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.

Why?

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”

4. Participation

5. Security

3. Accountability

2. Equity

1. Effectiveness

URBAN GOVERNANCE

Urban Governance Index components

• UGI = Summary measure of urban governance

• Measures the average achievements in five dimensions of urban governance

« Signs » or indicators

Urban Governance

Index

Under 5 Mortality

Environmental Action Plan

Crime Prevention Policy

Inaccessible areas to Police

Domestic Violence policy

SECURITY

Victims of Violence Pgs

Close LG

Elected Mayor

Councilors

ACCOUNTABILITY

Remove councillors

Publications

Access to sanitation

EQUITY

Poor households

Access to water

Women councilors

EFFECTIVENESSLG revenue

Share oftransfers

Traveltime

Expendituresbasic services

PARTICIPATION

Participation in projects/ budgets

Associations/ pop

Voters Participation

Literacy

How?

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

Principal Components

• Highly correlated variables• Core underlying concepts or unobserved

variables• Gives orthogonal components

Development level

Inequality

The Global Urban Indicators DatabaseGUID 1

1996 (1993 data)

46 key indicators237 Cities

GUID 22001 (1998 data)

23 key indicators300 Cities

Also – ADB Cities Data Book (19 cities)

Table C1. Factor analysis, city indicators, loadings for first three factors.

Factor 1City

development

Factor 2Congestion

Factor 3.Inequality

National HDI rank -.95 .06 .02Log City product .85 -.22 -.02Water connections .85 .25 -.00Sewerage connections .88 .17 .07Electricity connections .78 .39 -.14Telephone connections .84 -.09 .02Primary classrooms .83 -.05 .05Secondary classrooms .72 -.23 .10Child mortality -.70 -.28 .18Hospital beds .37 .19 .24Wastewater treated .73 -.01 .14Garbage collection .82 .17 -.05Informal employment -.83 -.08 -.05Permanent housing .71 .26 .04Housing in compliance .76 .14 .13Infrastructure expenditure .75 -.34 -.04Car ownership .81 -.33 -.04Household size -.85 -.17 -.02Floor space per person .85 -.26 .01Log population .26 .62 -.00Log travel time to work -.14 .53 .43Log residential density -.38 .59 -.27Travel by car .71 -.46 .09Travel on foot -.60 -.26 -.20Income disparity -.05 -.19 .47Poor households -.43 .03 .63Poor woman-headed -.19 .02 .77

Eigenvalue 13.26 2.20 1.67Per cent of variance 49.1 8.2 6.2

Note: Variables used in creating indices are in bold type.

Factor Analysis Results UIP 1993

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS

CITY DEVELOPMENT INDEX

ACCESSIBILITY INDEXINEQUALITY INDEXCONNECTIVITY 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 FormulaInfrastructure 25 x Water connections + 25 x Sewerage + 25 x Electricity + 25

x TelephoneWaste 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 (log City Product - 4.61) x 100/5.99

City Development (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

CDI for selected cities

City 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

Colombo 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

Niamey 21.70 40.00 22.00 - 78.30

City Development Index versus Human Development Index

-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

- 20 40 60 80 100

City Development Index, 1998

Hu

man

De

ve

lop

me

nt

Ind

ex, 1998

NiameyBujumbura

Brazzaville

Stockholm

Bulaw ayo

Icapui

Moscow

TallinBelize City

Curitiba

Brasilia

Leipzig Hartford

Hertfordshire

Bandar Seri B

Suva

VaranasiTunis

Luanda

Monrovia

LilongweSao Tome

Gaborone

City development index

100806040200

Loca

l gov

t inc

ome

$/pe

rson

100005000

1000500

10050

105

1.5

.1

Lahore

Windhoek

MoscowHarare

Rio de Janeir

Bucharest

Nis (Serbia)

Bogota

Colombo

Surabaya

Bombay

Bamako

Ouagadougou

Djibouti

Banjul

Monrovia

Bangui Pokhara

City development index

8070605040302010In

form

al e

mpl

oym

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

Components of CDI by region

0

20

40

60

80

100CDI

City Product

Infrastructure

Waste

Health

Education

HIC

Transitional

Asia-Pacific

Africa

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 performersBaku, AzerbaijanBangalore, India*Bishkek, KyrgyzstanBombay, India*Chisinau, MoldovaChittagong, BangladeshDelhi, India*Havana, CubaLagos, Nigeria*Mysore, India*Nizhny Novgorod, RussiaQuito, EcuadorTbilisi, GeorgiaUlaanbaatar, MongoliaVaranasi, India*Vilnius, Lithuania

Bangui, CARDouala, CamerounJakarta, IndonesiaKaoloack, Senegal*Kinshasa, ZaireLibreville, GabonLuanda, AngolaMaseru, LesothoMbour, Senegal*Niamey, NigerOshakati, Namibia*Richard Toll, Senegal*Seychelles.Tambacounda, Senegal*Yaounde, CamerounZiguinchor, Senegal*

* These differentials may be due to poor city product data.

First two components

CDI

3210-1-2-3

PP

P5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

Yangon

Sofia

Singapore

Prague

Niamey

Madrid

Ljubljana

Hull

Basel

Abidjan