Trend of Global Reporting and Indexing

1. Popular, influential but flawed:
TEST OF THE CREDIBILITY OF
GLOBAL REPORTS and INDICES
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kutlu MERİH DataLabTR
kutlu.merih@datalabtr.com, kutmerih@gmail.com
Assoc. Prof. Dr. C. Coskun KÜÇÜKÖZMEN İzmir University of Economics
coskun.kucukozmen@ieu.edu.tr
Fatma ÇINAR Mba, Capital Market Board of Turkey,
fatma.cinar@spk.gov.tr

2. Trend of Reporting and Indexing
 A new trend during the
last two decades in the
global system has been
the release of some
reports and related
indices based on socio-
political and economic
issues of respective
countries.
 These studies are
considered and carried
out by eminent global
institutions.

3. Indices Effects Global Flows
 This is not merely
a simple
intellectual
consideration of
the issue.
 Based on the
rankings of these
reports and
indices, countries
receive more or
less foreign
investment or
become subjected
to more or less
interest rates in
terms of spread.
 Hence, it will not be an
exaggeration to define
these reports and
indices as well- masked
global manipulation
tools.

4.  Many sources introducing those
indices ignore the technical
infrastructure and reinforce the
belief that they are based on
sound scientific basis.
 Unfortunately, the truth is not
so.
Reports and Indices Are not Consistent
 The majority of the indices are
bounded with logical and
mathematical errors.
 On the other hand, the
eminence of the global
organizations which provide
those indices shadows the
inconsistencies found in indices.

5. Flaws of These Reports and Indices
In these indices produced by preeminent providers, some or all
of the following four basic errors can be observed are;
Ethical (deontological) Error: It is unethical to define such an
index (HDI)
Logical (epistemological) Error: It is irrelevant/ meaningless/vain to
define such an index (HDI)
Technical (Mathematics) Error: The index calculation technique is incorrect and inconsistent. (HDI)
Informatics (Statistics) Error: The index is based on incomplete, inadequate and inconsistent data source. (HDI)

6. HDI Suffers Those Four
Errors
As an Example, "Human
Development Index - HDI"
Developed By UNDP Exhibit
Those Four Errors.
Using these indices as an
input to one another in
critical analysis makes
prescription more difficult.

7. Here too we come across with an illusion technique that
is used to create a perception:
Indices Creates The Consistency Illusion
These indices are based on a seemingly comprehensive and
robust report.
However, on the contrary to the findings mentioned in the
reports, these indices are full of errors.
We try to describe why those indices are defective and
why they lead problematic misconceptions

8. Human Development Index (HDI)
Human Development Index is a measure prepared by the
UNDP that shows life expectancy literacy rate education
and income per capita in countries all over the world.
This index indicates how developed or
underdeveloped a country is claimed in
relation to this index.

9.  The world authorities accept it without
any dispute or objection.
 Distribution was initially
developed by a
Pakistani economist
MahbubulHaq in 1990
and since 1993, it has
been presented within
the annual
Development Report by
UN Development
Program.
Human Development Index (HDI)

10. HDI INDEX 2014 COUNTRIES

11. HDI Made Up Inadequate Criteria
 It is obvious that labelling
‘Humanitarian Development’ as
being based on the three
conventional criteria is
inadequate.
 Thus, disregarding major differences
between countries concerning
history, geography, culture, political
system, economic system, legal
system, health system, education
system and the status of women will
take us nowhere.
Unfortunately, this issue has not
been pointed out by anyone in
our country.
 Relatively, only a small
number of global critics
have pointed it out this
issue.

12.  It is obvious that labelling ‘Humanitarian Development’
as being based on the three conventional criteria is
inadequate.
 Thus, disregarding major differences between countries
concerning history, geography, culture, political system,
economic system, legal system, health system,
education system and the status of women will take us
nowhere.
 Unfortunately, this issue has not been pointed out by
anyone in our country.
 Relatively, only a small number of global critics have
pointed it out this issue.
HDI Made Up Inadequate Criteria

13. Human Development Report 2014
 The Human Development Report Office (HDRO)
is pleased to inform that the 2014 Human
Development Report 'Sustaining Human
Progress: Reducing Vulnerability and Building
Resilience' was launched in Tokyo, on 24 July
2014. The 2014
 Report highlights the need for both promoting
people's choices and protecting human
development achievements.

14. The HDI is The Geometric Mean Of 3
Other Normalized Indices
 The Human Development Index (HDI) is a
summary measure of average achievement in
key dimensions of human development:
1. A long and healthy life, (LifeExpectancy)
2. Being knowledgeable (MeanSchooling)
3. Have a decent standard of living (GNI ppp)
 The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized
indices for each of the three (3) dimensions.

17. HDRI Top Countries

18. Turkey’s Position on HDI

19. Gender Inequality Index (GII)
 Gender Inequality was not on the agenda within the limits of
the original version of this index.
 However, the political and economic situation of the female
gender should have been shown as a significant indicator
of human development.
 The deficit in the findings was detected and consequently,
in 2010, GII index was added.
 Structurally, it is compatible with the HDI and assumed to
reflect the disparity within the three criteria.

20. New Indices GDI and GEM
 On the other hand, the
relation of this metrics with
gender inequality is quite
dubious.
 The three ordinary criteria
which vary from country to
country are maternal health,
political and economic
contributions.
 UNDP created other gender
indices such as the GDI and
GEM to cover the issue.
 However, each of the indices
is insignificant.

21. Debates on
Indices  Gradually, as these measures
(the GDI and the GEM) have
been applied year after year,
a debate on whether or not
they have been as influential
in promoting gender-sensitive
development as was
estimated initially arose.
Some of the major
criticisms on both
measures include the
following points: First,
they are highly
specialized and difficult
to interpret.
Consequently, they are,
often misinterpreted.

22. Debates on Indices
Both of them suffer from large data
gaps. In other words, they do not
provide accurate comparisons across
countries.
Second, too many developmental
factors have been integrated into a
single measure.

23. Graphical Datamining Analysis of HDI
 The criteria which made up the structure of HDI
are mentally inconsistent.
 But they are analytically inconsistent as well
 Each component index should contribute
meaningful effect on the structure of the HDI
 Graphical Datamining Analysis reflects that they
are fail to do this.

24. LifeExpectancy Against HDRI Rank
We can see that LifeExpectancy gets lower in Lower
Segments But!

25. LifeExpectancy DensityGraph Factorized with
Segments
We can see that there is no clear distinctions among
segments related with LifeExpectancy. Higher segments
represents peaks around higher LifeExpectancies

26. LifeExpectancy x HDRI Rank

27. MeanSchooling Against HDRI Rank
We can see that Mean Schooling gets lower in
Lower Segments But!

28. MeanSchooling DensityGraph
Factorized with Segments
We can see that there is no clear distinctions among
segments related with MeanSchooling. Higher segments
represents peaks around higher MeanSchoolings

29. Effect of The Mean Schooling

30. GNIPERCAP2011 Against HDRI Rank
Income quite onviously overcome the HDI

31. GNIPERCAP2011 DensityGraph Factorized
with Segments
Still There İs No Clear Distinction Between
Segments But Polarity Quite Obvious

32. Indices Overdependent on Income
 As a result, if these indices fall short, then we can estimate
that the figures might hide more than they reveal.
 Additionally, the GEM has also been criticized for being
far too dependent on the income component of the
measure for determining the overall GEM score and this is
an overall defect of all UNDP indices.

33. Effect of The Income

34. GDP(PPP) Per Capita Income of The
G20 Countries

35. Women Seats Percent of The
Parliaments

36. Women Seats At Parliaments Against HDRI Rank

37. Women Seats with Segments
We can see that there is no clear distinctions among
segments related with Women Seats. Here higher
segments doesn’t represents peaks around higher
Parliament Seats

38. Matermort Effect on The HDI

39.  First published by the World Economic Forum in 2006, the 2014
report covers 142 major and emerging economies.
 The Global Gender Gap Index is an index produced in addition to
the proposed metric and report based on gender equality.
 14 variables used to calculate the index are provided by
international organizations such as ILO, UNDP and WHO. Hence,
resources and technical deficiencies are also being imported.
 However, global community considers the findings significant as if
being published via serious indices.
Global Gendergap By Wef

40. The Global Gender Gap Index 2014

41.  Its structure is similar to the
UNDP Gender Inequality
Index (GDII).
 It indicates the situation of
women in 142 countries
which represents 93% of
the world population with
respect to four aspects.
1. Economic
participation and
facilities
2. Utilizing educational
facilities
3. Participation in the
political system
4. Health and survival
Gendergap Structure

42. Source inconsistencies
 When the 2014 report is analysed with respect to ranking
index, it can be observed that even the countries which
cannot provide the required Data/ statistics, are ranked
ahead of Turkey. Turkey is Ranked # 125 among 142
countries.
 It is important to note that the ratio of female ranking
with respect to professions have not been taken into
account.

44. Conclusion
 It is quite clear that those
indices fail to serve their
purposes.
 They are semantically wrong,
mathematically wrong and
their data resources are
insufficient.
 But they still serve to discredit
some countries like Turkey.
 These indices and similar ones
are implicitly employed in the
sovereign ratings of countries.
 The issue affects the
behaviour of foreign investors
and funding rates interest
rates.
 We think this is quite unfair.

45.  http://hdr.undp.org/en
 http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2014
 http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Empowerment_Measure
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report
INTERNET RESOURCES

46.  Küçüközmen, C. C. and Çınar F., (2014). “New Sectoral Incentive System and Credit Defaults: Graphic-
Data Mining Analysis”, Submitted to the ICEF 2014 Conference, Yıldız Technical University in İstanbul, Turkey
on 08-09 Sep. 2014.
 Küçüközmen, C. C. and Çınar F., (2014). “Banking Sector Analysis of Izmir Province: A Graphical Data
Mining Approach”, Submitted to the 34th National Conference for Operations Research and Industrial
Engineering (YAEM 2014), Görükle Campus of Uludağ University in Bursa, Turkey on 25-27 June 2014.
 Küçüközmen, C. C. ve Çınar F., (2014). “Finansal Karar Süreçlerinde Grafik-Datamining Analizi”,
TROUGBI/DW SIG, Nisan 2014 İstanbul, http://www.troug.org/?p=684
 Küçüközmen, C. C. ve Çınar F., (2014). “Görsel Veri Analizinde Devrim” Söyleşi, Ekonomik Çözüm, Temmuz
2014, http://ekonomik-cozum.com.tr/gorsel-veri-analizinde-devrim-mi.html.
 Küçüközmen, C. C. ve Merih K., (2014). “Görsel Teknikler Çağı" Söyleşi, Ekonomik Çözüm, Temmuz 2014,
http://ekonomik-cozum.com.tr/gorsel-teknikler-cagi.html
 "Economist Online: Performance indices - International comparisons are popular, influential and
sometimes flawed". http://www.economist.com Retrieved 2014-11-16.
RESOURCES

47. Global Indices of Gender Inequality
and Turkey’s Positions
INDEX KOD INSTITUTION #TR
Human Development Index HDRI UNDP 69/187
GenderInequality Index GII UNDP 114/187
TheGender Empowerment
Measure
GEM UNDP 2014 removed
Global Gendergap Index GGI WEF 125/142

48. Contact
@CORTEXIEN
@Riskonometri
@DataLabTR
@Riskanalitigi
@globinx
@fatma_cinar_ftm
@ckucukozmen
@RiskLabTurkey
tr.linkedin.com/in/fatmacinar/
tr.linkedin.com/in/coskunkucukozmen
tr.linkedin.com/in/kutlumerih
tr.linkedin.com/in/DataLabTR
coskun.kucukozmen@ieu.edu.tr
http://www.ieu.edu.tr/tr
coskunkucukozmen@gmail.com
http://www.coskunkucukozmen.com
kutmerih@gmail.com
kutlu.merih@datalabtr.com
fatma.cinar@spk.gov.tr
www.spk.gov.tr
www.datalabtr.com.com