Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Computer Science 187 (2021) 218–223

International Conference on Identification, Information and Knowledge in the internet of Things,

International Conference on Identification, Information
2020 and Knowledge in the internet of Things,
2020
Digital
Digital Financial
Financial Inclusion
Inclusion and
and Economic
Economic Growth:
Growth: A
A Cross-country
Cross-country
Study
Study
Yan Shena*, Wenxiu Hua, C. James Huengb一
Yan Shena*, Wenxiu Hua, C. James Huengb一
a
Xi’an University of Technology,Shaanxi 710054,China
b
a
Xi’anMichigan
Western UniversityUniversity,Kalamazoo,MI49008-5330,USA
of Technology,Shaanxi 710054,China
b
Western Michigan University,Kalamazoo,MI49008-5330,USA

Abstract
Abstract

This paper constructs a digital financial inclusion evaluation system suitable for cross-country comparison. It uses the data
of theThis
World paper
Bank constructs a digital financial
and the International inclusion
Monetary Fundevaluation
to calculatesystem suitable
the index for cross-country
of digital comparison.
financial inclusion, It uses the
and measure thedata
level
of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to calculate the index of digital financial inclusion, and
of digital financial inclusion in 105 countries. Then, we examine the relations between digital financial inclusion and economicmeasure the level
of digital
growth byfinancial inclusion
using spatial data in
and105 countries.forThen,
techniques we examinecountries.
86 neighboring the relations
Ourbetween
findings digital
displayfinancial inclusion
that digital andinclusion
financial economic has
growth by using spatial data and techniques for 86 neighboring countries. Our findings display that
a significantly positive effect on economic growth, and has spatial spillover effects on neighboring countries. digital financial inclusion has
a significantly
© positivePublished
2021 The Authors. effect on by
economic
ELSEVIER growth,
B.V.and has spatial spillover effects on neighboring countries.
©
© 2021
2021
This is anThe
The Authors.
open accessPublished by ELSEVIER
article under Elsevier B.V.B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
the CC BY-NC-ND
This
This is
is an
an open
open access
access article
article under
under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-ND
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
of the International Conference on Identification, Information and
Peer-review under
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibilityofofthe
thescientific
scientificcommittee
committeeofofthethe International
International Conference
Conference on on Identification,
Identification, Information
Information andand
Knowledge in the internet of Things, 2020
Knowledge in
Knowledge in the
the internet
internet of
of Things,
Things, 2020
2020.
Keywords: Digital Financial Inclusion, Index of Digital Financial Inclusion,Economic Growth, spatial spillover effects.;
Keywords: Digital Financial Inclusion, Index of Digital Financial Inclusion,Economic Growth, spatial spillover effects.;

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
This paper constructs a comprehensive index to measure the level of digital financial inclusion for 105 countries.
This paper constructs a comprehensive index to measure the level of digital financial inclusion for 105 countries.
Then, we test the effect of digital financial inclusion on economic growth using spatial data and techniques for 86
Then, we test the effect of digital financial inclusion on economic growth using spatial data and techniques for 86
neighboring countries.
neighboring countries.
Current available financial inclusion indexes mostly focus on traditional financial services and do not account for
Current available financial inclusion indexes mostly focus on traditional financial services and do not account for
the role of digital finance in financial inclusion. The 2016 G20 Summit officially proposes advanced principles of
the role of digital finance in financial inclusion. The 2016 G20 Summit officially proposes advanced principles of
digital financial inclusion to ramp up the digital finance era and upgrade financial inclusion in all countries. We
digital financial inclusion to ramp up the digital finance era and upgrade financial inclusion in all countries. We
follow this trend and build a single measure of digital financial inclusion for cross-country comparisons.
follow this trend and build a single measure of digital financial inclusion for cross-country comparisons.
* Corresponding author. Yan Shen. Tel.: +18681824475
* Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Yan Shen. Tel.: +18681824475
shenyan@xaut.edu.cn
E-mail address: shenyan@xaut.edu.cn
1877-0509 © 2021 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
1877-0509 © 2021
This is an open The
access Authors.
article underPublished by ELSEVIER
the CC BY-NC-ND B.V.(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
license
This is an open
Peer-review access
under article under
responsibility the scientific
of the CC BY-NC-ND license
committee (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
of the International Conference on Identification, )
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific
Information and Knowledge in the internet of Things, 2020committee of the International Conference on Identification,
Information andThe
1877-0509 © 2021 Knowledge in the internet
Authors. Published ofB.V.
by Elsevier Things, 2020
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Identification, Information and
Knowledge in the internet of Things, 2020.
10.1016/j.procs.2021.04.054
 Yan Shen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 187 (2021) 218–223 219
Yan Shen,Wenxiu Hu,C.James Hueng/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 2

Several international financial institutions have constructed various systems to evaluate financial inclusion. A
widely used data portal to construct these systems is the G20 Financial Inclusion Indicators developed by the GPFI
and powered by the World Bank’s Data Group. These indicators measure the access and use of quality of financial
services nationally and globally. In 2016, the portal adds new indicators to measure the use of digital payments and
access to digital infrastructure. This upgraded G20 Financial Inclusion Indicator System provides the characteristics
of digital finance that motivate us to compile a comprehensive digital financial inclusion index. We modify the
methodology advanced by the Human Development Index literature. Specifically, we adopt the distance-based
approach and use the displaced ideal method to aggregate various dimensions of digital financial inclusion, as well
as various indicators composing each dimension[16]. The resulting index is proved to satisfy a set of axioms,
namely, monotonicity, anonymity, normalization, shortfall sensitivity, and hiatus sensitivity to level [10].
Digital financial inclusion enable people to expand access to financial services and advance economic progress in
underserved market segments. Some researches prove that the financial inclusion and economic growth in a country
have a significant covariant relationshipfound that the lack of an inclusive financial system would lead to income
inequality and slower economic growth[1][2][13]. Galor et al.（1993）Honohan（2004）believe that the development
of financial inclusion means that all participants in the economic system have easy access to formal financial
services, such as bank deposits, credit, and insurance[4][5]. Dahlman et al.(2016) point out that the digital economy
fosters growth and productivity and supports inclusive development[6]. Myovella et al.(2020) proved that
digitalization positively contributes to economic growth either in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) or in OECD economies.
Digital inclusive finance is a combination of digital technology and inclusive finance[11]. Therefore, we put
forward a hypothesis that digital inclusive finance is in positive relation to economic growth. In the literature on
economic growth between countries or regions, variables of economic growth are considered to depend not only on
initial income levels, population growth within this economy, but also on these variables in neighboring economies.
[3]. Therefore, this paper will use spatial analysis methods to study the impact of digital financial inclusion on
economic growth.

2. Data and Methodology

Ideally we should consider as many aspects of digital financial inclusion as possible to compile a comprehensive
index. However, there is a tradeoff between data availability and the number of countries that we can include. Since
our purpose is to conduct cross-country comparisons, we include as many countries as possible while considering all
available indicators.
Table 1 lists the four dimensions and the indicators under each dimension of the digital financial inclusion that we
consider. There are a total of 14 indicators. Ten of them are traditional indicators for financial inclusion. The other
four (Percentage of Individuals using the Internet, Internet penetration rate, Used a mobile phone or the internet to
access an account, and Made or received digital payments in the past year) are specifically the digital elements
suggested by the upgraded G20 Financial Inclusion Indicator System. The availability dimension measures whether
citizens have access to traditional financial services and digital financial products from the supply side of the
financial market. The usage dimension measures the extent to which citizens use traditional and digital financial
products from the demand side of the financial market. The affordability dimension measures the customer's ability
to withstand the price of financial products and services. The financial literacy and ability affects residents’ choice
and use of digital financial products.

Table 1 Index of Digital Financial Inclusion

Dimension Indicator Maximu Minimu Averag Std.

Availability Branches of commercial banks per 100,000 adults m
71.075 m
0.454 e
17.479 13.116
Branches of commercial banks per 1,000 km2 571.227 0.029 27.983 70.095
Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) per 100,000 adults 276.372 1.275 59.512 48.007
Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) per 1,000 km2 4385.049 0.056 113.877 446.66
Percentage of Individuals using the Internet 210.914 26.690 113.961 3
32.950
Internet penetration rate 98.000 2.100 62.228 26.171
Usage Financial institution account (% age 15+) 99.917 8.754 63.398 28.412
220 Yan Shen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 187 (2021) 218–223
Yan Shen,Wenxiu Hu,C.James Hueng/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 3

Debit card ownership (% age 15+) 98.805 2.708 49.464 30.688

Borrowed from a financial institution (% age 15+) 35.007 1.812 13.091 6.840
Used a mobile phone or the internet to access an account (% age 15+) 82.951 0.914 27.653 23.037
Made or received digital payments in the past year (% age 15+) 99.394 7.708 56.870 29.094
Affordability National Interest Rates 29.040 -0.140 4.903 5.174
Financial Literacy Tertiary education rate 113.870 2.770 44.177 27.938
and Ability Main source of emergency funds: savings (% age 15+) 87.519 1.113 31.072 21.098
To construct a comprehensive measure that combines information on various aspects of digital financial inclusion
into one single index, we, with some modifications, adopt the methodology used in the financial inclusion index
literature [14][15], which follows closely the ones developed in the Human Development Index literature[9]. The
measure is multidimensional.
Assume that there are N countries (n = 1, 2, . . ., N) and that we consider P dimensions of digital financial
inclusion (p = 1, 2, . . ., P) for each country. Each of the P dimensions is represented by several measurable
indicators. Our digital financial inclusion index is constructed in two stages. The first stage is to construct the
dimension index for each dimension by aggregating its representative indicators. The second stage is to aggregate
the dimension indexes to a digital financial inclusion index for each country. Denote xnpj as the original value of
the indicator j in the dimension p in Country n. In the first stage, the dimension index is calculated in three steps.
The first step is to normalize the original data using the following transformation so that the data points all fall
between 0 and 1, for the sake of simple calculation and convenient comparison:
 xnpj  x pjmin
 max min
for positive indicators
 x pj  x pj
xnpj   max
 x pj  xnpj
 x max  x min for reverse indicators
 pj pj
(1)
min
where xnpj is the transformed value of the j-th indicator in the p-th dimension of Country n, x pj is the minimum
max
of the original values among all countries, and x pj is the maximum. A positive indicator is one that increases the
value of the dimension when its value increases, while a reverse indicator is one that decreases the value of the
dimension when its value increases. Among the 14 indicators used in this paper, national interest rate is the only
reverse indicator.
The second step is to calculate the weights on the transformed indicators, i.e., the relative importance of the j-th
indicator in the p-th dimension. We use the coefficient of variation method to measure the degree of differences
between the values of various indicators. The coefficient of variation of the j-th indicator in the p-th dimension is
 pj , where σpj is the standard deviation and apj is the sample average of the j-th indicator in the p-th dimension
V 
pj
 pj
across countries. The higher the coefficient of variation, the greater the level of dispersion around the mean. The
weight on each indicator in the p-th dimension is then V
. Therefore, the indicator that has a wider variation
pj
w 

pj
V pj

across countries receives a higher weight.

With the weights and the transformed values, the final step is to calculate the dimension index by using the
Euclidean distance synthesis method. Specifically, denote xˆnpj  w pj  xnpj as the weighted adjusted value of the
indicator. The higher the value of xˆnpj , the better the achievement of Country n in Dimension p. Note that since
xnpj is between 0 and 1, 0  xˆnpj  w pj . Suppose that there are q indicators in Dimension p. Then a country’s
achievement in dimension p can be represented by a point X np  ( x np1 , x np 2 ,  , x npq ) on the q-dimensional space.
Follow Sarma’s method, in the m-dimensional space, the point O = (0, 0, 0,…,0) represents the point indicating
the worst situation (zero achievement) while the point X p  ( x p1 , x p 2 ,  , x pq ) represents an ideal situation
indicating the highest achievement in all dimensions. We use a simple average of the normalized Euclidian distance
between X and O (denoted by Xnp1) and the normalized inverse Euclidian distance between X and W (denoted by
Xnp2). The dimension index of Dimension p (DInp) is defined as the average of Xnp1 and Xnp2 .
 q  q 
  x npj ) 2 

x npj   (w pj 
1 
 1  
j 1 j 1
DI np  
2  q  q 


w 2
pj 
 
2
w pj 


j 1
 j 1  (2)
 Yan Shen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 187 (2021) 218–223 221
Yan Shen,Wenxiu Hu,C.James Hueng/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 4

Finally, we repeat the above steps for the values of the dimensional sub-indexes. That is, calculate the coefficient
of variation ( V   p , where  p is the standard deviation and a p is the sample average of DInp across countries).
p
ap
The weight imposed on the dimension index is Vp All weights assigned to the indicators and the dimensions
wp 
V p

.
reports in Table 2.
 DI2  DI2  DI2  DI2  (w1  DIn1)2  (w2  DIn2 )2  (w3  DIn3 )2  (w4  DIn4 )2 
1 
IDFIn   
n1 n2 n3 n4
 1 
2  2 2 2 2
w1  w2  w3  w4  w12  w22  w32  w42
   (3)

Table2 Index of Digital Financial Inclusion (IDFI)

Country IDFI Country IDFI Country IDFI Country IDFI

Singapore 0.897 Iran 0.643 Trinidad 0.575 Mexico 0.503
Malta 0.746 Slovak 0.643 Malaysia 0.575 Bangladesh 0.498
Korea 0.741 Cyprus 0.633 Macedonia 0.570 Belize 0.496
Japan 0.688 Latvia 0.630 Brazil 0.567 Pakistan 0.491
Australia 0.686 Russian 0.627 Dominican 0.559 Morocco 0.486
Luxembourg 0.685 Greece 0.627 Trinidad 0.575 Cambodia 0.485
United States 0.685 Lithuania 0.626 Georgia 0.555 Bhutan 0.480
Netherlands 0.683 Turkey 0.620 Kazakhstan 0.554 Comoros 0.479
Denmark 0.681 Bulgaria 0.617 Albania 0.549 Nicaragua 0.478
New Zealand 0.680 Chile 0.617 South Africa 0.548 Ghana 0.478
Belgium 0.679 Hungary 0.614 Armenia 0.547 Rwanda 0.476
Canada 0.679 Mauritius 0.610 Panama 0.544 Kyrgyz 0.473
Sweden 0.675 China 0.608 Colombia 0.541 Honduras 0.467
Finland 0.673 Qatar 0.608 Moldova 0.540 Chad 0.457
Switzerland 0.673 Kuwait 0.605 Peru 0.536 Guinea 0.456
Spain 0.668 Arab Emirates 0.600 Jordan 0.533 Central African 0.455
France 0.668 Oman 0.598 India 0.528 Azerbaijan 0.451
Poland 0.668 Saudi Arabia 0.595 Bosnia 0.528 Lao 0.441
Germany 0.666 Ukraine 0.590 Jamaica 0.521 Iraq 0.438
Austria 0.665 Thailand 0.590 Argentina 0.521 Afghanistan 0.438
Slovenia 0.663 Costa Rica 0.586 Philippines 0.518 Zambia 0.437
Israel 0.658 Serbia 0.584 Algeria 0.513 Myanmar 0.428
Ireland 0.658 Uruguay 0.583 Kosovo 0.511 Madagascar 0.410
Estonia 0.655 Lebanon 0.581 Vietnam 0.511 Sudan 0.388
Czech 0.654 Kenya 0.580 Guatemala 0.510 Mozambique 0.354
Portugal 0.654 Montenegro 0.576 Djibouti 0.509
Italy 0.653 Romania 0.576 Zimbabwe 0.507

3.Spatial Spillover Effect Analysis

The mainstream economic theory assumes that the space is homogeneous and does not consider the correlation
between adjacent regions. This assumption is contradictory to reality since the distribution of resources such as labor,
capital, and technology is not balanced. Spatial autocorrelation reflects the dependencies between spatial units. If the
observed distributions of adjacent areas have similarities, the spatial positive correlation exists. Otherwise, there is a
negative spatial autocorrelation relationship. The global Moran’s I index is the first method applied to the global
autocorrelation test, which can be used to test whether the regions adjacent to each other in the entire study area are
spatially correlated or independent [9].
222 Yan Shen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 187 (2021) 218–223
Yan Shen,Wenxiu Hu,C.James Hueng/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 5

n n
n  w ij ( x  x)( x
i 1 j 1
i j  x)
Moran' s I  n n n

 w  ( x ij i  x) 2
i 1 j 1 i 1 (4)
According to the measurement results of IDFI, the Moran's I index is equal to 0.8637 with the z value
6.117(>Threshold 1.65), and the P value is 0.0003<0.05. It shows that IDFI has a significant spatial positive
autocorrelation globally. This means if a country's digital finance inclusion is high, it will affect neighboring
countries through spillover effects.
Based on the cross country growth framework of Kim et al. (2018) and the conclusions of Mankiw (2012) on
factors affecting economic growth[7][8]. We use the per capita GDP as a proxy variable for economic growth.
Explanatory variable is the Index of Digital Financial Inclusion (IDFI). Control variables includes CPIi IMEMi GOVi
EDUi UNEMPi POPUi URBi GINIi.
The spatial Dubin model (SDM) not only considers the spatial correlation of the dependent variable and the
spatial correlation of the residual term, but also considers the spatial interaction of the independent variable's
influence on the dependent variable, so it can get more convincing results[3]. So the spatial Dubin model (SDM)
was chosen:
Y  WY  X  WX   (5)
Y is the per capita GDP of each country, X is all explanatory variable, W is the spatial weights matrix with zeros
on the diagonal, WY is endogenous interaction effect coefficient, WX is exogenous interaction effect coefficient, ρ is
the spatial autoregressive coefficient, β and θ are coefficients to be estimated.
For the spatial weights matrix, we selected 86 neighboring countries as research objects from 105 countries. We
consider the following binary spatial matrix:
1, if i ≠ j, and i and j are contiguous
Wi
0, otherwise
Where we expect a country's economic growth to be affected by digital inclusive finance in its own country or in
neighbouring countries.

4.Results and discussion

Table3 shows the results of the SDM model. First of all, IDFI's estimated coefficient (144.289 and 147.822) is
significantly positive at the 1% level. So digital financial inclusion has a significantly positive effect on economic
growth at the 1% level. That is, the development of digital financial inclusion in a country can promote its economic
growth. Spatial autoregressive coefficient ρ (=-0.236) is significant at the 5% level. That is, economic growth of a
country negatively affects the economies of neighboring countries. This phenomenon is consistent with Myrdal’s
(1957) “backwash” effect: capital, talents, technology and other production factors are attracted by the difference in
income to move from backward regions to developed regions[12].

Table 3 Estimation results of Spatial Dubin Model

Variable Coefficient Asymptot t-stat z-probability

Constant -174.851 -7.363 0.000
IDFI 144.289 6.262 0.000
CPI 0.009 0.234 0.815
IMEM 0.079 3.559 0.000
GOV 0.759 2.080 0.038
EDU -2.171 -2.177 0.029
UNEMP -0.759 -3.124 0.002
POPU 4.106 1.831 0.067
URB 0.252 1.914 0.056
GINI 20.978 1.360 0.174
W*IDFI 147.822 3.796 0.000
W*CPI 0.048 0.840 0.401
W*IMEM -0.032 -0.745 0.456
 Yan Shen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 187 (2021) 218–223 223
Yan Shen,Wenxiu Hu,C.James Hueng/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 6

W*GOV 0.237 0.452 0.651

W*EDU -0.319 -0.188 0.851
W*UNEMP 0.387 1.143 0.253
W*POPU 0.008 0.003 0.998
W*URB -0.333 -2.054 0.040
W*GINI 55.863 2.952 0.003
R2 0.7939
Rho（ρ） -0.236**
Notes: **indicates significant at 5% critical level.
Secondly, the indirect effects of the explanatory variables' estimates should be used to test the hypothesis that
spatial spillover effects exist [3]. As can be seen from Table 4, the indirect effect of digital financial inclusion on
economic growth is significant at the 1% level. That is, digital financial inclusion has spillover effects on
neighboring countries.

Table 4 Spatial Effect Decomposition

Indirect Direct Total

Variable
Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat
IDFI 101.957 2.922*** 135.284 5.678*** 237.241 7.038***
CPI 0.040 0.706 0.006 0.140 0.046 0.862
IMEM -0.045 -1.180 0.083 3.472*** 0.038 1.141
GOV 0.050 0.096 0.767 1.898* 0.817 1.874 *
EDU 0.165 0.107 -2.189 -2.031** -2.024 -1.293
UNEMP 0.522 1.562 -0.820 -3.056 *** -0.298 -1.185
POPU -0.927 -0.287 4.193 1.639 * 3.267 1.571
URB -0.348 -2.137 ** 0.277 1.920** -0.071 -0.678
GINI 45.939 2.468** 17.070 1.065 63.010 4.455***
Notes: ***, ** and * indicates significant at 1%, 5% and 10% critical level.
We close by discussing two limitations of our study. First, we have only one year cross-section data, and long-run
spillover effect of digital financial inclusion on growth cannot be analyzed without a longer sample period. Second,
this paper only studies the regularity of spatial dependence, and does not consider heterogeneity. Heterogeneity of
spatial dependence regularity needs further study.

References

[1] Anand S., Kodan K., and Kuldip S. C. (2012) “A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis of Financial Inclusion and Economic Growth. ”
Management and Labour Studies 2:103-133.
[2] Beck T., Demirguc-Kunt A., and Peria M S M. (2007) “Reaching out: Access to and Use of banking Services Across Countries.” Journal of
Financial Economics 85:234-266.
[3] Elhorst J. P. (2014) “Spatial Econometrics: From Cross-Sectional Data to Spatial Panels.” Springer Berlin Heidelberg
[4] Galor O., Zeira J. (1993) “Income Distribution and Macroeconomics.” The Review of Economic Studies 60: 35-52.
[5] Honohan P.(2004) “Financial Development, Growth and Poverty: How close are the links?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper
3203:1-31.
[6] Dahlman C., Mealy S., and Wermelinger M. (2016) “Harnessing the digital economy for developing countries.” OECD Development Centre
Working Papers.No.334.
[7] Kim D. W., Yu J. S.(2018) “Financial Inclusion and Economic Growth in OIC Countries.” Research in International Business and Finance
43:1-14.
[8] Mankiw N. G. (2012) “Principles of Macroeconomics. ” South-western Cengage Learning, 157-158.
[9] Moran, P. A. P. (1950) “Note on Continuous Stochastic Phenomena.” Biometrika,37(1):17-23.
[10] Mishra S., Nathan H. S(2014) “Measuring HDI – The Old, the New and the Elegant: Implications for Multidimensional Development and
Social Inclusiveness. ” ASIA Research Center Working Paper 63.
[11] Myovella G. , Karacukaa M., and Justus Haucap (2020) “Digitalization and economic growth: A comparative analysis of Sub-Saharan
Africa and OECD economies.” Telecommunications Policy 44(2):101586.
[12] Myrdal, G. (1957) “Economic Theory of Underdeveloped Regions.” London: Gerard Dicksworth
[13] Sarma, M., Pais J. (2011) “Financial Inclusion and Development.” Journal of Development 23: 613-628.
[14] Sarma, M. (2015) “Measuring Financial Inclusion.” Economics Bulletin 35: 604-611.
[15] Yorulmaz, R. (2018) “An analysis of constructing global financial inclusion indices.” Borsa Istanbul Review 18:248-258.
[16] Zelany M. (1974) “A Concept of Compromise Solutions and the Method of the Displaced Ideal.” Computers and Operations Research 1 (4):
479–496.