Sensitivity analysis as a tool to optimise Human Development Index - Publikacja - MOST Wiedzy

Wyszukiwarka

Sensitivity analysis as a tool to optimise Human Development Index

Abstrakt

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.

Cytowania

  • 1 3

    CrossRef

  • 0

    Web of Science

  • 1 4

    Scopus

Cytuj jako

Pełna treść

pobierz publikację
pobrano 166 razy
Wersja publikacji
Accepted albo Published Version
Licencja
Creative Commons: CC-BY otwiera się w nowej karcie

Słowa kluczowe

Informacje szczegółowe

Kategoria:
Publikacja w czasopiśmie
Typ:
artykuły w czasopismach
Opublikowano w:
EQUILIBRIUM Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy nr 14, strony 425 - 440,
ISSN: 1689-765X
Język:
angielski
Rok wydania:
2019
Opis bibliograficzny:
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:
Cyfrowy identyfikator dokumentu elektronicznego (otwiera się w nowej karcie) 10.24136/eq.2019.020
Bibliografia: test
  1. Aguna, C. G., & Kovacevic, M. (2011). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the human development index. Human Development Research Paper, 47. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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). otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  38. Ravallion, M. (2010). Mashup indices of development. Policy Research Working Paper Series. The World Bank, 5432. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-5432. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  39. Reig-Martinez, E., Gomez-Limon, J., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2011). Ranking farms with a composite indicator of sustainability. Agricultural Economics, 42(5). otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  43. Sobiechowska-Ziegert, A., & Mikulska, A. (2013). Measure of the level of socio- economic development in provinces. Quantitative Methods in Economics, 14(2). otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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). otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  47. Zavaleta, D., & Tomkinson, J. (Eds.) (2015). Training material for producing National Human Development Reports. New York: UNDP Human Development Report Office. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  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.
Źródła finansowania:
  • 2018/02/X/HS4/00082 NCN
Weryfikacja:
Politechnika Gdańska

wyświetlono 191 razy

Publikacje, które mogą cię zainteresować

Meta Tagi