Abstract
In our study we wanted to find an answer to the question whether we can find sustainable countries if we compare the values of different composite indicators? The target of our study is to examine the possibilities as well as the limits of the application alternative composite indicators. Our study focuses on what kind of relations the indicators are in and to what extent they can substitute the GDP and what kind of morals can be indicated for Hungary. The basic question of our research is how possible is to group countries clearly based on the values of alternative indicators. In this study were examined three composite indicators (HDI, HPI, EPI) and the ecological footprint and GDP trends. In the first phase of our research we revealed that these indicators can be observed in pairs to linear relationship, the Pearson’s correlation index values are shown in the correlation matrix. Based on our analysis two indicators independent of each other and also independent of the GDP, these are the HPI and the EPI. The classification of countries was performed using cluster analysis. Based on the three-cluster model is determined a specific path of development in Latin America and useful experience for Hungary. 1 “This research was supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, co-financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of TAMOP 4.2.4. A/1-11-1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence Program’.”
Highlights
What you can measure – you can improve! - Says the common wisdom
In our study we wanted to find an answer to the question whether we can find sustainable countries if we compare the values of different composite indicators? The target of our study is to examine the possibilities as well as the limits of the application alternative composite indicators
The other essential aspect of the assessment of the findings is that the close connection between the Ecological Footprint and the GDP can question the suitability of the Ecological Footprint
Summary
What you can measure – you can improve! - Says the common wisdom. the one who said this might not have been so wise. What you can measure – you can improve! In most cases, but the meaning is distorted to this: What you want to improve, measure first! Most important things in life are felt, but not measurable. The influences of the economic crisis beginning in 2008 can be experienced even today (Csiszárik-Kocsir 2012, Kerekes 2012); the most significant crisis of the new Millennium has unusual effect on every participant of the macroeconomy. The public budget was hard hit by the financeability of the public debt and the economic crisis has meant significant events for the enterprises and for the household, for instance the rise in the price of loan costs and the decline of consumption as well as investments, which can be recognised as the damaging factor of the welfare (Csiszárik-Kocsir 2011). Due to the impact of the economic crisis, the professional interest toward the reform of macroeconomic indicators has increased and since the report of Stiglitz – Sen – Fitoussi (Stiglitz et al 2009) dealing with the limits of the GDP index, the accepted opinion is that the present clearing of accounts system cannot be maintained, which appears in the theories and research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
