IMPROVING THE METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING THE INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF MANAGEMENT MODELS IN TEXTILE INDUSTRY ENTERPRISES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23721977Abstract
This study develops a transparent assessment procedure for textile enterprise management models that distinguishes institutional performance from economic operating results. Existing evaluations often prioritize output, cost, and financial indicators while giving comparatively less attention to labor compliance, decision-making rights, contract governance, and data integrity. Drawing on institutional economics, global value chain governance, management practices research, and composite indicator design, the article proposes a dual-domain scorecard with sector-adjusted benchmarks, auditable indicators, and a non-compensatory compliance screening mechanism. Institutional and economic scores are normalized separately and combined using a geometric mean; sensitivity analyses examine the effects of alternative dimension weights. A clearly labeled hypothetical application illustrates how output-oriented management may perform less effectively than a balanced alternative when governance-related factors are considered. The framework represents a methodological proposal rather than a causal estimate or a validated ranking of Uzbek firms. It provides a replicable basis for subsequent factory-level verification and management model selection.Keywords
textile industry, management models, institutional efficiency, economic efficiency, composite indicators, governance, performance measurement, UzbekistanReferences
1. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Results of 2025 in the Textile Industry and Priority Tasks for the Future Are Reviewed [Electronic resource]. – Government Portal, 24 December 2025. – URL: https://gov. uz/en/news/view/113651.
2. Better Work (ILO–IFC). Better Work Uzbekistan Annual Report 2025: An Industry and Compliance Review [Electronic resource]. – 2025. – URL: https://betterwork.org/reports-and-publications/better-workuzbekistan-annual-report-2025-an-industry-and-compliance-review/.
3. Better Work (ILO–IFC). Uzbekistan: Our Services—Compliance Assessment Areas [Electronic resource]. – URL: https://betterwork.org/uzbekistan/our-services/ (accessed: 22.10.2026).
4. Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2013). Does Management Matter? Evidence from India / N. Bloom, B. Eifert, A. Mahajan, D. McKenzie, J. Roberts. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs044
5. Bloom, N., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2020). Do Management Interventions Last? Evidence from India / N. Bloom, A. Mahajan, D. McKenzie, J. Roberts. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(2), 198–219. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180369
6. Bloom, N. (2007). Van Reenen J. Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries / N. Bloom, J. Van Reenen. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1351–1408. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2007.122.4.1351
7. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The Governance of Global Value Chains / G. Gereffi, J. Humphrey, T. Sturgeon. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
8. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard—Measures That Drive Performance / R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
9. OECD, European Union, European Commission – Joint Research Centre. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2008. – DOI: 10.1787/9789264043466-en.
10. Williamson, O. E. (2000). The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead / O.E. Williamson. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.3.595
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 ECONOSCITECH INTEGRATION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.