Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Kongresse
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Veranstaltungskalender Awards MyNewsletter Firmensuche
Kunden Login
Über Einzelzugang informieren
Über Unternehmenszugang informieren
Referenzkunden
Elektrische Antriebe und Energiesysteme 2025 | 26 + 27 März 2025

19. Internationaler MTZ-Fachkongress Zukunftsantriebe

Seien Sie bei der Konferenz dabei! Dort treffen Experten aus der Automobilindustrie, Energieerzeugung und Stromnetzbetrieb auf Vertreter aus Politik und Wissenschaft. Diskutiert werden wichtige Themen der Branche.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality & Quantity
Erschienen in:

01.01.2023

Measuring human development by means of composite indicators: open issues and new methodological tools

verfasst von: Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo, Emiliano Seri

Erschienen in: Quality & Quantity | Ausgabe 6/2024

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Over the years, the Human Development Index has become a reference measure of quality of life and well-being. Its growing importance has been accompanied by a lively debate in the literature concerning the pros and cons of this index. Many works have attempted to provide solutions to Human Development Index related problems. In this paper, we will focus on some of these problems, which are typical not only for the measurement of human development, but for the construction of composite indicators. We will try to provide an answer by proposing two new methodological tools, the \(Min-BoD\) interval of synthesis and the mid aggregation point, which present interesting potentialities to be used in empirical analyses and for policy evaluations, not only in the human development measurement. The proposed tool have been applied to the Human Development Index data collected for 189 countries in 2019.
Vorheriger Artikel Self-assessment of health: how socioeconomic, functional, and emotional dimensions influence self-rated health among Italian nonagenarians
Nächster Artikel Estimating fuzzy measures of deprivation at local level in Tuscany

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
In particular, some authors focused on the lack of concern for distributive issues (Anand and Sen 2000b), emphasising the need to identify methods capable to incorporate distributional inequalities of income, education, and longevity (Hicks 1997; Foster et al. 2005). In order to try to overcome this limitation, in 2010 UNDP introduced the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index—IHDI, a measure that accounts for inequality in the society, following the preliminary analyses made by Alkire and Foster (2010), and that is obtained by combining the estimate of the basic HDI to the Atkinson measure of inequality (Atkinson 1970).
 
2
Three of the four indicators were revised: GDP per capita was replaced by GNI per capita (both valued in PPP US), literacy and gross enrolments were replaced by mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling.
 
3
We need to clarify that, as shown in different studies (see, for instance, Bollen (2007), Bollen and Diamantopoulos (2017)), the choice of the measurement model only depends on the nature of the latent variable, the appropriateness to the phenomenon to be measured and the direction of relationships between constructs and measures. It is not a personal choice of the researcher.
 
4
Until 1993, the normalisation method used was a Min–Max, with minimum and maximum values for all three components based on variable criteria, like the actual minimum and maximum in the current year, or an average threshold value, as with income (Stanton 2007). This choice was strongly criticised in the literature (Kelley 1991; McGillivray 1991; McGillivray and White 1993; Doessel and Gounder 1994; Paul 1996), mainly because it did not allow any temporal comparability.
 
5
Until 2010, the HDI was calculated as an unweighted arithmetic mean of the normalised elementary indicators. This choice has been strongly criticised in the literature (Desai 1991; Palazzi and Lauri 1998; Sagar and Najam 1998), because it implied perfect substitutability allowing that a deficit in one dimension could be compensated by a surplus in another.
 
6
The more variable the distribution, the smaller the geometric mean with respect to the arithmetic mean. Consequently, if two units have the same arithmetic mean in the elementary indicators, the unit with higher variability will have a geometric mean smaller than that of the unit with lower variability.
 
7
For instance, a dashboard allows to avoid an arbitrary choice of the functional form and the weighting scheme and to observe a phenomenon from multiple points of view, However, it does not allow a simple and direct understanding of the phenomenon under consideration (Saisana and Tarantola 2002; OECD 2008).
 
8
In most cases, the indicator systems are in the form of three-way data time arrays. These data structures are characterized by a greater complexity of information, consisting in the fact that multivariate data are observed at different times (D’Urso 2000). The statistical tools presented in this paper are applied to multi-indicator systems in a specific year, i.e. a specific slice of a three-way time data array. Application to temporal data will be the subject of a future work.
 
9
The direction of the relation between the indicator and the phenomenon defines polarity; this, it depends on the type of composite. Some indicators can present positive polarity (i.e. they have the same direction of the phenomenon), others negative polarity (i.e. they are negatively related with the phenomenon).
 
10
It applies if indicator has positive polarity, otherwise we compute the complement to respect to 1 to Eq. 1.
 
11
For example, since the weights are specific for each unit, cross-unit comparisons are not possible and the values of the scoreboard depend on the benchmark performance. Moreover, another drawback is the multiplicity of equilibria. Hiding a problem of multiple equilibria makes the weights not uniquely determined (even if the composite indicator is unique). The optimisation process could lead to many 0-weights if no restrictions are imposed on the weights. For a detailed analysis, please see Vidoli and Mazziotta (2013).
 
14
When a variable exceeds the upper bound of its dimension, the value is truncated at the upper bound so that the range of normalised indicators is always between 0 and 1 and none of the dimensional sub-indices exceeded 1.
 
15
In this application, we consider only 3 dimensions and 4 indicators. It should be made clear that the methods presented are applicable for any indicator system regardless of the number of dimensions and indicators.
 
16
As specified in Scrucca et al. (2016), in the multivariate setting, the volume, shape, and orientation of the covariances can be constrained to be equal (E) or variable (V) across groups. Thus, 14 possible models with different geometric characteristics can be specified.
 
17
We have chosen these four nations because of their similarity and because they are often used as comparisons with each other.
 
Literatur
Alaimo, L.S.: Sustainable development and national differences: an European cross-national analysis of economic sustainability. RIEDS Rev. Econ. Demogr. Stat. 72(3), 101–123 (2018)
Alaimo, L.S.: Open issues in composite indicators construction. In: Balzanetta, A., Bini, M., Cavicchia, C., Verde, R. (eds.) Book of Short Papers SIS 2022, pp. 176–185. Pearson, Milano (2022a)
Alaimo, L.S.: Complexity of social phenomena: measurements, analysis, representations and synthesis. Sapienza University Press, Rome (2022b)
Alaimo, L.S., Maggino, F.: Sustainable development goals indicators at territorial level: conceptual and methodological issues-the Italian perspective. Soc. Indic. Res. 147(2), 383–419 (2020)CrossRef
Alaimo, L.S., Ivaldi, E., Landi, S., Maggino, F.: Measuring and evaluating socio-economic inequality in small areas: an application to the urban units of the municipality of Genoa. Socioecon. Plan. Sci. 83, 101170 (2022)CrossRef
Alkire, S.: Dimensions of human development. World Dev. 30(2), 181–205 (2002)CrossRef
Alkire, S., Foster, J.E.: Designing the inequality-adjusted human development index. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI) working paper, vol. 10 (2010)
Anand, S., Sen, A.: Concepts or human development and poverty. a multidimensional perspective. United Nations Development Programme, Poverty and human development: human development papers, pp. 1–20 (1997)
Anand, S., Sen, A.: Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev. 28(12), 2029–2049 (2000a)CrossRef
Anand, S., Sen, A.: The income component of the human development index. J. Hum. Dev. 1(1), 83–106 (2000b)CrossRef
Archibugi, D., Coco, A.: A new indicator of technological capabilities for developed and developing countries (ARCO). World Dev. 32(4), 629–654 (2004)CrossRef
Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of inequality. J. Econ. Theory 2(3), 244–263 (1970)CrossRef
Biggeri, M., Mauro, V.: Towards a more ‘sustainable’ human development index: integrating the environment and freedom. Ecol. Ind. 91, 220–231 (2018)CrossRef
Biswas, B., Caliendo, F.: A multivariate analysis of the human development index. Econ. Res. Inst. Study Pap. 11, 1 (2002)
Blalock, H.M.: Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. University of North Carolina Press, North Carolina (1964)
Blalock, H.M.: The measurement problem: a gap between the languages of theory and research. In: Kerlinger, F. (ed.) Methodology in Social Research, pp. 5–27. McGraw-Hill, New York (1968)
Bleys, B.: Beyond GDP: classifying alternative measures for progress. Soc. Indic. Res. 109(3), 355–376 (2012)CrossRef
Bollen, K.A.: Multiple indicators: internal consistency or no necessary relationship? Qual. Quant. 18(4), 377–385 (1984)CrossRef
Bollen, K.A.: Interpretational confounding is due to misspecification, not to type of indicator: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychol. Methods 12(2), 219–228 (2007)CrossRef
Bollen, K.A., Diamantopoulos, A.: In defense of causal-formative indicators: a minority report. Psychol. Methods 22(3), 581–596 (2017)CrossRef
Bruggemann, R., Patil, G.P.: Ranking and Prioritization for Multi-indicator Systems: Introduction to Partial Order Applications. Springer, Dordrecht (2011)CrossRef
Cataldo, R., Grassia, M.G., Lauro, N.C., Marino, M.: Developments in higher-order pls-pm for the building of a system of composite indicators. Qual. Quant. 51(2), 657–674 (2017)CrossRef
Cataldo, R., Crocetta, C., Grassia, M.G., Lauro, N.C., Marino, M., Voytsekhovska, V.: Methodological pls-pm framework for SDGS system. Soc. Indic. Res. 156(2), 701–723 (2021)CrossRef
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.L.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6), 429–444 (1978)CrossRef
Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., Van Puyenbroeck, T.: An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 82(1), 111–145 (2007)CrossRef
Ciommi, M., Gigliarano, C., Emili, A., Taralli, S., Chelli, F.M.: A new class of composite indicators for measuring well-being at the local level: an application to the equitable and sustainable well-being (BES) of the Italian provinces. Ecol. Ind. 76, 281–296 (2017)CrossRef
Dardha, E., Rogge, N.: How’s life in your region? measuring regional material living conditions, quality of life and subjective well-being in OECD countries using a robust, conditional benefit-of-the-doubt model. Soc. Indic. Res. 151(3), 1015–1073 (2020)CrossRef
De Witte, K., Rogge, N.: Accounting for exogenous influences in a benevolent performance evaluation of teachers. Available at SSRN 1462690 (2009)
Desai, M.: Human development: concepts and measurement. Eur. Econ. Rev. 35(2–3), 350–357 (1991)CrossRef
Despotis, D.K.: Measuring human development via data envelopment analysis: the case of Asia and the Pacific. Omega 33(5), 385–390 (2005)CrossRef
Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A.: Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Br. J. Manag. 17(4), 263–282 (2006)CrossRef
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M.: Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38(2), 269–277 (2001)CrossRef
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., Roth, K.P.: Advancing formative measurement models. J. Bus. Res. 61(12), 1203–1218 (2008)CrossRef
Diener, E., Suh, E.: Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 40(1), 189–216 (1997)CrossRef
Doessel, D.P., Gounder, R.: Theory and measurement of living levels: some empirical results for the human development index. J. Int. Dev. 6(4), 415–435 (1994)CrossRef
D’Urso, P.: Classificazione fuzzy per matrici a tre vie temporali. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy (2000)
D’Urso, P., Alaimo, L.S., De Giovanni, L., Massari, R.: Well-being in the Italian regions over time. Soc. Indic. Res. 161, 599–627 (2022)CrossRef
Emrouznejad, A., Yang, G.-I.: A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 61, 4–8 (2018)CrossRef
Färe, R., Karagiannis, G., Hasannasab, M., Margaritis, D.: A benefit-of-the-doubt model with reverse indicators. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 278(2), 394–400 (2019)CrossRef
Fattore, M.: Synthesis of indicators: the non-aggregative approach. In: Maggino, F. (ed.) Complexity in Society: From Indicators Construction to Their Synthesis, pp. 193–212. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRef
Filippetti, A., Peyrache, A.: The patterns of technological capabilities of countries: a dual approach using composite indicators and data envelopment analysis. World Dev. 39(7), 1108–1121 (2011)CrossRef
Foster, J.E., Lopez-Calva, L.F., Szekely, M.: Measuring the distribution of human development: methodology and an application to Mexico. J. Hum. Dev. 6(1), 5–25 (2005)CrossRef
Fraley, C., Raftery, A.E.: Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 97(458), 611–631 (2002)CrossRef
Fusco, E., Vidoli, F., Sahoo, B.K.: Spatial heterogeneity in composite indicator: a methodological proposal. Omega 77, 1–14 (2018)CrossRef
Gasper, D.: Is Sen’s capability approach an adequate basis for considering human development? Rev. Polit. Econ. 14(4), 435–461 (2002)CrossRef
Giarlotta, A.: Multicriteria compensability analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 133(1), 190–209 (2001)CrossRef
Gioia, F., Lauro, C.N.: Basic statistical methods for interval data. Stat. Appl. 17(1), 75–104 (2005)
Harttgen, K., Klasen, S.: A household-based human development index. World Dev. 40(5), 878–899 (2012)CrossRef
Herrero, C., Martínez, R., Villar, A.: A newer human development index. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 13(2), 247–268 (2012)CrossRef
Hicks, D.A.: The inequality-adjusted human development index: a constructive proposal. World Dev. 25(8), 1283–1298 (1997)CrossRef
Kelley, A.C.: The human development index: “handle with care’’. Popul. Dev. Rev. 17, 315–324 (1991)CrossRef
Klugman, J.: Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development. UNDP, New York (2009)
Kondyli, J.: Measurement and evaluation of sustainable development: a composite indicator for the islands of the north Aegean region, Greece. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30(6), 347–356 (2010)CrossRef
Kovacevic, M.: Review of hdi critiques and potential improvements. Hum. Dev. Res. Pap. 33, 1–44 (2010)
Krajnc, D., Glavič, P.: A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 43(2), 189–208 (2005)CrossRef
Lima, M.: Visual Complexity: Mapping Patterns of Complexity. Princeton Architectural Press, New York (2011)
Maggino, F., Bruggemann, R., Alaimo, L.S.: Indicators in the framework of partial order. In: Bruggemann, R., Carlsen, L., Beycan, T., Suter, C., Maggino, F. (eds.) Measuring and Understanding Complex Phenomena: Indicators and Their Analysis in Different Scientific Fields, pp. 17–29. Springer, Cham (2021)CrossRef
Mariano, E.B., Sobreiro, V.A., do Nascimento Rebelatto, D.A.: Human development and data envelopment analysis: a structured literature review. Omega 54, 33–49 (2015)CrossRef
Masset, E., García-Hombrados, J.: Sensitivity matters. Comparing the use of multiple indicators and of a multidimensional poverty index in the evaluation of a poverty eradication program. World Dev. 137, 105162 (2021)CrossRef
Mazumdar, K.: A new approach to human development index. Rev. Soc. Econ. 61(4), 535–549 (2003)CrossRef
Mazziotta, M., Pareto, A.: Synthesis of indicators: the composite indicators approach. In: Maggino, F. (ed.) Complexity in Society: From Indicators Construction to Their Synthesis, pp. 159–191. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRef
McGillivray, M.: The human development index: Yet another redundant composite development indicator? World Dev. 19(10), 1461–1468 (1991)CrossRef
McGillivray, M., White, H.: Measuring development? the undp’s human development index. J. Int. Dev. 5(2), 183–192 (1993)CrossRef
McLachlan, G.J., Basford, K.E.: Mixture Models: Inference and Applications to Clustering, vol. 38. M. Dekker, New York (1988)
Moore, R.E., Kearfott, R.B., Cloud, M.J.: Introduction to Interval Analysis. SIAM, Philadelphia (2009)CrossRef
Morais, P., Camanho, A.S.: Evaluation of performance of European cities with the aim to promote quality of life improvements. Omega 39(4), 398–409 (2011)CrossRef
Munda, G.: Choosing aggregation rules for composite indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 109(3), 337–354 (2012)CrossRef
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S.: Tools for Composite Indicators Building. European Commission. Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, JRC, Ispra (2005)
Noorbakhsh, F.: The human development index: some technical issues and alternative indices. J. Int. Dev. J. Dev. Stud. Assoc. 10(5), 589–605 (1998)
Nussbaum, M.C.: Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRef
OECD: Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and User Guide. OECD Publications, Paris (2008)CrossRef
Palazzi, P., Lauri, A.: The human development index: suggested corrections. PSL Q. Rev. 51(205), 193–221 (1998)
Paul, S.: A modified human development index and international comparison. Appl. Econ. Lett. 3(10), 677–682 (1996)CrossRef
Ranis, G., Stewart, F., Samman, E.: Human development: beyond the human development index. J. Hum. Dev. 7(3), 323–358 (2006)CrossRef
Rogge, N.: Composite indicators as generalized benefit-of-the-doubt weighted averages. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 267(1), 381–392 (2018a)CrossRef
Rogge, N.: On aggregating benefit of the doubt composite indicators. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264(1), 364–369 (2018b)CrossRef
Rogge, N., Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Van Puyenbroeck, T.: ’benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. In: European Conference on Quality in Survey Statistics (2006)
Sagar, A.D., Najam, A.: The human development index: a critical review. Ecol. Econ. 25(3), 249–264 (1998)CrossRef
Saisana, M., Tarantola, S.: State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. EUR 20408 EN, European Commission-JRC, Italy (2002)
Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T.B., Raftery, A.E.: mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. R J. 8(1), 289 (2016)CrossRef
Sehnbruch, K., González, P., Apablaza, M., Méndez, R., Arriagada, V.: The quality of employment (QOE) in nine Latin American countries: a multidimensional perspective. World Dev. 127, 104738 (2020)CrossRef
Sen, A.: Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)
Shwartz, M., Burgess, J.F., Berlowitz, D.: Benefit-of-the-doubt approaches for calculating a composite measure of quality. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Method. 9(4), 234–251 (2009)CrossRef
Slottje, D.J.: Measuring the quality of life across countries. Rev. Econ. Stat. 73, 684–693 (1991)CrossRef
Stanton, E.A.: The human development index: a history. PERI working papers, vol. 85 (2007)
Talukder, B., Hipel, K.W., vanLoon, G.W., et al.: Developing composite indicators for agricultural sustainability assessment: effect of normalization and aggregation techniques. Resources 6(4), 66 (2017)CrossRef
Tarabusi, E.C., Guarini, G.: An unbalance adjustment method for development indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 112(1), 19–45 (2013)CrossRef
Titterington, D.M., Smith, A.F., Makov, U.E.: Statistical Analysis of Finite Mixture Distributions, vol. 198. Wiley, New York (1985)
Tufte, E.R.: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire (1983)
Ul Haq, M.: Reflections on Human Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)CrossRef
Ülengin, B., Ülengin, F., Güvenç, Ü.: A multidimensional approach to urban quality of life: the case of Istanbul. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130(2), 361–374 (2001)CrossRef
UNDP: Human Development Report 1990. UNDP, New York (1990)
UNDP: Human Development Report 1993. UNDP, New York (1993)
UNDP: Human Development Report 1994. UNDP, New York (1994)
UNDP: Human Development Report 2010. UNDP, New York (2010)
Verbunt, P., Rogge, N.: Geometric composite indicators with compromise benefit-of-the-doubt weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264(1), 388–401 (2018)CrossRef
Vidoli, F., Mazziotta, C.: Robust weighted composite indicators by means of frontier methods with an application to European infrastructure endowment. Ital. J. Appl. Stat. 23(2), 259–282 (2013)
Metadaten
Titel
Measuring human development by means of composite indicators: open issues and new methodological tools
verfasst von
Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo
Emiliano Seri
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2023
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Quality & Quantity / Ausgabe 6/2024
Print ISSN: 0033-5177
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7845
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01597-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2024

Reinforcement learning for sequential decision making in population research

  • Open Access

How does broadband supply affect participation in panel surveys?: Using geospatial broadband data at the district level to analyze mode choice and panel attrition

  • Open Access

The importance of quality in a complex behavioral model dependent on the analytical: an example of adopting eco-friendly cars among young consumers in the United States

Unforgettable Food Experiences: A Model for Constructing Rural Tourism Cooking Experience Classrooms

Efficiency analysis using SBM and PLS-SEM: insights from the Italian judicial system

  • Open Access

Ask me if I am happy: sport practice and life satisfaction in Italy

  • Open Access

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise