Abstract

In the scientific article, an information management model was developed for assessing the influence of regulatory tools on business processes on the example of the insurance market of Ukraine. The main purpose of the research is to determine the role of information management as a key driver of business process development in economic systems (on the example of the Ukrainian insurance market). Systematization literary sources and approaches for solving the problem indicates that the development of innovative tools of public governance for the assessment of the regulatory influence of the state regulatory body on the business processes of insurance market is not completed and requires a more in-depth study. The formation of a system of indicators characterizing the business processes of insurance market, which take into account the influence of the Regulator’s tools, is proposed to be implemented in the following sequence: to find out the causal links between the indicators of business processes of insurance market and the measures; to determine the existence of the reaction of business processes’ indicators of insurance market to the Regulator’s measures, taking into account the time gap, which determines the presence of lags in the process of applying the Regulator’s measures; to define and formalize the variability of the business processes’ indicators of insurance market under the influence of the Regulator’s measures. Then the scale of the state of insurance market was built: firstly, check for normality the distribution of the indicators’ values of these markets; secondly, in compliance with the distribution law to construct the scale of indicators according to the «three-sigma rule»; thirdly, in the case of nonconformance with the normal distribution law and presence of skewness, the method of «three sigma» may be used, but either the arithmetic mean, or the mode of the variation series, or its median, is taken as the reference point. The relevance of the decision of this scientific problem is that a set of models is developed for establishing causal relationships between the indicators characterizing the business processes of the insurance market and government regulation instruments, which are quantitatively determined, are theoretical and practical basis for their possible application for solving universal modeling problems of causal processes of estimating the influence of the taken decisions at any regulation of business processes. To solve the problem the Granger-test, the expanded Dickey-Fuller test, the Phillips-Perron test and the Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin test were applied. Time series distribution on stationarity and construction of vector autoregression models are implemented. In order to evaluate the adequacy of the models, a comparison of values of Fisher’s, Student’s criteria, determination coefficient and adjusted determination coefficient is used. Jarque-Bera criteria are used to test the model for stationarity, stability. The formalization of cause-and-effect relationships through the postulate of the theory of measurements and the construction of scales is performed. The built interval scales are based on the application of the three sigma rule, which made possible to specify the allowable boundary values of the indicators. The obtained results testify the influence of regulatory tools on the business processes of insurance market, which confirms the correctness of the use of this complex of models for the solution of weakly formalized problems of causal nature of universal type. The proposed innovative model can be used as a methodology for developing a set of rational methods for assessing informational influences of management decisions in production systems or marketing research. The results of the research can be used to evaluate the business processes of any market or system.

Keywords: business processes, Granger test, informational management, informational model, insurance key driver, services market, regulation tools, scaling, vector autoregression

JEL Classification: С02, G22, 011.

Cite as: Bacho, R., Pukala, R., Hlibko, S., Vnukova, N., Pola, P. (2019). Information management: the key driver of the economic system’s development. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 297-307. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.3-23

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Petrov, B.N., Csaki, F. (Eds.). Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. (p.p. 267–281).
2. Arltova, M., & Fedorova, D. (2016). Selection of Unit Root Test on the Basis of Length of the Time Series and Value of AR(1) Parameter. Statistika – Statistics and Economics Journal, 96, 47-67.
3. Burnham, K., Anderson, D. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodal Inference. New York: Springer.
4. Cihak, M., & Podpiera, R. (2006). Is One Watchdog Better than Three? International Experience with Integrated Financial-Sector Supervision. Czech Journal of Economics and Finance. Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, 56(3-4),102‑126.
5. Chaddock, R. E. (1925). Principles and Methods of Statistics. Cambridge: Houghton Miffin Company, The Riverside Press.
6. Damodar, N.G. (2009). New York: Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill.
7. De Haan, J.; Oosterloo, S.; Schoenmaker, D. (2009). Cambridge: European Financial Markets and Institutions. Cambridge University Press.
8. Dickey, D.A., & Fuller, W.A. (1981). Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. Econometrica, 49, 1057–1072.
9. Dritsaki, M., Dritsaki, C., Adamopoulos, A. (2004) A Causal Relationship between Trade, Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth for Greece. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 1, 230-235.
10. Eichengreen, B., & Dincer, N. (2011). Who Should Supervise? The Structure of Bank Supervision and the Performance of the Financial System. NBER Working Paper Series. Working Paper №17401.
11. Frantz, P., & Instefjord, N. (2012). Financial regulation: regulatory arbitrage and regulatory harmonization. Social Science Research Network, 1-53.
12. Gayawan, E., & Ipinyomi, R., (2009). A Comparison of Akaike, Schwarz and R Square Criteria for Model Selection Using Some Fertility Models. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(4), 3524-3530.
13. Goodhart, C., & Schoenmaker, D. (1995). Should the Functions of Monetary Policy and Banking Supervision Be Separated? Oxford Economic Papers. New Series, 47(4), 539–560.
14. Goodhart, C.A.E., & Тsomocos, D.P. (2012). Cheltenham: Financial Stability in Practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
15. Granger, C. W. J. (1974). Investigation Casual Relations by Econometric Methods and Cross-Spectal Methods. Econometrica, 37, 424-438.
16. Granger, C.W.J. (1983). Co-integrated variables and error-correcting models. San Diego: University of California, Department of Economics Working Paper, 83-113.
17. Hirtle, B., Schuermann, T., Stiroh, K. (2009) Macroprudential Supervision of Financial Institutions: Lessons from the SCAP. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports № 409.
18. Hlibko S., Vnukova N., Hontar D., Anisimova H., Liubchych A. (2019) Risk-Oriented Approach to Determining Bank’s Capital Size according to Requirements of Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Икономически изследвания, 28 (1), 56-71.
19. Horakova, M., (2012). How countries Supervise their Banks, Insurers and Securities Markets. Central Banking Publications (335 pages).
20. Ingves, S. (2011). Basel: Bank for International Settlements. Central Bank Governance and Financial Stability.
21. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 6, 1551-1580.
22. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P.C.B., Schmidt, P., Shin Y. (1992). Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of a Unit Root. Journal of Econometrics, 54, 159-178.
23. Lebo, J.M., Kraft, W.P.(2017). The general error correction model in practice. Research and Politics, 2,1-17.
24. MacKinnon, J.C., Huag, A.A., Michelis, L. (1999). Numerical distribution functions of likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 14, 563-577.
25. Masciandaro, D., & Quintyn, M. (2009). After the Big Bang and Before the Next One? Reforming the Financial Supervision Architecture and the Role of the Central Bank – A Review of Worldwide Trends, Causes and Effects (1998-2008). Italy: Paolo Baffi Centre Research. Paper №2009-37.
26. Masciandaro, D., & Quintyn, M. (2011). The Economic Crisis: Did Financial Supervision Matter? IMF Working Paper. No WP/11/261. November.
27. Melecky, M., & Podpiera, A.M. (2012). Institutional Structures of Financial Sector Supervision, Their Drivers and Emerging Benchmark Models. MPRA Paper, №37059, 1-23.
28. Nier, E.W., Osinski, J., Jacome, L.I., Madrid, P. (2011). Towards Effective Macroprudential Policy Frameworks: an Assessment of Stylized Institutional Models. IMF Working Paper, WP/11/250.
29. Phillips, P.C.B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for Unit Roots in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75, 335-346).
30. Ponomarenko V., Vnukova N., Kolodiziev O., Achkasova S. (2019) The influence of governmental regulation and supervision on the development of the risk-oriented system of financial monitoring of Ukraine. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 29, 419-429.
31. Ren Z., Xiao, Z., Zhang, X. (2013). Two-step adaptive model selection for vector autoregressive processes. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 116, 349-364.
32. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Statist., 6, 461-464.
33. Sturgess, H.A. (1926). The choice of class intervals. Journal of American Statistical Association, 21, 153, 65-66.
34. Thadewald, T, & Buning, H., (2007). Jarque–Bera Test and its Competitors for Testing Normality – A Power Comparison. Journal of Applied Statistics, 34(1), 87-105.