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.

Refinement of the Clinical Scenario Evaluation Framework for Assessment of Competing Development Strategies with an Application to Multiple Sclerosis

When competing strategies for development programs, clinical trial designs, or data analysis methods exist, the alternatives need to be evaluated in a systematic way to facilitate informed decision making. Here we describe a refinement of the recently proposed clinical scenario evaluation framework for the assessment of competing strategies. The refinement is achieved by subdividing key elements previously proposed into new categories, distinguishing between quantities that can be estimated from preexisting data and those that cannot and between aspects under the control of the decision maker from those that are determined by external constraints. The refined framework is illustrated by an application to a design project for an adaptive seamless design for a clinical trial in progressive multiple sclerosis.