On Weighting the Components of the Human Development Index: A Statistical Justification

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe Human Development Index (HDI) published in the Human Development Report (HDR) of the United Nations Development Program is calculated as a simple average of the Life Expectancy Index (LEI), the Education Index (EI) and the Gross Domestic Product Index (GDPI). This paper provides statistical support for the use of this seemingly arbitrary equal weighting of the three components by treating human development as a latent concept imperfectly captured by its three component indices. We show that a principal component analysis (PCA) based on the correlation matrix of the components leads to practically the same weights. Specifically we show that, for the period 1975 to 2005, the first principal component accounts for between 78% and 90% of the total variability in the data, and that its coefficients are positive and nearly equal. By normalizing the coefficients, the simple average weighting (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) scheme is obtained. The ranks of countries obtained using the PCA weightings are very similar to those based on the HDI. An advantage of the simple equal weighting is that one can define a simple index to measure the balance of a country's development, given its HDI which we show below.

Seven Food System Metrics of Sustainable Nutrition Security

“…Each of the metrics and indicators was scored from 0 to 100, with higher values desirable. Various systems have been proposed for weighting indicators [15][16][17]. However, based on stakeholder feedback, we have chosen to apply equal weighting to indicators, as indicated in Table 1.…”

Evolution of global inequality in human well-being: a sensitivity analysis

“…While this structure seems to be rather arbitrary, some authors argue that there is no reason to weigh more on one dimension than another (Haq, 2003). On the other hand, the equal weighting scheme seems to be supported by the data (see, e.g., Nguefack-Tsague et al (2011)) and it is consistent with expert's opinion (Chowdhury and Squire, 2006). It is beyond the scope of this paper to justify the weighting structure of the HDI.…”

Stirring the pot. Influence of changes in methodology of the Human Development Index on reporting by the press

“…An environmental dimension to the HDI has been discussed at various times and experiments have been undertaken (Neumayer, 2001(Neumayer, , 2012, but the UNDP have stuck to their principle of keeping the HDI as simple as possible (Booysen, 2002;Stapleton and Garrod, 2007;Nguefack-Tsague et al, 2011). The situation is, admittedly, slightly more complex than this as some of the components are themselves created by aggregating data, and there are also adjustments made to the data based upon assumptions of minimum and maximum values for standardisation as well as the nature of any transformation.…”