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