Advertisement

Stochastic Dominance Approach to OECD’s Better Life Index

  • Tahsin Mehdi
Article

Abstract

Ever since the inception of OECD’s Better Life Index in 2011, a string of literature have emerged offering different aggregation procedures for the 11 dimensions of the index encompassing the broad categories of material living standards and quality of life. What is the most optimistic weighting scheme that allows more countries to achieve better measured well-being outcomes? What is the most pessimistic weighting scheme that worsens outcomes for more countries? Stochastic dominance efficiency is a data driven aggregation method that allows us to answer such questions which may be beneficial to policy makers and researchers. We offer rankings of countries across dimensions as well as rankings based on a single composite index aggregating all dimensional indicators. This type of analysis not only presents an opportunity to examine the sensitivity associated with re-weighting indicators, but this approach also reveals which indicators are driving overall improvement in measured well-being and which ones are hindering it. We find that the worst-case scenario rankings are generally more correlated with the equal-weighting scheme. And the best-case scenario weights offer a far more equal distribution of achievements across countries.

Keywords

Better Life Index Stochastic dominance Multidimensional welfare 

References

  1. Agliardi, E., Agliardi, R., Pinar, M., Stengos, T., & Topaloglou, N. (2012). A new country risk index for emerging markets: A stochastic dominance approach. Journal of Empirical Finance, 19, 741–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agliardi, E., Pinar, M., & Stengos, T. (2014). A sovereign risk index for the eurozone based on stochastic dominance. Finance Research Letters, 11, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agliardi, E., Pinar, M., & Stengos, T. (2015). An environmental degradation index based on stochastic dominance. Empirical Economics, 48, 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, G. F., & Donald, S. G. (2003). Consistent tests for stochastic dominance. Econometrica, 71, 71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, C. J., & Mitra, S. (2013). Multidimensional poverty: Measurement, estimation, and inference. Econometric Reviews, 32, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biswas, B., & Caliendo, F. (2002). A multivariate analysis of the Human Development Index. Indian Economic Journal, 49, 96–100.Google Scholar
  7. Boarini, R., Comola, M., Smith, C., Manchin, R., & de Keulenaer, F. (2012). What makes for a better life? The determinants of subjective well-being in OECD countries—Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. OECD statistics working papers no. 1815-2031, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Boarini, R., & D’Ercole, M. M. (2013). Going beyond GDP: An OECD perspective. Fiscal Studies, 34, 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bravo, H. C., & Theussl, S. (2016). Rcplex: R interface to CPLEX. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Rcplex.
  10. Davidson, R. (2009). Reliable inference for the gini index. Journal of Econometrics, 50, 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, R., & Duclos, J. Y. (2000). Statistical inference for stochastic dominance and the measurement of poverty and inequality. Econometrica, 68, 1435–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Decancq, K. (2017). Measuring multidimensional inequality in the OECD member countries with a distribution-sensitive Better Life Index. Social Indicators Research, 131, 1057–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Decancq, K., & Lugo, M. A. (2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duclos, J. Y., Sahn, D. E., & Younger, S. D. (2006). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. The Economic Journal, 116, 943–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleurbaey, M. (2012). Beyond GDP: The quest for a measure of social welfare. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 1029–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2018). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Irwin, L. G., Siddiqi, A., & Hertzman, C. (2007). Early child development: A powerful equalizer. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/ecd_final_m30/en/.
  18. Kasparian, J. (2012). OECD’s ‘better life index’: Can any country be well ranked? Journal of Applied Statistics, 39, 2223–2230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. List, C. (2004). Multidimensional welfare aggregation. Public Choice, 119, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorenz, J., Brauer, C., & Lorenz, D. (2017). Rank-optimal weighting or “How to be best in the OECD Better Life Index?”. Social Indicators Research, 134, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maasoumi, E. (1999). Multidimensional approaches to welfare analysis. In J. Silber (Ed.), Handbook of income inequality measurement. Dordrecht: Klewer.Google Scholar
  22. Markovic, M., Zdravkovic, S., Mitrovic, M., & Radojicic, A. (2016). An iterative multivariate post hoc i-distance approach in evaluating OECD Better Life Index. Social Indicators Research, 126, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mehdi, T. (2017). Poverty comparisons with common relative poverty lines. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 46, 2029–2036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mizobuchi, H. (2014). Measuring world better life frontier: A composite indicator for OECD Better Life Index. Social Indicators Research, 118, 987–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monika, G. T. (2018). The weight of weighting: An empirical study based on the OECD Better Life Index. The Business and Management Review, 9, 443–450.Google Scholar
  26. Nikolaev, B. (2014). Economic freedom and quality of life: Evidence from the OECD’s Your Better Life Index. The Journal of Private Enterprise, 29, 61–96.Google Scholar
  27. Ogwang, T., & Abdou, A. (2003). The choice of principal variables for computing some measures of human child development. Social Indicators Research, 64, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). How’s life? 2013: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). How’s life? 2017: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Pinar, M. (2015). Measuring world governance: Revisiting the institutions hypothesis. Empirical Economics, 48, 747–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinar, M., Stengos, T., & Topaloglou, N. (2013). Measuring human development: A stochastic dominance approach. Journal of Economic Growth, 18, 69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinar, M., Stengos, T., & Topaloglou, N. (2017a). Testing for the implicit weights of the dimensions of the human development index using stochastic dominance. Economics Letters, 161, 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pinar, M., Stengos, T., & Yazgan, M. E. (2015). Measuring human development in the MENA region. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51, 1179–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinar, M., Stengos, T., & Yazgan, M. E. (2017b). Quantile forecast combination using stochastic dominance. Empirical Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1343-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
  36. Scaillet, O., & Topaloglou, N. (2010). Testing for stochastic dominance efficiency. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 28, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited. Reflections and overview Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, ParisGoogle Scholar
  38. von Reumont, L., Schob, R., & Hetschko, C. (2017). Embedding effects in the OECD Better Life Index. Beitrage zur Jahrestagung des Vereins fur Socialpolitik 2017: Alternative Geld-und Finanzarchitekturen—Session: Political Economy II, No. E20-V1Google Scholar
  39. World Bank. (2017). World Bank open data. Data retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations