A study of the evolution of the the concept of human development, this article analyses the conceptual and measurement issues that surround the UNDP's HDI.

This paper explores the issue of sustainability at the macro scale employing multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) methods. This paper explores the issue of sustainability at the macro scale employing multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) methods. The incommensurability of values and the essentially multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of sustainability challenge the use of composite measurement indices. This determined the choice of MCDA methods. Austria was chosen as a case study, due to the wide availability of data, especially on indicators of strong sustainability. The structure of the multi-criteria problem comprised the evolution of different sustainability dimensions over time. The process for selecting criteria included a critical assessment of institutional sustainability agendas (UN, EU and Austrian Government) and theoretical recommendations. After an assessment of MCDA methods, the NAIADE method demonstrated the most suitable properties for sustainability assessment. The application of this outranking approach was undertaken in two separate settings: long-term from 1960 to 2003 and medium-term, 1995-2003 with varying numbers of criteria. The response of results to the addition of evaluating criteria and periods was tested. The degree of credibility for accepting preference relations was also employed for sensitivity analysis. According to the results of the long-term assessment, especially in the weak sustainability setting, sustainable progress is taking place in Austria. In the medium term, in the stronger sustainability setting and, especially as the number of criteria increases, more incomparable periods appear and trends are less determined. Moreover, it is shown how results crucially depend on the methodological choices. This is one of the first applications of the multi-criteria tools to the dynamic analysis of sustainability at the macro scale.

The article is composed of two sections. The first one is a critical review of the three main alternative indices to GDP which were proposed in the last decades – the Human Development Index (HDI), the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and the Happy Planet Index (HPI) – which is made on the basis of conceptual foundations, rather than looking at issues of statistical consistency or mathematical refinement as most of the literature does. The pars construens aims to propose an alternative measure, the composite wealth index, consistent with an approach to development based on the notion of composite wealth, which is in turn derived from an empirical common sense criterion. Arguably, this approach is suitable to be conveyed into an easily understandable and coherent indicator, and thus appropriate to track development in its various dimensions: simple in its formulation, the wealth approach can incorporate social and ecological goals without significant alterations in conceptual foundations, while reducing to a minimum arbitrary weighting.