Swi^tokrzyskie voivodship in 2009 and 2017
Source: the author's own development based on BDL GUS
TOPSIS przedsiçbiorczo9D □ Mediana [] 25%-75% X Zakres nieodstaj^cych o Odstaj^ce
Kielce (1) Sandomierz (1)
Ostrowiec Swiçtokrzyski (1) Skarzysko-Kamienna (1) Busko-Zdroj (3) Mastow (2) Konskie (3) --Suchedniow (3)
X
T
Kielce (1)
Sandomierz (1)
-.Skarzysko-Kamienna (1) Busko-Zdroj (3) Ostrowiec Swiçtokrzyski (1) ""Mastow (2) Miedziana Gora (2) Konskie (3)
2009
2017
. . , Baltic Journal of Economic Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2020 -J--
Table 2
Dissipation of the synthetic measure of entrepreneurship TOPSIS of communes of the Swiftokrzyskie voivodship in 2009 and 2017
2009 2017
average 0.44 0.47
median 0.42 0.45
standard deviation 0.06 0.06
quarter (quartile) deviation 0.43 0.45
classic coefficient of variation 0.13 0.13
positional coefficient of variation 1.01 1.01
min. 0.37 0.39
max 0,70 0.81
range 0.33 0.41
quartile 1 0.41 0.43
quartile 2 0.42 0.45
quartile 3 0.45 0.48
quartile range 0.05 0.05
skewness 2.04 2.51
measure concentration - kurtosis 5.23 10.36
Source: the author's own development based on BDL GUS
(l), Ostrowiec Swiftokrzyski (l). These are cities that have a developed industrial function.
The gravitational effect, indicating the effect of concentration of the phenomenon, connecting two communes is directly proportional to the product of the competitive potential of these communes and inversely proportional to the square of the geographical distance separating these units. Municipalities with high development potential located close to each other have a stronger impact than those located far apart (Filipowicz, Tokarski, 2015).
The first group (Figure 4) for the TOPSIS measure consists of central municipalities (26; units with an industrial, tourist, spa, developing labor market; among others, Kielce (l), Maslow (2), Daleszyce (3), Morawica (2), Miedziana Gora (2), Sitkowka-Nowiny (2), Zagnansk (2), Bieliny (2), Busko-Zdroj (3), Suchedniow (3), Skarzysko-Kamienna (l), Starachowice (l), Ch^ciny (3), Bodzentyn (3), Staszow (3)). The second and third groups are 25 and 27 units. The weakest group is 24 units with a peripheral character (units with an agricultural function, a process
0.75
0.70 0.65 0.60
o>
g 0.55
Csl
0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85
2017
Figure 3. Year-to-year ratio of synthetic measures - entrepreneurship TOPSIS of communes of the Swi^tokrzyskie Voivodship in 2009 and 2017
Source: the authors own development based on BDL GUS
TOPSIS przedsiçbiorczosc y = 0.0285 + 0.8874*x; r = 0.9537; p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.9095
Kie lce (1)
^^^ y'O /
.& ooo O/ O /DO
a/ -< ,00/ 09/ 5*
o p-6 o . ,-' oax> <3 ■■ ooerooooo 000 0 0,-
oc
Baltic Journal of Economic Studies , -J--Vol. 6, No. 4, 2020
Figure 4. Result of the gravity analysis (concentration) for the synthetic measure TOPSIS entrepreneurship of communes of the Swi^tokrzyskie Voivodship in 2009 and 2017
Source: the author's own development based on BDL GUS
of human capital leaching and a weak labor market; among others, toniow (2), Samborzec (2), Ozarow (3), Wojciechowice (2), Koprzywnica (3), Wloszczowa (3), Baltow (2), Dwikozy (2), Tarlow (2), Zawichost (3)).
The level of entrepreneurship in communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship was influenced by: the number of the unemployed and employed, entities conducting economic activity, micro-entities (employing from 0 to 9), macro-entities (10-49) and medium (50-249), newly registered and entities removed from the register economic entities and natural persons conducting economic activity.
To assess the impact of selected elements of endogenous potentials of communes on the spatial diversity of the measure of synthetic entrepreneurship, a regression model describing the dependence of variables has been estimated taking the form: F (TOPSIS entrepreneurship) = = Z (TOPSIS development, Registered unemployed persons, Employed in communes, Own income, Investment expenditures, Population in the working-age, Migration balance).
The regression analysis of the entrepreneurship measure versus selected endogenous potentials of communes in the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship explains R = 0.781 variable variations (at R2 = 0.780; the interpretation value of this model turns out to be satisfactory4). The statistics values F (7, 910) 466.31 and the corresponding probability level p mean that all parameters are statistically significant. Further
increasing the multidimensionality of the model would cause a slight increase in R2. The model could include statistically insignificant variables.
5. Conclusion
The condition of the enterprises determines the economic situation of the region. The situation of enterprises operating in a given region should be ofinterest to both residents and entities making legal, economic and social decisions regarding the region. An attempt to apply a synthetic enterprise measure seems justified.
Economic potential is one of the most important factors for the development of municipalities. The high level of economic development creates positive conditions enabling the increase in the standard of living of the inhabitants or the development of enterprises.
An analysis of the dispersion of the measure of synthetic entrepreneurship in communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship indicates a slight increase in diversity. The level of entrepreneurship in communes of the Swiftokrzyskie Voivodship was influenced by: the number of the unemployed and employed, entities conducting economic activity, micro entities (employing from 0 to 9), macro entities (10-49) and medium (50-249), newly registered and entities removed from the register economic entities and natural persons conducting economic activity.
In 2017, the synthetic measure of TOPSIS entrepreneurship ranged from 0.39 (Wasniow (2); Ostrowiecki County) to 0.81 (Kielce (1), regional capital). The best group A includes units with an
4 Skorygowany wspolczynnik determinacji nie osi^gn^l 60%. Za optymaln^ wartosc uwaza si§ przekroczenie progu determinacji na poziomie 95%.
. . , Baltic Journal of Economic Studies Vol. 6, No. 4, 2020 -J--
Table 3
Estimation of synthetic entrepreneurship and selected endogenous potentials of communes in the Swiftokrzyskie province
Rate Standard error t-Student's p-value
const 0.152815 0.0328855 4.647 < 0.0001
TOPSIS development 1.02534 0.0354469 28.93 <0.0001
Registered unemployed 3.86181e-06 2.10744e-06 1.832 0.0672
Working in communes 2.08307e-06 3.25707e-07 6.396 < 0.0001
Own income -4.50888e-06 2.32033e-06 -1.943 0.0523
Investment expenses -1.55529e-05 1.85079e-06 -8.403 < 0.0001
Working age population -0.00235618 0.000613920 -3.838 0.0001
Net migration rate 0.00100655 0.000273999 3,674 0.0003
Arithmetic mean of the dependent variable 0.451427 Standard deviation of the dependent variable 0.055337
Sum of residual squares 0.612168 Residual Standard Error 0.025937
Determining coefficient R- square 0.781994 Corrected R-square 0.780317
F (7, 910) 466.3134 P-value for the F-test 7.3e-296
Logarithm of credibility 2054.057 Akaike's information criterion -4.092.113
Bayesian, Schwarz information criterion -4053.536 Hannan-Quinn criterion -4077.390
observations used 1-918; dependent variable TOPSIS entrepreneurship
Source: the authors own development based on BDL GUS
industrial function and a developed labor market, a developed tourist or spa function. The group of Kielce (l), Sandomierz (l), Skarzysko-Kamienna (l), Ostrowiec Swiftokrzyski (l), as the leading units in the analyzed period is indicated by gravity analysis (indicating the concentration of the phenomenon in the central region of the region).
The results of the study give local governments the opportunity to compare their own situation with the situation of neighboring municipalities or municipalities with similar economic and social conditions. The conclusions drawn on this basis may allow local authorities to set out potential directions for optimizing their economic policy.
References:
Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (20l2). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(l7).
Brol, R. (l998). Rozwoj lokalny - nowa logika rozwoju gospodarczego, In: Gospodarka lokalna w teorii i wpraktyce, ed. M. Obr^balski, Akademia Ekonomiczna we Wroclawiu, Wroclaw.
Brol, R. (2006). Czynniki rozwoju regionalnego, In: D. Strahl (ed.), Metody oceny rozwoju regionalnego, Wyd. AE we Wroclawiu, Wroclaw.
Dziekanski, P. (20l6). Spatial Differentiation of the Financial Condition of the Swi^tokrzyskie Voivodship Counties, Barometr Regionalny, Tom l4, nr 3.
Filipowicz, K., & Tokarski, T. (20l5). Wptyw efektu grawitacyjnego na przestrzenne zroznicowanie rozwoju ekonomicznego powiatow, Wiadomosci Statystyczne, nr 5.
Filipowicz, K., & Tokarski, T. (20l5). Wptyw efektu grawitacyjnego na przestrzenne zroznicowanie rozwoju ekonomicznego powiatow Polski Wschodniej, Studia i Materialy Miscellanea Oeconomicae, nr 4, tom I. Huczek, M. (20l6). Przedsi^biorczosc i konkurencyjnosc w rozwoju regionalnym, ZN WSH Zarz^dzanie 20l6 (3). Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (l98l). Multiple attribute decision making. Methods and applications, Springer, Berlin, For: A. Bieniasz, Z. Golas, A. Luczak, 20l3, Zroznicowanie kondycji finansowej gospodarstw rolnych wyspecjalizowanych w chowie owiec i koz w krajach Unii Europejskiej, Roczniki Ekonomii Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarow Wiejskich, T. l00, z. l.
Jozwiak, M. A., Jozwiak, M., & Strzyz, M. (20l0). Predyspozycje naturalne regionu swi^tokrzyskiego do rozwoju turystyki, Krajobraz a Turystyka, Prace Komisji Krajobrazu Kulturowego Nr l4, Komisja Krajobrazu Kulturowego PTG, Sosnowiec.
Klasik, A., & Kuznik, F. (200l). Konkurencyjny rozwoj regionow w Europie, In: Konkurencyjnosc miast i regionow, ed. Z. Szymla, Akademia Ekonomiczna w Krakowie, Krakow.
Klasik, A. (2006). Przedsi^biorczosc i konkurencyjnosc a rozwoj regionalny, Wyd. AE w Katowicach, Katowice. Kola-Bezka, M. (20l0). Przyczynek do rozwazan oprzedsi^biorczoscipolskich regionow, Wyd. UMK, Torun. Korenik, S. (l999). Rozwoj regionu ekonomicznego naprzyktadzie Dolnego Slqska, Wyd. AE we Wroclawiu, Wroclaw.
Baltic Journal of Economic Studies , -J--Vol. 6, No. 4, 2020
Kosiedowski, W. (2008). Zarzqdzanie rozwojem regionalnym i lokalnym, In: Z. Strzelecki (ed.), Gospodarka regionalna i lokalna, Wyd. Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
Kukula, K. (2000). Metoda unitaryzacji zerowanej, PWN, Warszawa.
Malina, A. (2004). Wielowymiarowa analiza przestrzennego zrôznicowania struktury gospodarki Polski wedlug wojewôdztw, Wyd. Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie, Krakow.
Markowski, T. (2008). Teoretyczne podstawy rozwoju lokalnego i regionalnego, In: Z. Strzelecki (ed.), Gospodarka regionalna i lokalna, Wyd. Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
Milek, D., & Kantarek, I. (2017). Przedsiçbiorczosc w rozwojupolskich regionôw, Nierownosci Spoleczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy, nr 50(2), doi: 10.15584/nsawg.2017.2.20.
Mlodak, A. (2006). Analiza taksonomiczna w statystyce regionalnej, Centrum Doradztwa i Informacji Difin, Warszawa.
Nowak, E. (1990). Metody taksonomiczne w klasyfikacji obiektôw spoleczno-gospodarczych, PWE, Warszawa.
Parysek, J. J. (2001). Podstawy gospodarki lokalnej, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Poznan.
Pietrzak, M. B. (2016). The problem of the inclusion of spatial dependence within the TOPSIS Method. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(3).
Skawinska, E. (2009). Kapital spoleczny w rozwoju regionu, In: W. Janasz, Innowacje w strategii rozwoju organizacji w Unii Europejskiej, Warszawa.
Tokarski, T. (2005). Statystyczna analiza regionalnego zrôznicowania wydajnosci, zatrudnienia i bezrobocia w Polsce, Wydawnictwo PTE, Warszawa.
Wojcik-Len, J., Len, P., Mika, M., Kryszk, H., & Kotlarz, P. (2019). Studies regarding correct selection of statistical methods for the needs of increasing the efficiency of identification of land for consolidation - A case study in Poland. Land Use Policy.
Wysocki, F., & Lira, J. (2005). Statystyka opisowa, Wyd. AR, Poznan.
Zalewski, W. (2012). Zastosowanie metody TOPSIS do oceny kondycji finansowej spôlek dystrybucyjnych energii elektrycznej, Ekonomia i Zarzqdzanie, 4.
Zarçbski, M. (2002). Czynniki rozwoju malych i srednichprzedsiçbiorstw na obszarach wiejskich, In: Przedsiçbiorstwo i jego otoczenie w warunkach integracji europejskiej, Uniwersytet Warminsko-Mazurski, Olsztyn.
Zelias, A., & Malina, A., (1997). O budowie taksonomicznej miary jakosci zycia. Syntetyczna miara rozwoju jest narzçdziem statystycznej analizy porôwnawczej, Taksonomia z. 4.
