The tyranny of international index rankings

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Mashup Indices of Development (2010, methodology): “39 Høyland et al. (2010) give other examples of such rank-seeking behavior.”
An automatic-democratic approach to weight setting for the new human development index (2012, unknown): “The HDI is important and influential for a number of reasons—so much so that a recent paper was entitled The Tyranny of International Index Rankings (Hoyland et al. 2012): A particularly favourable or unfavourable position is likely to be widely noticed, and governments stand to lose by not…”
Global Insights Based on the Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index (MEPI) (2013, background): “A number of scholars have highlighted the lack of theoretical underpinnings of a number of composite indices [10–16].”
Troubling Tradeoffs in the Human Development Index (2010, unknown): “Also see the more structural economic models in Becker et al. (2005) and Jones and Klenow (2010), and the latent-variable statistical model used by Høyland et al. (2010) to set the weights for a version of the HDI.”
Measuring energy poverty: Focusing on what matters (2012, unknown): “…(HDI), arguably the most influential metric of human development, and other similar composite indices have been widely criticised in the development literature for inconsistencies, methodological flaws and redundancy (McGillivray 1991, Morse 2003, UNDESA 2009, Noorbakhsh 1998, Hoyland et al. 2009).”