Oksana Liashenko
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Oksana Liashenko has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Karolina Jakóbik
Faculty of Management, AGH University of Krakow, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
1 shared publication - Kostiantyn Pavlov
Faculty of Economics and Management, Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University, Voli Ave., 13, 43025 Lutsk, Ukraine
1 shared publication - Nataliia Karpinska
Institute of Administration and Political Science, University College of Professional Education in Wroclaw, Plac Powstancow Slaskich 1, 53-329 Wroclaw, Poland
1 shared publication - Olena Pavlova
Faculty of Management, AGH University of Krakow, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
1 shared publication - Olga Demianiuk
West Ukrainian National University
1 shared publication - Yurii Vitkovskyi
Academy of Silesia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 20 January 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Preprints.org
Utility-Based Evaluation of National Climate Policies: A Multi-Criteria Framework for Global Assessment
Evaluating national climate policy performance requires frameworks that integrate multiple dimensions while accommodating diverse development pathways. This study develops a Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) framework to construct a Climate Policy Performance Index (CPPI) for 187 countries. The index integrates four dimensions—mitigation, adaptation, economic capacity, and governance—using explicit utility functions and policy-aligned weights derived from climate policy priorities. Data are drawn from the Global Carbon Project, ND-GAIN Country Index, and World Bank indicators. Results reveal substantial cross-national heterogeneity, with CPPI scores ranging from 33.67 (Turkmenistan) to 78.46 (Norway). Nordic countries lead with balanced excellence across dimensions, while alternative high-performance pathways emerge through mitigation leadership (Uruguay, Costa Rica) or governance-economy strength (Singapore). Regional analysis identifies Europe as the top-performing region (mean = 59.92), whereas Sub-Saharan Africa achieves unexpectedly high rankings despite low emissions, owing to weak institutional capacity. The relationship between income and climate performance is non-monotonic: lower-middle-income countries achieve comparable aggregate scores to high-income nations, with near-perfect mitigation performance compensating for weaker governance. Sensitivity analysis shows that ranking robustness is comparable across equal, adaptation-focused, and multiplicative weighting schemes (Spearman's ρ > 0.83), whereas mitigation-focused weights yield substantially different orderings (ρ = 0.47). The CPPI correlates moderately with ND-GAIN (r = 0.40) and weakly negatively with CO₂ per capita (r = −0.28), indicating the framework captures distinct aspects of climate policy performance. The proposed methodology advances beyond existing indices by providing axiomatic foundations, transparent utility specifications, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis, offering a theoretically grounded tool for cross-national climate policy evaluation.
- 20 January 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Preprints.org
Open AccessUtility-Based Evaluation of National Climate Policies: A Multi-Criteria Framework for Global Assessment
Evaluating national climate policy performance requires frameworks that integrate multiple dimensions while accommodating diverse development pathways. This study develops a Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) framework to construct a Climate Policy Performance Index (CPPI) for 187 countries. The index integrates four dimensions—mitigation, adaptation, economic capacity, and governance—using explicit utility functions and policy-aligned weights derived from climate policy priorities. Data are drawn from the Global Carbon Project, ND-GAIN Country Index, and World Bank indicators. Results reveal substantial cross-national heterogeneity, with CPPI scores ranging from 33.67 (Turkmenistan) to 78.46 (Norway). Nordic countries lead with balanced excellence across dimensions, while alternative high-performance pathways emerge through mitigation leadership (Uruguay, Costa Rica) or governance-economy strength (Singapore). Regional analysis identifies Europe as the top-performing region (mean = 59.92), whereas Sub-Saharan Africa achieves unexpectedly high rankings despite low emissions, owing to weak institutional capacity. The relationship between income and climate performance is non-monotonic: lower-middle-income countries achieve comparable aggregate scores to high-income nations, with near-perfect mitigation performance compensating for weaker governance. Sensitivity analysis shows that ranking robustness is comparable across equal, adaptation-focused, and multiplicative weighting schemes (Spearman's ρ > 0.83), whereas mitigation-focused weights yield substantially different orderings (ρ = 0.47). The CPPI correlates moderately with ND-GAIN (r = 0.40) and weakly negatively with CO₂ per capita (r = −0.28), indicating the framework captures distinct aspects of climate policy performance. The proposed methodology advances beyond existing indices by providing axiomatic foundations, transparent utility specifications, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis, offering a theoretically grounded tool for cross-national climate policy evaluation.