Social Indicators Research

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 65–77 | Cite as

Composite Indicators between Analysis and Advocacy



We explore to what extent composite indicators, capable of aggregating multi-dimensional processes into simplified, stylised concepts, are up to the task of underpinning the development of data-based narratives for political advocacy. A recent OECD working paper (Nardo et al., 2005, Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide, OECD statistics working paper, STD/DOC(2005)3) offering ‘recommended practices’ for the construction of composite indicators is briefly illustrated, together with ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ associated with the use of aggregated statistical information. An attempt is made to summarise the terms of the controversy surrounding the use of composite indicators with practical and applied examples, as well as the mostly advocacy-driven spread of these measures in recent years. As an example, we focus on desirable narratives in support of the so-called Lisbon strategy and its ongoing revision, following one of the recommendations of a recent EU study [Kok: 2004, The High Level Group on Lisbon Strategy chaired by Wim Kok, Facing the Challenge, European Communities, Luxembourg, 2004 on how to streamline and reinvigorate the EU’s Lisbon Agenda. Finally we try to establish a link between the use of composite, even for analytic purposes, and the development of a robust culture of evaluation of policies based on information [Messerlin: 2005, 35th Wincott Lecture, October 3, 2005]. Of these, we try to offer stylised examples – also from the recent literature [Sapir: 2005, Globalisation and the Reform of European Social Models, 2005,] where composite indicators are used.

Key words

composite indicator narrative advocacy Lisbon objectives 


  1. Alesina, A. and R. Perotti: 2004, ‘The European Union: a politically incorrect view’, NBER Working papers Series, Working Paper 10342, Scholar
  2. Center for Global Development’s Commitment to development index, CDI, Scholar
  3. Cherchye, L., C.A. Knox Lowell, W. Moesen and T. Van Puynbroeck: 2005, ‘One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics’, Internal Paper of the KEI (Knowledge Economy Indicators) Project, University of LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  4. EC, 2004: Brussels, 20.2.2004, Report from the commission to the Spring European Council. Delivering Lisbon reforms for the enlarged union, COM (2004) 29 final/2, Scholar
  5. EC: 2005a, ‘Communication from President Barroso to the Spring European Council – Working together for growth and jobs. A new start for the Lisbon Strategy’, COM (2005) 24Google Scholar
  6. EC: 2005b, Information Note on STRUCTURAL INDICATORS, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs, 2005Google Scholar
  7. EC – DG RTD: 2005, Key Figures 2005 on Science, Technology and Innovation towards a European knowledge area, July 2005, see Scholar
  8. Funtowicz S.O. and Ravetz J.R. (1990). Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NLGoogle Scholar
  9. Giles, C. and S. Daneshkhu: 2004, ‘International economy: failure to cut deficits “will sacrifice young”’, Financial Times; Dec 01, 2004Google Scholar
  10. JRC: 2006, ‘Information server on composite indicators’, Scholar
  11. Kok, W.: 2004, The High Level Group on Lisbon Strategy (chaired by Wim Kok) (2004) – Facing the Challenge, European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  12. Messerlin, P.A.: 2005, ‘A European economic agenda after the NO votes’, 35th Wincott Lecture, October 3, 2005. See also Wolf, M., 2005, Brussels must scrutinise its failures, Financial Times, October 4, 2005Google Scholar
  13. Monti, M.: 2005, ‘Toughen up EU reform agenda and make it count’, Financial Times, Published: March 21, 2005Google Scholar
  14. Munda G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research 158(3): 662–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nardo, M., S. Tarantola, A. Saltelli, C. Andropoulos, R. Buescher, G. Karageorgos, A. Latvala and F. Noel: 2004, ‘The e-business readiness composite indicator for 2003: a pilot study’, EUR 21294ENGoogle Scholar
  16. Nardo, M., M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, A. Hoffman and E. Giovannini: 2005a, ‘Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide’, OECD Statistics Working Paper by, STD/DOC(2005) 3, see Publications and Documents at Scholar
  17. Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A. and Tarantola S. (2005b). Tools for Composite Indicators Building. European Commission, report EUR 21682 EN. Joint Research Centre, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicoletti G., S. Scarpetta and O. Boylaud: 2000, ‘Summary indicators of product market regulation with an extension to employment protection legislation’, OECD, Economics Department Working Papers No. 226, ECO/WKP(99)18. Scholar
  19. OECD PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment, www.pisa.oecd.orgGoogle Scholar
  20. Olson, M.: 1984, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities (Yale University Press)Google Scholar
  21. Rifkin J. (2004). The European Dream. Tarcher-Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosen, R.: 1991, Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life (Columbia University Press)Google Scholar
  23. Rosling, H., A. Rosling Rönnlund and O. Rosling: 2005, ‘New software brings statistics beyond the eye’, OECD World Forum on Key Indicators, Palermo, 10–13 November 2004, Scholar
  24. Saisana M., Saltelli A. and Tarantola S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 168(2): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saisana, M. and S. Tarantola: 2002, ‘State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development’, EUR 20408 ENGoogle Scholar
  26. Saltelli, A., M. Nardo, M. Saisana and S. Tarantola: 2004, ‘Composite indicators – the controversy and the way forward’, OECD World Forum on Key Indicators, Palermo, 10–13 November 2004, Scholar
  27. Saltelli, A., S. Funtowicz, A. Guimarães-Pereira, J.-P. Malingreau, G. Munda and M. Giampietro: 2005, ‘Developing effective lisbon strategy narratives’, EUR 21644 ENGoogle Scholar
  28. Sapir, A.: 2005, Globalisation and the Reform of European Social Models, 2005, Scholar
  29. Sarewitz D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7: 385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sen A. (1989). Development as capabilities expansion. Journal of Development Planning 19: 41–58Google Scholar
  31. Sharpe, A.: 2004, Literature Review of Frameworks for Macro-Indicators (Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Ottawa, Canada)Google Scholar
  32. SI: 2005, EUROSTAT’s Structural Indicators database, see Scholar
  33. Tarantola, S., M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, F. Schmiedel and N. Leapman: 2002, ‘Statistical techniques and participatory approaches for the composition of the European Internal Market Index 1992–2001’, EUR 20547 ENGoogle Scholar
  34. Transparency International’s Corruption Index, Scholar
  35. Wolf, M.: 2005, Why Globalisation, Yale Nota Bene SeriesGoogle Scholar
  36. World Economic Forum’s World Competitiveness Index, Scholar
  37. World Economic Forum’s Environmental Sustainability Index, Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The European Commission, Joint Research CentreInstitute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC)Ispra, VareseItaly

Personalised recommendations