Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:25:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1649143289.52.1711650331071@ece-prd-lx-32.unog.un.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_51_1298557521.1711650331068" ------=_Part_51_1298557521.1711650331068 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
A careful review of existing index construction methodologies has been u=
ndertaken in the preparation of work towards constructing the AAI (e.g. UND=
P 1990; Akder 1994; Anand and Sen 1995, OECD 2008, Bradshaw and Richardson =
2009; Klasen and Sch=C3=BCler 2011; and Kaneda et al., 2011). Init=
ially, a choice had been made in favour of using the z-score methodology, a=
s in Bradshaw and Richardson (2009). The major advantage of the z-score met=
hodology has been that it allowed for the standardisation of indicators of =
different types and scales around the sample mean. Thus, using this method,=
indicators measuring the share of the population and those reported in oth=
er measurement units (such as years in life expectancy indicators) were con=
veniently expressed as a standardised deviation from the mean, rendering th=
em comparable and thus aggregating them in a single index, as the arithmeti=
c means of the z-scores.
While the z-scores methodology provided a convenient way to normalise resu=
lts, by anchoring them around the mean, this also rendered comparisons over=
time more difficult without additional transformations of the data. This i=
s for the fact that indicators referring to the time t+1 in the future will=
be standardised around the mean values observed in t+1, which if significa=
ntly different from the present time t, will make them temporally incompara=
ble with the present. The AAIt+1 will then rank countries accord=
ing to the new reality in terms of active ageing observed in t+1.
During the second Expert Group meeting, and also in subsequent discussions=
with the project partners, it was decided that the methodology adopted in =
the aggregation of the selected active ageing individual indicators to the =
domain-specific and to the overall AAI should be similar to that used in th=
e HDI of the UNDP.
Moreover, in light of substantial gender differentials in the different as=
pects of active ageing in Europe (e.g. on employment rates, in engagement o=
f care provision activities and life expectancy and health outcomes in late=
r stages of life) and for the importance of gender-targeted policy actions =
for EU policy makers (for example, in the context of EU 2020 targets), it w=
as decided that the AAI will also be disaggregated by gender. The decision =
for creating a separate index for men and for women was also motivated by s=
uch practices in other contexts (see for example Klasen and Sch=C3=BCler 20=
11; and Permanyer 2011), also on the basis of discussions with the Expert G=
roup and the initial analysis of individual indicators. Thus, the methodolo=
gy described below applies to the overall AAI as well as to the gender-spec=
ific indices.
Note also that the missing values (if any) are not imputed as each availab=
le method for statistical imputations carried their own methodological limi=
tations and imputation could restrict the credibility as well as the compar=
ability (across space as well as inter-temporally) of the AAI. The approach=
used allows us to point out those fields of missing data where data collec=
tion is highly desirable in the countries in question.
The methodology chosen in the constructing the AAI should reflect a tran= sparent method to present the dashboard of indicators of active ageing. The= 22 indicators selected are aggregated to the AAI by following four methodi= cal steps:
One critical issue has indeed been that of weighting. In the absence of =
unequivocal theoretical and empirical grounding on the contribution of each=
indicator to a certain domain and of each domain to active ageing, it was =
decided to use weights recommended by the Expert Group (see Box 4 for more =
discussion).
The important consideration is that there are also implicitly different we=
ights attached to indicators and to domains, as determined by the relative =
size of the indicator value and the domain-specific index value, respective=
ly. It is for this reason that the impact of any indicator on the domain, a=
nd that of the domain-specific index on the overall AAI, have been analysed=
very carefully, and the final choice of explicit weights has been calibrat=
ed, to meet the recommendations of the Expert Group for the weighting.
Table 3.1: Weights (explicit and implicit) assigned to indiv=
idual indicators and domains
Note also that the gender-specific indices (for the domains, and also AAI<=
sub>female and AAImale) are constructed taking into consid=
eration the values for the gender-specific indicators, but using the same w=
eights as for the total population. A calculation of this sort makes it eas=
ier to analyse the disparity between men and women. Also, differences betwe=
en the gender-specific AAIs refer to gender differences within countries an=
d not to differences across country for one particular gender. If the AAIgender for each country is compared to the AAIgender of=
the top performing country, this would provide a picture of how good/bad f=
or example women in country A are in comparison to women in a benchmark cou=
ntry, and not only in comparison to the male counterparts in their own coun=
try.
The methodology employed for the calculation of the AAI presents some nota=
ble advantages for the purpose of measuring the active ageing phenomenon in=
European countries. Most importantly, it allows for the AAI to be displaye=
d in an appealing manner by informing policy makers about the untapped pote=
ntial of older people observed in their country. In this way, countries can=
be compared on how they fare in achieving active ageing outcomes, but it i=
s also possible to disaggregate the AAI into the contributions of each doma=
in to the final score, thus showing which domains should merit specific act=
ions from public policies. In the end, the decisive argument in favour of t=
his aggregation method was the numerical interpretation of the index for a =
wider audience which was not possible in other methods (e.g. as in the z-sc=
ore methodology used previously in constructing the AAI; for details, see Z=
aidi et al 2012).
The measure of gender differences makes it possible to compare gender equa=
lity in the overall AAI within each country, but also how equal women are i=
n comparison to men in each of the four domains. However, it is limited to =
the comparison of men and women within a country and does not account for t=
he relative position of each to an overall benchmark value. For each domain=
and for the AAI, indicators are arithmetically averaged. This means that t=
he relative good performance of a country in one domain may offset the rela=
tive worse performance in another.