Rethinking Global Index Methodology for Sustainable Development
Author Information
Author(s): Ogunyemi Kehinde O, Ohuabunwo Chima, Lokossou Virgil K, Sogbossi Lionel S, Antara Simon, Nyenswah Tolbert, Aïssi Melchoir A, McNabb Scott, Kebede Senait
Primary Institution: Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University
Hypothesis
How can the methodology of global indexes be improved to inform equitable policy actions for sustainable development?
Conclusion
The study highlights significant gaps and limitations in the current methodologies of global indexes, emphasizing the need for more inclusive and transparent processes.
Supporting Evidence
- Global indexes often lack adequate stakeholder representation, leading to biased results.
- Many global indexes do not provide transparent information on their development processes.
- LMICs are disproportionately affected by the limitations of current global index methodologies.
Takeaway
This study says we need to make sure that the ways we measure how countries are doing are fair and include everyone's voices, especially those from poorer countries.
Potential Biases
There is a high risk of confirmation bias due to inadequate representation of experts and a lack of clear theoretical frameworks.
Limitations
The study discusses the lack of stakeholder representation and transparency in global index methodologies, which can lead to biased results and limit their effectiveness.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website