Abstract
Political indicators are widely used in academic writing and decision making, but remain controversial. This paper discusses
the problems related to the aggregation functions they use. Almost always, political indicators are aggregated by weighted
averages or summations. The use of such functions is based on untenable assumptions (existence of homogeneous substitution
rates, total compensation, and strict monotonicity). We show through concrete examples how these hidden assumptions are likely
to produce results that are basically an artifact of ad hoc decisions, which additionally contradict very fundamental notions
common to all credible political theories. We suggest, also through example, that some—necessarily partial—solutions are possible.
the problems related to the aggregation functions they use. Almost always, political indicators are aggregated by weighted
averages or summations. The use of such functions is based on untenable assumptions (existence of homogeneous substitution
rates, total compensation, and strict monotonicity). We show through concrete examples how these hidden assumptions are likely
to produce results that are basically an artifact of ad hoc decisions, which additionally contradict very fundamental notions
common to all credible political theories. We suggest, also through example, that some—necessarily partial—solutions are possible.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Pages 1-22
- DOI 10.1007/s11205-011-9932-4
- Authors
- Francisco Gutiérrez Sanín, Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Santa Fé de Bogotá, Colombia
- Diana Buitrago, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Santa Fé de Bogotá, Colombia
- Andrea González, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Santa Fé de Bogotá, Colombia
- Journal Social Indicators Research
- Online ISSN 1573-0921
- Print ISSN 0303-8300