Setting weights for aggregate indices: An application to the commitment to development index and human development index

2006

134 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Development, General Social Sciences, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c8e3704ece17fb6d12bb8ab50f8b84ffc4f56fc9

Citations in the corpus

• An automatic-democratic approach to weight setting for the new human development index (2012, unknown): “Chowdhury and Squire (2006) adopted this method when they surveyed experts in the field of development research.”
• Setting weights in multidimensional indices of well-being (2008, unknown): “Chowdhury and Squire refer to equal weighting as “obviously convenient but also universally considered to be wrong.” (Chowdhury & Squire 2006, p. 762). Equal weighting has often been defended from an agnostic viewpoint, by its simplicity or indeed from the recognition that all indicators are equally”
• Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for Developing Countries (2010, unknown): “Equal weighting between the dimensions follows the HDI convention, upon which a critical literature has developed (e.g., Chowdhury and Squire 2006), yet largely substantiated this weighting structure.”
• On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness (2018, unknown): “Having received paramount criticism (Desai 1991; Sagar and Najam 1998; Chowdhury and Squire 2006; Ray 2008; Davies 2009), the developers of the HDI switched the aggregation function from linear to geometric in 2010, addressing one of their main methodological criticisms.”
• Weights in Multidimensional Indices of Wellbeing: An Overview (2013, unknown): “A related approach is used by Chowdhury and Squire (2006), who use electronic surveys to elicit weighting schemes from the ‘expert community,’ which is understood as development researchers throughout the world.”