Light and Shade of Multidimensional Indexes

How Methodological Choices Impact on Empirical Results
  • Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
  • Nadia von Jacobi
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 48)


The aim of this chapter is to discuss and measure the impact on results of three main methodological assumptions in the construction of multidimensional indexes of poverty and well-being – namely, the transformation function, the aggregation procedure and the weighting system chosen. The empirical analysis is based on Jordan DHS (2002, 2007) datasets and integrated by a fieldwork conducted on a sample of students and development experts for eliciting information related to the relative weights attached to several well-being domains considered (education, health, housing, employment and personal security). A robustness analysis has been conducted quantifying the relative and global impact of different combinations of these three methodological choices on poverty estimates both at national and sub-national level.


Membership Function Composite Index Membership Degree Composite Indicator Capability Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This paper has been developed within the Research Project on Human Rights and Human Development funded by the Italian Ministry of Higher Education and Research (FIRB RBIN06ZFSE). We would like to thank Ekhlas Sweis and the students of the master in human rights of the University of Jordan (UJ) for their kind support during the fieldwork conducted at the UJ in Amman and Zina Nimeh and Zaid Eyadat for their help in selecting and contacting experts and for the support provided during the interviews. Special thanks go to Lucio Esposito for his suggestions during the preparation of the questionnaires and to Achin Chakraborty for precious comments. We are very grateful to the STAT-TEAM (Alberto Cardaci, Francesca Gatti, Toa Giroletti and Francesco Maffoni) for the precious research assistance on data analysis. Helpful comments have been received by the participants at the 2010 HDCA Conference in Amman.

Supplementary material


  1. Addabbo, T., Di Tommaso, M. L., & Facchinetti, G. (2004). To what extent fuzzy set theory and structural equation modelling can measure functionings? An application to child well being (Child Working Papers, n. 30/2004).Google Scholar
  2. Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, T., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2002). Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baliamoune, M. (2004). On the measurement of human well-being: fuzzy set theory and Sen’s capability approach (Research paper 2004/16). Helsinki: Wider.Google Scholar
  5. Berenger, V., & Verider-Chouchane, A. (2007). Multidimensional measures of well-being: Standard of living and quality of life across countries. World Development, 35(7), 1259–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruni, L., & Porta, P. L. (Eds.). (2005). Economics and happiness: Framing the analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burchardt, T. (2008). Monitoring inequality: Putting the capability approach to work. In G. Craig, T. Burchardt, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy: Seeking fairness in diverse societies. Bristol: Policy.Google Scholar
  8. Calvo, T., Mayor, G., & Mesiar, R. (Eds.). (2002). Aggregations operators: New trends and applications. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag/Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Cerioli, A., & Zani, S. (1990). A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty. In C. Dagum & M. Zenga (Eds.), Income and wealth distribution, inequality and poverty. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Cheli, B., & Lemmi, A. (1995). A “totally” fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimensional analysis of poverty. Economic Notes by Monte dei Paschi Siena, 24(1), 115–134.Google Scholar
  11. Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (1996). Standard of living evaluation based on Sen’s approach: Some methodological suggestions. Notizie di Politeia, 12(43/44), 37–53.Google Scholar
  12. Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (2000). A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen’s functioning approach. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, CVIII(2), 207–239.Google Scholar
  13. Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (2006). Capability approach and fuzzy set theory: Description, aggregation and inference issues. In A. Lemmi & G. Betti (Eds.), Fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. de Kruijk, H., & Rutten, M. (2007). Weighting dimensions of poverty based on people’s priority: Constructing a composite poverty index for the Maldives (Working Paper 35). Q-squared, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  15. Decancq, K., & Lugo, M. A. (2010). Weights in multidimensional indices of well-being: An overview (OPHI Working Paper n. 18) (pp. 502–522). Oxford: Oxford Poverty Human Development Initiative.Google Scholar
  16. Di Tella, R., & MacCullogh, R. (2006). Some uses of happiness data in economics. Journal of Economic Perspective, 20(1), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Easterlin, R. A. (2000, July). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111(473), 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EHRC. (2009). Developing the equality measurement framework: Selecting the indicators. London: Equality of Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Esposito, L., Kebede, B., & Maddox, B. (2011). Literacy practices and schooling: A case study from Mozambique. World Development, 39(10), 1796–1807.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2008). Portfolio of overarching indicators and streamlined social inclusion, pensions and health portfolios. Brussels: Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG, Social Protection and social integration.Google Scholar
  21. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52(3), 761–766.Google Scholar
  22. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness and economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fukuda-Parr, S., & Kumar, S. (Eds.). (2003). Readings in human development. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, R., Smith, P., & Goddard, M. (2004). Measuring performance: An examination of composite performance indicators (Technical Paper 29). York: Centre for Health Economics, York University.Google Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D. (2000). Experienced utility and objective happiness: A moment-based approach. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press/Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A.B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perpsective, 20(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Klir, G. J., & Yuan, B. (1995). Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: Theory and applications. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  30. Lelli, S. (2001). Factor analysis vs. fuzzy sets theory: Assessing the influence of different techniques on Sen’s functioning approach (Centre of Economic Studies Discussion Paper). Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
  31. Marlier, E., & Atkinson, T. (2010). Indicators of poverty and social exclusion in a global context [Special issue on poverty measurement]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 285–304.Google Scholar
  32. Mascherini, M., & Hoskins, B. (2008). Retrieving expert opinion on weights for the active citizenship composite indicator. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security.Google Scholar
  33. McGillivray M., & Noorbakhsh, F. (2006). Composite indexes of human well-being: Past, present and future. In M. McGillivray (Ed.), Human well-being: Concept and measurement (pp. 113–134). WIDER publication, Studies in Development Economics and Policy Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Nimeh, Z. (2012). Social citizenship rights: Inequality and exclusion. Maastricht Graduate School of Governance Dissertation Series 27.Google Scholar
  35. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capability approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. K. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life, wider studies in development economics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  38. OECD-JRC. (2008). Handbook of constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. Ravaillon, M. (2010a). The mashup indices of development (Policy Research Working Paper n. 5432). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  40. Ravaillon, M. (2010b). Troubling tradeoffs in the human development index (Policy Research Working Paper 5434). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  41. Ravaillon, M. (2011). On multidimensional indices of poverty (Policy Research Working Paper, n. 5580). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  42. Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roche, J. M. (2008). Monitoring inequality among social groups: A methodology combining fuzzy set theory and principal component analysis. Journal of Human Development, 9(3), 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  46. Sen, A. K. (2004). Capabilities, lists and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. K., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report of the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Avaiable at
  48. UNDP. (2010). Human development report 2010 – The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Veenhoven, R. (2000). Freedom and happiness: A comparative study in forty-four nations in the early 1990s. In E. Diener & M. Eunkook (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 257–288). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  50. World Bank. (2010). Global monitoring report 2010: The MDGs after the crisis. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nadia von Jacobi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political and Social SciencesUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Advanced StudyPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations