PL EN


2016 | 11 | 36-50
Article title

Evaluating Public Benefit Organizations in Poland with the EVAMIX Method for Mixed Data

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The third sector and public benefit organizations (PBOs) play a significant role in the Polish economy. Although the third sector can boast of a long history in Poland, an intensive development of these entities has been observed since 1989. According to the current law, organizations with the public benefit status enjoy numerous benefits. This entails the need to adequately assess their activities, especially when taking into consideration the fact that they are not profit-oriented. The aim of this paper is to propose a new assessment method for evaluating PBOs. The recommended approach is based on multi-criteria decision aiding (MCDA). The procedure proposed employs the EVAMIX technique for mixed evaluations – a hybrid of the EVAMIX method and the EVAMIX method with stochastic dominance (SD) rules. An illustrative example uses eleven PBOs from Lodz Voivodeship operating in the field of ‘Ecology, animals and heritage protection’.
Year
Volume
11
Pages
36-50
Physical description
Contributors
author
  • Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. The Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management. Department of Accounting. Poland
  • Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. The Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management. Department of Econometrics and Statistics. Poland
References
  • Accounting Act of 29th September 1994, Ustawa z dnia 29 września 1994 r. o rachunkowości, Dz.U. 1994 nr 121, poz. 591 z późn. zm.
  • Act of law of April 24th 2003 on Public Benefit and Volunteer Work, Ustawa z dnia 24 kwietnia 2003 r. o działalności pożytku publicznego i o wolontariacie, Dz.U. 2003 nr 96, poz. 873 z późn. zm.
  • Ben Amor S., Jabeur K., Martel J.M. (2007), Multiple Criteria Aggregation Procedure for Mixed Evaluations, European Journal of Operational Research, 18(3), 1506-1515.
  • Borowiecki R., Dziura M. (eds.) (2014), Third Sector. Theoretical and Empirical Approach, Cracow University of Economics, Cracow.
  • Dyczkowski T. (2015a), Mierniki dokonań organizacji pożytku publicznego. Możliwości i ograniczenia stosowania, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 398, 146-158.
  • Dyczkowski T. (2015b), Financial and Non-financial Information in Performance Assessment of Public Benefit Organizations, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 398, 134-145.
  • Figueira J., Roy B. (2002), Determining the Weights of Criteria in the ELECTRE Type Method with a Revised Simos' Procedure, European Journal of Operational Research, 139(2), 317-326.
  • Frumkin P., Kim M.T. (2001), Strategic Positioning and the Financing of Nonprofit Organizations: Is Efficiency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 266-275.
  • Górecka D. (2009), Wielokryterialne wspomaganie wyboru projektów europejskich, TNOiK "Dom Organizatora", Toruń, 264-265.
  • Górecka D. (2010), Zastosowanie metod wielokryterialnych opartych na relacji przewyższania do oceny europejskich projektów inwestycyjnych [in:] M. Nowak (ed.), Metody i zastosowania badań operacyjnych'10, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Katowice, 100-125.
  • Górecka D. (2011), On the Choice of Method in Multi-criteria Decision Aiding Process Concerning European Projects [in:] T. Trzaskalik, T. Wachowicz (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making '10-11, Publisher of The University of Economics, Katowice, 81-103.
  • Górecka D. (2012), Sensitivity and Robustness Analysis of Solutions Obtained in the European Projects' Ranking Process [in:] T. Trzaskalik, T. Wachowicz (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making'12, Publisher of The University of Economics, Katowice, 86-111.
  • Górecka D. (2013), Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding Techniques in the Process of Project Management within the Wedding Planning Business, Operations Research and Decisions, 22(4/2012), 41-67.
  • Górecka D. (2014), Reguły wyboru oparte na relacji prawie dominacji stochastycznej dla kryteriów ocenianych w skali porządkowej [in:] T. Trzaskalik (ed.), Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji. Metody i zastosowania, PWE, Warszawa, 31-32.
  • Guitouni A., Martel J.-M., Bélanger M., Hunter C. (1999), Managing a Decision Making Situation in the Context of the Canadian Airspace Protection, Working paper 1999-021, F.S.A., Université Laval, Canada.
  • GUS (2009), Sektor non-profit w Polsce. Wybrane wyniki badań statystycznych zrealizowanych przez GUS na formularzach SOF, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa.
  • GUS (2015), Organizacje pożytku publicznego i 1%, Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Notatka informacyjna, Warszawa.
  • GUS (2016), Sektor non-profit w 2014 r., Studia i analizy statystyczne, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa.
  • Hinkle D. (1965), The Change of Personal Constructs from the Viewpoint of a Theory of Construct Implications, Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, Ohio.
  • Hadar J., Russel W. (1969), Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects, American Economic Review, 59, 25-34.
  • Hokkanen J., Salminen P. (1994), The Choice of a Solid Waste Management System by Using the ELECTRE III Decision-aid Method [in:] M. Paruccini (ed.), Applying Multiple Criteria Aid for Decision to Environmental Management, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 111-153.
  • Hokkanen J., Salminen P. (1997), Choosing a Solid Waste Management System Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, 98(1), 19-36.
  • Leshno M., Levy H. (2002), Preferred by "All" and Preferred by "Most" Decision Makers: Almost Stochastic Dominance, Management Science, 48, 1074-1085.
  • Leś E. (1994), The Voluntary Sector in Post-Communist East Central Europe. From Small Circles of Freedom to Civil Society, Washington: CIVICUS (World Alliance for Citizen Participation) [after:] E. Leś, S. Nałęcz, B. Pieliński (2016), Third Sector Barriers in Poland, TSI National Report Series No. 7, Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union, Brussels: Third Sector Impact.
  • Martel J.-M., Kiss L.R., Rousseau A. (1997), PAMSSEM: Procédure d'agrégation multicritère de type surclassement de synthèse pour évaluations mixtes, Manuscript, F.S.A., Université Laval.
  • Mousseau V. (1995), Eliciting Information Concerning the Relative Importance of Criteria [in:] P.M. Pardalos, Y. Siskos, C. Zopounidis (eds.), Advances in Multicriteria Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 17-43.
  • Munda G. (1995), Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
  • Munda G., Nijkamp P., Rietveld P. (1995), Qualitative Multicriteria Methods for Fuzzy Evaluation Problems: An Illustration of Economic-ecological Evaluation, European Journal of Operational Research, 82(1), 79-97.
  • Nowak M. (2004), Preference and Veto Thresholds in Multicriteria Analysis Based on Stochastic Dominance, European Journal of Operational Research, 158(2), 339-350.
  • Nowak M. (2005), Investment Project Evaluation by Simulation and Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Procedure, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 11(3), 193-202.
  • Piechota G. (2015), Legislation on Financing Public Benefit Activities from Tax Designation in Poland, International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 17(1), 86-91.
  • Quirk J.P., Saposnik R. (1962), Admissibility and Measurable Utility Functions, Review of Economic Studies, 29, 140-146.
  • Rogers M., Bruen M. (1998), A New System for Weighting Environmental Criteria for Use within ELECTRE III, European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 552-563.
  • Roy B. (1990), Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji, Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne, Warszawa, 87-105.
  • Spector Y., Leshno M., Ben Horin M. (1996), Stochastic Dominance in an Ordinal World, European Journal of Operational Research, 93, 620-627.
  • Trussel J.M., Parsons L.M. (2008), Financial Reporting Factors Affecting Donations to Charitable Organizations, Advances in Accounting, 23, 263-285.
  • Voogd H. (1982), Multicriteria Evaluation with Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative data, Environment and Planning B, 9, 221-236.
  • Voogd H. (1983), Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning, Pion, London.
  • Waniak-Michalak H. (2010), Analiza i ocean rezultatów finansowych organizacji pożytku publicznego w Polsce - wyniki badań własnych, Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 57(113), 83-95.
  • Waniak-Michalak H., Zarzycka E. (2012), Performance Measurement of Public Benefit Organizations on the Basis of Information from Financial Statements and Its Influence on Their Results, Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 68(124), 147-160.
  • Waniak-Michalak H., Zarzycka E. (2013), Czynniki wpływające na wybór organizacji pożytku publicznego przez darczyńców indywidualnych w Polsce - czy dane finansowe mają znaczenie? Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 74(130), 91-108.
  • Waniak-Michalak H., Zarzycka E. (2015), Financial and Non-financial Factors Motivating Individual Donors to Support Public Benefit Organizations, Comparative Economic Research, 18(1), 131-152.
  • Whitmore G.A. (1970), Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance, American Economic Review, 60, 457-459.
  • Zaras K. (2004), Rough Approximation of a Preference Relation by a Multi-attribute Dominance for Deterministic, Stochastic and Fuzzy Decision Problems, European Journal of Operational Research, 159(1), 196-206.
  • Żak P. (2012), Public Benefit Status in Poland. Review of Existing Legislation, Ogólnopolska Federacja Organizacji Pozarządowych. Public Benefit Status in V4 countries and Germany - conference in Prague 21.09.2012, available at: http://ofop.eu/sites/ofop.eu/files/biblioteka-pliki/ pzak_public_benefit_and_ngo_in_poland_20120921.pdf (27.06.2016).
  • (www 1) Charity Navigator - Your Guide to Intelligent Giving, http://www.charitynavigator.org/ index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=2181 (10.10.2016).
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
ISSN
2084-1531
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.cejsh-0fe5d1af-9c77-48ba-91e7-114769916ea4
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.