A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment analysis

By Dimitris K. Despotis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2005

375 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a7c080f9cb89764801db83b52cea458a8609755

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Robust human development rankings (2008, neutral): “[8], Lind [13], Despotis [7], Chatterjee [4]).”
Weights in Multidimensional Indices of Wellbeing: An Overview (2013, neutral): “Despotis ( 2005b ) proposes a way of using the individual most favorable weights to construct a common weighting structure.”
Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index (2008, neutral): “Similarly, some authors have proposed a DEA-based model for the well-known Human Development Index (Mahlberg and Obersteiner, 2001; Despotis, 2005).”
An automatic-democratic approach to weight setting for the new human development index (2012, positive): “…norm (t = 0) and the L1 norm (t = 1): Varying the parameter t between these two extreme values, we provide the model with the flexibility to ‘compromise’ between the two norms and to explore different sets of common weights and consequently different global efficiency patterns (Despotis 2005a).”
Setting weights in multidimensional indices of well-being (2008, methodology): “The second approach, sometimes known as latent variable models is an explanatory approach that assumes that some observed variables (dimensions) are dependent on a certain (26)Despotis (2005) propose a way of using the individual most favourable weights to construct a common weighting structure.”
On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness (2018, methodology): “For this reason, a number of techniques exist in the literature that arrive at a common weighting scheme (e.g. see, among others, Despotis 2005a; Hatefi and Torabi 2010; Kao 2010; Morais and Camanho 2011; Sun et al.”
Trajectories of efficiency measurement: A bibliometric analysis of DEA and SFA (2015, background): “…Human development and composite indicators (107 / 4.17 / 1.74) Reassessment and measurement of the human development index for different countries (Despotis, 2005a; Despotis, 2005b) Construction of composite indicators using DEA (Cherchye et al., 2007; Cherchye et al., 2008; Zhou et…”
Synthetic Indicators of Quality of Life in Europe (2009, methodology): “In our field of study, the last few years have seen several works that employ this method for obtaining synthetic indicators of well-being and quality of life, namely, Hashimoto and Kodama (1997), Despotis (2004a, b), Mahlberg and Obersteiner (2001), among others.”
An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators (2007, background): “…gauge countries’ performance with regard to aggregate deprivation (Zaim et al., 2001), to provide an alternative weighting system for the Human Development Index (Mahlberg and Obersteiner, 2001; Despotis, 2005), or as a generalized gauge for Sustainable Development (Cherchye and Kuosmanen, 2006).”
Inclusive Development: Two Papers on Conceptualization, Application, and the ADB Perspective (2010, background): “Recent efforts to address the issue include Despotis (2004) and Foster, Lopez-Calva and Szekeley (2005). question, and will be taken up in the next section, focusing in particular on infrastructure interventions.”