The City Development Index, What is it? The CDI is a broad policy-based indicator system, it is...
-
Upload
justina-willis -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of The City Development Index, What is it? The CDI is a broad policy-based indicator system, it is...
The City Development Index, What is it?
The CDI is a broad policy-based indicator system, it is holistic, or intended to look at the health of cities or sectors as a whole, inclusive, covering areas beyond the realm of a single management structure, and pluralist, intended to foster or inform a dialogue between the different parties involved in urban development. It is largely driven or integrated with the process of establishing urban strategies and policies.
Why?
INDICES – ADDING APPLES AND ORANGES
Total measures of activity–Total market activity (eg GDP)– System wide change (eg CPI, “Sea level”
Complex or abstract concepts– Freedom. – Good governance– Poverty, Slums– Development– Intelligence– Race
Purpose– Measuring system change with complex outputs– Comparison between jurisdictions– “Blurry edges”
4. Participation
5. Security
3. Accountability
2. Equity
1. Effectiveness
URBAN GOVERNANCE
Urban Governance Index components
• UGI = Summary measure of urban governance
• Measures the average achievements in five dimensions of urban governance
« Signs » or indicators
Urban Governance
Index
Under 5 Mortality
Environmental Action Plan
Crime Prevention Policy
Inaccessible areas to Police
Domestic Violence policy
SECURITY
Victims of Violence Pgs
Close LG
Elected Mayor
Councilors
ACCOUNTABILITY
Remove councillors
Publications
Access to sanitation
EQUITY
Poor households
Access to water
Women councilors
EFFECTIVENESSLG revenue
Share oftransfers
Traveltime
Expendituresbasic services
PARTICIPATION
Participation in projects/ budgets
Associations/ pop
Voters Participation
Literacy
How?
INDICES – ADDING APPLES AND ORANGES
Pricing and value– Market or exchange value– Direct preference and indifference curves– Input cost (labour theory of value)
Unobserved variables– Proxies– Principal components– Econometrics
Signs and opinion– Ad-hoc weighting– Subjective opinion or identity
Principal Components
• Highly correlated variables• Core underlying concepts or unobserved
variables• Gives orthogonal components
Development level
Inequality
The Global Urban Indicators DatabaseGUID 1
1996 (1993 data)
46 key indicators237 Cities
GUID 22001 (1998 data)
23 key indicators300 Cities
Also – ADB Cities Data Book (19 cities)
Table C1. Factor analysis, city indicators, loadings for first three factors.
Factor 1City
development
Factor 2Congestion
Factor 3.Inequality
National HDI rank -.95 .06 .02Log City product .85 -.22 -.02Water connections .85 .25 -.00Sewerage connections .88 .17 .07Electricity connections .78 .39 -.14Telephone connections .84 -.09 .02Primary classrooms .83 -.05 .05Secondary classrooms .72 -.23 .10Child mortality -.70 -.28 .18Hospital beds .37 .19 .24Wastewater treated .73 -.01 .14Garbage collection .82 .17 -.05Informal employment -.83 -.08 -.05Permanent housing .71 .26 .04Housing in compliance .76 .14 .13Infrastructure expenditure .75 -.34 -.04Car ownership .81 -.33 -.04Household size -.85 -.17 -.02Floor space per person .85 -.26 .01Log population .26 .62 -.00Log travel time to work -.14 .53 .43Log residential density -.38 .59 -.27Travel by car .71 -.46 .09Travel on foot -.60 -.26 -.20Income disparity -.05 -.19 .47Poor households -.43 .03 .63Poor woman-headed -.19 .02 .77
Eigenvalue 13.26 2.20 1.67Per cent of variance 49.1 8.2 6.2
Note: Variables used in creating indices are in bold type.
Factor Analysis Results UIP 1993
PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS
CITY DEVELOPMENT INDEX
ACCESSIBILITY INDEXINEQUALITY INDEXCONNECTIVITY INDEX
SIMPLIFIED INDEX METHOD
Many different linear combinations will give same answer.
• 1. Principal component• 2. Normalise variables (linear method)• 3. Stepwise regression until R2 > 90%• 4. Approximate with integer weights• 5. Check that correlation still high.
City Development Index
Index FormulaInfrastructure 25 x Water connections + 25 x Sewerage + 25 x Electricity + 25
x TelephoneWaste Wastewater treated x 50 + Formal solid waste disposal x 50
Health (Life expectancy - 25) x 50/60 +(32 - Child mortality) x 50/31.92
Education Literacy x 25 + Combined enrolment x 25
Product (log City Product - 4.61) x 100/5.99
City Development (Infrastructure index + Waste index + Education index + Health index + City Product index)/5
INTERPRETATION OF CDI
• Social welfare function– represents either social preference or social
utility
• Depreciated social investment– total investment in aspects of development– supported by weightings
ULTIMATE PROOF– matches subjective perception of development
CDI for selected cities
City CDI City Product
Infrastructure Waste Health
Stockholm 97.40 93.50 99.50 100.00 94.00
Melbourne 95.50 90.00 99.80 100.00 93.70
Singapore 94.50 91.60 99.50 100.00 92.70
Hong Kong 92.00 89.40 99.30 99.00 90.90
Moscow 89.90 81.00 98.70 86.80 83.80
Seoul 86.00 65.30 98.40 100.00 88.70
Rio de Janeiro 79.40 82.30 86.20 62.60 81.90
Sofia 79.10 70.90 93.70 58.50 86.20
Hanoi 74.20 59.60 72.00 90.00 80.60
Havana 71.00 65.00 74.80 50.00 80.70
Jakarta 69.20 66.20 57.30 46.70 80.20
Ulaanbaatar 68.40 53.70 59.00 90.00 72.50
Lahore 61.10 71.10 78.50 50.00 64.90
Colombo 58.40 46.90 68.60 45.00 86.20
Bangalore 58.00 51.10 82.70 31.30 76.50
Dhaka 48.40 55.60 45.30 27.50 64.60
Vientiane 47.10 44.00 58.00 - 62.30
Accra 46.60 49.40 50.00 - 71.40
Phnom Penh 43.50 40.20 33.00 27.00 47.20
Port Moresby 39.30 69.00 18.10 10.00 59.10
Lagos 29.30 42.10 29.50 2.00 44.00
Niamey 21.70 40.00 22.00 - 78.30
City Development Index versus Human Development Index
-
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
- 20 40 60 80 100
City Development Index, 1998
Hu
man
De
ve
lop
me
nt
Ind
ex, 1998
NiameyBujumbura
Brazzaville
Stockholm
Bulaw ayo
Icapui
Moscow
TallinBelize City
Curitiba
Brasilia
Leipzig Hartford
Hertfordshire
Bandar Seri B
Suva
VaranasiTunis
Luanda
Monrovia
LilongweSao Tome
Gaborone
City development index
100806040200
Loca
l gov
t inc
ome
$/pe
rson
100005000
1000500
10050
105
1.5
.1
Lahore
Windhoek
MoscowHarare
Rio de Janeir
Bucharest
Nis (Serbia)
Bogota
Colombo
Surabaya
Bombay
Bamako
Ouagadougou
Djibouti
Banjul
Monrovia
Bangui Pokhara
City development index
8070605040302010In
form
al e
mpl
oym
ent
100
80
60
40
20
0
Components of CDI by region
0
20
40
60
80
100CDI
City Product
Infrastructure
Waste
Health
Education
HIC
Transitional
Asia-Pacific
Africa
Cities with unexpectedly high or low indices
Table 3. Examples of cities with much higher or lower CDI than expected from city product a.High performers Low performersBaku, AzerbaijanBangalore, India*Bishkek, KyrgyzstanBombay, India*Chisinau, MoldovaChittagong, BangladeshDelhi, India*Havana, CubaLagos, Nigeria*Mysore, India*Nizhny Novgorod, RussiaQuito, EcuadorTbilisi, GeorgiaUlaanbaatar, MongoliaVaranasi, India*Vilnius, Lithuania
Bangui, CARDouala, CamerounJakarta, IndonesiaKaoloack, Senegal*Kinshasa, ZaireLibreville, GabonLuanda, AngolaMaseru, LesothoMbour, Senegal*Niamey, NigerOshakati, Namibia*Richard Toll, Senegal*Seychelles.Tambacounda, Senegal*Yaounde, CamerounZiguinchor, Senegal*
* These differentials may be due to poor city product data.
First two components
CDI
3210-1-2-3
PP
P5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Yangon
Sofia
Singapore
Prague
Niamey
Madrid
Ljubljana
Hull
Basel
Abidjan