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. 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” Why? Urban Governance Index components • UGI = Summary measure of urban governance • Measures the average achievements in five dimensions of urban governance 1. Effectiveness 2. Equity 3. Accountability 4. Participation 5. Security URBAN GOVERNANCE « Signs » or indicators Under 5 Mortality Environmental Action Plan SECURITY ACCOUNTABILITY Close LG Literacy Remove councillors PARTICIPATION Crime Prevention Policy Voters Participation Poor households EQUITY Elected Mayor Associations/ pop Inaccessible areas to Police Councilors Participation Access to water LG revenue Access to Expenditures basic services sanitation Share of transfers in projects/ budgets Women Travel councilors time Domestic Violence policy Publications Victims of Violence Pgs EFFECTIVENESS Urban Governance Index 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 How? Principal Components • Highly correlated variables • Core underlying concepts or unobserved variables • Gives orthogonal components Development level Inequality The Global Urban Indicators Database GUID 1 1996 (1993 data) 46 key indicators 237 Cities GUID 2 2001 (1998 data) 23 key indicators 300 Cities Also – ADB Cities Data Book (19 cities) Factor Analysis Results UIP 1993 Table C1. Factor analysis, city indicators, loadings for first three factors. Factor 1 City development National HDI rank Log City product Water connections Sewerage connections Electricity connections Telephone connections Primary classrooms Secondary classrooms Child mortality Hospital beds Wastewater treated Garbage collection Informal employment Permanent housing Housing in compliance Infrastructure expenditure Car ownership Household size Floor space per person Log population Log travel time to work Log residential density Travel by car Travel on foot Income disparity Poor households Poor woman-headed Eigenvalue Per cent of variance -.95 .85 .85 .88 .78 .84 .83 .72 -.70 .37 .73 .82 -.83 .71 .76 .75 .81 -.85 .85 .26 -.14 -.38 .71 -.60 -.05 -.43 -.19 Factor 2 Congestion .06 -.22 .25 .17 .39 -.09 -.05 -.23 -.28 .19 -.01 .17 -.08 .26 .14 -.34 -.33 -.17 -.26 .62 .53 .59 -.46 -.26 -.19 .03 .02 13.26 2.20 49.1 8.2 Note: Variables used in creating indices are in bold type. Factor 3. Inequality .02 -.02 -.00 .07 -.14 .02 .05 .10 .18 .24 .14 -.05 -.05 .04 .13 -.04 -.04 -.02 .01 -.00 .43 -.27 .09 -.20 .47 .63 .77 1.67 6.2 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS CITY DEVELOPMENT INDEX ACCESSIBILITY INDEX INEQUALITY INDEX CONNECTIVITY 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 Infrastructure Waste Formula 25 x Water connections + 25 x Sewerage + 25 x Electricity + 25 x Telephone 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 City Development (log City Product - 4.61) x 100/5.99 (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 City CDI for selected cities 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 Colom bo 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 Niam ey 21.70 40.00 22.00 - 78.30 Human Development Index, 1998 City Development Index versus Human Development Index 1.0 Stockholm 0.9 0.8 Icapui 0.7 0.6 Brazzaville 0.5 Bulaw ayo 0.4 Bujumbura 0.3 Niamey 0.2 0.1 - 20 40 60 City Developm ent Index, 1998 80 100 100 Bandar Seri B 10000 5000 80 Gaborone Curitiba TallinHertfordshire Suva Luanda Varanasi 10 5 Tunis Monrovia Sao Tome Lilongwe 1 .5 .1 0 20 City development index 40 60 80 Ouagadougou 60 Belize City 100 50 Bombay Banjul Moscow Informal employment Local govt income $/person Brasilia 1000 500 Pokhara Bangui Hartford Leipzig 100 Lahore Bogota Djibouti 40 Monrovia Bamako Surabaya Rio de Janeir Nis (Serbia) Colombo 20 Harare Bucharest 0 10 20 30 City development index 40 50 Moscow Windhoek 60 70 80 Components of CDI by region CDI 100 80 Education 60 City Product 40 HIC 20 Transitional 0 Asia-Pacific Africa Health Infrastructure Waste 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 performers Baku, Azerbaijan Bangui, CAR Bangalore, India* Douala, Cameroun Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Jakarta, Indonesia Bombay, India* Kaoloack, Senegal* Chisinau, Moldova Kinshasa, Zaire Chittagong, Bangladesh Libreville, Gabon Delhi, India* Luanda, Angola Havana, Cuba Maseru, Lesotho Lagos, Nigeria* Mbour, Senegal* Mysore, India* Niamey, Niger Nizhny Novgorod, Russia Oshakati, Namibia* Quito, Ecuador Richard Toll, Senegal* Tbilisi, Georgia Seychelles. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Tambacounda, Senegal* Varanasi, India* Yaounde, Cameroun Vilnius, Lithuania Ziguinchor, Senegal* * These differentials may be due to poor city product data. First two components 5 Basel 4 Singa pore 3 Madrid 2 Hull Nia mey Ab idjan 1 Ljub ljana 0 Prague Ya ngon PPP -1 Sofia -2 -3 CDI -2 -1 0 1 2 3