Putting the pieces back together again: an illustration of the problem of interpreting development indicators using an African case study

Indicators are commonly recommended as tools for assessing the attainment of development, and the current vogue is for aggregating a number of indicators together into a single index. It is claimed that such indices of development help facilitate maximum impact in policy terms by appealing to those who may not necessarily have technical expertise in data collection, analysis and interpretation. In order to help counter criticisms of over-simplification, those advocating such indices also suggest that the raw data be provided so as to allow disaggregation into component parts and hence facilitate a more subtle interpretation if a reader so desires. This paper examines the problems involved with interpreting indices of development by focusing on the United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) published each year in the Human Development Reports (HDRs). The HDI was intended to provide an alternative to the more economic based indices, such as GDP, commonly used within neo-liberal development agendas. The paper explores the use of the HDI as a gauge of human development by making comparisons between two major political and economic communities in Africa (ECOWAS and SADC). While the HDI did help highlight important changes in human development as expressed by the HDI over 10 years, it is concluded that the HDI and its components are difficult to interpret as methodologies have changed significantly and the 'averaging' nature of the HDI could hide information unless care is taken. The paper discusses the applicability of alternative models to the HDI such as the more neo-populist centred methods commonly advocated for indicators of sustainable development. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Making 'dirty' nations look clean? The nation state and the problem of selecting and weighting indices as tools for measuring progress towards sustainability

Pressing global environmental problems highlight the need to develop tools to measure progress towards "sustainability." However, some argue that any such attempt inevitably reflects the views of those creating such tools and only produce highly contested notions of "reality." To explore this tension, we critically assesses the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), a well-publicized product of the World Economic Forum that is designed to measure 'sustainability' by ranking nations on league tables based on extensive databases of environmental indicators. By recreating this index, and then using statistical tools (principal components analysis) to test relations between various components of the index, we challenge ways in which countries are ranked in the ESI. Based on this analysis, we suggest (1) that the approach taken to aggregate, interpret and present the ESI creates a misleading impression that Western countries are more sustainable than the developing world; (2) that unaccounted methodological biases allowed the authors of the ESI to over-generalize the relative 'sustainability' of different countries; and, (3) that this has resulted in simplistic conclusions on the relation between economic growth and environmental sustainability. This criticism should not be interpreted as a call for the abandonment of efforts to create standardized comparable data. Instead, this paper proposes that indicator selection and data collection should draw on a range of voices, including local stakeholders as well as international experts. We also propose that aggregating data into final league ranking tables is too prone to error and creates the illusion of absolute and categorical interpretations. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Curriculum theory, curriculum policy and the problem of ill-disciplined thinking

This paper examines the implications of policy fracture and arms length governance within the decision making processes currently shaping curriculum design within the English education system. In particular it argues that an unresolved ‘ideological fracture’ at government level has been passed down to school leaders whose response to the dilemma is distorted by the target-driven agenda of arms length agencies. Drawing upon the findings of a large scale on-line survey of history teaching in English secondary schools, this paper illustrates the problems that occur when policy making is divorced from curriculum theory, and in particular from any consideration of the nature of knowledge. Drawing on the social realist theory of knowledge elaborated by Young (2008), we argue that the rapid spread of alternative curricular arrangements, implemented in the absence of an understanding of curriculum theory, undermines the value of disciplined thinking to the detriment of many young people, particularly those in areas of social and economic deprivation.