 |
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
 |
Monitoring implementation in the time dimension
|
Upgraded visualisation of the Gaptimer MDG Progress Chart |
|
|
|
|
Monday, 10 September 2012 |
Gaptimer MDG Progress Chart enables immediate visualisation with 25 graphs
We have upgraded earlier visualisations in two ways. Firstly, by clicking on Gaptimer MDG Progress Chart the readers can reach 25 graphs thus providing user friendly access to better understanding and analysis. Time distances for 100 results for indicators and units are presented in a single summary table. For more detailed analysis we have added 5 graphs and Excel files of calculations in which time distance lead or lag from the line to the respective MDG 2015 targets are shown for 111-140 developing countries respectively. Secondly, interested readers can download the Excel files over the analysed period 1990-2010, analyse all individual country results and select results for those countries that they would like to compare with (e.g. by regions like African countries or simply with neighbouring countries).
Gaptimer Progress Chart of MDG implementation for world regions
Are we on the track, ahead or behind in time measured by S-time-distance in years (+ time lag, - time lead) comparing with the line to the 2015 MDG targets around 2010
1. Click on the name of the world region to view the bar chart over the 10 selected indicators
2. Click on the name of the indicator to view the bar chart over the 10 selected units
3. For 5 selected indicators click on the number of the indicator to view the S-time-distance deviation graph for individual developing countries with appropriate data around 2010: IND 4.1, Under-five mortality rate, 137 developing countries
IND 5.1, Maternal mortality rate, 127 developing countries
IND 7.8t, Proportion of population using an improved drinking water source (total), 117 countries
IND 7.9t, Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility (total), 111 countries
IND 8.16, Internet users per 100 inhabitants, 140 developing countries For charts of time distances for individual countries on the axis with the country names only every fourth name of the country could be displayed due to lack of space.
Excel files of calculations of time distance deviations from the lines to target for 111-140 individual developing countries for the 5 selected indicators are available below. Thus a more detailed analysis is possible so that interested readers can download the files, analyse all individual country results and select from the results those countries that they would like to compare with (e.g. by regions like African countries or simply with neighbouring countries).
EXCEL FILES of S-time-distances for selected developing countries:
|
|
Visualisation of MDG implementation with Time Distance Progress Chart |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 21 August 2012 |
Are we ahead or behind in time comparing MDG implementation for 10 selected
indicators for World regions, China and India with the line to the 2015 MDG targets?Time Distance Progress Chart of Millennium Development Goals implementation
We are using data from the UN, The Millennium Development Report 2012, New York, July 2012 and present the MDG implementation in the time distance perspective. The MDG 2012 Progress Chart (United Nations 2012) gives a quick assessment over 16 selected key targets, as it can deal also with qualitative judgments. For a more restricted number of 10 selected indicators for which numerical estimates are available we complement the UN Progress Chart with Time Distance Progress Chart of monitoring the progress of implementation.
Time distance is first and foremost important as an innovative concept of looking at data in a novel complementary and intuitively understandable way. The application to monitoring is easy to understand and to communicate; it is like comparing actual arrivals with the train (airplane, bus) timetable. S-time-distance measures deviation in time showing whether the actual developments are ahead or behind in time from path to the 2015 MDG targets (+ time lag, - time lead).
Are we ahead or behind in time comparing with the line to the 2015 MDG targets?
The table below examines the situation in more details for Developing Regions, 7 world regions, China, and India. The situation differs among the world regions, but the overall situation shows that for about 26% of cases of 10 selected indicators from all 8 MDG areas the 2015 targets were already achieved, for another 24% of cases the actual developments were ahead of the line to the 2015 targets. From about one half of the cases that were lagging behind about 17% were lagging more than 6 years, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. China as the most populated country shows excellent results, for six out of ten indicators it already reached their 2015 MDG targets.
Time Distance Progress Chart of MDG implementation for world regions
For each of the analysed units graphical presentation of MDG implementation are provided in the PowerPoint file below. The table above also allows comparisons of implementation across indicators and regions at a glance. From the health domain the three selected indicators stand out as the cases where the MDG targets (with one exception) have not been achieved in any of the world regions. This is true also for the net enrolment ratio in the primary education where the target of full enrolment was set too high in view of the starting positions.
It should be reasonably easy to incorporate the S-time-distance methodology for monitoring implementation of the MDGs in the work of the UN, the World Bank and other agencies or countries on these issues, both at macro and at micro levels.
|
|
Where is Slovenia? (Kje je Slovenija?) |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 09 August 2011 |
Interview of Professor Pavle Sicherl in the leading Slovenian newspaper DELO, August 8, 2011In the interview the time distance innovation and applications in economics and statistics were explained. The main conclusions on the position of Slovenia and Europe are from the article 'Kje je Slovenija?' in the proceedings of the symposium at the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts at the 10th anniverasry of death of Professor Aleksander Bajt.
|
|
Internet users among the best performers of MDG indicators |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 21 September 2010 |
Making MDG statistics more understandable to policy makers and to common people The speed of diffusion of ICT sector indicates its much greater potential for catching up and becoming an important instrument to reduce world disparities. This is seen also by comparing implementation with respect to Internet users per 100 inhabitants with the implementation of other MDG indicators. The estimate for Internet users per 100 inhabitants was calculated from the ITU data for Developing countries for 2009 showed that S-time-distance would be -4.0 years (4 years ahead of the line to 2015 target of 25% penetration rate), indicating that the actual value for 2009 was expected to be reached on the line to target only in 2013. For 2008 analysing 194 countries showed that widely predominant share of population (88% of world population) is ahead of the line to target. This result is in sharp contrast with the Official Development Aid from the same Goal 8 domain, which is 4.6 years behind the line to target.
This example shows that S-time-distance can be especially useful in comparisons across different indicators or indicators from different domains. The new generic time distance methodology offers policy makers, NGOs, media and the general public a new view of the implementation of the MDGs that is exceptionally easy to understand and communicate. S-time-distance calculates the time lead or time lag of actual values from the lines to 2015 MDGs targets. It is like tracking the actual arrivals in comparison with the train (airplane, bus) timetable.
The numerical MDG target for Internet users per 100 inhabitants is not clearly specified. Therefore we show the outcomes of a sensitivity analysis if the 2015 targets for Internet penetration rate would be 30%, 35% or 40%. Results for 6 world regions show that for Europe, Americas and CIS all alternative targets for 2015 would already be achieved in 2009, with the exception of CIS for 40%. For all four alternative targets the other three regions, Arab States, Asia & Pacific and Africa are ahead of the respective lines to 2015 targets. Higher targets for the indicator Internet users per 100 inhabitants reduce the time lead ahead of the lines to target but even Africa for the target of 40% penetration rate would in 2009 still be ahead of its line to target. This is in sharp contrast with some other MDG indicators where the delays behind the respective lines to targets were very substantial.
By seeing with new eyes of the time distance perspective new perceptions of the situation with broader conclusions can be reached with new development stories from existing MDG data at the world, country and local levels. SICENTER developed a free web tool to facilitate this for interested users. The time distance monitoring methodology can be usefully applied also in operational monitoring of implementation of plans, budgets, forecasts, projects, etc. at macro and micro levels.
|
|
Official development assistance alert for the UN MDG Summit |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 01 September 2010 |
Time delays for official development assistance in 2009
Net official development assistance continues to be disappointing. S-time-distance measure was used to get an easily understandable overview of the situation whether the 22 DAC countries are on- or off- the track to the UN 2015 target of 0.7 percent of gross national income to be devoted to official development assistance (ODA/GNI). In 2009 in the group with considerable delays USA, Germany, Austria and Canada were between 4-6 years behind the line to the UN 2015 target, the delay was about 7 years for New Zealand and Italy, and 8 years for Australia. The delay for Portugal, Greece and Japan was more than 9 years as the 2009 percentage was even below that in the starting year 2000.
While several of the analysed countries are not officially committed to this UN target such common benchmark shows that there is a wide gap between the development assistance efforts among the observed 22 countries. The ODA/GNI value in the five European countries that have already reached the 0.7 percent target is in relative terms four times higher than in the group of four countries (United States, Japan, Italy and Greece) where it does not exceed 0.2 percent of their GNI. It is clear that if there is a will there is a way.
Expressed in time units (years, months, etc.) the interpretation for monitoring with S-time-distance measure is easy and intuitively understandable to everyone. For given level of actual values it deals with the deviation (lead or lag in time) between the time when such actual value was attained and the time when that level was supposed to be reached on the line to the 2015 MDGs target. It is like tracking the actual arrivals in comparison with the train or bus timetable. Thus it represents an excellent presentation and communication tool that is intuitively understood by policy makers, experts, managers, media and the general public.
The results are prepared using the free web GAPTIMER monitoring tool for calculation and graphing of S-time-distance deviations from the line to target that allows numerous stakeholders to benefit from this novel statistical measure for policy debate for many issues and at various levels.
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 15 of 24 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
