Incorporating preference information in a range directional composite indicator: The case of Portuguese public hospitals

Convergence in productivity examines if entities in an industry get closer to the best practices or if the gap between the frontiers of the best and worst performers decreases over time. In a multi-input multi-output setting, the assessment of σ - and β -convergence can be measured with the use of non-parametric frontier techniques, such as data envelopment analysis. We propose an innovative approach to estimate convergence in the context of performance assessments resting on composite indicators, accounting for desirable and undesirable indicators. This methodology rests on ‘Benefit-of-the-Doubt’ models, specified with a directional distance function. It is applied to the Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) in order to study their convergence in terms of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) ‘Good health and well-being’. We collected data for all years since the proposal of the SDGs, covering the period between 2016 and 2020. The results show that all WHO regions are β ^ -divergent, especially because of the generalised decline of the Worst Practice Frontier (WPF), alongside an improvement at a lower rate of the Best Practice Frontier (BPF). The regional analysis also revealed σ ^ -convergence in the Region of the Americas and the Eastern Mediterranean Region; the South-East Asia and African Regions exhibited σ ^ -divergence; the Western Pacific and European Regions remained stable in terms of the performance spread regarding the BPF. At the worldwide level, we also observed an increase of the gap between the BPF and the WPF, although the performance spread around the worldwide BPF remained relatively stable.

The convergence of the World Health Organization Member States regarding the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal ‘Good health and well-being’

In practice, a variety of composite indicators are created using the arithmetic average of different sub-indicators. However, this scheme is typically criticized of the possibility of compensation. For this reason, this paper re-constructs these composite indicators by means of a new methodology. Comprehensive individual judgements among the sub-indicators have been considered to determine the maximum total utilities. Then the best–worst method is introduced to determine the preference associated with various individual judgements. An illustration of Value Measure of health systems is presented to demonstrate the validity and usefulness of our methodology.

Constructing Composite Indicators with Individual Judgements and Best–Worst Method: An Illustration of Value Measure

Sustainable water and sanitation for all: Are we there yet?

Measuring and analyzing country change in establishing ease of doing business using a revised version of World Bank's ease of doing business index

This paper quantifies and analyses subjective quality of life in the EU countries as a multidimensional concept using subjective citizen satisfaction data on eight different life dimensions. The composite index is constructed using a geometric Benefit-of-the-doubt (BoD)-method. Results show a clear divide between the Nordic and Western European countries and the Southern and Eastern European countries, with people in the former countries experiencing quality of life as higher as compared to people in the latter countries. A correlational analysis reveals a strong relation between multidimensional and one-dimensional measures of subjective quality of life. However, results also indicate that both types of measures should be used as complementary instead of substitutes.

Ilse Van Nijverseel

Papers

Quality of Life in the European Union: A Multidimensional Analysis