The Proliferation of Composite Indexes

This paper aims to reflect on the impact of the hipper-proliferation of composite indexes in society. First, although methodological problems have been amply identified decades ago (MacRae 1985; Porter 1995), most composite indexes are increasingly being constructed to support decision making without caveats. The impacts of their use are largely unknown, although by now they are expected to be found all across society (Boavida et al. 2013a; Boavida et al. 2013b). Second, the fast and steady creation of new indexes in the last decades also present significant risks because they can lead to erroneous interpretations of the results (Benoît Godin 2008; Grupp & Mogee 2004a; Grupp & Mogee 2004b; Grupp & Schubert 2010a; Freudenberg 2003; Jesinghaus 1999; Nardo et al. 2008; Munda & Nardo 2005; Nardo et al. 2005a; Munda & Nardo 2009; Saltelli 2007;Katz 2006).

Increasingly, more expertise is needed to interpret the composite indexes, not just at the macro and sectoral level, but also at the individual level (Boavida 2011). One of the main problems with the composite indexes is their launching without proper guidelines for their use. This is particularly visible in the public sphere, where debates abound with abusive citations of indexes and ranking positions of countries, regions, sectors and even politicians’ acceptance rates. Although less visible, there appears to be a underlying attitude to compare personal decisions with existing rankings uncritically of the measures being involved (Booysen 2002; Feller-länzlinger et al. 2010; Dahler-Larsen 2013). Therefore, we will understand the amount of expertise present at the time of the comparison, to be able to understand the extent of their misuse.

This paper is part of a research project, and will elaborate on the way different groups use and are aware of limitations of composite indicators. Several methodologies awill be used, such as literature review, interviews and surveys.