1.1. Articulo1 - U1 Indicadores SDG

World Development 122 (2019) 628–647
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
Tracking the SDGs in an ‘integrated’ manner: A proposal for a new index

to capture synergies and trade-offs between and within goals
Mario Biggeri a,b,⇑, David A. Clark b,c, Andrea Ferrannini b,d, Vincenzo Mauro b,e,f
a
Department of Economics and Management, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
b
Action Research for CO-development (ARCO), PIN-Educational and Scientific Services for the University of Florence, Florence, Italy
c
Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, UK
d
Department of Economics and Management, University of Ferrara, Italy
e
Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, Italy
f
Camilo Dagum Research Centre on Advanced Statistics for Equitable and Sustainable Development (ASESD), University of Pisa, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is an important challenge and strategic opportu-
Available online 29 June 2019 nity for stakeholders and beneficiaries involved with Agenda 2030 at all levels. To monitor progress
across a diverse set of goals with multiple targets and indicators and to track overall progress, Jeffrey
Keywords: Sachs and associates have developed the SDG Index. Although their index is robust and permits compar-
Sustainable Development Goals isons across countries, it neglects the ‘balanced’ and ‘integrated’ nature of the SDGs (set out in
Agenda 2030 Transforming Our World), and exhibits well-known problems associated with the use of an arithmetic
Composite index
mean (which assumes perfect substitution between dimensions). To overcome these difficulties, this
Aggregation method
Sustainable Development Index
paper introduces an adjusted ‘Integrated Sustainable Development Index’ (I-SDI) that can take account
Multidimensional Synthesis of Indicators of trade-offs and synergies between goals and targets as well as across the economic, social and environ-
mental spheres of sustainable development. This is accomplished by introducing a new aggregation
method based on the Multidimensional Synthesis of Indicators (MSI) approach. This approach overcomes
well-known problems associated with replacing the arithmetic mean with the geometric mean (a diffi-
culty encountered by the post-2010 HDI). Specifically, it makes an allowance for the heterogeneity of
dimensions, while avoiding the tendency of the geometric mean to collapse to zero. In this paper, the
I-SDI scores and rankings are compared with those generated by the SDG Index and the geometric mean.
Moreover, to capture the heterogeneity within goals, the I-SDI2 is introduced (which applies the MSI
method within as well as between goals). By taking account of heterogeneity within and between goals
as well as across the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and by
capturing synergies and trade-offs among indicators, our study reveals crucial differences in I-SDI scores
and rankings that illustrate the value of a more flexible and integrated measure for guiding policymakers
and monitor overall progress.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Aid single (‘Do they Know it’s Christmas?’) in 1984, which instantly
became a global phenomenon. Among other things, this shift
The end of the last century marked a turning point for the inter- involved changes in values, attitudes and norms bolstered by
national development movement. In practice, this turning point heightened awareness of extreme forms of poverty (including hun-
was more of a cumulative shift that gradually picked up momen- ger and starvation) and blatant forms of inequality and unfairness
tum during the 1980s and 1990s. The roots of this historic shift (including gender-based discrimination and human rights viola-
can be traced back at least as far as the release of the original Band tions). It also involved renewed commitment and cooperation for
international development at the local, national and global levels
on a previously unprecedented scale. Many OECD countries began
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Economics and Management, Univer- to take their longstanding commitment to spend 0.7 percent of
sity of Florence, via delle Pandette, 9, 50126, Florence, Italy. GDP on overseas aid more seriously with real aid flows increasing
E-mail addresses: mario.biggeri@unifi.it (M. Biggeri), David_A_Clark@hotmail. from an average of $67 billion per annum in the 1980s to $73 bil-
com (D.A. Clark), andrea.ferrannini@arcolab.org (A. Ferrannini), vincenzo. lion in the 1990s and $97 billion in the 2000s (even if most donors
mauro@unipi.it (V. Mauro).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.022
0305-750X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Biggeri et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 628–647 629
continued to miss official aid targets by a wide margin).1 Mean- constituted nothing less than ‘the world’s biggest promise’
while, NGOs, civil society, private philanthropists and big business (Hulme, 2009) at the time consisting of 8 timebound develop-
became increasingly important stakeholders, donors, and partners ment goals supported by 18 targets and 60 indicators (United
in development projects. Nations, 2008).2 Although the MDGs could be criticized on a vari-
Around the same time concern for environmental sustainability ety of grounds (concerning process, coverage, coherence, etc.), they
increasingly crept onto the international agenda with the introduc- played an important role in facilitating international cooperation,
tion of the first United Nations sanctioned Earth Day to promote encouraging aid and inspiring public support as well as effectively
awareness of environmental issues on 22 April 1970. Paul tackling poverty (Kanbur, Patel, & Stiglitz, 2015; United Nations,
Ehrlich’s 1968 book, The Population Bomb, and the Club of Rome’s 2015a; Gasper, 2018).
oft-cited report, The Limits to Growth (Meadows, Meadows, The 1 January 2016 marked the transition from the MDGs to the
Randers, & Behrens, 1972), began to draw public attention to envi- 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which embraced a new
ronmental concerns. But it was the publication of Our Common set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to transform the
Future, in 1987, by the World Commission on the Environment world over the next 15 years (United Nations, 2015b). Like their
and Development (better known as the ‘Brundtland’ report after predecessor, the SDGs enjoyed universal support from interna-
the Commission’s chair), that put the concept of ‘sustainable devel- tional organizations and all 193-member states of the United
opment’ on the international agenda and effectively mainstreamed Nations. But unlike the MDGs, they are intended to be ‘global in
environmental concerns (WCED, 1987). This report recognized that nature and universally applicable’ (United Nations, 2015b, p. 1)
while growth increases material prosperity and living standards, and are therefore valid for developed and developing countries
environmental limits to growth exist in developed and developing alike. Moreover, in contrast to their predecessor, the SDGs were
countries alike. Awareness of these limits spurred a variety of sem- negotiated through far more inclusive and participatory processes
inal contributions on sustainable development (Tisdell, 1988; Lélé, (Fukuda-Parr, 2016; Browne, 2017; Doods, Donoghue, & Roesch,
1991; Beckerman, 1992; World Bank, 1992; Anand & Sen, 2000) 2017; Kamau, Chasek, & O’Connor, 2018; Gasper, 2018; Clark,
and went on to define subsequent work on environmental conser- Biggeri, & Frediani, 2019). Nations states rather than inter-
vation and planetary boundaries (e.g. Goldin, 2014; Rockström & governmental agencies led the process through the creation of a
Klum, 2015; Newsham & Bhagwat, 2016). representative and responsive working group; traditional power
The new momentum for international development initially blocks at the United Nations were challenged allowing countries
found expression in the 1990 World Development Report which such as Brazil, Colombia and Kenya and the G77 nations to play
introduced an international poverty line based on ‘a dollar a day’ pivotal roles and to resist the demands of the United States
that strikingly identified just over a billion people globally – a fifth (Gasper, 2018). Moreover, while the MDGs were negotiated behind
of the world’s population at the time – as living in extreme poverty closed doors (Hulme, 2009), the SDGs were informed by 100
(World Bank, 1990). In the same year, the United Nations launched national dialogues, 11 thematic consultations, a dedicated website
the Human Development Reports, which actively sought to embrace for non-governmental stakeholders, and the results of a one-world
other (non-income) dimensions of development (UNDP, 1990). At web poll (Clark et al., 2019, p. 392; Gasper, 2018). The involvement
the heart of these annual reports is the Human Development Index of new and diverse stakeholders inevitably led to the broadening of
which includes indicators relating to health and education as well development priorities. Climate change, inequality, decent work,
as income in a single composite measure that can be conveniently urbanization, human rights, gender equality, peace and justice,
used to rank countries (Haq, 1995; Klugman, Rodríguez, & Choi, and oceans and forests were added by various interest groups. In
2011). Outside the realm of ideas, the new movement for interna- the end, 17 goals and 169 targets were agreed (United Nations,
tional development found expression in a series of United Nations 2015b) to be supported by a global indicator framework consisting
conferences convened in the 1980s and 1990s that dealt with chil- of an expanding list of 232 individual indicators to date (UNSD,
dren, gender, the environment and food, among other develop- 2019),3 thus displacing a strictly monetary or economic perspective
ment topics (Emmerij et al., 2001; Hulme, 2009; Kanbur, Patel, & on development.
Stiglitz, 2015). The move towards a more comprehensive and inclusive frame-
The defining moment in the historic transformation of the work for tackling sustainable development is an important step
international development movement, however, came with the forward. According to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-
advent of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Septem- ment, the goals and targets incorporated in the SDGs are ‘‘inte-
ber 2000 (United Nations, 2000). The MDGs had origins in the grated and indivisible and balance the three [economic, social
United Nations conferences of the 1980s and 1990s, and the and environmental] dimensions of sustainable development. . .”
OECD’s own efforts to agree a set of International Development (United Nations, 2015b, p. 1). At the same time, however, the dra-
Targets (Development Assistance Committee, 1996). The MDGs, matic increase in the number of goals, targets and indicators has
however, were radically different from anything that had come invited criticism with respect to digesting, monitoring and manag-
before in at least two respects. First, in addition to commanding ing such a diverse, complex and interrelated set of achievements.
support from international agencies such as the World Bank, Uni- One response has been to focus on local and sectoral priorities to
ted Nations and OECD, they formed the basis of a historic agree- contextualize the monitoring of the SDGs. Another response has
ment for tackling poverty that had been unanimously endorsed been to advocate falling back on a (relatively) small set of sub-
by all 189 United Nations member states. Second, they were far goals (see Section 2). Neither of these strategies is helpful for mak-
more ambitious than anything previously agreed. In fact, they ing international comparisons or monitoring ‘global’ aspects of
development such as climate change or deforestation. Some recent
1
Authors’ calculation based on total average annual ODA flows in constant US
dollars from DAC countries for the period 1980–89, 1990–99 and 2000–2009. The
2
source data is taken from OECD Stat, https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed 19 April 2019). The core goals emphasized: (1) eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; (2)
The corresponding figure for 2010–2018 is $131 billion. Although ODA flows have achieving universal primary education; (3) promoting gender equality and empow-
increased, only a small number of Scandinavian countries (plus the UK from 2012) ering women; (5) improving maternal health; (6) combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and
have met the 0.7 percent of GDP target. Since the turn of the century ODA flows from other diseases; (7) ensuring environmental sustainability; and (8) developing a global
DAC countries have averaged less than 0.3% of gross income. MacFeely (2019) partnership for development.
3
estimates that the cumulative shortfall in ODA between 2002 and 2016 stands at See also the Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, https://sus-
around $2.9 trillion in constant 2016 dollars. tainabledevelopment.un.org/.
630 M. Biggeri et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 628–647
contributions have begun to develop aggregate measures based on The discussion is organized as follows. Section 2 considers the
SDG indicators for certain sectors (e.g. Brelsford, Lobo, Hand, & case for a metric that can better capture the full complexity and
Bettencourt, 2017 for the urban environment; Giupponi & Gain, integrated nature of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-
2016 for water, energy and food; Nhemachena et al., 2018 for agri- ment. Section 3 briefly describes the available datasets for tracking
culture), and specific countries or regions (e.g. Bobylev, Zubarevich, the SDGs. Section 4 presents a new method for constructing an
& Solovyeva, 2015 for Russia; Guijarro & Poyatos, 2018 for the EU- Integrated Sustainable Development Index (I-SDI and I-SDI2) based
28 countries). on the MSI method. Section 5 presents and discusses the results –
Many observers have pointed out that the SDGs are significantly new index estimates and country rankings – and their implica-
broader and far more ambitious than the MDGs. For these reasons tions, and Section 6 concludes.
some commentators have pointed to ‘‘the importance of creating
an effective performance measurement system for the 2030 devel-
opment agenda” (Jacob, 2017, p. 235) or have argued that ‘‘The 2. Conceptualising and measuring sustainable development in
SDGs need an overarching goal with clear metrics of progress an integrated way
toward that goal that are geared to integrate the sub-goals”
(Costanza et al., 2016, p. 350). 2.1. The complex, indivisible and interconnected nature of the 2030
To date only one contribution attempts to develop and apply a agenda for sustainable development
single unified indicator for monitoring progress towards the SDGs
at the global level.4 The indicator in question, the Sustainable Devel- From inception the post-2015 agenda for sustainable develop-
opment Goal Index (SDG-I), has been developed by Jeffrey Sachs ment ‘‘embrace[d] the so-called triple bottom line approach to
et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) on behalf of Bertelsmann Stiftung and the human wellbeing” (Sachs, 2012, p. 2206), combining economic
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). It draws on development, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion.
available data from a variety of publicly available sources for all The balance among the three dimensions of sustainable develop-
193-member states of the United Nations from the year 2016 ment – the economic, social and environmental – is one of the hall-
onwards. The SDG-I is derived from a scoring system that uses the marks of the Sustainable Development Agenda, strongly supported
arithmetic mean to aggregate indicators relating to each of the 17 by research5 and a broad consensus (Sachs, 2012). This paved the
SDGs in turn, before ‘averaging’ the results into a single metric. A way for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets to be ‘‘inte-
system of equal weights is deliberately employed to reflect interna- grated and indivisible, global in nature and universally applicable”
tional commitments ‘‘to treat each SDG equally and as an integrated (United Nations, 2015b, p. 13), helping overcome some of the draw-
and indivisible set of goals” (Sachs et al., 2018, p. 41). Although the backs of the MDGs that were ‘‘a North-South aid agenda” based on a
SDG-I is not intended to replace the global dashboard of indicators ‘‘narrow conception of development” (Fukuda-Parr, 2016, pp. 44–
for monitoring the SDGs (Sachs, Schmidt-Traub, Kroll, Durand- 45).
Delacre, & Teksoz, 2017, p. 32), it does have huge potential (like The integrated and indivisible nature of Agenda 2030 reflects
other well-known composite indicators) for identifying priority the deep interconnections and cross-cutting elements across the
areas for action, tracking overall progress, and making international goals and targets, making inter-linkages crucial in ensuring that
comparisons. sustainable development is pursued. Together the SDGs provide a
A variety of issues are involved in constructing composite set of global priorities (with universal validity) that are fundamen-
indicators to guide development practice (Saltelli, 2007). One tally interdependent, calling for an understanding of interactions
well-known problem relates to relying on an index based on the between goals along with coherence in design, implementation
arithmetic mean – particularly if we are concerned with the and monitoring. Moreover, notions of ‘indivisibility’ and ‘integra-
integration of interconnected indicators and targets. This is tion’ call for improved governance (Hulme, Savoia, & Sen, 2015;
because the arithmetic mean effectively assumes that different Joshi, Barry, & Sisk, 2015; Kanie & Biermann, 2017) and for
targets and indicators are perfects substitutes for each other; no multi-level implementation and multi-actor responsibility in the
account is taken of positive synergies (that reinforce development pursuit of the SDGs (UNDG, 2014; Koehler, 2015; United Nations,
processes) or negative externalities (that undermine other aspects 2015b; Smoke & Nixon, 2016; Gupta & Nilsson, 2017; GTF, 2016;
of development). One alternative sometimes suggested in the liter- Horn & Grugel, 2018; Clark et al., 2019), linking global, regional,
ature is to use the geometric mean instead; this approach limits national and local levels, public, private and social actors, and cut-
substitution between heterogeneous dimensions, but has the ting across national borders in terms of effort, regulation and
unfortunate drawback of collapsing towards zero in cases where effects – especially concerning environmental issues (e.g. climate
an indicator for any of the constituent components approaches or change, ecosystems protection), peace and security (e.g. conflict
reaches zero (see Section 2.3). prevention and resolution, peacekeeping and peace-building) and
Mauro, Biggeri, and Maggino (2018) have recently developed a trade (e.g. standards, quotas and tariffs).
new aggregation method – known as the Multidimensional Syn- It follows that measuring and monitoring SDG achievements
thesis of Indicators (MSI) approach – that is simultaneously able should reflect the integrated nature of goals and targets, primarily
to overcome the theoretical problems associated with the use of in terms of inter-linkages as well as in terms of complementarities
the arithmetic mean or the geometric mean in composite indices. across levels of implementation, from both theoretical and practi-
This paper uses the MSI approach to develop and explore an cal perspectives. It is critical to understand what the areas of syn-
adjusted-SDG Index (dubbed the ‘Integrated Sustainable Develop- ergies and trade-offs among goals and targets might be, and how
ment Index’ or ‘I-SDI’) that is better placed to capture the linkages and to what extent realising – or failing to realise – one particular
and interconnections between different components of the SDGs. achievement may impact positively or negatively on other goals
and targets.
In recent years an increasing number of policy-orientated con-
tribution are assessing potential synergies (Table 1) and possible
4
Costanza et al. (2016) also proposes a Sustainable Well-Being Index to comple- trade-offs (Table 2) between the goals and targets associated with
ment the SDGs along with a dynamic model that can be used to take account of stocks
and flows and make predictions. They have not yet made their index or proposed
model operational, although their approach has the potential to address intercon-
5
nections between the SDGs. See Sachs (2012) and Griggs et al. (2014), among others.
Table 1
Observed synergies between the SDGs.
Authors Area Findings

Barbier and Burgess Global Reducing poverty (SDG1) can be further boosted by positive gains from improvements in Clean Water and
(2017) Sanitation (SDG6) and Zero Hunger (SDG2)
Fuso-Nerini et al. Global Identifies 113 targets that require action to enhance energy systems and evidence of a link between 143
(2017) targets and ‘access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy’ (SDG7)
ICSU (2017) Global Presents a detailed analysis of target level interactions for four SDGs and finds evidence of 50 positive
interactions for SDG2 (Zero hunger), 81 positive interactions for SDG3 (Good health and well-being), 46
positive interactions for SDG7 (Affordable and clean energy) and 61 positive interactions for SDG14 (Life
below water)
Le Blanc (2015) Global Stresses that ‘the inclusion of standalone goals on sustainable consumption and production patterns
[SDG12] and inequality [SDG10] . . . make the SDGs more tightly knit as a network. . .’ (Le Blanc, 2015,
p. 15)
Mainali et al. (2018) Six countries in South Asia and Network analysis points to ‘three reinforcing linkages and one dependent linkage among the targets
sub-Saharan Africa associated with poverty alleviation (SDG1) and energy access (SDG7), nine reinforcing linkages among the
targets associated with poverty alleviation (SDG1) and sustainable agriculture (SDG2), and six reinforcing
linkages between poverty alleviation (SDG1) and clean water and sanitation access (SDG6). Similarly, four
dependent linkages between SDG7 and SDG2 and three dependent linkages were observed between SDG7
and SDG6’ (Mainali et al. 2018, p. 19)
Nilsson et al. (2016) Sub-Saharan Africa Ending hunger (SDG2) interacts positively with poverty eradication (SDG1), health promotion (SDG3) and
quality education for all (SDG4)
Pradhan et al. (2017) Global Poverty elimination (SDG1) has a synergetic relationship with most of the other goals; and health and
well-being (SDG3) has synergies with other SDGs in most countries and across most population groups
Singh et al. (2018) Global Focuses on how SDG14 (Life below water) contributes to other goals. Target 7 (to increase economic
benefits to small island developing states and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine
resources) is positively related to all other SDGs; target 4 (involving the elimination of overfishing, illegal
and destructive fishing practices) is a necessary precondition for achieving the largest number of other SDG
targets; eliminating poverty (SDG1) and ending hunger (SDG2) are highly dependent on ocean
sustainability
the SDGs.6 These contributions illustrate the scale and nature of the Agenda for Sustainable Development much more complex than its
complexities involved in integrating individual SDGs and their tar- antecedent in terms of implementation and measurement.
gets.7 Trade-offs between goals and targets have become sharper fol-
lowing expansion from the MDGs to the SDGs (Kanbur, Patel, & 2.2. Arguments for an integrated approach to development
Stiglitz, 2015). In addition, the move towards an integrated system
of SDGs reflects ‘‘recognition by the international community of There is a strong conceptual and practical case for embracing
the importance of links among the goals” (Le Blanc, 2015, p. 15), the complex nature of development in an integrated and system-
and raises the prospect of designing complementary strategies atic way more generally. Over the years, different contributions
across sectors. In this respect, unlocking the full potential of the to the literature have emphasised the importance of distinguishing
2030 Agenda for economic, social and environmental development between inputs and outputs of development processes (Torlockyj,
will involve identifying and leveraging positive synergies through 1975; Hicks & Streeten, 1979), the means and ends of development
mutually reinforcing policy actions along with rendering trade-offs (Streeten, 1994; Haq, 1995), and the many complex linkages and
‘‘structurally non-obstructive” (Pradhan, Costa, Rybski, Lucht, & interactions between different capabilities and freedoms (Sen,
Kropp, 2017, p. 1) as far as possible to ensure that progress in some 1999; Clark, 2002, 2005, 2017; Biggeri & Ferrannini, 2014).
goals and targets is not achieved at the expense of others.8 It is also The methodological case for embracing complexity – instead of
vital to understand whether, and if so how and to what extent, coun- sweeping it under the carpet – has been forcefully made by Amar-
tries differ in their capacity to capitalize on synergies and positive tya Sen (1989) with respect to economic and social theory.9 His
inter-linkages across goals and targets. In other words, tracking the basic argument applies to a variety of social phenomena including
SDGs needs to ‘‘chart out integrated pathways for achieving the ‘poverty’ and ‘development’:
goals” (Schmidt-Traub, Kroll, Teksoz, Durand-Delacre, & Sachs,
. . . if an underlying idea has an essential ambiguity a precise
2017, p. 547), highlighting positive or negative examples.
formulation of that idea must try to capture that ambiguity
In sum, the indivisible and integrated nature of the SDGs and
rather than attempt to lose it. Even when precisely capturing
their targets – along with their universality – makes the 2030
an ambiguity proves to be a difficult exercise, that is not an
argument for forgetting the complex nature of the concept
6
The studies considered in these tables are not intended to represent an exhaustive and seeking to spuriously narrow exactness. In social investiga-
review of the available literature. For a parallel literature on the interconnections tion and measurement, it is undoubtedly more important to be
between different aspects of human development see Ranis, Stewart, and Ramirez
(2000), Mehrotra and Delamonica (2007) and the contributions discussed in
vaguely right than precisely wrong (Sen, 1990, p. 45).
Section 2.2.
7
One graphic illustration is provided by the Institute for Global Environmental Recently, the philosophical case for a more unified and inte-
Strategies ‘Interlinkages Analysis & Visualisation Tool (v2.0)’ (https://sdginterlink-
grated approach for thinking about sustainable development has
ages.iges.jp/) which shows how separate and diverse elements of the SDGs interact
with each other depending on the type of linkage and spread of indicators selected. been articulated by Mozaffar Qizilbash. In his keynote address to
Although this is a promising tool for informing policy discussions at the local and the Cambridge Capability Conference in June 2018, he begins by dis-
national level, it is only available for a selection of nine Asian countries including tinguishing between ‘inclusionary’ and ‘exclusionary’ views of
China.
8
development, before showing that rival approaches to sustainable
So far trade-offs among SDGs have been mostly modelled as negative correlations,
and we follow this line of reasoning. In the future, research utilising time series data
9
covering longer time spans will permit superior analyses of sustained inverse For a discussion with respect to conceptualising and measuring poverty see
relations among SDGs over time. Lemmi and Betti (2006), and Clark and Qizilbash (2008).
Table 2
Observed trade-offs between the SDGs.
Authors Area Findings

Barbier and Burgess (2017) Global Reducing poverty (SDG1) and hunger (SDG2) as well as improving access to clean water and sanitation (SDG6) between
2000 and 2015 may have come at the expense of other environmental and social SDGs, making our economies less
sustainable
Fuso-Nerini et al. (2017) Global ‘[T]rade-offs relate to tension between the need for rapid action to address key issues for human well-being (for
example, poverty eradication, access to clean water, food and modern energy, and so on), and the careful planning
needed to achieve efficient energy systems with a high integration of renewable energy.’ (Fuso-Nerini et al., 2017, p. 11)
ICSU (2017) Global The analysis identifies a set of potential constraints and conditionalities among targets in SDG2, SDG3, SDG7 and SDG14
that require coordinated policy interventions to protect the vulnerable, ensure equity and manage competing demands
over natural resources to support sustainable development
Nilsson et al. (2016) Sub-Saharan In some parts of sub-Saharan Africa promoting food production (SDG2, target 4) can constrain renewable energy
Africa production (SDG7) and terrestrial ecosystem protection (SDG15)
ODI (2017) Southern There may be potential conflicts between (a) protecting forests (SDG15.2) and food/nutrition security (SDG2.3); (b)
Africa inclusive and sustainable industrialization (SDG9.2) and its ecological sustainability (SDG9.4); and (c) economic growth
(SDG8.1) and income inequality (SDG10.1)
Pradhan et al. (2017) Global SDG12 ‘Responsible consumption and production’ is the goal most commonly associated with trade-offs
Scherer et al., 2018 Global Imposing a minimum per capita income level of $1.25 per day for the extremely poor (SDG1) limits environmental
impacts in SDG6, SDG13 and SDG15. Reducing intra-national inequality (SDG10) by limiting the Gini index of income to
a maximum of 0.3 produces significantly heterogeneous results on environmental targets
Singh et al. (2018) Global Ending overfishing (SDG14.4) and harmful fishing subsidies (SDG14.6) can contribute negatively to targets related to
youth employment (SDG8.6). And protecting marine areas can exclude access to coastal resources and restrict progress
towards ending hunger (SDG2) and curbing disparities that affect poor people (SDG10)
von Stechow et al. (2016) Global Some 2°C pathways (SDG13) could, if not designed properly, undermine sustainable development in non-climate
dimensions
development can be reconciled in a variety of ways (Qizilbash, has produced too much for anyone” (Economist, 2015). The SDGs,
2018). Although his substantive contribution is to show that appar- however, should not be judged purely in terms of conceptual or
ent differences between the human development approach and the technical precision. Collectively, they represent a roadmap for a
capability approach can – to a large extent – be squared if the latter better future that inspires action and cooperation among diverse
is interpreted in an inclusionary manner, his paper also demon- multilevel actors and agents of change. Moreover, the argument
strates that other approaches to sustainable development includ- that 17 goals and 169 targets are too much depends on context
ing economic growth, environmental sustainability, and and the purpose of the exercise. In this respect, Kanbur, Patel,
utilitarian notions of welfare also have inclusionary elements that and Stiglitz (2015, p. 14) have argued that the SDGs are ‘‘a useful
can be used to build consensus among competing paradigms. For platform from which to choose and narrow down” a set of indica-
example, Qizilbash observes that even the most exclusive form of tors. They suggest that there is a strong case for keeping the num-
utilitarianism (the ‘happiness’ view), can indirectly endorse the ber of indicators on dashboards to well under ten (p. 8). In the case
four pillars of human development identified by Mahbub ul Haq of South Africa and other African countries, they expect top-level
– equity, sustainability, productivity and empowerment (Haq, indicators to include per capita income, income inequality and
1995) as well as four similar pillars of sustainable development poverty, employment, a multidimensional deprivation index based
identified in The World Happiness Report 2012 that are said to be on access to basic public services, and long-term environmental
entrenched in the SDGs – ending poverty, environmental sustain- degradation (p. 9). Such dashboard can sharpen priorities, simplify
ability, social inclusion and good governance (Helliwell, Layard, & and reduce costs, and spur partnerships for development.
Sachs, 2012). But even streamlined dashboards are not the best tools for all
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development comes close to jobs. A notable advantage of a single aggregate measure (such as
representing a single unified framework (with international valid- the SDG index) is that it provides a straightforward and easy-to-
ity) that can appeal to different viewpoints and schools of thought. interpret summary of overall performance that might be difficult
Of course, it is still possible to challenge the content, structure and to discern from analysing multiple targets and indicators that often
coherence of the SDGs. Some critics have argued that the new con- overlap and move in different directions (Clark, Fennell, & Hulme,
sensus does not go far enough because it does not cover key issues 2017; Schmidt-Traub et al., 2017). In other words, ‘‘having a well-
that are likely to concern the world in coming decades such as instrumented dashboard in your car is essential, but so is knowing
migration, terrorism, capital flight and democracy (see Gasper, where you are going and whether you are making progress toward
2018). Others have pointed out that vital indicators for specific tar- your destination” (Costanza et al., 2016, p. 351). Moreover, they
gets and goals are missing including total carbon emissions, the may be ‘‘more effective in stimulating public debates than a large
share of woman in non-agricultural employment and various indi- number of individual scores which could result in cherry picking”
cators relating to trade, aid and debt. In terms of coherence, (Schmidt-Traub et al., 2017, p. 548). Another advantage is that an
Vandemoortele (2017) ‘‘warns that only 30 of the 169 ‘‘targets” for- aggregate measure facilitates tracking progress over time, as well
mulated in [the SDGs] are clear, time specific and quantified” as easy comparisons across countries for ranking and benchmark-
(Gasper, 2018, p. 16); while officially, as things currently stand, less ing relative performances in given areas, as means not only of stim-
than half of all indicators for monitoring the SDGs are classified as ulating public awareness and discussion (OECD, 2008), but also of
tier 1, i.e. conceptually clear with a standard methodology and increasing accountability and transparency, and boosting further
available data for all regions (IAEG-SDGs, 2019). Meanwhile, analysis (Freudenberg, 2003) to aid the design of better policies.
Kanbur, Patel, and Stiglitz (2015) show that the SDGs – like the For these reasons, composite measures have considerable ana-
MDGs – continue to mix up inputs, outputs and outcomes. lytical power as well as enormous political clout, as their frequent
Some disingenuous critics point to the case for scaling down the use by international organisations (Bandura, 2011; OECD, 2008;
SDGs by claiming that they are ‘‘senseless, dreamy and garbled” Yang, 2014) and scholars from across the social sciences shows
(Easterly, 2015); or by suggesting that ‘‘something for everyone (Booysen, 2003; Cherchye, Moesen, Rogge, & Van Puyenbroeck,
2007; Michener, 2015; Sundström, Paxton, Wang, & Lindberg, to guide specific goals and targets. As Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi
2017; Greco, Ishizaka, Tasiou, & Torrisi, 2019). It follows that the (2009, pp. 238–239) observe:
pragmatic value of composite indicators such as the UNDP’s
On the whole . . . composite indicators are better regarded as
Human Development Index, the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Busi-
invitations to look more closely at the various components that
ness Index, the OECD’s Better Life Index, and the World Economic
underlie them. This kind of function of composite indicators has
Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index is reflected in their capacity
often been put forward as one of their main raisons d’être. . . .
to shape policy debates and prevailing political discourses (Paruolo
Once we have the global view, we can return to detailed ele-
et al., 2013) by simplifying and effectively communicating complex
ments: a country that is badly ranked can look at the variables
multi-dimensional concepts and issues that facilitate the ‘genera-
that are predominantly responsible for its situation and try to
tion of narratives supporting the subject of the advocacy’
improve its score along these variables. Such an incentive to
(Saltelli, 2007, p. 68).
policy change is not to be neglected at all.
The Human Development Index is perhaps the most obvious
and well-known example. This ‘eye-catching’ statistic has captured Although the SDG Index is fully aligned with these arguments
the imagination of politicians and the press, guiding governments’ there is scope for improvement. In particular, it could be modified
planning, policy and allocation processes towards multidimen- to aggregate components in a more integrated way by drawing on
sional development. Moreover, it has been partially successful in the MSI methodology (see Sections 1 and 4).
threatening the hegemony of GNP in development accounting
(see also Streeten, 1994; Haq, 1995; Sen, 2006), as well as in inspir- 2.3. The contribution of the SDG Index
ing innovation and efforts in the measurement of different aspects
of well-being at the local, national and regional levels (Dervis and As we have seen in the introduction, the SDG Index developed
Klugman, 2011). by Sachs and associates is the most comprehensive attempt to date
There are, however, well-known difficulties with the construc- to capture overall performance in sustainable development within
tion and use of composite indicators for gauging social phenomena a single composite index that can be used to make comparisons
such as ‘development’ (Saisana & Tarantola, 2002; OECD, 2008; across countries and over time.
Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009). First, their practical value comes By using publicly available data for all 193 UN member states in
at the expense of losing the richness of information attached to 2016, 2017 and 2018 (see Section 4 of this paper), Sachs et al.
specific targets and indicators; for this reason, it is ‘‘not credible (2016, 2017, 2018) annually calculate and release aggregate statis-
to contend that any single index could capture all that matters in tics to show how countries are preforming with respect to the
all settings” (Kanbur, Patel, & Stiglitz, 2015, p. 8). Second, the arbi- SDGs. Four main objectives shared by many other researchers
trary nature of the procedures used to select, aggregate and weigh motivate their work: i) providing a useful, operational tool for pol-
their components (among other methodological issues) raises nor- icy action; ii) supporting debates on the prioritization of goals and
mative issues that are typically not made explicit or justified the formulation of strategies; iii) contributing to a robust SDG
(Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009). Third, their construction and anal- monitoring framework; and iv) identifying gaps in statistical mon-
ysis are more data intensive and require greater levels of commit- itoring systems. Taking account of the need to balance scientific
ment and understanding than simpler individual indicators before soundness with easily communicable results accessible to a wide
they can enjoy widespread recognition, acceptance and support. audience, the SDG Index score is interpreted as the percentage of
Fourth, when poorly constructed, misinterpreted or misused there achievement given by the distance to invariant targets for goals.
is a high risk that summary indicators can send misleading mes- Lafortune, Fuller, Moreno, Schmidt-Traub, and Kroll (2018, p. 7)
sages based on ‘big picture’ results that distort policy measures outline the methodology applied to compute the SDG Index, which
(Saltelli, 2007; OECD, 2008). Similar concerns have been raised can be recapped as follows: i) censoring the data at the bottom
with reference to the HDI which has been criticised as ‘‘a quick 2.5th percentile as the minimum value for the normalization of
and imperfect glance at human lives” (Sen, 2006, p. 257) that indices; ii) rescaling each variable as an ascending variable from
‘‘may conceal at least as much as it reveals about the nature of 0 to 100 with 0 denoting the worst performance and 100 describ-
human well-being and development” (Clark, 2014, p. 847). ing the best possible ‘technical optimum’ in terms of sustainability;
Although the debate on the relative merits of social indicators iii) employing equal weights for goals to reflect the fact that each
may never be settled (as Saisana, Saltelli, & Tarantola, 2005 argue), SDG is of equal importance and part of an integrated agenda; iv)
these metrics can still play a useful role in social analysis as long as aggregating the scores for each SDG into a unique index for each
their limitations are fully appreciated, and appropriate allowances country through the arithmetic mean, as the authors remark on
are made. In terms of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop- its technical appropriateness and the simplicity of its interpreta-
ment, such a metric can help gauge the complex and integrated tion for policy makers and the general public.
nature for the SDGs for research, advocacy and awareness raising Lafortune et al. (2018, pp. 23ff) briefly consider other aggrega-
purposes. But it is also important to remember that the SDGs can tion procedures, but do not find any real advantage in using the
be conceived ‘in a broad perspective, as a platform which provides geometric mean in place of the arithmetic mean. Instead, they
global civil society with a base from which to organise around one praise the simplicity of the arithmetic mean and observe that a cor-
of the many issues in the SDGs’ (Kanbur, Patel, & Stiglitz, 2015, p. relation coefficient of 0.977 between these two aggregation meth-
6). Such a design requires a global indicator framework that pro- ods will produce ‘‘very similar rankings” (p. 24). Yet they do
vides multiple entry points for policymaking by providing a start- recognise that the geometric mean has a desirable ‘limited substi-
ing point for discussing, assessing and comparing progress and by tutability’ property for aggregation across heterogeneous variables
identifying priority areas for improving performance (Nhemachena (see also Klugman et al., 2011; UNDP, 2010). However, if an out-
et al., 2018). come is zero (i.e. for the synthetic index of any of the 17 Goals),
Of course, any composite measure of sustainable development, the synthesis among all SGDs through the geometric mean will col-
could only provide a partial and imperfect representation of a lapse to zero. For this reason, the estimate of the correlation coef-
global indicator framework. Although the former provides an infor- ficient between the two aggregation measures considered by
mative summary measure, a disaggregated set of indicators is still Lafortune et al. (2018) is questionable because the correlation is
required to identify priorities and design a coherent set of policies calculated by omitting those dimensions that score zero (although
in fairness this only applies to a limited number of countries10). If tainable development; 2) Innovation and modernization of
these zeros are included, the correlation remains high but is reduced national statistical systems; 3) Strengthening of basic statistical
to 0.816. Moreover, simply looking at this correlation coefficient can activities and programmes, with particular focus on addressing
be misleading when analysing country rankings. the monitoring needs of the 2030 Agenda; 4) Dissemination and
Despite the technical limitations of the SDG Index, the overall use of sustainable development data; 5) Multi-stakeholder part-
methodological approach is robust and Sachs’s et al. work is highly nerships for sustainable development data; and 6) Mobilize
relevant and useful for informing debate and guiding strategic resources and coordinate efforts for statistical capacity building
policy-making. Yet substantial doubts remain regarding the effec- (UNSC, 2017).
tive capacity of the SDG Index to: i) deal with the aforementioned In July 2017, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
synergies and inter-linkages between the SDGs11 by rewarding vir- global indicator framework developed by the United Nations Sta-
tuous integrated pathways with high(er) score across the different tistical Commission and the IAEG-SDGs as ‘‘a voluntary country-
goals, and vice-versa; and ii) systematically and effectively penalize led instrument. . . to be refined annually” in accordance with ‘‘the
poor performances in particular indicators that hamper the sustain- periodic review of new methodologies and data as they become
ability of development trajectories and potentially affect – through available. . .” (United Nations, 2017b, para 1, 3).
negative spill-overs – global pathway towards a more sustainable In this regard, it is worth recalling the three-tier classification
world. In other words, Sachs and his colleagues tackle a highly rele- for evaluating global SDG indicators developed by IAEG-SDGs.12
vant issue but have not arrived at the most effective solution for This classification is frequently updated and depends on method-
measuring, tracking and comparing aggregate performance in an ological development and data availability at the international level,
index representing the pursuit of an indivisible and integrated as follows: Tier 1 indicators are conceptually clear, have an interna-
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. tionally established methodology and standards, and are available
The Multidimensional Synthesis of Indicators (MSI) approach for the majority of countries; Tier 2 indicators are conceptually clear,
(Mauro et al., 2018) applied in this paper attempts to enhance have an internationally established methodology and standards, but
the SDG Index by introducing a new method of aggregation cap- sufficient data for monitoring purposes is not widely produced; and
able of robustly taking account of the inter-linkages between the Tier 3 indicators currently lack an internationally established
SDGs (see Section 4). In comparison to the standard SDG Index, methodology or standard, although appropriate methods or stan-
the Integrated Sustainable Development (I-SDI) produces different dards will be developed (IAEG-SDGs, 2019).13
scores and rankings (see Section 5). It follows that further investi- Three main databases are currently available for monitoring the
gation is warranted. In Paruolo, Saisana, and Saltelli (2013, p. 610) SDGs. The first of these is the official Global SDG Indicators Data-
words, ‘‘the statistical analysis of composite indicators is essential base maintained by UN Stats. This platform contains over one mil-
to prevent media and stakeholders from taking them at face value lion observations (although several indicators and data points are
[. . .], possibly leading to questionable choices of policy.” repeated) from the year 2000,14 thus giving the user access to the
same country-level data and regional and global aggregates utilised
in the Secretary-General’s annual Progress Towards the Sustainable
3. Data availability and limitations
Development Goals reports (see United Nations, 2017a, 2018). In
addition, the Open SDG Data Hub (2018) allows the user to explore
As mentioned, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is
and analyse official SDG source data to facilitate evidence-based
composed of 17 goals and 169 targets. Although the processes and
decision-making and advocacy; and the SDG indicators Application
mechanisms behind the design and implementation of the global
Programming Interface (API) gives access to the Global Indicators
development framework has attracted the most attention, signifi-
database via OpenAPI specifications.
cant discussion has also been devoted to an extensive and expand-
Since 2016 the World Bank has provided a second database
ing indicator framework intended to track and monitor the SDGs.
through the annual release of an Atlas of Sustainable Development
Global reasoning on the post-2015 Development Agenda was
Goals (World Bank, 2017, 2018).15 This Atlas complements the
initially led by the United Nations Statistical Division in collabora-
information provided by UN Stats by drawing on the globally
tion with the Statistical Office of the European Union who organ-
renowned World Development Indicators, which includes 1600 indi-
ised a conference in January 2015 on the ‘Transformative Agenda
cators for 217 economies.16 One advantage of the World Bank’s data-
for Official Statistics’ to help design a new strategic indicator
set is the available time-span as many indicators can be tracked from
framework. In September 2015 an international mandate to
1960 onwards.
strengthen global statistics followed in Transforming Our World
As mentioned, Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN have assembled
(United Nations, 2015b, para 48, 57), and in March 2016 a set of
a third dataset for monitoring the SDGs that consists of 86 global
indicators developed by the Inter-Agency Expert Group on the
indicators (plus an additional 35 indicators for OECD member
SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) were agreed as a ‘‘practical starting
states) from a variety of official and unofficial sources that are pub-
point” by the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC, 2017,
licly available.17 Official data from national governments constitutes
p. 2).
around two-thirds of their data, which helps to ensure that concepts,
Further collaboration led to the Cape Town Global Action Plan for
collection methods and results are consistent and comparable. The
Sustainable Development Data prepared by the High-level Group for
remaining data comes from unofficial sources collected by universi-
Partnership, Coordination and Capacity-Building for statistics for
ties, NGOs and private sector organisations using a variety of tech-
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (HLG-PCCB), which
niques, which can be used to bridge some of the data gaps in
was adopted by the United Nations Statistical Commission in
March 2017. This plan identified six strategic areas (associated
with particular objectives and key actions) for improving statistical 12
See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/.
capacity: 1) Coordination and strategic leadership on data for sus- 13
The latest available classification of indicators (as at 22 May 2019) lists 104 tier 1
indicators, 88 tier 2 indicators, and 34 tier 3 indicators. A further 6 indicators have
10 components that are classified under multiple tiers (IAEG-SDGs, 2019, p.2).
The score in SDG1 is zero for Burundi and Central African Republic; the score in
14
SDG7 is zero for Liberia; the score in SDG10 is zero for Botswana, Namibia, South See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/.
15
Africa and Swaziland; and the score in SDG17 is zero for Turkmenistan. See http://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgatlas/index.html.
11 16
See, for example, the matrix of Pearson correlation coefficients across SDGs See http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/.
17
provided by Lafortune et al. (2018, p. 25). See http://www.sdgindex.org/reports/2018/.
official sources. As noted in the ‘SDG Index and Dashboards Detailed have introduced new indicators for defining and measuring devel-
Methodological Paper’, around 35 percent of these indicators match opment (Seers, 1969; Hicks & Streeten, 1979; Sen, 1985; UNDP,
exactly those listed by IAEG-SDGs, 24 percent are closely aligned, 1990; Haq, 1995; Clark, 2002; Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009).
and 40 percent are not included in the UN Stat database (Lafortune At the same time, the deluge of new data has given rise to new
et al., 2018, p. 16). challenges, both practical and theoretical, that need to be man-
It is beyond the scope of this paper to assess the merit of Hák, aged through appropriate methodologies. Various approaches
Janouŝková, and Moldan (2016) call to focus on more robust con- have been used to aggregate indicators of societal well-being
ceptual and methodological work to bolster the global indicator and progress. An important challenge relates to the aggregation
framework before concentrating on the production of new eco- and interpretation of social statistics, and, although the technical
nomic, social and environmental statistics. But it is evident that literature on composite indexes and functions has grown rapidly
the available datasets facilitate meaningful progress by allowing in recent years (see for example, Greco et al., 2019), some aspects
decision-makers to ‘‘discover, understand, and communicate pat- require strengthening. One such aspect follows on from the
terns and interrelationships in the wealth of SDG data and statis- recognition that development is multidimensional and should
tics that are now available” (Open SDG Data Hub, 2018). embrace an expanding number of core dimensions. The implica-
Nevertheless, three core weaknesses in the global indicator move- tion for aggregating across an expanding set of dimensions relates
ment should be kept in mind. First, several factors continue to con- to the growth of complexity in the structure of the functional
strain the availability of consistent, high quality and comparable relationship between the indicators used to construct a composite
data across countries (Vandemoortele, 2017). In some cases, indi- measure.
cators lack scientifically robust definitions (Schmidt-Traub et al., The UNDP has provided one of the most well-known and fre-
2017), requiring international organisations, national and local quently used composite indicators of development in the form of
governments, civil society and private sector organisations to the HDI. Initially, the HDI was based on the arithmetic mean of
develop a more effective monitoring system for sustainable devel- three core dimensions: living standards (with income as a proxy),
opment by contributing to, and investing in, the collection of more education and health. As the functional form of the index received
accurate, consistent and reliable data.18 In this respect, Jacob (2017) substantial criticism (see, for instance, Ray, 2008), an attempt was
shows that one important lesson the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable eventually made to improve the aggregation function by using a
Development can learn from the MDG indicator framework, is that geometric mean (UNDP, 2010; Klugman et al., 2011). The explicit
inefficient performance measurement can result in development aim involved ‘‘address[ing] one of the most serious criticisms of
failures. the linear aggregation formula, which allowed for perfect substitu-
Second, the limited availability of disaggregated data at sub- tion across dimensions” (UNDP, 2010, p. 216).
national level hampers effective monitoring at local level, particu- This approach makes it possible to account for the degree of
larly in large and diverse countries such as India and China. This is substitution between dimensions, an aspect that becomes increas-
a significant problem for some goals and targets – for example, ingly important as the number of dimensions and complexity of
SDG 10 which includes an explicit focus on within country inequal- the overall index expands (see Section 2). Although the question
ity. National and supranational statistical offices are attempting to of substitution between dimensions is receiving greater attention
address this problem (for example, EuroStat and the OECD are con- in the literature (Anand & Sen, 1997; UNDP, 2010), there is no con-
necting the SDGs with regional and local statistics), but the inter- sensus on how to manage multiple dimensions with complex link-
national community still lacks a common unified framework to ages and complementarities when it comes to integrating them
compare indicators and performance across sub-national areas, into a single indicator of development.
which increasingly represent important spheres for analysis and To address this issue, Mauro et al. (2018) have developed the
the implementation of policy as the ‘SDGs localisation’ debate MSI, a new method of aggregation capable of taking account of
shows (UNDG, 2014; GTF, 2016). Third, the SDG Index developed the inter-connections between dimensions while avoiding the ten-
by Sachs and associates represents the only substantial attempt dency of the geometric mean to collapse to zero (in the case of vari-
to date to track the SDGs at the global level using a single aggregate ables with zero values) or to values approaching zero (in the case
measure, despite methodological concerns regarding composite of variables with values close to zero).20 Biggeri and Mauro
indicators (see Section 2.2). Yet so far, little critical attention (2018) apply this approach to an index that integrates civil and polit-
appears to have been devoted to the conceptual and methodological freedoms and environmental aspects of development into the
ical development of their SDG Index.19 HDI alongside the three original dimensions. Their approach pro-
This paper addresses the third limitation by demonstrating that vides a possible solution to the so-called ‘inescapable [element of]
it is possible to improve on a single aggregate measure for tracking arbitrariness’ involved in determining the order of the mean
and monitoring the SDGs at country level through the application (Anand & Sen, 1997; Bourguignon & Chakravarty, 2003).
of the MSI methodology. It is also worth noting that the MSI The basic idea behind the MSI is the possibility of assigning
methodology can be expanded to sub-national accounts, helping each unit in the analysis a different degree of substitution,
to monitor the SDGs across localities which addresses the second according to a function g that allows greater flexibility in the
criticism mentioned above. management of synergies and trade-offs between heterogeneous
dimensions. In its most general formulation, using a standard
data matrix with n observations and k variables, the MSI index
4. A new method for aggregating an ‘integrated’ SDG index for a generic unit i is:
" # 1
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is the latest in a 1X g ð xi Þ
MSIi ¼ 1 ð1 xij Þgðxi Þ ð1Þ

long line of contributions that have questioned GNP per capita as k j
the most appropriate yardstick for monitoring ‘development’ and
Where gðxi Þ is a function of the i-th generic row of the matrix,
18
One area of expanding interest is the role ‘big data’ can play in monitoring the
while g ðÞ 1 and j represents the dimensions.
SDGs (Paul, 2018).
19
A literature search conducted in December 2018 using Google Scholar to look for
20
the terms ‘SDG Index’, ‘Sustainable Development Index’ and ‘Sachs Sustainable Guijarro and Poyatos (2018) use the geometric mean to calculate a composite
Development Index’ did not reveal any obvious critiques. SDG index for the EU-28 countries.
Table 3
Comparison across different aggregation procedures.
Reward synergies Substitutability MRS flexibility*
Arithmetic mean No Perfect None
Higher order means Yes Not perfect None
Geometric mean Yes Not perfect Limited
MSI Yes Not perfect High
*
MRS flexibility is the theoretical rate at which a country is ready to trade achievement in one dimension or SDG in
exchange for progress in another dimension or SDG, while maintaining the same overall index score.
The function g ðÞ allows a high degree of flexibility in the MSI. the degree of substitution among different dimensions in the
Following Mauro et al. (2018), further assumptions on the struc- aggregation procedure that would otherwise have theoretically
ture of substitution rates relating to the units under analysis can weak justifications and/or would be relegated to subjective
lead to more detailed and complex reiterations of the functional weighting systems.
form of g ðÞ. A generic choice for the function g ðÞcould be: In this paper we use a tailored version of the MSI to propose an
8b alternative approach to aggregate the goals, targets and indicators
>
<a if l<a featured in the SDGs in an integrated way. As we have seen, the
g ðxi Þ ¼ b
l if a 6 l < b arithmetic mean proposed by Sachs and associates for the SDG
>
:
1 if lPb Index fails to consider the heterogeneity of achievements, both
within and between goals. More specifically, their approach
where l is the arithmetic mean of xi and a and b ð0 a < b 1Þ are assumes perfect substitution between all indicators within a goal,
two thresholds selected so that all units above b (or below a) have as well as across different goals. In contrast, the MSI approach pro-
their achievements aggregated under the assumption of an almost vides a flexible method for relaxing this unrealistic assumption.
perfect (or complementary) substitution rate. It is worth noting that while the geometric mean employed in
Consequently, any theoretical considerations concerning the the new HDI takes account of the degree of substitution between
structure of substitution rates between achievements can be easily dimensions, it fails to do so in a flexible way that can be readily
managed. Table 3 summarises the options for managing substi- applied to different scenarios. In contrast to the geometric mean,
tutability according to different aggregation procedures, including the MSI method encounters no problems in cases where specific
the MSI proposed here. dimensions score zero (or close to zero), and therefore constitutes
The MSI aggregation procedure penalises heterogeneity in the a more robust approach.
achievements of a unit as a function of the overall level reached. In the aggregate index for SDGs we are proposing a ¼ 0 and
In this regard, we tested the behaviour of the MSI through a com- b ¼ 1 with g ðxi Þ ¼ l1 where l is the mean. Our application of
parison with other common functions used for composite indica- the MSI adjusts the SDG Index to create a new ‘Integrated Sustain-
tors, investigating the behaviour of each aggregation approach able Development Index’ – or ‘I-SDI’ – which can be summarised as
only as a function of the degree of variability experienced by each follows for each country i:
unit. The results of our simulations21 reinforced the choice of the " #lj
MSI method given the theoretical background regarding heterogene- 1 X17
1
ity penalisation. I SDIi ¼ 1 1 xij lj ð2Þ
17 j¼1
The primary contribution of the MSI relates to the possibility of
penalising heterogeneity (or rewarding homogeneity) between where mj is the average score for the 17 SDGs.
achievements across dimensions in terms of freedom of choice It is possible to capture the synergies within each goal using the
for the units of analysis (countries in our case). For example, large MSI approach by introducing the I-SDI2. The ‘2’ indicates that the
variations across dimensions could be more heavily penalised in MSI method is used twice: first to calculate an index for each speci-
countries with low levels of well-being while similar variations fic goal (replacing the arithmetic mean); and then to calculate the
could be less severely reprimanded in countries with higher levels overall index between goals (as for the I-SDI). Thus, for the I-SDI2
of well-being. The MSI permits clear and transparent decisions on firstly we first apply, for each country i, and for each of the seven-
teen goals d, in turn, the following formula:
21
We performed three different simulations, on 6 variables measured across 20 " #yj
countries, calculating the MSI, the geometric mean, and some well-known aggrega- 1X nd
y1
tion functions (i.e. Logistic, Liptak and Fisher functions; see Di Tommaso, Tassinari, I SDIdi ¼ 1 1 yij j ð3Þ
n j¼1
Bonnini, & Marozzi, 2017). All the variables used in the analysis are bounded between
0 and 1, and each simulation was set at a different overall average level. As a result, in
each of the three simulations, all 20 countries share the same arithmetic mean, but where nd is the number of the indicators pertaining to each goal d

different variability among achievements. The simulations were set at three and yd is its average. (Notice that at this stage this index can also
progressive levels of the arithmetic mean, namely 0.2 (low), 0.4 (intermediate) and
be used in conjunction with the dashboards approach).
0.6 (high). The Liptak and the Logistic functions as well as the geometric mean were
severely sensitive to high levels of heterogeneity. The Logistic function seems to be The I-SDI2 is then calculated as follows:
more robust, at least for low overall levels, while the MSI remains very robust for " #ISDI

1 X17 di
every level of heterogeneity and every overall level of achievement. For any level of
1
overall achievement, the general behaviour of the functions remains approximately I SDI2i ¼ 1 ð1 ISDIdi ÞISDIdi ð4Þ
the same. The geometric mean and the MSI decrease as heterogeneity rises, while the
17 d¼1
other three functions tend to increase with heterogeneity.

where I SDIdi are calculated through formula (3). a second time to aggregate scores within each goal as well as
This new index can be regarded as an alternative to the I-SDI in between goals (see Section 4).
cases where we wish to give greater prominence to trade-offs and
synergies between targets and indicators within goals. 5.1. Enhanced aggregation across the SDGs
Using this data, Fig. 1 compares the standard SDG Index com-
5. Results and discussion puted through the arithmetic mean with the results of a similar
exercise where the results are aggregated across dimensions using
In this section, we use the full dataset for the 2018 SDG Index the geometric mean instead (panel a) and with the I-SDI computed
provided by Bertelsmann Stiftung and the SDSN to calculate: i) through the MSI method (panel b).
the Integrated Sustainable Development Index (I-SDI) by applying Each data point in these graphs represents a single country. The
the MSI method to aggregate scores across the individual SDG analysis shows that the MSI method of aggregation is better placed
indices computed by Sachs et al. (2018); and ii) the Integrated Sus- to take account of heterogeneity than the geometric mean (that
tainable Development Index 2 (I-SDI2) by applying the MSI method falls to 0 for some units) without over-penalising countries with
Fig. 1. The geometric mean and our I-SDI compared with the standard SDG Index.
Table 4
Comparing the standard SDG Index, the SDG Index based on the geometric mean and the I-SDI for selected countries at higher, middle and lower scores.
A B C D E F G H I
Country SDG Index Geometric mean I-SDI score Reduction Reduction SDG Index Rank Rank I-SDI Rank difference
score 2018 (0–1) score 2018 (0–1) 2018 (0–1) Geometric I-SDI Rank 2018 Geometric SDG Index
Mean on on SDG Index Mean vs I-SDI
SDG Index
Sweden 0.85 0.84 0.84 1.7% 1.4% 1 1 1
Denmark 0.85 0.83 0.84 1.4% 1.0% 2 2 2
Finland 0.83 0.82 0.82 1.5% 1.4% 3 3 3
Germany 0.82 0.81 0.81 1.7% 1.3% 4 4 4
France 0.81 0.80 0.80 1.1% 1.1% 5 5 5
Norway 0.81 0.79 0.79 2.9% 2.2% 6 6 6
Switzerland 0.80 0.77 0.78 3.4% 2.5% 7 10 9 2
Slovenia 0.80 0.78 0.79 2.0% 1.8% 8 8 8
Austria 0.80 0.79 0.79 1.6% 1.4% 9 7 7 2
Iceland 0.80 0.75 0.77 5.4% 3.3% 10 19 15 5
Ghana 0.63 0.61 0.61 2.9% 2.7% 101 87 92 9
Nepal 0.63 0.59 0.60 6.7% 4.8% 102 102 102
Belize 0.62 0.57 0.59 7.9% 5.8% 103 106 104 1
Guyana 0.62 0.58 0.59 6.6% 4.8% 104 104 103 1
Kuwait 0.61 0.58 0.58 4.8% 4.9% 105 103 105
Qatar 0.61 0.57 0.57 5.6% 5.8% 106 105 108 2
South Africa 0.61 0.19 0.58 68.5% 5.3% 107 150 107
Lao PDR 0.61 0.57 0.58 6.8% 4.8% 108 108 106 2
Cambodia 0.60 0.56 0.57 6.6% 5.9% 109 109 109
Turkmenistan 0.59 0.18 0.55 70.0% 6.8% 110 153 114 4
Benin 0.49 0.43 0.45 12.6% 7.6% 147 136 141 6
Niger 0.49 0.36 0.43 25.9% 11.9% 148 145 149 1
Liberia 0.48 0.22 0.42 53.9% 12.7% 149 149 150 1
Nigeria 0.47 0.42 0.43 12.2% 9.6% 150 137 148 2
Afghanistan 0.46 0.38 0.41 18.7% 10.4% 151 143 151
Yemen, Rep. 0.46 0.38 0.40 16.8% 11.7% 152 142 152
Madagascar 0.46 0.33 0.40 26.6% 13.2% 153 147 153
Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.43 0.34 0.38 21.5% 12.7% 154 146 154
Chad 0.43 0.30 0.37 29.8% 13.6% 155 148 155
Central African Republic 0.38 0.08 0.29 78.2% 22.0% 156 156 156
638
Table 5
Comparing the standard SDG index, the SDG index based on the geometric mean, and the new I-SDI ordered by rank difference for selected countries.
A B C D E F G H I
Country SDG Index score Geometric mean I-SDI score Reduction Geometric Reduction I-SDI SDG Index Rank Rank Geometric Rank I-SDI Rank difference
2018 (0–1) score 2018 (0–1) 2018 (0–1) Mean on SDG Index on SDG Index 2018 Mean SDG Index vs I-SDI
Singapore 0.71 0.64 0.67 10.9% 6.3% 43 73 60 17
China 0.70 0.68 0.68 2.5% 2.2% 54 45 45 9
Ghana 0.63 0.61 0.61 2.9% 2.7% 101 87 92 9
Cuba 0.71 0.65 0.68 8.2% 4.8% 42 65 50 8
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.67 0.61 0.64 9.4% 5.6% 71 86 78 7
El Salvador 0.64 0.59 0.60 8.0% 5.8% 92 100 99 7
Angola 0.50 0.45 0.46 9.2% 6.3% 144 130 137 7
United Arab Emirates 0.69 0.66 0.66 5.2% 4.7% 60 63 66 6
Benin 0.49 0.43 0.45 12.6% 7.6% 147 136 141 6
Iceland 0.80 0.75 0.77 5.4% 3.3% 10 19 15 5
Colombia 0.67 0.62 0.63 6.4% 4.8% 74 81 79 5
Morocco 0.66 0.64 0.64 3.4% 3.2% 77 69 72 5
Iran, Islamic Rep. 0.66 0.64 0.64 2.9% 2.9% 82 72 77 5
M. Biggeri et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 628–647

Cabo Verde 0.65 0.62 0.63 4.2% 3.3% 88 84 83 5
Lesotho 0.52 0.37 0.45 28.3% 12.0% 135 144 140 5
Mozambique 0.51 0.46 0.47 8.5% 6.8% 138 128 133 5
Burundi 0.50 0.10 0.44 79.4% 12.4% 141 155 146 5
Azerbaijan 0.71 0.69 0.69 2.4% 2.3% 45 39 41 4
Greece 0.71 0.69 0.69 2.4% 2.4% 48 40 44 4
Uzbekistan 0.70 0.67 0.68 4.6% 3.1% 52 52 48 4
Thailand 0.69 0.68 0.68 2.3% 2.5% 59 46 55 4
Suriname 0.68 0.66 0.66 3.6% 2.5% 67 64 63 4
Montenegro 0.68 0.64 0.64 6.1% 5.2% 69 74 73 4
Nicaragua 0.66 0.62 0.63 6.5% 4.5% 76 82 80 4
Tunisia 0.66 0.64 0.64 3.4% 3.3% 78 70 74 4
France 0.81 0.80 0.80 1.1% 1.1% 5 5 5
Norway 0.81 0.79 0.79 2.9% 2.2% 6 6 6
Slovenia 0.80 0.78 0.79 2.0% 1.8% 8 8 8
Belarus 0.76 0.73 0.74 3.4% 2.5% 23 25 23
Spain 0.75 0.74 0.74 2.1% 2.0% 25 23 25
Hungary 0.75 0.73 0.74 2.0% 1.9% 26 24 26
Latvia 0.75 0.73 0.73 2.0% 1.8% 27 27 27
Malta 0.74 0.72 0.72 2.5% 2.5% 30 30 30
Poland 0.74 0.72 0.72 2.5% 2.2% 32 31 32
Sri Lanka 0.65 0.61 0.61 6.2% 5.1% 89 93 89
Saudi Arabia 0.63 0.61 0.60 3.7% 4.1% 98 92 98
Gabon 0.63 0.60 0.60 4.2% 4.1% 100 97 100
Nepal 0.63 0.59 0.60 6.7% 4.8% 102 102 102
Kuwait 0.61 0.58 0.58 4.8% 4.9% 105 103 105
South Africa 0.61 0.19 0.58 68.5% 5.3% 107 150 107
Cambodia 0.60 0.56 0.57 6.6% 5.9% 109 109 109
Ethiopia 0.53 0.49 0.50 8.1% 6.1% 128 123 128
Congo, Rep. 0.52 0.47 0.48 10.1% 8.0% 130 126 130
Djibouti 0.51 0.44 0.46 13.8% 9.6% 139 133 139
Afghanistan 0.46 0.38 0.41 18.7% 10.4% 151 143 151
Yemen, Rep. 0.46 0.38 0.40 16.8% 11.7% 152 142 152
Madagascar 0.46 0.33 0.40 26.6% 13.2% 153 147 153
Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.43 0.34 0.38 21.5% 12.7% 154 146 154
Chad 0.43 0.30 0.37 29.8% 13.6% 155 148 155
Central African Republic 0.38 0.08 0.29 78.2% 22.0% 156 156 156
Fig. 2. Comparing the MSI and arithmetic mean in aggregating indicators for selected SDGs.
low overall SDG performances. This is especially true when dealing metric mean as comparing the two panels in Fig. 1 shows). In par-
with large numbers of indicators (some of which may exhibit very ticular, countries with a medium-high degree of heterogeneity
low scores), which raises the possibility that composite scores may across dimensions are significantly penalized by the geometric
collapse to zero (see panel a). mean but are not so harshly penalised by the I-SDI. Notice that
Table 4 reports results for selected countries that experience the level of penalization introduced by the geometric mean
either high or low heterogeneity in terms of performance across appears to be excessive in the presence of extreme deprivations
SDGs. For each composite measure, the magnitude of the decrease in specific goals (this is due to the functional form of the index that
(or increase) with respect to the standard SDG Index is reported in is ultra-sensitive to low values). In such situations, the I-SDI
percentage terms. The new I-SDI, as well as the geometric mean, appears to be more robust, as component values approaching zero
penalize heterogeneity producing lower scores than the original do not affect the final score as heavily.
SDG Index that relies on the arithmetic mean and the assumption The difference between the arithmetic mean and the I-SDI (col-
of perfect substitution between dimensions. umn E in Tables 4 and 5) can be regarded as a measure of hetero-
As Table 4 shows, these indexes produce similar results for geneity. The lower the absolute value of this figure is for a country,
countries with low heterogeneity across the 17 SDGs. As their the more synergies among SDGs are expected to be achieved.22 For
achievements are homogeneous, the assumption of perfect substi- each country this difference, combined with a correlation matrix
tution between dimensions holds, and both the I-SDI and the geo- among the 17 SDGs and a detailed dashboard, can help identify
metric mean produce results similar to the arithmetic mean. the synergies and trade-offs that characterise sustainable develop-
In Table 5 we report results for selected countries that show lar- ment to inform policy.
ger differences in performances across development goals. As the Comparing the rankings obtained from the SDG Index with the
standard deviation of achievements increase, the assumption of rankings that emerge from the I-SDI, produces some striking
perfect substitution becomes less credible. Countries with higher results. First, the absolute average difference in rankings is greater
variability (greater variations across goals) are penalized by both than 2. Second, more than 80% of countries change their ranking
the I-SDI and the geometric mean. The penalization that emerges position, with 28% moving by at least three positions. Singapore
from the geometric mean is a function of the heterogeneity of (down seventeen places, from 43rd to 60th), Cuba (down eight
achievements only (i.e. the variation between different indicators), places, from 42nd to 50th), Bosnia and Herzegovina (down seven
while the penalization that arises from the I-SDI is also associated places, from 71st to 78th) and El Salvador (down seven places,
with the overall level of SDG achievement for each country. In con- from 92nd to 99th) move the furthest down the table in terms of
trast to the geometric mean, the I-SDI penalizes trade-offs to a their overall ranking, while China (up nine places, from 54th to
greater (smaller) extent for those countries with lower (higher)
aggregate SDG scores. In other words, the I-SDI is sensitive to 22
The correlation of I-SDI with the standard deviation is high 0.837. The
aggregate development levels as lower scoring units are penalized corresponding correlations for the arithmetic mean and the geometric mean are
more than higher scoring units (although less so than with the geo- 0.694 and 0.726 respectively.
Table 6
Comparing the scores and rankings between the standard SDG Index and the I-SDI for SDG2 ‘‘Zero hunger”.
A B C D E F
Country Goal 2 SDG2 Index Goal 2 SDG2 Index Goal 2 I-SDI score Goal 2 SDG3 Goal 2 Rank Goal 2 Rank difference
score 2018 (0–100) score 2018 (0–1) within 2018 (0–1) index Rank 2018 I-SDI within SDG Index vs I-SDI within
Qatar 58.7 0.59 0.46 60 79 19
Cyprus 57.0 0.57 0.45 64 82 18
Trinidad and Tobago 51.3 0.51 0.40 88 106 18
Georgia 52.9 0.53 0.43 76 93 17
Tunisia 50.1 0.50 0.40 94 110 16
United Arab Emirates 65.3 0.65 0.53 43 58 15
Jordan 46.5 0.46 0.32 115 130 15
Burundi 41.4 0.41 0.27 126 141 15
Morocco 50.7 0.51 0.41 91 105 14
New Zealand 69.6 0.70 0.61 22 35 13
Bahrain 66.9 0.67 0.58 32 45 13
Mauritius 49.5 0.50 0.39 99 112 13
Costa Rica 57.0 0.57 0.47 63 75 12
Australia 59.6 0.60 0.48 58 69 11
Kazakhstan 52.2 0.52 0.43 80 91 11
Jamaica 48.8 0.49 0.37 107 118 11
Kuwait 65.2 0.65 0.55 44 54 10
Singapore 71.2 0.71 0.64 20 29 9
Turkey 56.1 0.56 0.47 67 76 9
Montenegro 55.5 0.56 0.47 68 77 9
Sierra Leone 38.2 0.38 0.32 136 128 8
Moldova 62.6 0.63 0.58 52 43 9
Armenia 54.1 0.54 0.49 74 65 9
Venezuela, RB 48.8 0.49 0.43 104 95 9
Kyrgyz Republic 61.7 0.62 0.58 54 44 10
Guyana 59.8 0.60 0.57 57 47 10
Thailand 55.3 0.55 0.51 71 61 10
Cote d’Ivoire 45.1 0.45 0.40 119 108 11
Botswana 36.4 0.36 0.31 142 131 11
South Africa 51.9 0.52 0.47 84 72 12
Cambodia 51.8 0.52 0.47 86 74 12
Myanmar 52.0 0.52 0.48 83 70 13
Paraguay 66.0 0.66 0.64 38 24 14
Bolivia 49.6 0.50 0.45 98 84 14
Bhutan 49.3 0.49 0.44 102 88 14
Iraq 34.4 0.34 0.31 146 132 14
Philippines 51.6 0.52 0.48 87 71 16
Tajikistan 39.8 0.40 0.38 132 115 17
Uzbekistan 65.1 0.65 0.64 45 27 18
Albania 48.8 0.49 0.44 105 87 18
45th), Ghana (up nine places, from 101st to 92th), Angola (up from 64th to 82nd), Trinidad and Tobago (down eighteen places,
seven places, from 144th to 137th) and Benin (up six places, from from 88th to 106th) and Georgia (down seventeen places, from
147th to 141st) experience the greatest improvements. 76th to 93rd) fall the furthest in terms of their ranking, while Alba-
In sum, the I-SDI produces significant changes in country rank- nia (up eighteen places, from 105th to 87th), Uzbekistan (up eigh-
ings. Countries that are performing well and in a more homoge- teen places, from 45th to 27th), Tajikistan (up seventeen places,
nous and integrated manner are the most rewarded, while from 132nd to 115th) and the Philippines (up sixteen places, from
countries that perform badly with variations across goals lose sev- 87th to 71st) improve the most.
eral places in their overall ranking. When comparing rankings for SDG3 (Table 7), we obtain an
absolute average ranking difference greater than 1. Around 55 per-
5.2. Enhanced aggregation within selected SDGs cent of countries change their ranking position, with 16 percent of
countries moving by three or more places. Belarus (down five
As mentioned, the MSI aggregation method has also been places, from 54th to 59th), Russia (down five places, from 73rd
applied to aggregation within specific goals to better integrate to 78th), Montenegro (down four places, from 70th to 74th), Pak-
the indicators utilised by Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN. For brev- istan (down four places, from 123rd to 127th) and Tanzania (down
ity, this paper only reports the results for four goals (SDG2, SDG3, four places, from 133rd to 137th) fall the furthest in terms of their
SDG4 and SDG5) to illustrate the differences produced by replacing ranking, while Uganda (up six places, from 136th to 130th), Algeria
the arithmetic mean with the MSI method. (up four places, from 80th to 76th), Ecuador (up four places, from
Fig. 2 graphically compares the two aggregation methods for 79th to 75th) and Moldova (up four places, from 75th to 71st)
the four goals in turn while Tables 6–9 report the corresponding improve the most.
index scores for selected countries for SDG2, SDG3, SGD4 and Comparing different rankings for SDG4 (Table 8), we obtain an
SDG5 respectively. absolute average ranking difference greater than 1. About 72% of
When comparing rankings for SDG2 (Table 6), we obtain an countries change their ranking position, with 25% of countries
absolute average ranking difference greater than 5. More than 90 moving by three or more positions. Myanmar (down seven places,
percent of countries change their ranking position, with 65 percent from 108th to 115th), Iran (down five places, from 57th to 62nd),
of countries moving by three or more positions. Qatar (down nine- Tunisia (down five places, from 83rd to 88th), Cambodia (down
teen places, from 60th to 79th), Cyprus (down eighteen places, five place, from 115th to 120th) and Burundi (down five, places
Table 7
Comparing the scores and rankings between the standard SDG Index and the I-SDI for SDG3 ‘‘Health and well-being”.
A B C D E F
Belarus 81.4 0.81 0.78 54 59 5
Russian Federation 77.2 0.77 0.73 73 78 5
Montenegro 78.2 0.78 0.74 70 74 4
Pakistan 50.7 0.51 0.44 123 127 4
Tanzania 47.1 0.47 0.40 133 137 4
Saudi Arabia 82.8 0.83 0.80 47 50 3
Iran, Islamic Rep. 78.6 0.79 0.75 67 70 3
Armenia 76.9 0.77 0.73 76 79 3
Thailand 76.7 0.77 0.73 78 81 3
Ukraine 69.3 0.69 0.62 97 100 3
Rwanda 61.2 0.61 0.54 108 111 3
Ethiopia 47.4 0.47 0.41 131 134 3
Burkina Faso 47.1 0.47 0.41 132 135 3
Afghanistan 37.9 0.38 0.28 146 149 3
Serbia 81.4 0.81 0.79 53 55 2
Albania 81.0 0.81 0.78 56 58 2
Bulgaria 80.1 0.80 0.77 60 62 2
Sri Lanka 79.3 0.79 0.76 64 66 2
Tunisia 76.3 0.76 0.72 81 83 2
Venezuela, RB 70.7 0.71 0.65 95 97 2
Morocco 73.8 0.74 0.71 90 88 2
Bolivia 68.9 0.69 0.66 98 96 2
Cambodia 61.0 0.61 0.57 109 107 2
Zambia 49.9 0.50 0.45 125 123 2
Swaziland 48.9 0.49 0.45 126 124 2
Kenya 48.9 0.49 0.45 127 125 2
Togo 46.5 0.47 0.40 138 136 2
Cameroon 43.5 0.43 0.39 140 138 2
Guinea 36.7 0.37 0.30 148 146 2
Panama 78.4 0.78 0.76 68 65 3
Nicaragua 77.2 0.77 0.75 72 69 3
Nepal 58.7 0.59 0.55 113 110 3
Benin 46.9 0.47 0.41 135 132 3
Colombia 80.8 0.81 0.79 58 54 4
Peru 80.0 0.80 0.79 61 57 4
El Salvador 79.3 0.79 0.77 65 61 4
Moldova 76.9 0.77 0.74 75 71 4
Ecuador 76.7 0.77 0.74 79 75 4
Algeria 76.6 0.77 0.74 80 76 4
Uganda 46.7 0.47 0.42 136 130 6
from 125th to 130th) fall the furthest down the rankings, while and the I-SDI2 that extends our approach to include heterogeneity
Ghana (up six places, from 116th to 110th), Austria (up six places, amongst indicators within-goals, i.e. within-group variability. Both
from 71st to 65th), and Trinidad and Tobago (up six places, from the indexes are compared with the standard approach of the SDG
60th to 54th) improve the most. Index, represented by the 45-degree line.
Comparing the rankings produced for SDG5 (Table 9), yields an As both versions of the index introduce a degree of penalisation
absolute average ranking difference greater than 3. Around 85% of in comparison with the arithmetic mean, all the data points (repre-
countries change their ranking position, with 55% of countries moving senting individual countries) fall under the 45-degree line in Fig. 3.
three or more places. Iran (down fourteen places, from 126th to Nonetheless, panel (b) indicates that the I-SDI2 is associated with a
140th), Brazil (down eleven places, from 75th to 86th), Thailand significant increase in the level of penalisation, especially for coun-
(down eleven places, from 87th to 98th) and Lebanon (down eleven tries towards the bottom-left, representing the most deprived
places, from 127th to 138th) fall the furthest down the rankings, while countries. The I-SDI can be interpreted as a special case of the I-
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (up fourteen places, from SDI2, where the indicators for specific goals achieve the same score
73rd to 59th), Mauritania (up twelve places, from 151st to 139th), (or perhaps in cases where it is reasonable to assume perfect sub-
Montenegro (up twelve places, from 92nd to 80th) and Cote d’Ivoire stitution between indicators).
(up eleven places, from 142nd to 131st) improve the most. Table 10 reports indicator scores and rankings for selected
These results illustrate the importance of adjusting the aggrega- countries for the I-SDI and the I-SDI2. According to the results
tion of targets and indicators within specific Goals. Amongst other the I-SDI2 applying the MSI method twice penalises heterogeneity
things, variations in performance across indicators may point to in SDGs results more heavily than in the I-SDI.
different strategic policy options and choices by multi-level actors It is beyond the scope of this paper to breakdown and analyse
involved in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable the determinants of variations or changes in scores and rankings
Development. for specific countries. However, it is clear the 2030 Agenda for Sus-
tainable Development depends fundamentally on the capacity to
5.3. Enhanced aggregation both within and between SDGs reward positive synergies and minimize trade-offs by designing
appropriate systemic strategies (ICSU, 2017; ODI, 2017). For exam-
Fig. 3 presents a comparison between the behaviour of the I- ple, Pradhan et al. (2017, p. 9), has suggested that policies intended
SDI, which only takes account of heterogeneity between-goals, to minimize trade-offs with SDG12 (Responsible consumption and
Table 8
Comparing the scores and rankings between the standard SDG Index and the I-SDI for SDG4 ‘‘Quality education”.
A B C D E F
Country Goal 4 SDG4 Index Goal 4 SDG4 Index Goal 4 I-SDI score Goal 4 SDG4 index Goal 4 Rank Goal 4 Rank difference
score 2018 (0–100) score 2018 (0–1) within 2018 (0–1) Rank 2018 I-SDI within SDG Index vs I-SDI within
Myanmar 64.3 0.64 0.57 108 115 7
Iran, Islamic Rep. 84.7 0.85 0.83 57 62 5
Tunisia 77.9 0.78 0.74 83 88 5
Cambodia 60.9 0.61 0.55 115 120 5
Burundi 54.0 0.54 0.43 125 130 5
Argentina 88.6 0.89 0.87 41 45 4
Uruguay 83.2 0.83 0.81 65 69 4
Rwanda 57.4 0.57 0.49 121 125 4
Benin 38.7 0.39 0.25 137 141 4
Guinea 18.8 0.19 0.09 147 151 4
Malaysia 88.6 0.89 0.88 40 43 3
Jordan 84.8 0.85 0.84 55 58 3
El Salvador 67.2 0.67 0.63 102 105 3
Morocco 65.5 0.65 0.60 106 109 3
Cabo Verde 63.1 0.63 0.56 113 116 3
Nepal 59.0 0.59 0.51 119 122 3
Lao PDR 54.6 0.55 0.49 124 127 3
Bhutan 47.6 0.48 0.39 130 133 3
Sierra Leone 42.2 0.42 0.28 136 139 3
Yemen, Rep. 34.8 0.35 0.25 139 142 3
Afghanistan 6.9 0.07 0.06 155 153 2
Luxembourg 88.4 0.88 0.88 43 40 3
Poland 88.4 0.88 0.88 44 41 3
Panama 79.1 0.79 0.78 79 76 3
Jamaica 66.6 0.67 0.67 103 100 3
Uganda 60.4 0.60 0.57 117 114 3
Congo, Rep. 57.0 0.57 0.55 122 119 3
Congo, Dem. Rep. 53.5 0.54 0.50 127 124 3
Togo 53.2 0.53 0.49 129 126 3
Pakistan 42.5 0.43 0.41 135 132 3
Belize 83.1 0.83 0.83 67 63 4
Botswana 76.1 0.76 0.75 89 85 4
Zambia 63.9 0.64 0.62 110 106 4
Haiti 37.9 0.38 0.36 138 134 4
Nigeria 31.5 0.32 0.31 141 137 4
Tanzania 53.5 0.53 0.51 128 123 5
Djibouti 13.8 0.14 0.14 152 147 5
Trinidad and Tobago 84.1 0.84 0.84 60 54 6
Austria 82.2 0.82 0.82 71 65 6
Ghana 60.8 0.61 0.59 116 110 6
production) are likely to be the most effective in leveraging the approaches. Like other renowned composite indicators that have
agenda for sustainable development. Other authors argue a clear advocacy role and policy impact (most notably, the HDI)
that potential trade-offs are contingent on national circumstances such a metric, despite well-known limitations, is relevant for mon-
and prevailing levels of development (ICSU, 2017; Mainali, itoring overall progress towards sustainable development across
Luukkanen, Silveira, & Kaivo-oja, 2018; Nilsson, Griggs, & countries, ensuring transparency and accountability at all level of
Visbeck, 2016; Singh et al., 2018). It follows that investigating governance, and shaping new strategic policy visions for sustain-
whether higher scores and rankings depend primarily on success able development.
in terms of tackling different goals and targets or whether relative Although the SDG Index introduced by Bertelsmann Stiftung
performance has more to do with the structure of a country’s and SDSN (Sachs et al., 2016, 2017, 2018) is an important step for-
economy and initial background conditions would be helpful for ward, it represents a departure from the 2030 Agenda insofar as it
developing integrated policy measures to achieve economic, social fails to aggregate goals and indicators in an integrated and bal-
and environmental development. anced way. In this respect, it does not adequately account for the
relevant trade-offs and synergies between goals or for those
6. Final remarks between targets and indicators within specific goals.
This paper has overcome these difficulties by introducing a new
The pursuit of each SDG is a necessary but not a sufficient con- class of indexes inspired by the MSI approach. The result is the
dition for the achievement of a balanced and integrated form of Integrated Sustainable Development Index (I-SDI) and the adjusted
sustainable development. Although goals and targets are not inde- I-SDI2 which are better placed to allow for the integrated nature of
pendent of each other, they are indivisible in the sense that they the SDGs by incorporating synergies and conflicts between goals
make unique contributions to overall development. In other words, and targets. These methodological innovations are crucial if such
the pursuit of a balanced and integrated set of SDGs is a necessary an index is to actively embrace an indispensable part of the ratio-
condition for the success of Agenda 2030. nale behind the universal commitment to sustainable develop-
It follows that there is a pressing need to analyze and monitor ment. In this respect, our approach helps ensure that the metric
the SDGs through an effective aggregate indicator of sustainable is fit for the intended purpose and can help marshal further accep-
development that can complement dashboard and scorecard tance among peers (Rosen, 1991).
Table 9
Comparing the scores and rankings between the standard SDG Index and the I-SDI for SDG5 ‘‘Gender equality”.
A B C D E F
Iran, Islamic Rep. 48.0 0.48 0.32 126 140 14
Brazil 68.3 0.68 0.61 75 86 11
Thailand 65.3 0.65 0.57 87 98 11
Lebanon 47.6 0.48 0.34 127 138 11
Angola 61.8 0.62 0.54 97 106 9
Guinea 37.4 0.37 0.24 144 153 9
Hungary 68.1 0.68 0.62 77 85 8
Malta 64.6 0.65 0.58 88 96 8
Kuwait 55.8 0.56 0.45 113 121 8
Congo, Dem. Rep. 40.5 0.41 0.30 140 148 8
Ireland 74.9 0.75 0.72 40 47 7
Latvia 72.5 0.72 0.68 54 61 7
Oman 36.9 0.37 0.26 145 152 7
Nicaragua 82.9 0.83 0.81 13 19 6
United States 75.9 0.76 0.72 37 43 6
Madagascar 73.9 0.74 0.70 49 55 6
Qatar 54.7 0.55 0.44 117 123 6
Syrian Arab Republic 42.6 0.43 0.32 136 142 6
Lithuania 75.3 0.75 0.72 39 44 5
Colombia 72.0 0.72 0.68 57 62 5
Iraq 44.7 0.45 0.38 131 126 5
Pakistan 34.4 0.34 0.30 152 147 5
Kenya 69.3 0.69 0.67 70 64 6
Gambia, The 35.5 0.36 0.31 150 144 6
Cabo Verde 61.7 0.62 0.60 98 91 7
Uganda 60.6 0.61 0.58 104 97 7
Suriname 66.8 0.67 0.64 83 75 8
Turkmenistan 61.9 0.62 0.61 96 88 8
Cameroon 58.7 0.59 0.56 107 99 8
Tajikistan 55.1 0.55 0.53 116 108 8
Bosnia and Herzegovina 54.3 0.54 0.53 118 110 8
Gabon 54.0 0.54 0.52 119 111 8
Sudan 38.7 0.39 0.34 143 135 8
El Salvador 69.6 0.70 0.68 69 60 9
Zambia 66.3 0.66 0.64 86 76 10
Djibouti 41.3 0.41 0.37 139 128 11
Cote d’Ivoire 39.9 0.40 0.37 142 131 11
Montenegro 64.2 0.64 0.63 92 80 12
Mauritania 34.4 0.34 0.33 151 139 12
FYROM 69.0 0.69 0.68 73 59 14
Fig. 3. The I-SDI and I-SDI2 compared with the standard SDG Index.
Like the SDG Index, the I-SDI is not intended to replace the encourages countries to appreciate the importance of pursuing
global dashboard of indicators for monitoring the SDGs. But, if synergies between goals, targets and indicators within an overar-
combined with dashboards and scorecards, it does have huge ching development strategy.
potential for identifying priority areas for complementary actions As expected, the results of our analysis confirm that the I-SDI
across Goals, tracking overall progress, and permitting outperforms that SDG index in terms of recognizing positive and
international comparisons. It also has political value insofar as it negative synergies across goals. It also outperforms a recalculated
644
Table 10
Comparing the scores and rankings between the standard SDG Index, the I-SDI and the I-SDI2 for selected countries.
A B C D E F G H I J K
Country SDG Index I-SDI score I-SDI2 Rank SDG Rank I-SDI Rank I-SDI2 Rank difference Rank difference Penalization due to Penalization due to Total
score 2018 (0–1) 2018 (0–1) 2018 (0–1) Index 2018 2018 2018 SDG Index vs I-SDI SDG Index vs I-SDI2 heterogeneity between SDGs heterogeneity within SDGs penalization
Sweden 0.850 0.838 0.704 1 1 4 0 3 1.4% 16.0% 17.2%
Denmark 0.846 0.838 0.707 2 2 3 0 1 1.0% 15.6% 16.4%
Finland 0.830 0.819 0.685 3 3 6 0 3 1.4% 16.4% 17.5%
M. Biggeri et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 628–647

Germany 0.823 0.812 0.678 4 4 10 0 6 1.3% 16.6% 17.6%
France 0.812 0.803 0.676 5 5 11 0 6 1.1% 15.8% 16.7%
Norway 0.812 0.794 0.667 6 6 16 0 10 2.2% 16.1% 17.9%
Switzerland 0.801 0.781 0.669 7 9 15 2 8 2.5% 14.4% 16.5%
Slovenia 0.800 0.786 0.635 8 8 34 0 26 1.8% 19.2% 20.6%
Austria 0.800 0.789 0.674 9 7 13 2 4 1.4% 14.5% 15.7%
Iceland 0.797 0.771 0.624 10 15 45 5 35 3.3% 19.1% 21.8%
Ghana 0.628 0.611 0.562 101 92 85 9 16 2.7% 8.0% 10.5%
Nepal 0.628 0.597 0.557 102 102 89 0 13 4.8% 6.8% 11.3%
Belize 0.623 0.587 0.554 103 104 90 1 13 5.8% 5.6% 11.1%
Guyana 0.619 0.589 0.538 104 103 103 1 1 4.8% 8.6% 13.0%
Kuwait 0.611 0.581 0.471 105 106 119 1 14 4.9% 19.0% 23.0%
Qatar 0.608 0.573 0.460 106 108 124 2 18 5.8% 19.7% 24.3%
South Africa 0.608 0.586 0.586 107 105 71 2 36 3.7% 0.0% 3.7%
Lao PDR 0.606 0.577 0.517 108 107 107 1 1 4.8% 10.4% 14.7%
Cambodia 0.604 0.568 0.500 109 109 112 0 3 5.9% 12.1% 17.2%
Turkmenistan 0.595 0.554 0.554 110 115 91 5 19 6.8% 0.1% 6.9%
Benin 0.490 0.453 0.384 147 141 144 6 3 7.6% 15.2% 21.6%
Niger 0.485 0.427 0.355 148 149 149 1 1 11.9% 16.9% 26.8%
Liberia 0.483 0.422 0.347 149 150 150 1 1 12.7% 17.7% 28.2%
Nigeria 0.475 0.429 0.365 150 148 147 2 3 9.6% 15.0% 23.2%
Afghanistan 0.462 0.414 0.316 151 151 152 0 1 10.4% 23.6% 31.6%
Yemen, Rep. 0.457 0.403 0.301 152 152 153 0 1 11.7% 25.3% 34.0%
Madagascar 0.456 0.396 0.327 153 153 151 0 2 13.2% 17.3% 28.2%
Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.434 0.379 0.295 154 154 154 0 0 12.7% 22.2% 32.0%
Chad 0.428 0.370 0.278 155 155 155 0 0 13.6% 25.0% 35.1%
Central African Republic 0.377 0.294 0.238 156 156 156 0 0 22.0% 19.1% 36.9%
version of the SDG index based on the geometric mean, which Bandura, R. (2011). Composite indicators and rankings: Inventory 2011. Technical
report. New York: Office of Development Studies, United Nations Development
tends to over penalize low scores in specific goals. This problem
Programme (UNDP).
becomes especially acute in cases where there are a relatively large Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (2017). The sustainable development goals and the
number of dimensions (such as this, 17 SDGs in total). systems approach to sustainability. Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
This approach can be extended further through the introduction Economics Discussion Papers, No 2017-28.
Beckerman, W. (1992). Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth?
of the I-SDI2, an index that also penalizes heterogeneity among Whose environment? World Development, 20(4), 481–496.
indicators within goals, which is especially relevant for countries Biggeri, M., & Ferrannini, A. (2014). Sustainable human development: A new territorial
with low levels of overall sustainability. and people-centred perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Biggeri, M., & Mauro, V. (2018). Towards a more ‘Sustainable’ Human Development
This paper does not claim to solve the arbitrariness issue (in Index: Integrating the environment and freedom. Ecological Indicators, 91,
selecting indicators and corresponding weights) but does propose 220–231.
an index that permits a more flexible approach for managing the Bobylev, S., Zubarevich, N., & Solovyeva, S. (2015). Challenges of the crisis: How to
measure sustainable development? Voprosy Economiki, 12(1), 147–160.
interactions between various dimensions, yielding different scores Booysen, F. (2003). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of
and rankings. The tools provided by this approach encourage a bet- development. Social Indicators Research, 59(2), 115–151.
ter understanding of the dynamics that emerge from the synthesis Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional
poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, 25–49.
between goals and indicators. Although a certain degree of arbi- Brelsford, C., Lobo, J., Hand, J., & Bettencourt, L. M. A. (2017). Heterogeneity and
trariness may well be inescapable (Anand & Sen, 1997), a deeper scale of sustainable development in cities. PNAS (Proceedings of the National
understanding of the linkages and interactions between goals Academy of Sciences of the United States of America), 114(34), 8963–8968.
Browne, S. (2017). Sustainable development goals and UN goal-setting. London:
and indicators, and a more flexible approach to monitoring them
Routledge.
can significantly increase awareness and consciousness of the Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction
selection of parameters as well as subsequent policy choices. to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82,
Future research could consider how the I-SDI and the I-SDI2 can 111–145.
Clark, D. A. (2002). Visions of development: A study of human values. Cheltenham:
be analyzed from a dynamic perspective by identifying SDG pat- Edward Elgar.
terns, outcomes and performance within and between countries Clark, D. A. (2005). Sen’s capability approach and the many spaces of human well-
and over time, and by considering the use of micro-data to include being. Journal of Development Studies, 41(8), 1339–1368.
Clark, D. A. (2014). Defining and measuring human well-being. In B. Freeman (Ed.),
inequality within countries as well as investigating SDG perfor- Global environmental change: Handbook of global environmental pollution
mance at sub-national levels. At global level, longer term time ser- (pp. 833–855). Springer.
ies data would allow better understanding of the real synergies and Clark, D. A. (2017). Valuing and revaluing education: What can we learn about
measurement from the South African poor? Comparative Education, 53(1), 54–80.
trade-offs among SDGs, as well as of pathways for sustainable Clark, D. A., Biggeri, M., & Frediani, A. (2019). Participation, empowerment and
development over time. At country level, it would be worth evalu- capabilities: Key lessons and future challenges. In D. A. Clark, M. Biggeri, & A. A.
ating strategies towards the SDGs in the medium and short run by Frediani (Eds.), The capability approach, empowerment and participation:
Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 385–402). Basingstoke: Palgrave
attempting to disentangle the role of policies, structural back- Macmillan.
ground conditions and external factors in efforts to bolster syn- Clark, D. A., Fennell, S., & Hulme, D. (2017). Poverty and inequality. In K. Reinert
ergies and mitigate trade-offs. Finally, the MSI aggregation (Ed.), Handbook of globalisation and development (pp. 487–512). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
method used in this paper can be easily applied to other databases
Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). Core poverty, vagueness and adaptation: A new
and indices to enhance the integration of different dimensions methodology and some results for South Africa. Journal of Development Studies,
within composite measures of sustainable development, serving 44(4), 519–544.
the need of policy-makers across the world to strategically com- Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Mortensen, L. F.,
... Wilkinson, R. (2016). Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in
bine environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecological Economics,
130, 350–355.
Declaration of Competing Interest Dervis, K., & Klugman, J. (2011). Measuring human progress: The contribution of the
Human Development Index and related indices. Revue d’économie politique, 121
(1), 73–92.
None. Development Assistance Committee (1996). Shaping the 21st century: The
contribution of development cooperation. Paris: OECD.
Di Tommaso, M. R., Tassinari, M., Bonnini, S., & Marozzi, M. (2017). Industrial policy
Acknowledgments and manufacturing targeting in the US: New methodological tools for strategic
policy-making. International Review of Applied Economics, 31(5), 681–703.
We are grateful to Flavio Comim, Pasquale De Muro, Jaya Kris- Doods, F., Donoghue, D., & Roesch, J. L. (2017). Negotiating the SDGs. Abingdon:
Routledge.
nakumar, Federico Perali and Filomena Maggino for helpful com- Easterly, W. (2015). The SDGs should stand for senseless, dreamy, garbled. Foreign
ments. This paper has also benefited significantly from Policy, 22, September.
comments received from participants at the Sustainability and Economist (2015). ‘Unsustainable Goals’, 26 March.
Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.
Development Conference, University of Michigan, 9–11 November Emmerij, L., Jolly, R., & Weiss, T. G. (2001). Ahead of the curve? UN ideas and global
2018, and the Quality of Life and Social Transformation conference challenges. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
convened by the Italian Association for Quality of Life Studies Freudenberg, M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: A critical
assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper 2003/16.
(AIQUAV) in Florence, 13–15 December 2018. Any errors or omis-
Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
sions are, of course, our own. Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the Millennium Development Goals to the sustainable
development goals: Shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting
Appendix A. Supplementary data for development. Gender & Development, 24(1), 43–52.
Fuso-Nerini, F., Tomei, J., To, L. S., Bisaga, I., Parikh, P., Black, M., ... Mulugetta, Y.
(2017). Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at Development Goals. Nature Energy, 3, 10–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.022. Gasper, D. (2018). The road to the Sustainable Development Goals: Building global
alliances – for more ethical development? Paper prepared for the IDEA-GRETHA
2018 congress: A World United, Bordeaux, 25-27 June.
References Giupponi, C., & Gain, A. K. (2016). Integrated spatial assessment of the water, energy
and food dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals. Regional
Anand, S., & Sen, A. K. (1997). Concepts of human development and poverty: A Environmental Change, 17(7), 1881–1893.
multidimensional perspective. Human development papers. New York: United Goldin, I. (Ed.). (2014). Is the planet full? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nations Development Program. Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological
Anand, S., & Sen, A. K. (2000). Human development and economic sustainability. framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting,
World Development, 28, 2029–2049. aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 61–94.
Griggs, D., Stafford Smith, M., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Gaffney, O., Glaser, G., ... Newsham, A., & Bhagwat, S. (2016). Conservation and development. London:
Shyamsundar, P. (2014). An integrated framework for sustainable development Routledge.
goals. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1–24. Nhemachena, C., Matchaya, G., Nhemachena, C. R., Karuaihe, S., Muchara, B., &
GTF (2016). Roadmap for localizing the SDGs: Implementation and monitoring at sub- Nhlengethwa, S. (2018). Measuring baseline agriculture-related Sustainable
national level. Global Task Force of Local and Regional Governments, UN Habitat Development Goals Index for Southern Africa. Sustainability, 10, 849. https://doi.
and UNDP. org/10.3390/su10030849.
Guijarro, F., & Poyatos, J. A. (2018). Designing a Sustainable Development Goal Index Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, W. (2016). Map the interactions between
through a Goal Programming Model: The case of EU-28 countries. Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534, 320–322.
10(9), 3167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093167. ODI (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals and their trade-offs ODI Development
Gupta, J., & Nilsson, M. (2017). Toward a multi-level action framework for Progress, Case Study Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.
sustainable development goals. In N. Kanie & K. Biermann (Eds.), Governing OECD (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user
through goals: Sustainable development goals as governance innovation. guide. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. Open SDG Data Hub (2018). The Open SDG Data Hub (online). United Nations
Hák, T., Janouŝková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable development goals: A need Statistics. http://unstats-undesa.opendata.arcgis.com/ (Last accessed, 28
for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573. December 2018).
Haq, M. (1995). Reflections on human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paruolo, P., Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2013). Ratings and rankings: Voodoo or
Helliwell, J. R., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2012). World happiness report. New York: The science? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 176(3), 609–634.
Earth Institute, Columbia University. Paul, D. (2018), ‘UN launches initiatives to unleash big data for sustainable
Hicks, N., & Streeten, P. (1979). Indicators of development: The search for a basic development’, News, SDG Knowledge Hub, 9 January. http://sdg.iisd.org/news/
needs yardstick. World Development, 7(6), 567–580. un-launches-initiatives-to-unleash-big-data-for-sustainable-development/
Horn, F., & Grugel, J. (2018). The SDGs in middle-income countries: Setting or (Last accessed, 21 December 2018).
serving domestic development agendas? Evidence from Ecuador. World Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., & Kropp, J. P. (2017). A Systematic study
Development, 109, 73–84. of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future, 5, 1–12.
Hulme, D. (2009). The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A Short History of the Qizilbash, M. (2018). In defence of Inclusiveness: On sustainable human
World’s Biggest Promise. BWPI Working Paper 100. Brooks World Poverty development, capability and indicators of progress, Cambridge Capability
Institute, University of Manchester. Conference, University of Cambridge, 22–23 June.
Hulme, D., Savoia, A., & Sen, K. (2015). Governance as a global development goal? Ranis, G., Stewart, F., & Ramirez, A. (2000). Economic growth and human
Setting, measuring and monitoring the post-2015 development agenda. Global development. World Development, 25(2), 197–209.
Policy, 6(2), 85–96. Ray, A. K. (2008). Measurement of social development: An international
IAEG-SDGs (2019). ‘Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators’, Inter-Agency and comparison. Social Indicators Research, 86(1), 1–46.
Expert Group on SDG Indicators, 22 May. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/ Rockström, J., & Klum, M. (2015). Big World, small planet: Abundance within planetary
tier-classification/ (Last accessed, 6 June 2019). boundaries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
ICSU (2017). A guide to SDG interactions: From science to implementation. Paris: Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into nature, origin, and fabrication
International Council for Science. of life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jacob, A. (2017). Mind the gap: Analyzing the impact of data gap in Millennium Sachs, J. D. (2012). From Millennium Development Goals / Sustainable Development
Development Goals’ (MDGs) indicators on the progress toward MDGs. World Goals. The Lancet, 379, 2206–2211.
Development, 93, 260–278. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Durand-Delacre, D., & Teksoz, K. (2016). SDG
Joshi, D. K., Barry, B. H., & Sisk, T. D. (2015). Improving governance for the post-2015 index and dashboards – Global report. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and
sustainable development goals: Scenario forecasting the next 50 years. World Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Development, 70, 286–302. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Durand-Delacre, D., & Teksoz, K. (2017). SDG
Kamau, M., Chasek, P., & O’Connor, D. (2018). Transforming multilateral diplomacy: index and dashboards report 2017. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and
The inside story of the sustainable development goals. New York: Routledge. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Kanbur, R., Patel, E., & Stiglitz, J. (2015). ‘Sustainable development goals and Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., & Fuller, G. (2018). SDG index and
measurement of economic and social progress’, High level expert group on the dashboards report 2018. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable
measurement of economic performance and social progress workshop on ‘The Development Solutions Network.
measurement of well-being and development in Africa’, Durban, 12–14 Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current
November. (Later appears as Working Paper 2018-13, Charles H. Dyson methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. Ispra, Italy:
School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and
New York, August 2018). the Security of the Citizen, Technological and Economic Risk Management
Kanie, N., & Biermann, K. (Eds.). (2017). Governing through goals: Sustainable Unit.
Development Goals as governance innovation. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
Press. techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal
Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F., & Choi, H. J. (2011). The HDI 2010: New controversies, old of the Royal Statistical Society A, 168(2), 1–17.
critiques. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(2), 249–288. Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social
Koehler, G. (2015). Seven decades of ‘development’, and now what? Journal of Indicators Research, 81(1), 65–77.
International Development, 27, 733–751. Scherer, L., Behrens, P., de Koning, A., Heijungs, R., Sprecher, B., & Tukker, A. (2018).
Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Moreno, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., & Kroll, C. ‘SDG index and Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals.
dashboards: Detailed methodological paper’, September 2018. http://sdgindex. Environmental Science and Policy, 90, 65–72.
org/assets/files/2018/Methodological%20Paper_v1_gst_jmm_Aug2018_FINAL. Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Teksoz, K., Durand-Delacre, D., & Sachs, J. D. (2017).
pdf (Last accessed, 28 December 2018). ‘National baselines for the Sustainable Development Goals assessed in the SDG
Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as Index and Dashboards. Nature Geoscience, 10, 547–555.
a network of targets. DESA Working Paper No. 141. Department of Economic & Seers, D. (1969). The meaning of development IDS Communication 44. Brighton:
Social Affairs. Institute of Development Studies.
Lélé, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
19(6), 607–621. Sen, A. K. (1989). Economic methodology: Heterogeneity and relevance. Social
Lemmi, A., & Betti, G. (Eds.). (2006). Fuzzy set approaches to multidimensional poverty Research, 56(2), 299–329.
measurement. New York: Springer. Sen, A. K. (1990). Development as capability expansion. In K. Griffin & J. Knight
MacFeely, S. (2019). To keep track of the SDGs, we need a data revolution. World (Eds.), Human development and the international development strategy for the
Economic Forum. Available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/its- 1990s (pp. 41–58). London: Macmillan.
time-for-a-data-revolution/ (Last accessed, 19 April 2019). Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mainali, B., Luukkanen, J., Silveira, S., & Kaivo-oja, J. (2018). Evaluating synergies and Sen, A. K. (2006). Human development index. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar
trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Explorative analyses companion to development studies (pp. 256–260). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
of development paths in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 10 Singh, G. G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Cheung, W., Guy, J. A., Kenny,
(815), 1–25. T.-A., ... Ota, Y. (2018). A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among
Mauro, V., Biggeri, M., & Maggino, F. (2018). Measuring and monitoring poverty and Sustainable Development Goals. Marine Policy, 93, 223–231.
well-being: A new approach for the synthesis of multidimensionality. Social Smoke, P., & Nixon, H. (2016). Sharing responsibilities and resources among levels of
Indicators Research, 135(1), 75–89. governments. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. H. (1972). The limits to Administration and Development Management.
growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the predicament of mankind. Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A.K., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009), Report by the Commission on the
London: Earth Island. Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris.
Mehrotra, S., & Delamonica, E. (2007). Eliminating human poverty: Macro-economic Streeten, P. (1994). Human development: Means and ends. The American Economic
policies for equitable growth. London: Zed Press. Review, 84(2), 232–237.
Michener, G. (2015). Policy evaluation via composite indexes: Qualitative lessons Sundström, A., Paxton, P., Wang, Y.-T., & Lindberg, S. I. (2017). Women’s political
from international transparency policy indexes. World Development, 74, empowerment: A new global index, 1900–2012. World Development, 94,
184–196. 321–335.
Tisdell, C. (1988). Sustainable development: Differing perspectives of ecologists and UNSC (2017), ‘Cape Town global action plan for Sustainable Development Data’,
economists, and relevance to LDCs. World Development, 16(3), 373–384. Prepared by the high-level group for partnership, coordination and capacity-
Torlockyj, N. (1975). Improvements in the Quality of Life. Washington, DC: National building for statistics for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
Planning Association. Adopted by the UN Statistical Commission at its 48th Session March 2017.
UNDG (2014). Localizing the post-2015 development agenda. Dialogues on https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/hlg/Cape_Town_Global_Action_Plan_for_
implementation. UN Habitat, Global Task Force of Local and Regional Sustainable_Development_Data.pdf (Last accessed 28 December 2018).
Governments and UNDP. UNSD (2019). SDG indicators: Global indicator framework for the Sustainable
UNDP (1990). Human development report 1990. Concept and measurement of human Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development.
development. New York: Oxford University Press. United Nations Statistical Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
UNDP (2010). Human Development Report 2010. The real wealth of Nations – https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/ (Last accessed 23 April
Pathways to human development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2019).
United Nations (2000). ‘United Nations Millennium Declaration’, Resolution Vandemoortele, J. (2017). From MDGs to SDGs: Critical reflections on global targets
Adopted by General Assembly, 8 September (A/res/55/2), http://www.un.org/ and their measurement. In P. van Bergeijk & R. van der Hoeven (Eds.),
millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm (Last accessed, 9 December 2018). Sustainable development goals and income inequality (pp. 32–50). Cheltenham:
United Nations (2008). Official list of MDG indicators. United Nations Statistical Edward Elgar.
Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://unstats.un.org/ von Stechow, C., Minx, J., Riahi, K., Jewell, J., McCollum, D. L., Callaghan, M. W., ...
unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=Indicators/OfficialList.htm (Last accessed 9 Baiocchi, C. (2016). 2°C and SDGs: United they stand, divided they fall?
December 2018). Environmental Research Letters, 11, 1–15.
United Nations (2015a). The Millennium Development Goals report 2015. New York: World Bank (1990). World development report, 1990: Poverty. Washington, DC:
United Nations. World Bank.
United Nations (2015), ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable World Bank (1992). World development report, 1992: Development and the
Development’, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (A/RES/70/1), 25 environment. Washington, DC: World Bank.
September. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/70/1 (Last accessed, 10 December World Bank (2017). Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2017: From World
2018). Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
United Nations (2017a). Sustainable development goals report 2017. New York: World Bank (2018). Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2018: From World
United Nations. Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
United Nations (2017), ‘Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our
Agenda for Sustainable Development’, Resolution adopted by the General Common Future (Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Assembly (A/RES/71/313), 6 July. http://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 (Last Yang, L. (2014). An inventory of composite measures of human progress. Occasional
accessed, 28 December 2018). Paper on Methodology. United Nations Development Programme Human
United Nations (2018). Sustainable development goals report 2018. New York: United Development Report Office.
Nations.

1.1. Articulo1 - U1 Indicadores SDG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.1. Articulo1 - U1 Indicadores SDG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.1. Articulo1 - U1 Indicadores SDG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Development 122 (2019) 628–647

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tracking the SDGs in an ‘integrated’ manner: A proposal for a new index

Authors Area Findings

Authors Area Findings

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is the latest in a 1X g ð xi Þ

MSIi ¼ 1 ð1 xij Þgðxi Þ ð1Þ

Reward synergies Substitutability MRS flexibility*

Arithmetic mean No Perfect None

Higher order means Yes Not perfect None

Geometric mean Yes Not perfect Limited

MSI Yes Not perfect High

M. Biggeri et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 628–647

M. Biggeri et al. / World Development 122 (2019) 628–647

You might also like