IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v64y2012i1p57-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty and robustness in composite indices rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Iñaki Permanyer

Abstract

The choice of specific weights for the variables included in composite indices is a most difficult topic that might involve deep ethical considerations. In face of such a daunting task, a group of decision-makers might be uncertain and prefer to allow for a certain degree of weights underspecification. However, allowing for larger sets of admissible weights might lead to increasingly different admissible rankings. In this paper we introduce an axiomatically characterized ranking distance function that is used to explore the pace at which the dissimilarity between different admissible rankings increases as the set of admissible weights that the decision-makers are willing to accept becomes gradually large. This can be very useful in many areas of the social sciences to assess the reliability and robustness of any ranking derived from the values of composite indices when the choice of a specific weighting scheme is controversial. Copyright 2012 Oxford University Press 2011 All rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Iñaki Permanyer, 2012. "Uncertainty and robustness in composite indices rankings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 57-79, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:64:y:2012:i:1:p:57-79
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpr018
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alkire, Sabina & Seth, Suman, 2015. "Multidimensional Poverty Reduction in India between 1999 and 2006: Where and How?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 93-108.
    2. Lucio Esposito & Enrica Chiappero‐Martinetti, 2019. "Eliciting, Applying And Exploring Multidimensional Welfare Weights: Evidence From The Field," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(S1), pages 204-227, November.
    3. Iñaki Permanyer & M. Azhar Hussain, 2018. "First Order Dominance Techniques and Multidimensional Poverty Indices: An Empirical Comparison of Different Approaches," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 867-893, June.
    4. Stergios Athanassoglou, 2015. "Multidimensional welfare rankings under weight imprecision: a social choice perspective," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(4), pages 719-744, April.
    5. Roberto Ghiselli Ricci, 2019. "An axiomatic characterization of a class of rank mobility measures," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 753-785, April.
    6. Zheng, Buhong & Zheng, Charles, 2015. "Fuzzy ranking of human development: A proposal," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 39-47.
    7. Rogge, Nicky, 2018. "Composite indicators as generalized benefit-of-the-doubt weighted averages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 381-392.
    8. Ahmet M. Çilingirtürk & Habip Koçak, 2018. "Human Development Index (HDI) Rank-Order Variability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 481-504, June.
    9. Iñaki Permanyer & Jeroen Smits, 2020. "Inequality in Human Development across the Globe," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 46(3), pages 583-601, September.

    More about this item

    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:oup:oxecpp:v:64:y:2012:i:1:p:57-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.