IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/italej/v2y2016i3d10.1007_s40797-016-0041-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data Versus Survey-based Normalisation in a Multidimensional Analysis of Social Inclusion

Author

Listed:
  • Ludovico Carrino

    () (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
    Ca’ Foscari University of Venice)

Abstract

Abstract In the context of the multidimensional measurement of complex phenomena, the major focus of the recent literature has been on the choice of the dimensions’ weights and the shape of the aggregation function, while few studies have concentrated on how normalisation influences the results. With the aim of building a measure of Social Inclusion for 63 European regions between 2004 and 2012, we adopt a standard linear aggregation framework and compare two alternative normalisation approaches: a data-driven min–max function, whose parameters depend solely on the available data, and an expert-based function, whose parameters are elicited through a survey at the University of Venice Ca’ Foscari. Regardless of the adopted strategy, we show that normalisation plays a crucial part in defining variables’ weighting. The data-driven strategy allocates a large relative weight to the longevity dimension, whereas the survey-driven results in a rather equal distribution of weights. The data-driven approach produces trade-offs that are hard to interpret in economic terms and debatable from a social desirability perspective, thus constituting a positive analysis of Social Inclusion. Moreover, it softens the aftermaths of the recent economic crisis on Social Inclusion, by putting a consistent weight on the longevity variable. Conversely, the expert-based normalisation is heavily affected by elicitation techniques, and allows for a normative interpretation of the resulting index. Furthermore, it emphasizes the worsening trends in long-term unemployment and the relevance of early school leaving in the Social Inclusion measure. The two strategies lead to substantially different conclusions in terms of levels (both between and within countries) and distribution of Inclusion: numerous rank-reversals occur when switching the normalisation methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Ludovico Carrino, 2016. "Data Versus Survey-based Normalisation in a Multidimensional Analysis of Social Inclusion," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 2(3), pages 305-345, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:italej:v:2:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40797-016-0041-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40797-016-0041-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40797-016-0041-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeni Klugman & Francisco Rodríguez & Hyung-Jin Choi, 2011. "The HDI 2010: new controversies, old critiques," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 9(2), pages 249-288, June.
    2. Rita Silva & Alexandra Ferreira-Lopes, 2014. "A Regional Development Index for Portugal," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 1055-1085, September.
    3. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1982. "Ratio-Scale and Translation-Scale Full Interpersonal Comparability without Domain Restrictions: Admissible Social-Evaluation Functions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(2), pages 249-268, June.
    4. Pierre Pestieau, 2009. "Assessing The Performance Of The Public Sector," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(1), pages 133-161, March.
    5. Mathieu Lefebvre & Tim Coelli & Pierre Pestieau, 2010. "On the Convergence of Social Protection Performance in the European Union," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 56(2), pages 300-322, June.
    6. Georges Nguefack-Tsague & Stephan Klasen & Walter Zucchini, 2011. "On Weighting the Components of the Human Development Index: A Statistical Justification," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 183-202.
    7. Martin Ravallion, 2011. "On multidimensional indices of poverty," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 9(2), pages 235-248, June.
    8. Pilar Murias & Simone Novello & Fidel Martinez, 2012. "The Regions of Economic Well-being in Italy and Spain," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(6), pages 793-816, June.
    9. Koen Decancq & María Ana Lugo, 2013. "Weights in Multidimensional Indices of Wellbeing: An Overview," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 7-34, January.
    10. Yunji Kim & Youngwha Kee & Seung Lee, 2015. "An Analysis of the Relative Importance of Components in Measuring Community Wellbeing: Perspectives of Citizens, Public Officials, and Experts," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 345-369, April.
    11. Patrick Meyer & Grégory Ponthière, 2011. "Eliciting Preferences on Multiattribute Societies with a Choquet Integral," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 133-168, February.
    12. Maria Ana Lugo & Koen Decancq, 2009. "Measuring Inequality of Well-Being with a Correlation-Sensitive Multidimensional Gini Index," Economics Series Working Papers 459, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    13. Atkinson, Tony & Cantillon, Bea & Marlier, Eric & Nolan, Brian, 2002. "Social Indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199253494.
    14. Caterina Cruciani & Silvio Giove & Mehmet Pinar & Matteo Sostero, 2012. "Constructing the FEEM Sustainability Index: A Choquet-Integral Application," Working Papers 2012.50, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Romina Boarini & Marco Mira D'Ercole, 2013. "Going beyond GDP: An OECD Perspective," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34, pages 289-314, September.
    16. M. Saisana & A. Saltelli & S. Tarantola, 2005. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 307-323.
    17. Bryony Hoskins & Massimiliano Mascherini, 2009. "Measuring Active Citizenship through the Development of a Composite Indicator," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 459-488, February.
    18. Cherchye, Laurens & Knox Lovell, C.A. & Moesen, Wim & Van Puyenbroeck, Tom, 2007. "One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 749-779, April.
    19. Anthony B. Atkinson & Eric Marlier & Brian Nolan, 2004. "Indicators and Targets for Social Inclusion in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 47-75, February.
    20. Shyamal Chowdhury & Lyn Squire, 2006. "Setting weights for aggregate indices: An application to the commitment to development index and human development index," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 761-771.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    CES; Normalisation; Aggregation; Weighting; Experts; Multidimensionality; Social inclusion;

    JEL classification:

    • C43 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Index Numbers and Aggregation
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:italej:v:2:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40797-016-0041-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.