Construcción de indicadores sintéticosuna aproximación para maximizar la discriminación

  1. Blancas Peral, Francisco J. 1
  2. Contreras Rubio, Ignacio 1
  3. Ramírez Hurtado, José M. 1
  1. 1 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

Zeitschrift:
Anales de ASEPUMA

ISSN: 2171-892X

Datum der Publikation: 2011

Nummer: 19

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Andere Publikationen in: Anales de ASEPUMA

Zusammenfassung

Composite indicators constructed on the basis of the benef t of the doubt criterion are charac-terized by endogenously determined vectors of weights. In this paper, a new procedure to construct composite indicators is proposed which tries to overcome the main weakness of this family of pro-cedures: the obtention of an individual weighting vector for each alternatives, which makes the comparisons between alternatives diff cult, and multiple ties. A new procedure is proposed which, keeping the essence of DEA-inspired procedures, determines a common weighting-vector to eva-luate the complete set of alternatives and includes the discrimination between alternatives as an objective of the procedure.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E. (1978) ” Measuring the eff ciency of decision making units”. European Journal of Operational Research 2, pp. 429-444.
  • Cherchye, L., Kuosmanen, T. (2002). ” Benchmarking Sustainable Development: A Synthetic Meta-index Approach”. United Nations University Press.
  • Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N. y Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). ”An Introduction to ’Benef t of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators”. Social Indicators Research, 82, 1, pp. 111-145.
  • Contreras, I. (2010). ”A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights”. Group Decision and Negotiation, doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9127-9.
  • den Butter, F.A.G., van den Eyden, J.A.C. (1998). ”A Pilot Index for Environmental Policy in the Netherlands”. Energy Policy, 26, pp. 95-101.
  • Despotis, D.K. (2002). ”Improving the Discriminating Power of DEA: Focus on Globally Eff cient Units”. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53, pp.314-323.
  • Ebert, U., Welsch, H. (2004). ”Meaningful Environmental Indices: a Social Choice Approach”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, pp. 270-283.
  • Esty, D.C., Levy. M., Srebotnjak, T., Sherbinin, A., (2005). ”Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. Yale Center of Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, Conn.
  • Ginsberg, N., Osborn, J., Blank, G., (1986). ”Geographic Perspectives on the Wealth of Nations”. Department of Geography Research Paper No. 220, University of Chicago, Chicago
  • Kang, S.M. (2002). ”A Sensitivity Analysis of the Korean Composite Environmental Index”. Ecological Economics, 43, pp. 159-174.
  • Mahlberg, B. Obersteiner, M. (2001). ”Remeasuring the HDI by Data Envelopment Analysis”. International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Interim Report IR-01-069.
  • Martínez, F., Domínguez, M., Murias, P. (2005): ”El Análisis Envolvente de Datos en la Construcción de Indicadores Sintéticos. Una Aplicación a las Provincias Españolas”. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 23, pp. 753-771.
  • Munda, G. (2005). ”Measuring Sustainability: A Multi-Criterion Framework”. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, pp. 117-134.
  • Munda, G., Nardo, M. (2003). ”On the Methodological Foundations of Composite Indicators Used for Ranking Countries”. OECD/JRC Workshop on composite indicators of country performance, Ispra, Italy.
  • Munda, G., Nardo, M. (2005). ”Constructing consistent composite indicators: The issue of weights”. Technical Report EUR 21834 EN, European Commission.
  • Munda, G., Nardo, M. (2009): ”Noncompensatory/ Nonlinear Composite Indicators for Ranking Countries: A Defensible Setting”. Applied Economics, 41, 1513-1523.
  • 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 Papers.
  • Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S., Boylaud, O. (2000). ”Summary Indicators of Products Market Regulation with an Extension to Employment Protection Legislation”. OECD Economics Department Working Papers no 226.
  • Saisana, M., Tarantola, S. (2002). ”State - of - the - Art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development”. Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
  • Yoon, K.P., Hwang, C.L. (1995). ”Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Zhou, O., Ang, B.W. Poh, K.L. (2006). ”Comparing Aggregating Methods for Constructing the Composite Environmental Index: An Objective Measure”. Ecological Economics, 59, PP. 305-311.
  • Zhou, P., Ang, B.W. (2009).” Comparing MCDA Agregation Methods in Constructing Composite Indicators using the Shannon-Spearman Measure”. Social Indicators Research, 94, 1, pp. 83-96.
  • Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., Zhou, D.Q. (2010). ” Weighting and Aggregation in Composite Indicators Construction: A Multiplicative Optimization Approach”. Social Indicators Research, 96, pp. 169-181.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet