1 / 14

CONFERENCE ON SMALL STATES AND RESILIENCE BUILDING Malta, 23-25 APRIL 2007

CONFERENCE ON SMALL STATES AND RESILIENCE BUILDING Malta, 23-25 APRIL 2007 " Weighting Procedures for Composite Indicators " Giuseppe Munda European Commission, DG JRC and Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Structure of the presentation.

werner
Download Presentation

CONFERENCE ON SMALL STATES AND RESILIENCE BUILDING Malta, 23-25 APRIL 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONFERENCE ON SMALL STATES AND RESILIENCE BUILDING Malta, 23-25 APRIL 2007 "Weighting Procedures for Composite Indicators" Giuseppe Munda European Commission, DG JRC and Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

  2. Structure of the presentation • Short overview of main properties of linear aggregation rules • A methodological proposal: a non-compensatory multi-criteria aggregation convention for ranking countries • Numerical examples • Conclusion

  3. Example of a Linear Aggregation Rule A hypothetical composite: inequality, environmental degradation, GDP per capita and unemployment Country A: 21, 1, 1, 1 6 Country B: 6, 6, 6, 6 6 Obviously the two countries would represent very different social conditions that would not be reflected in the composite.

  4. Weights in linear aggregation rules have always the meaning of trade-off ratio. In all constructions of a composite indicator, weights are used as importance coefficients, as a consequence, a theoretical inconsistency exists. • The assumption of preference independence is essential for the existence of a linear aggregation rule. Unfortunately, this assumption has very strong consequences which often are not desirable in a composite indicator. • In standard composite indicators, compensabilityamong the different individual indicators is always assumed; this implies complete substitutability among the various components considered. For example, in a sustainability index, economic growth can always substitute any environmental destruction or inside e.g., the environmental dimension, clean air can compensate for a loss of potable water. From a descriptive point of view, such a complete compensability is often not desirable.

  5. Example on Weights

  6. Example on Weights • the trade-off between protected species and GDP is set such that a decrease of 1 point in the percentage of protected species can be compensated by an increase of 100,000,000 Euro of GDP. If instead the measurement scales of GDP is changed and this variable is measured per capita, the same trade-off indicated above now would be modified e.g. in “1% of protected species less can be compensated by 100 Euro of GDP per capita more”. Since the measurement scale of the variable protected species has not changed, the only weight that must change value is the one attached to GDP, that in the second case has to increase considerably (since the numerator remain constant and the value of the ratio decrease).

  7. Example on Weights

  8. The Plurality Rule

  9. The Plurality Rule!

  10. Sustainability Indicator ABC = 0.666 + 0.333 + 0.333 = 1.333 AB = 0.333+0.165+0.165=0.666 A B C BA = 0.165+0.165=0.333 BCA = 0.333 + 0.666 + 0.333 = 1.333 A B C 0 0.666 0.333 AC = 0.165+0.165=0.333 CAB = 0.666 + 0.666 + 0.666 = 2 0.333 0 0.333 CA = 0.165+0.333+0.165=0.666 ACB = 0.333 + 0.666 + 0.666 = 1.666 0.666 0.666 0 BC = 0.165+0.165=0.333 BAC = 0.333 + 0.333 + 0.333 = 1 CB = 0.165+0.333+0.165=0.333 CBA = 0.666 + 0.333 + 0.666 = 1.666

  11. A Real-World Application for 146 Countries

  12. QUALITY OF PRODUCT PROCEDURAL RATIONALITY LEARNING HOLARCHIES MCDA ETHICS RESPONSIBILITY CONSISTENCY QUALITY OF “SOCIAL” PROCESS TRANSPARENCY PARTICIPATION MULTI/INTER-DISCIPLINARITY

  13. REFERENCES • Munda G. (2004) – “Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE)”: methodological foundations and operational consequences, European Journal of Operational Research Vol. 158, Issue 3: 662- 677. • Munda G. (2005) – “Measuring sustainability”: a multi-criterion framework, Environment, Development and SustainabilityVol 7, No. 1, pp. 117-134. • Munda G. (2007) – Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, Forthcoming. • Munda G., Nardo M. (2005) – Constructing consistent composite indicators: the issue of weights, EUR 21834 EN, Joint Research Centre, Ispra. • Munda G., Nardo M. (2007) – Non-compensatory/non-linear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting, forthcoming in Applied Economics. • Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Tarantola S., Hoffman A., Giovannini E. (2005) – Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide, OECD Statistics Working Paper, Paris. • Saisana M., Tarantola S., Saltelli A. (2005) - Uncertainty and sensitivity techniques as tools for the analysis and validation of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 168(2), 307-323.

More Related