Skip to main content

Social and Economic Wellbeing in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: Building an Enlarged Human Development Indicator

Abstract

This paper calculates a human Wellbeing Composite Index (WCI) for 42 countries, belonging to the European Economic Space, North Africa and the Middle East, as an alternative to the shortcomings of other well-known measures of socio-economic development (i.e. Gross Domestic Product per head and Human Development Index). To attain this goal, different data envelopment analysis (DEA) models are used as an aggregation tool for seven selected socio-economic variables which correspond to the following wellbeing dimensions: income per capita, environmental burden of disease, income inequality, gender gap, education, life expectancy at birth and government effectiveness. The use of DEA allows avoiding the subjectivity that would be involved in the exogenous determination of weights for the variables included in WCI. The aim is to establish a complete ranking of all countries in the sample, using a three-step process, with the last step consisting in the use of a model that combines DEA and compromise programming, and permits to obtain a set of common weights for all countries in the analysis. The results highlight the distance that still separates Southern Mediterranean countries from the benchmark levels established by some European countries, and also point to the main weaknesses in individual countries’ performance. Nordic countries, plus Switzerland, top the list of best performers, while Mauritania, Libya and Syria appear at the bottom.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Adler, N., Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (2002). Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research, 140, 49–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkire, S. (2010). Human development: Definitions, critiques and related concepts. Human Development Research Paper, No. 2010/01, United Nations Development Program.

  • Barr, R. S., Durchholz, M. L., & Seiford, L. (2000). Peeling the DEA onion: Layering and rank-ordering DMUs using tiered DEA. Technical Report, Southern Methodist University, USA.

  • Callens, I., & Tyteca, D. (1999). Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms. A productive efficiency perspective. Ecological Economics, 28, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., van Puyenbroeck, T., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., et al. (2008). Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: The case of the Technology Achievement Index. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & van Puyenbroek, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82, 111–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohon, J. L. (1978). Multiobjective programming and planning. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis. A comprehensive text with models, applications, references ad DEA-solver software (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai, M. (1991). Human development: Concepts and measurement. European Economic Review, 35(2/3), 350–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Despotis, D. K. (2002). Improving the discriminating power of DEA: Focus on globally efficient units. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53, 314–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Despotis, D. K. (2005). A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 969–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Balteiro, L., & Romero, C. (2004). In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecological Economics, 49(3), 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Serrano, M., & Blancas, F. J. (2011). A gender wellbeing composite indicator: The best–worst global evaluation approach. Social Indicators Research, 102, 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J., Esty, D. C., Srebotnjak, T., Levy, M. A., Mara, V., de Sherbinin, A., et al. (2010). Environmental Performance Index 2010. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, and Center for International Earth Science Information-Network, Columbia University, in collaboration with World Economic Forum and Joint Research Center (European Commission).

  • Gonçalves, E., Correia, J. C., da Silva, G., Angulo, L., & de Carvalho, J. A. (2009). Efficiency and sustainability assessment for a group of farmers in the Brazilian Amazon. Annals of Operational Research, 169, 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, E., Cárcaba, A., & Ventura, J. (2011). The importance of the geographic level of analysis in the assessment of the quality of life: The case of Spain. Social Indicators Research, 102, 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto, A., & Kodama, M. (1997). Has livability of Japan gotten better for 1956–1990?: A DEA approach. Social Indicators Research, 40, 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi, S. M., & Torabi, S. A. (2010). A common weight MCDA-DEA approach to construct composite indicators. Ecological Economics, 70, 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2009). The global gender gap report 2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurado, A., & Perez-Mayo, J. (2011). Construction and evolution of a multidimensional well-being index for the Spanish regions. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9835-4. Published online: April 13, 2011.

  • Kao, C., & Hung, H. T. (2005). Data envelopment analysis with common weights: The compromise solution approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 1196–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance matters VIII. Aggregate and individual governance indicators 19962008. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978, The World Bank. Development Research Group. Macroeconomics and Growth Team.

  • Lovell, C. A. K., Pastor, J. T., & Turner, J. A. (1995). Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 507–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahlberg, B., & Obersteiner, M. (2001). Remeasuring the HDI by data envelopment analysis. Interim Report IR-01-069. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Laxenburg, Austria).

  • Murias, P., Martínez, F., & de Miguel, C. (2006). An economic wellbeing index for the Spanish Provinces: A data envelopment analysis approach. Social Indicators Research, 77, 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD and Joint Research Center (European Commission).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reig-Martínez, E., Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2011). Ranking farms with a composite indicator of sustainability. Agricultural Economics, 42, 561–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, C. (1996). Multicriteria decision analysis and environmental economics: An approximation. European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (2001). Decision making for leaders. The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world (3rd ed.). Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagar, A. D., & Najam, A. (1998). The human development index: A critical review. Ecological Economics, 25, 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (1990). Human development report 1990: Concept and measurement of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2009). Linking climate change policies to human development analysis and advocacy. A guidance note for human development report teams. Washington, DC: United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report Office.

  • Zaim, O., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2001). An economic approach to achievement and improvement indexes. Social Indicators Research, 56, 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. L. (2007). A mathematical programming approach to constructing composite indicators. Ecological Economics, 62, 291–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: A multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96, 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, J. (2001). Multidimensional quality-of-life measure with an application to Fortune’s best cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35, 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support from Sustainmed Project (FP7-KBBE, European Commission) and from AGL2010-17560-C02-02 Project (Plan Nacional de I+D+i, Spanish Government) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernest Reig-Martínez.

Appendix

Appendix

Step (i) Model

For DMU o , the decisional unit under analysis (or any individual country in this case), the following model can be computed:

$$ \begin{array}{lll} {{\text{Max}}_{{\mu_{ro} }} } \hfill & {h_{o} = \sum\nolimits_{r = 1}^{R} {\mu_{ro} I_{ro} } } \hfill & {} \hfill \\ {{\text{Subject}}\;{\text{to:}}} \hfill & {\sum\nolimits_{r = 1}^{R} {\mu_{ro} I_{rk} } \le 1} \hfill & {k = 1, \ldots ,K} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {\mu_{ro} \ge 0} \hfill & {r = 1, \ldots ,R} \hfill \\ \end{array} $$
(2)

where I rk stands for the value of indicator r for unit k, and μ ro is the weight attached to indicator r in the assessment of the efficiency of DMU o . This model represents a linearization of model (1) and also the assumption of a single virtual input for each decisional unit, with value equal to one. Notice also that we use I as a substitute for y as a reminder that we are no longer using outputs in our objective function, but partial indexes corresponding to measurable attributes of the decisional units.

The problem with model (2) is that the measure of efficiency obtained represents the maximum achievable radial expansion of outputs (attributes) and does not include additional expansions that can only be achieved for some outputs (attributes), but not for all of them in the same proportion. For that reason we use another model that summarizes in a single measure the effect of radial expansions and differences among DMUs concerning the existence of slacks for some attributes in the projection onto the frontier [see Cooper et al. (2007) for technical details]. To overcome this problem we use the Slacks Based Measure (SBM) of efficiency, introduced by Tone (2001), which is computed according to the following model (output-oriented SBM model):

$$ \begin{aligned} & h_{o}^{*} = {\text{Min}}_{{\lambda_{k} ,s_{r}^{ + } }} \frac{1}{{1 + \frac{1}{R}\sum\nolimits_{r = 1}^{R} {{{s_{r}^{ + } } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{s_{r}^{ + } } {I_{ro} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {I_{ro} }}} }}\\ & \begin{array}{lll} { {\text{Subject}}\;{\text{to:}}} \hfill & {x_{o} \ge \sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{K} {\lambda_{k} x_{k} } } \hfill & {} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {I_{ro} = \sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{K} {\lambda_{k} I_{rk} } - s_{r}^{ + } } \hfill & {r = 1, \ldots ,R} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {\lambda_{k} \ge 0} \hfill & {k = 1, \ldots ,K} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {s_{r}^{ + } \ge 0} \hfill & {r = 1, \ldots ,R} \hfill \\ \end{array} \end{aligned}$$
(3)

where \( s_{r}^{ + } \) is the slack in the socioeconomic indicator or attribute r, and λ k measures the intensity with which DMU k enters in the composition of the efficient reference set to which DMU o is being compared. Furthermore, the parameter \( h_{o}^{*} \) is upper bounded to one, with a unity score indicating the best performance.

Step (ii) Model

The same model (3) as in Step (i) is used, following an iterative procedure that has been described in the main text.

Step (iii) Model

In the first place, the scores obtained according to model (3) are employed to establish the reference, or ideal, idiosyncratic efficiency scores. Then, the following model is employed to obtain common weights and global efficiency scores:

$$ \begin{aligned} & {\text{Min}}_{{d_{k} ,\mu_{r} ,z}} \;t\frac{1}{K}\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{K} {d_{k} + (1 - t)z} \\ & \begin{array}{lll} { {\text{Subject}}\;{\text{to}}:} \hfill & {\sum\nolimits_{r = 1}^{R} {\mu_{r} I_{rk} + d_{k} = h_{k}^{*} } } \hfill & {k = 1, \ldots ,K} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {(d_{k} - z) \le 0} \hfill & {k = 1, \ldots ,K} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {d_{k} \ge 0} \hfill & {k = 1, \ldots ,K} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {\mu_{r} \ge \varepsilon } \hfill & {} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {z \ge 0} \hfill & {} \hfill \\ \end{array} \\ \end{aligned} $$
(4)

ε being a non-Archimedean small number which assures that all attributes I r are used in the computation of the scores.

The first term of the objective function represents the mean deviation between the DEA-efficiency scores, or ideal scores, namely \( h_{k}^{*} \) and the global efficiency scores for all units, whereas the second term represents, through the non-negative variable z, the maximum deviation between the aforementioned efficiency scores (see Despotis 2002, 2005 for technical details). Different sets of common weights μ r are generated by varying the parameter t between 0 and 1, thus granting more or less relative importance to the norms respectively implied by the first and second terms of the objective function. Each value of the parameter t may produce a different set of common weights thus generating a different global efficiency pattern. A series of alternative ranks can thus be obtained, according to different t values, and all DMUs can then be ranked with regards to their average global efficiency score.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reig-Martínez, E. Social and Economic Wellbeing in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: Building an Enlarged Human Development Indicator. Soc Indic Res 111, 527–547 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0018-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0018-8

Keywords

  • Wellbeing Composite Index (WCI)
  • Human development
  • Data envelopment analysis (DEA)
  • Compromise programming
  • European and Southern Mediterranean countries