Sensitivity analysis as a tool to optimise Human Development Index - Publication - Bridge of Knowledge

Your account

login

Search

Sensitivity analysis as a tool to optimise Human Development Index

Abstract

Research background: Composite indicators are commonly used as an approximation tool to measure economic development, the standard of living, competitiveness, fairness, effectiveness, and many others being willingly implemented into many different research disciplines. However, it seems that in most cases, the variable weighting procedure is avoided or erroneous since, in most cases, the so-called ‘weights by belief’ are applied. As research show, it can be frequently observed that weights do not equal importance in composite indicators. As a result, biased rank-ings or grouping of objects are obtained. Purpose of the article: The primary purpose of this article is to optimise and improve the Human Development Index, which is the most commonly used composite indicator to rank countries in terms of their socio-economic development. The optimisation will be done by re-scaling the current weights, so they will express the real impact of every single component taken into consid-eration during HDI’s calculation process. Methods: In order to achieve the purpose mentioned above, the sensitivity analysis tools (mainly the first-order sensitivity index) were used to determine the appropriate weights in the Human Development Index. In the HDI’s resilience evaluation process, the Monte Carlo simulations and full-Bayesian Gaussian processes were applied. Based on the adjusted weights, a new ranking of countries was established and compiled with the initial ranking using, among others, Kendall tau correlation coefficient. Findings & Value added: Based on the data published by UNDP for 2017, it has been shown that the Human Development Index is built incorrectly by putting equal weights for all of its components. The weights proposed by the sensitivity analysis better reflect the actual contribution of individual factors to HDI variability. Re-scaled Human Development Index constructed based on proposed weights allow for better differentiation of countries due to their socio-economic development.

Citations

  • 1 3

    CrossRef

  • 0

    Web of Science

  • 1 4

    Scopus

Author (1)

Cite as

Full text

download paper
downloaded 166 times
Publication version
Accepted or Published Version
License
Creative Commons: CC-BY open in new tab

Keywords

Details

Category:
Articles
Type:
artykuły w czasopismach
Published in:
EQUILIBRIUM Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy no. 14, pages 425 - 440,
ISSN: 1689-765X
Language:
English
Publication year:
2019
Bibliographic description:
Kuc-Czarnecka M.: Sensitivity analysis as a tool to optimise Human Development Index// EQUILIBRIUM Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy -Vol. 14,iss. 3 (2019), s.425-440
DOI:
Digital Object Identifier (open in new tab) 10.24136/eq.2019.020
Bibliography: test
  1. Aguna, C. G., & Kovacevic, M. (2011). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the human development index. Human Development Research Paper, 47. open in new tab
  2. Balcerzak, A. P., & Pietrzak, M. B. (2017a). Digital economy in Visegrad countries. multiple-criteria decision analysis at regional level in the years 2012 and 2015. Journal of Competitiveness, 9(2). doi: 10.7441/joc.2017.02.01. open in new tab
  3. Balcerzak, A. P., & Pietrzak, M. B. (2017b). Human development and quality of institutions in highly developed countries. In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & U. Can (Eds.), Financial environment and business development. Proceedings of the 16th Eurasia Business and Economics Society. Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39919-5_18. open in new tab
  4. Balcerzak, A. P., & Pietrzak, M. B. (2017c). TOPSIS with generalized distance measure gdm in assessing poverty and social exclusion at regional level in Visegrad countries. In: P. Pražák (Ed.). 35th international conference mathematical methods in economics MME 2017 conference proceedings. Hradec Králové: University of Hradec Králové.
  5. Bandura, R. (2008). Measuring country performance and state behavior: a survey of composite indices. New York: Office of Development StudiesUnited Nations Development Programme. open in new tab
  6. Bartkowiak-Bakun, N. (2017). The diversity of socioeconomic development of rural areas in Poland in the western borderland and the problem of post-state farm localities. Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(3). doi: 10.24136/oc.v8i3.26. open in new tab
  7. Becker, W., Saisana, M., Paruolo, P., & Vandecasteele, I. (2017). Weights and importance in composite indicators: closing the gap. Ecological Indicators, 80. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056. open in new tab
  8. Becker, W., Paolo, P., E., Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2016). Weights and importance in composite indicators : mind the gap. In. R. Ghanem, D. Higdon & H. Owhadi (Eds.). Handbook of uncertainty quantification. Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11259-6_40-1. open in new tab
  9. Bellido, H., Gimenez-Nadal, J., & Ortega, R. (2011). Measuring satisfaction of the unemployed: a composite indicator and policy implications. Applied Economics Letters, 18(17). doi: 10.1080/13504851.2011.558475. open in new tab
  10. Cherchye, L., Lovell, C. A. K., & Mosen, W. (2007). One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics. European Economic Review, 51(3). doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2006.03.011. open in new tab
  11. Despotis, D. (2005). A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment analysis. Journal of Operational Research Society, 56(8). doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601927. open in new tab
  12. Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: the dark side of managerialistic 'enlightenment'. Public Administration, 87(4). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01766.x. open in new tab
  13. Dobrota, M., Jeremic, V., Bulajic, M., & Radojicic, Z. (2015). Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of PISA efficiency: distance-based analysis approach. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 12(3). doi: 10.12700/APH.12.3.2015.3.3. open in new tab
  14. Dominiquez-Serrano, M., & Blancas, F. (2011). A gender wellbeing composite indicator: the best-worst global evaluation approach. Social Indicators Research, 102(3). doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9687-3. open in new tab
  15. Floridi, M., Pagni, S., & Falorni, S. (2011). An exercise in composite indicators construction: assessing the sustainability of Italian regions. Ecological Economics, 70(8). doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.003. open in new tab
  16. Giambona, F., & Vassallo, E. (2014). Composite indicator of social inclusion for European countries. Social Indicators Research, 116(1). doi: 10.1007/s11205- 013-0274-2. open in new tab
  17. Gnaldi, M., & Del Sarto, S. (2018). Variable weighting via multidimensional IRT models in composite indicators construction. Social Indicators Research, 136(3). doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1500-5. open in new tab
  18. Gomez-Vega, M., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2019). Ranking world tourist destinations with a composite indicator of competitiveness: to weigh or not to weigh? Tourism Management, 72. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.006. open in new tab
  19. Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: a review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1). doi: 10.1007/ s11205-017-1832-9. open in new tab
  20. Hoskin, B., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3). doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9271-2. open in new tab
  21. Kruk, H., & Waśniewska, A. (2017). Application of the Perkal method for assessing competitiveness of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Oeconomia Copernicaca, 8(3). doi: 10.24136/oc.v8i3.21. open in new tab
  22. Kuc, M. (2017a). Social convergence in Nordic countries at regional level. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 12(1). doi: 10.24136/eq.v12i1.2. open in new tab
  23. Kuc, M. (2017b). Is the regional divergence the price for the international convergence? the case of Visegrad Group. Journal of Competitiveness, 9(4). doi: 10.7441/joc.2017.04.04. open in new tab
  24. Łyszczarz, B. (2016). Public-private mix and performance of health care system in CEE and CIS countries. Oeconomia Copernicaca, 7(2). doi: 10.12775/OeC. 2016.011. open in new tab
  25. Mann, J., & Shideler, D. (2015). Measuring Schumpeterian activity using a composite indicator. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 4(1). doi: 10.1108/JEPP-07-2013-0029. open in new tab
  26. Mazouch P., Vltavska K., & Stnaek T. (2016). Towards the unnecessity of human development index: the case of sensitivity analysis. Statistika, 96(4).
  27. Mcgillivray, M. (1991). The human development index -yet another redundant composite development indicator. World Development, 19(10). doi: 10.1016/ 0305-750X(91)90088-Y. open in new tab
  28. Mizobuchi, H. (2014). Measuring world better life frontier: a composite indicator for OECD better life index. Social Indicators Research, 118(3). doi: 10.1007/s 11205-013-0457-x. open in new tab
  29. Neumayer, E. (2001). The human development index and sustainability -a constructive proposal. Ecological Economics, 39(1). doi: 10.1016/S0921- 8009(01)00201-4. open in new tab
  30. Nikulin, D., & Sobiechowska-Ziegert, A. (2018). Informal work in Poland -a regional approach. Papers in Regional Science, 97(4). doi: 10.1111/pirs.12306. open in new tab
  31. Pääkkönen, J., & Seppälä, T. T. (2014). Using composite indicators to evaluate the efficiency of health care system. Applied Economics, 46(19). doi: 10.1080/0003 6846.2014.899675. open in new tab
  32. Paruolo, P., Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2013). Rating and rankings: voodoo or science? Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series A -Statistics in Society, 3. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01059.x. open in new tab
  33. Peiro-Palomino, J., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2018). OECD: one or many? ranking countries with a composite well-being indicator. Social Indicators Research, 139(3). doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1747-5. open in new tab
  34. Perisic, A. (2015). Data-driven weights and restrictions in the construction of composite indicators. Croatian Operational Research Review, 6(1). doi: 10.17 535/crorr.2015.0003.
  35. Pietrzak, M. B., & Balcerzak, A. P. (2017). Economic development of Polish voivodeships in the years 2010-2014. application of taxonomic measure of development with entropy weights. In M. Papież & S. Śmiech (Eds.). The 11th professor Aleksander Zelias international conference on modelling and forecasting of socio-economic phenomena. Conference proceedings. Cracow: Foundation of the Cracow University of Economics.
  36. Pietrzak, M. B., Balcerzak, A. P., Gajdos, A., & Arendt, Ł. (2017). Entrepreneurial environment at regional level: the case of Polish path towards sustainable socio-economic development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2). doi: 10.9770/jesi.2017.5.2(2). open in new tab
  37. Pietrzak, M. B. (2016). The problem of the inclusion of spatial dependence within the TOPSIS method. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(3). doi: 10.14254/ 1800-5845.2016/12-3/5. open in new tab
  38. Ravallion, M. (2010). Mashup indices of development. Policy Research Working Paper Series. The World Bank, 5432. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-5432. open in new tab
  39. Reig-Martinez, E., Gomez-Limon, J., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2011). Ranking farms with a composite indicator of sustainability. Agricultural Economics, 42(5). open in new tab
  40. Sagar, A., & Najam, A. (1998). The human development index: a critical review. Ecological Economics, 25(3). doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00536.x. open in new tab
  41. Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2010). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the 2010 environmental performance index. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/ publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/uncertainty-and-sensiti vity-analysis-2010-environmental-performance-index (16.12.2018).
  42. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 168(2). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00350.x. open in new tab
  43. Sobiechowska-Ziegert, A., & Mikulska, A. (2013). Measure of the level of socio- economic development in provinces. Quantitative Methods in Economics, 14(2). open in new tab
  44. United Nations Development Programme (2019). Human development index (HDI). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development- index-hdi (15.01.2019). open in new tab
  45. Weziak-Bialowolska, D. (2015). Poverty in the regions of the European Union - measurement with a composite indicator. Contemporary Economics, 9(2). doi: 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.163. open in new tab
  46. Yang, F., Kao, R., & Chen, Y. (2018). A common weight approach to construct composite indicators: the evaluation of fourteen emerging markets. Social Indicators Research, 137(2). doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1603-7. open in new tab
  47. Zavaleta, D., & Tomkinson, J. (Eds.) (2015). Training material for producing National Human Development Reports. New York: UNDP Human Development Report Office. open in new tab
  48. Żelazny, R., & Pietrucha, J. (2017). Measuring innovation and institution: the creative economy index. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 12(1). doi: 10.24136/eq.v12i1.3. open in new tab
  49. Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: a multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96(1). doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9472-3. open in new tab
  50. Zizka, M. (2013). Construction of composite indicator based on factor analysis. In Proceedings of 31st international conference mathematical methods in economics 2013. Part II. Jihlava: The College of Polytechnics Jihlava.
Sources of funding:
  • 2018/02/X/HS4/00082 NCN
Verified by:
Gdańsk University of Technology

seen 192 times

Recommended for you

Opitmalising Human Development Index with sensitivity analysis

2019

SDGs implementation, their synergies, and trade-offs in EU countries – Sensitivity analysis-based approach

2023

Implementation of the Concept of Flexicurity in the Selected Countries of Central Eastern Europe

2021

STILL ‘FEW, SLOW AND LOW’? ON THE FEMALE DIMENSION OF TECHNOLOGY, LABOUR MARKETS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: EVIDENCE FOR THE PERIOD OF 1990-2017

2019
Meta Tags