A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Transparency Assessment in Donation-Dependent Foundations Using TOPSIS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In this research, factors influencing corruption are studied. The transparency of charitable foundations accepting donations is evaluated using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Factor Analysis. The research process starts with Factor Analysis, employed to identify and cluster related factors. Expert judgment then determines pairwise comparisons of these factor groups’ importance, with weights for these groups derived through the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). These weighted factors are then used to assess the foundations’ transparency. Furthermore, the TOPSIS model ranks the foundations based on their operational transparency. The research offers an innovative approach for comprehensively evaluating the transparency of charitable foundations, thereby providing potential strategies to minimize corruption. It holds substantial implications for improving the transparency of non-profit organizations, contributing to their operational integrity and efficacy.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Economic Intelligence Center (EIC). Thai Charitable Giving: Trends and Insights from Household Donation Data. Bangkok: Siam Commercial Bank; 2018. Available from: https://www.scbeic.com/en/detail/product/4385.
Bangkok Post. Signature forgery, Siriraj Foundation fund withdrawal. Bangkok Post. 2019 Mar 14. Available from: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1643372.
Thai PBS News. Fraud in the name of Luang Por Kasem Foundation. Thai PBS News. 2019 Aug 5. Available from: https://news.thaipbs.or.th/content/282801.
Bangkok Post. Asian Peace Foundation, DSI accused of official misappropriation of donations. Bangkok Post. 2018 Nov 22. Available from: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1578370.
Intharat N. Measures to Prevent Non-profit Organizations from Being a Source of Financial Support for Terrorism: A Case Study of Foundations [Doctoral dissertation]. Pathum Thani: Rangsit University; 2015. Available from: https://rsuir-library.rsu. ac.th/handle/123456789/1250.
Romaniuk P, Keatinge T. Protecting charities from terrorists and counterterrorists: FATF and the global effort to prevent terrorist financing through the non-profit sector. Crime Law Soc Change. 2018;69:265–282.
Hallak J, Poisson M. Corrupt Schools, Corrupt Universities: What Can Be Done? Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO; 2007.
Mobegi FO, Ondigi BA, Simatwa EMW. Factors contributing to financial mismanagement and misappropriation in public secondary schools in Gucha District, Kenya. Educ Res. 2012;3(7):592–600.
Phongphaew P. Thailand’s Corruption Index: Construction and Reliability Testing. Bangkok: Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission; 2000.
Budsaratragoon P, Jitmaneeroj B. A critique on the Corruption Perceptions Index: An interdisciplinary approach. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 2020;70:100768.
Shkabatur J. Transparency with(out) accountability: Open government in the United States. Yale Law Policy Rev. 2012;31:79–140.
Khopornprasert B. Guidelines for developing transparency standards in government agencies. J Manag Sci. 2011;28(1):33–48. Available from: https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jms_psu/article/download/63804/52354.
Apinunmahakul A. Religious and non-religious giving in Thailand: An economic perspective. J Econ Sustain Dev. 2014;5(3):111–118.
Amonhaemanon D, Khongkaew P, Akartwipart A, Thamthanakoon N. Distinguishing altruism from warm glow: Psychological motivations for money donations to Thailand’s Buddhist society. Rev Behav Finance. 2024.
Pongsapich A, Salamon LM, Anheier HK. Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Thailand. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies; 1993.
Pongsapich A. The nonprofit sector in Thailand. In: Anheier HK, Salamon LM, editors. The Nonprofit Sector in the Developing World: A Comparative Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1998. p. 294–315.
Basopu PM. Assessing Challenges of Corruption in the Eastern Cape Department of Education [Doctoral dissertation]. Alice, South Africa: University of Fort Hare; 2010.
Buraschi A, Cornelli F. The economics of donations and enlightened self-interest. Eur Financ Manag. 2014;20(1):1–32.
Bukhtiarova A, Dukhno Y, Kurochkina I, Lypchanskyi V. Ensuring transparency of key public finance authorities. Invest Manag Financ Innov. 2019;16(2):128–139.
Bekkers R, Wiepking P. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2011;40(5):924–973. doi:10.1177/0899764010380927.
Ebrahim A. Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Dev. 2003;31(5):813–829.
Saxton GD, Guo C. Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2011;40(2):270–295.
Huang JH, Peng KH. Fuzzy Rasch model in TOPSIS: A new approach for generating fuzzy numbers to assess the competitiveness of tourism industries in Asian countries. Tour Manag. 2012;33(2):456–465.
Sharma D, Sridhar S, Claudio D. Comparison of AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-AHP methods in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Int J Ind Syst Eng. 2020;34(2):203–223.
Kesamoon C, Witayakiattilerd W. Hierarchy analysis process under fuzzy environment: A positive way of selecting stocks into portfolio under ambiguity in stock information. Sci Technol Asia. 2019;24(3):1–12.
Yodmun S, Witayakiattilerd W. Stock selection into portfolio by fuzzy quantitative analysis and fuzzy multicrite-ria decision making. Adv Oper Res. 2016;2016:9530425.
Suttipong R, Phanphet S, Wangmai A, Reungsri S, Chattinnawat W. Extended AHP approach with latent factor and stratum in prioritizing and positioning of OTOP Thailand’s program for elderly market. Int J Glob Optim Its Appl. 2022;1(1):22–31.
Apiradee S. Multi-criteria decisionmaking: Comparing SAW, AHP, and TOPSIS methodologies. Princess of Naradhiwas University Journal. 2016;8(2):180–192.
Akhavan P, Philsoophian M, Karimi MH. Selection and prioritization of knowledge management strategies using fuzzy TOPSIS approach: A case study of a research organization. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag Syst. 2019;49(3):397–419.
Nuamsiri S, Chamroenchat K, Maneechai K, Phonsayom A, Phan-ngam P. Corruption in Thai society. Grad Stud J Mahamakut Buddhist Univ. 2018;16(2):273–282.
Vichit-Vadakan J. Public ethics and corruption in Thailand. In: Public Administration in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge; 2017. p. 79–94.
Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
Yuen P. Athapithan (Thesaurus). Bangkok: SE-EDUCATION; 1992.p. 318.
Charities Aid Foundation. World Giving Index 2022. Kent, UK: CAF; 2022. Available from: https://www.cafonline.
org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/caf-world-giving-index-2022.pdf.
Royal Institute. Dictionary of the Royal Institute of Thailand 2011. Bangkok: Royal Academy; 2013.
Revenue Department. Tax Manual for Foundations and Associations. Bangkok: Ministry of Finance; 2014.
