A Novel Perspective in the Analysis of Sustainability, Inclusion and Smartness of Growth Through Europe 2020 Indicators

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

Abstract

The comparison of different territorial areas according to multiple factors raises the challenge of representing synthetically the complexity of multidimensional phenomena, such as the targets of growth promoted by the Europe 2020 strategy. We considered data for 10 years in order to highlight the evolution of the similarities and dissimilarities of the 28 European countries in the whole period. The analysis is centred on a technique which combines cluster analysis with the use of a composite indicator, thus permitting to identify Countries both according to their structural characteristics and to their overall performance. We also look at convergence processes among countries and link our results to GDP growth to better qualify countries patterns of development.

Keywords

Complexity Composite indicators Cluster analysis Europe 2020 indicators 

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission: Europe 2020 A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM (2010) 2020 Final. Brussels (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Union: Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the Prevention and Correction of Macroeconomic Imbalances (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Commission: Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament GDP and beyond: measuring progress in a changing world, (COM/2009/0433 final) (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Istat: BES 2015. Il benessere equo e sostenibile in Italia, Istat, Rome (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mazziotta, M., Pareto, A.: Non-compensatory composite indices for measuring changes over time: a comparative study. In: CESS 2014 Conference of European Statistics Stakeholders (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milligan, G.W.: An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika 45(3), 325–342 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    OECD, JRC.: Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rondinella, T.: Policy use of progress indicators. In: Rondinella, T., Signore, M., Fazio, D., Calza, M.G., Righi, A. (eds.) Map on Policy Use of Progress Indicators, e-Frame—European Framework for Measuring Progress, EU FP7 “e-Frame” Project, Deliverable 11.1, pp. 8–17 (2014). www.eframeproject.eu
  9. 9.
    Rondinella, T., Segre, E., Zola, D.: Participative processes for measuring progress: deliberation, consultation and the role of civil society. Soc. Indic. Res. 1–24 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1207-z

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISTATRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations