Indexing the Normalized Worthiness of Social Agents

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 227)

Abstract

A class of indexes is proposed to evaluate the “worthiness” of the performance of social agents (e.g. governors of health-care districts, schools, etc.), which is fully standardized on the conventional reference-framework specified by the policy-maker. An interdisciplinary attempt is made herein to integrate concepts and methods from different fields (management and political science, decision theory, statistics, economics, artificial intelligence, etc.). The performance is interpreted from the view of the policy-maker which pursues his overall-goal on a sequential planning of goals. The index is adapted on the data of the reference standard-agent, also normalized on the conventional behavior which has been specified by stakeholders through setting of a probabilistic model. Pseudo-Bayes tools are used into the normalization process.

Keywords

Normalizing Social performance index Pseudo-Bayes Standardizing 

References

  1. 1.
    Casella, G., Robert, C.P.: Monte Carlo Statistical Methods (third printing). Springer, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chateauneuf, A., Cohen, M., Meilijson, I.: Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model. J. Math. Econ. 40, 547–571 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Epifanio, G.: Notes on a recursive procedure for point estimation. Test 5(1), 1–24 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Epifanio, G.: Properties of a Fixed Point Method. Annales de L’ISUP Paris, vol. XXXXIII, Fasc. 2–3, pp. 69–83 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Epifanio, G.: Data dependent prior modeling and estimation in contingency tables. In: Vichi, M., et al. (eds.) Studies in Classification Data Analysis and Knowledge Organization. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Epifanio, G.: Implicit social scaling. From an institutional perspective. Soc. Ind. Res. 94, 203–212 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Epifanio, G.: Sviluppo di un Indice Multi-attributo per la Valutazione del Merito. In: Criteri e indicatori per misurare l’efficacia delle attività universitarie, vol. I, p. 279, CLEUP, Padova. http://www.ec.unipg.it/DEFS/depifanio.html?lang=it (2011)
  8. 8.
    Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., Bourne, M.: Contemporary performance measurement system: a review of their consequences and a framework for research. Manag. Account. Res. 23(2), 79–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Royal Statisticall Society: Performance indicators: good, bad, and ugly. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 168(Part 1), 1–27 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of the Study of PerugiaPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations