Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A trichotomic segmentation approach for estimating composite indicators

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Composite indicators (CIs) are commonly used for benchmarking of countries over the years, summarizing in a single measurement, complex social, economic, environmental etc. concepts by involving several thematically related sub-indicators. When estimating  CIs and for a few specific countries, it is possible to have a strong indication and belief about their performance, prior to obtaining their scores. Based on that, a number of countries are likely to occupy the top-ranking positions; some will remain at the bottom list, while others may range in intermediate places. This initial preference information imposes a trichotomic segmentation that divides the countries under assessment into categories of superior, inferior and of ambiguous future performance. In this paper, we introduce the trichotomic segmentation as initial preference information to estimate the values of the CIs. We build on the popular Benefit of the Doubt (BoD) method with common weights and develop a two-goal linear programming model, that next to the evaluation of the common weights for the sub-indicators, estimates cut-off points for the CI values that distinguish the superior and inferior countries. The proposed model maintains the advantages of the common variable weighting and produces scores that induce better discrimination of the countries, having also a significant correlation with the original CI scores. The proposed methodology is applied to reassess the Digital Economy and the Society Index.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, P., Athanassopoulos, A., Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research,73, 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernini, C., Guizzardi, A., & Angelini, G. (2013). DEA-like model and common weights approach for the construction of a subjective community well-being indicator. Social Indicators Research,114(2), 405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making countries. European Journal of Operational Research,2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye, L., & Kuosmanen, T. (2004). Benchmarking sustainable development: A synthetic metaindex approach. Working paper 24. World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

  • Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research,82(1), 111–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W., Seiford, L., & Zhou, J. (2011). Handbook on data envelopment analysis (p. 164). Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • DESI. (2018a). The digital economy and society index (DESI). https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi.

  • DESI (2018b). The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), Ireland. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/scoreboard/ireland.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Despotis, D. K. (2005b). Measuring human development via data envelopment analysis: the case of Asia and the Pacific. Omega,33, 385–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gender Equality Index (2019). European Institute for Gender Equality. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2019.

  • Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Gianpiero Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HDI (2016). Human Development Index Technical report. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2016_technical_notes.pdf.

  • Jahansahahloo, G. R., Memariani, A., Hosseinzadeh Lofti, F., & Rezai, H. Z. (2005). A note on some of DEA models and finding efficiency and complete ranking using common set of weights. Applied Mathematics and Computation,166, 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaszkiewicz, A., & Ferhat, A. B. (1999). Solving multiple criteria problems by interactive trichotomy segmentation. European Journal of Operational Research,112, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00216-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C. (2010). Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling,34(7), 1779–1787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C., & Hung, H. (2005). Data envelopment analysis with common weights: The compromise solution approach. Journal of Operational Research Society,56(10), 1196–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsak, E. E., & Ahiska, S. S. (2005). Practical common weight multi-criteria decision-making approach with an improved discriminating power for technology selection. International Journal of Production Research,43, 1537–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koronakos, G., Smirlis, Y., Sotiros, D., & Despotis, D. (2019). Assessment of OECD Better Life Index by incorporating public opinion. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2019.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makui, A., Alinezhad, A., Mavi, R., & Zohrehbandian, M. (2008). A goal-programming method for finding common weights in DEA with an improved discriminating power for efficiency. Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering,1(4), 293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melyn, W., & Moesen, W. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: Unequal weighting when limited information is available. Public Economic Working Paper 17. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.

  • Miettinen, K. (1998). nonlinear multiobjective optimization. International series in operations research and management science. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-8278-2.

  • Moscarola, J., & Roy, B. (1977). Procedure automatique d’ examen de dossiers fondee sur un classement trichotomique en presence de criteries multiples. Revue Francaise d’ Informatique et de Recherche Operationnelle,22, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and users guide. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/533411815016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogge, N. (2017). Composite indicators as generalized benefit-of-the-doubt weighted averages. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogge, N. (2018). On aggregating benefit of the doubt composite indicators. European Journal of Operational Research,264(1), 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, Y., Cook, W. D., & Golany, B. (1991). Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis. IIE Transactions,23, 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, Y., & Golany, B. (1993). Alternative methods of treating factor weights in DEA. Omega,21, 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1981). A multicriteria analysis for trichotomic segmentation problems. In P. Nijkamp & J. Spronk (Eds.), Mutliple criteria analysis (pp. 245–257). London: Gaver.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (2001). Human development report 2001 United Nations, Development Programme (UNDP) (p. 45), New York: Oxford University Press. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/262/hdr_2001_en.pdf.

  • Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. L. (2007). A mathematical programming approach to constructing composite indicators. Ecological Economics,62(2), 291–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, Business and International Studies, University of Piraeus, 80, Karaoli and Dimitriou, 18534, Piraeus, Greece

    Yiannis Smirlis

Authors
  1. Yiannis Smirlis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiannis Smirlis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Classification of the countries, DESI (2018a, b) original and estimated scores and rankings by pure BoD model (1), BoD with common weights model (3) and the enhanced with trichotomic segmentation model (5)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smirlis, Y. A trichotomic segmentation approach for estimating composite indicators. Soc Indic Res 150, 393–410 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02310-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02310-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation