Anders Hoffman

Bio: Anders Hoffman is an academic researcher from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The author has contributed to research in topics: Entrepreneurship. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 2959 citations.

Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide

Abstract: This Handbook aims to provide a guide for constructing and using composite indicators for policy makers, academics, the media and other interested parties. While there are several types of composite indicators, this Handbook is concerned with those which compare and rank country performance in areas such as industrial competitiveness, sustainable development, globalisation and innovation. The Handbook aims to contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of composite indicators and to an improvement of the techniques currently used to build them. In particular, it contains a set of technical guidelines that can help constructors of composite indicators to improve the quality of their outputs. It has been prepared jointly by the OECD (the Statistics Directorate and the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry) and the Applied Statistics and Econometrics Unit of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in Ispra, Italy. Primary authors from the JRC are Michela Nardo, Michaela Saisana, Andrea Saltelli and Stefano Tarantola. Primary authors from the OECD are Anders Hoffmann and Enrico Giovannini. Editorial assistance was provided by Candice Stevens, Gunseli Baygan and Karsten Olsen. The research is partly funded by the European Commission, Research Directorate, under the project KEI (Knowledge Economy Indicators), Contract FP6 No. 502529. In the OECD context, the work has benefitted from a grant from the Danish government. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be regarded as stating an official position of either the European Commission or the OECD.

A Framework for Addressing and Measuring Entrepreneurship

Abstract: In recent years entrepreneurship has become a buzzword that?s entered the mainstream. Politicians continuously cite its importance and the need to create more entrepreneurial societies, and newspapers and television programmes frequently create themes around successful entrepreneurs. But, the pursuit and development of policies related to entrepreneurship are often hampered by the limited, albeit growing, empirical information relating to entrepreneurship (its size, factors and benefits). Therefore, in the absence of definitions that capture the essence of entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship indicators that are internationally comparable, policy makers are left somewhat rudderless when it comes to developing policies, particularly when they relate to learning from international best-practice. These shortcomings and the growing importance of entrepreneurship in the policy domain have magnified the need for a sounder basis for internationally comparable indicators of entrepreneurship. This paper provides a framework that is intended to provide that sounder basis. It does so by adopting a holistic approach, and, so, by focusing on the: factors that impede or motivate entrepreneurship (determinants); measures that provide indicators of the state of entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial performance); and, outcomes (impacts) of that performance on the economy as a whole. Each of these three themes provides the overarching structure to the framework, using a standardised OECD definition of entrepreneurship, and, within each, we develop a suite of indicators that provide the basis for quantifiable information to be collected in an internationally comparable way for each of these themes.

A Framework for Addressing and Measuring Entrepreneurship

Abstract: In recent years entrepreneurship has become a buzzword that?s entered the mainstream. Politicians continuously cite its importance and the need to create more entrepreneurial societies, and newspapers and television programmes frequently create themes around successful entrepreneurs. But, the pursuit and development of policies related to entrepreneurship are often hampered by the limited, albeit growing, empirical information relating to entrepreneurship (its size, factors and benefits). Therefore, in the absence of definitions that capture the essence of entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship indicators that are internationally comparable, policy makers are left somewhat rudderless when it comes to developing policies, particularly when they relate to learning from international best-practice. These shortcomings and the growing importance of entrepreneurship in the policy domain have magnified the need for a sounder basis for internationally comparable indicators of entrepreneurship. This paper provides a framework that is intended to provide that sounder basis. It does so by adopting a holistic approach, and, so, by focusing on the: factors that impede or motivate entrepreneurship (determinants); measures that provide indicators of the state of entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial performance); and, outcomes (impacts) of that performance on the economy as a whole. Each of these three themes provides the overarching structure to the framework, using a standardised OECD definition of entrepreneurship, and, within each, we develop a suite of indicators that provide the basis for quantifiable information to be collected in an internationally comparable way for each of these themes. Cadre pour la presentation et la mesure de l'entrepreneuriat L’entrepreneuriat est devenu un terme incontournable ces dernieres annees, il est au coeur des preoccupations des decideurs politiques qui soulignent tres regulierement son importance et la necessite de creer des societes plus entrepreneuriales. De meme, journaux et emissions televisees montent frequemment des sujets autour d'entrepreneurs qui reussissent. Malgre cela, le developpement de politiques liees a entrepreneuriat sont souvent entraves par les limites, quoique regulierement repoussees, de l’information empirique disponible sur l?entrepreneuriat (sa taille, les facteurs l'encourageant et les avantages retires). Ainsi, l'absence de definition communement admise sur l’essence de l'entrepreneuriat et d'indicateurs comparables au niveau international, laisse les decideurs politiques sans leviers de commande pour developper leur politiques economiques et ce, de facon plus pregnante encore lorsqu'il s'agit d'etudier les meilleurs pratiques internationales. Ces imperfections, ajoutees a l’importance croissante de l’entrepreneuriat sur la scene politique, ont renforce le besoin de fondements plus solides au niveau international pour des indicateurs sur l'entrepreneuriat. Ce document apporte cette base solide en adoptant une approche holistique. Il rassemble les facteurs qui entravent ou encouragent l?entrepreneuriat (les determinants) ; les mesures evaluant l'etat de l'entrepreneuriat (les indicateurs de performance) ; et les resultats (l'impact economique). Ces trois themes structurent le cadre d'analyse et utilisent la definition standardisee de l'OCDE pour l'entrepreneuriat. Pour chacun de ces themes nous developpons une suite d'indicateurs, donnant ainsi une base d’information statistique a collecter comparable au niveau international.

The European commission

Abstract: 2 1 The innovative transport systems and the CityMobil project 10 1.1 The research questions 10 2 The state of art in the field of automatic transport systems 12 2.1 Case studies and demand studies for innovative transport systems 12 3 The design and implementation of surveys 14 3.1 Definition of experimental design 14 3.2 Questionnaire design and delivery 16 3.3 First analyses on the collected sample 18 4 Calibration of Logit Multionomial demand models 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 Calibration of the “full” model. 22 4.3 Calibration of the “final” model 24 4.4 The demand analysis through the final Multinomial Logit model 25 5 The analysis of interaction between the demand and socioeconomic attributes 31 5.1 Methodology 31 5.2 Application of Mixed Logit models to the demand 31 5.3 Analysis of the interactions between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models 32 5.4 Mixed Logit model and interaction between age and the demand for the CTS 38 5.5 Demand analysis with Mixed Logit model 39 6 Final analyses and conclusions 45 6.1 Comparison between the results of the analyses 45 6.2 Conclusions 48 6.3 Answers to the research questions and future developments 52

Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter

Abstract: In this book, Andrew Harvey sets out to provide a unified and comprehensive theory of structural time series models. Unlike the traditional ARIMA models, structural time series models consist explicitly of unobserved components, such as trends and seasonals, which have a direct interpretation. As a result the model selection methodology associated with structural models is much closer to econometric methodology. The link with econometrics is made even closer by the natural way in which the models can be extended to include explanatory variables and to cope with multivariate time series. From the technical point of view, state space models and the Kalman filter play a key role in the statistical treatment of structural time series models. The book includes a detailed treatment of the Kalman filter. This technique was originally developed in control engineering, but is becoming increasingly important in fields such as economics and operations research. This book is concerned primarily with modelling economic and social time series, and with addressing the special problems which the treatment of such series poses. The properties of the models and the methodological techniques used to select them are illustrated with various applications. These range from the modellling of trends and cycles in US macroeconomic time series to to an evaluation of the effects of seat belt legislation in the UK.

Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions

Abstract: There is considerable federal interest in disaster resilience as a mechanism for mitigating the impacts to local communities, yet the identification of metrics and standards for measuring resilience remain a challenge This paper provides a methodology and a set of indicators for measuring baseline characteristics of communities that foster resilience By establishing baseline conditions, it becomes possible to monitor changes in resilience over time in particular places and to compare one place to another We apply our methodology to counties within the Southeastern United States as a proof of concept The results show that spatial variations in disaster resilience exist and are especially evident in the rural/urban divide, where metropolitan areas have higher levels of resilience than rural counties However, the individual drivers of the disaster resilience (or lack thereof)-social, economic, institutional, infrastructure, and community capacities-vary widely

“Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface

Abstract: The issue of “measuring” climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity by means of indicators divides policy and academic communities. While policy increasingly demands such indicators an increasing body of literature criticises them. This misfit results from a twofold confusion. First, there is confusion about what vulnerability indicators are and which arguments are available for building them. Second, there is confusion about the kinds of policy problems to be solved by means of indicators. This paper addresses both sources of confusion. It first develops a rigorous conceptual framework for vulnerability indicators and applies it to review the scientific arguments available for building climate change vulnerability indicators. Then, it opposes this availability with the following six diverse types of problems that vulnerability indicators are meant to address according to the literature: (i) identification of mitigation targets; (ii) identification of vulnerable people, communities, regions, etc.; (iii) raising awareness; (iv) allocation of adaptation funds; (v) monitoring of adaptation policy; and (vi) conducting scientific research. It is found that vulnerability indicators are only appropriate for addressing the second type of problem but only at local scales, when systems can be narrowly defined and inductive arguments can be built. For the other five types of problems, either vulnerability is not the adequate concept or vulnerability indicators are not the adequate methodology. I conclude that both the policy and academic communities should collaboratively attempt to use a more specific terminology for speaking about the problems addressed and the methodologies applied. The one-size-fits-all vulnerability label is not sufficient. Speaking of “measuring” vulnerability is particularly misleading, as this is impossible and raises false expectations.

Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions

Abstract: This paper is an introduction to the special issue from the 3rd Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Research Conference held in Washington, D.C., in 2008. The paper has three objectives. First, to discuss the importance of the three stages of economic development, the factor-driven stage, the efficiency-driven stage and the innovation-driven stage. Second, to examine the empirical evidence on the relationship between stages of economic development and entrepreneurship. Third, to present a summary of the papers in the context of the theory.