No.

30 Social indicators:
problems of defi nitio n
and of selection

cn
a
0
C
a
.I

0
-cnm
.I

0
0
cn
a
IC
CI

cn
L
a
Q
CO
Q
'D
C
CO

Unesco
REPORTS AND PAPERS
IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
The Reportsand Papers are intended to present to a restricted
public of specialistsdescriptive or documentary material as and
when it becomes available during the execution of Unescospro-
gramme in the field of the social sciences.They will consist of
either reportsrelating to the Regular Programme of Unesco and
its operational programmes of aid to Member States or documen-
tation in the form of bibliographies,repertoriesand directories.
The authorsalone are responsible for the contentsof the
Reports and Papers and their views should not necessarily be
taken to represent those of Unesco.
These documents are published without strict periodicity.
Currently available.
SS/CH11 - International Repertory of Institutions Conducting Popu-
lation Studies (bilingual:English/French), 1959.
SS/CH15 - International Co-operation and Programmes of Economic
and Social Development (bilingual: English/French), 1961.
-
SS/CH17 International Directory of Sample Survey Centres (outside
the United States of America) (bilingual: English/French),
1962.
-
SS/CH18 The Social Science Activities of S o m e Eastern European
Academies of Sciences, 1963.
-
SS/CH19 Attitude Change :a review and bibliography of selected
research, 1964 (out of print in English, available in French).
-
SS/CH20 International Repertory of Sociological Research Centres
(outside the U.S.A.)(bilingual: English/French), 1964.
-
SS/CH22 Institutions Engaged in Economic and Social Planning in
Africa (bilingual: English/French), 1966.
SS/CH23 - International Repertory of Institutions Specializing in
Research on Peace and Disarmament, 1966.
-
SS/CH24 Guide for the Establishment of National Social Science
Documentation Centres in Developing Countries,1969.
-
SS/CH25 Ecological data in comparative research :Report o n a
fiist International Data Confrontation Seminar (bilingual:
English/French), 1970.
SS/CH 26 - Data archives for the Social Sciences :Purposes,operations
and problems, 197 3.
-
SS/CH 21 DARE Unesco computerized data retrieval system for
documentation in the social and human sciences.
SS/CH28 International Repertory of Institutions for Peace and
Conflict Research.
SSlCH 2 9 - The Unesco Educational Simulation Model (ESM).
SS/CH3 0 Social indicators: problems of definition and of selection
 Social indicators:
problems of definition
and of selection
Methods and Analysis Division
Department of Social Sciences

Unesco
Published in 1974 by the Unesco Press,
7,place de Fontenoy,75700 Paris,France

ISBN 92-3-101161-8
French edition ISBN 92-3-201161-1

Printed in the workshops of Unesco

Printed in France
0 Unesco 1974 [B]
 P reface
The present paper needs to be seen within the context of
the Unesco project on human resources indicators.
In 1967 a special meeting of experts was held by
Unesco in Warsaw with the purpose of discussing alterna-
tive approachesto the elaboration of a system of indica-
tors of human resources development,and of giving ad-
vice on the choice of methodology. The meeting had
discussed papers on the concept and theory of develop-
ment,on procedures of evaluating high-levelmanpower
data and methods for establishing an order of countries
ranked according to their development levels.
In the years that followed,the project developed with
the help of an Advisory Panel which met a few times.
Working groups discussed the work carried out,which
was mainly effected through a number of studies, and
made an evaluation of the various methods which have
been devised or adapted to deal with specific problems,
the most important of which has been the identification
and selection of indicators. It is this last topic which
constitutes the main body of the present paper. The
paper also explores the problem of definition,which has
been centralto the whole project,whether of develop-
ment on which it hinges,or of the indicators themselves
with which it deals.
In 1969 when the Advisory Panel met for the first
time,its first task was to review a tentative list of human
resources indicators. It was also expected to resolve some
controversialpoints and formulate operationalrecom-
mendations for future research. The other topics dis-
cussed were the concept of human resources,the weight-
ing of componentindicators ofhuman resources,and
the r61e of human resources in development.
At its second meeting,held in 1970,the Panel dis-
cussed papers and studieswhich were undertaken on the
basis of recommendationsmade at the first meeting.
The emphasis shifted however from definitionsof con-
cepts,from the descriptive aspects of human resources
and the mathematical problems of selecting and weight-
ing indicators,to the interrelationshipsbetween human
resources and development. Human resources were not
understood in the project merely as labour or labour
3
potential. The concept used has been broad enough to
cover,under the label human resourcesindicators,
such indicatorsas are described in other research pro-
grammesas social indicators,socio-economicindicators,
indicators of modernization,identified as those indicators
which are supposed to affect both labour productivity
and the quality of working life.
The ranking,grouping and clustering of countries on
the basis of a number ofhuman resourcesindicatorswere
effected by mathematical methods devised for the
purpose.
Studies of gaps and disparities between countries
through the use of these various methods have been com-
pleted by similar studieswithin individual countries.
The project on human resources indicators ended in
December 1973. The last in a series of meetings to be
held under this project took place in December 1973 at
the Institute of Development Studies at the University of
Sussex,United Kingdom. Two new projects have been
launched,the objectives of which have been clearly
defined.
The first project relates to the identificationof key
indicatorsof social and economic change,for the pur-
pose ofappraising socioeconomicprogress towards the
objectives of the United Nations Second Development
Decade.
The second project relates to the use of socio-economic
indicators in development planning, Such indicatorswill
be inore suited to the requirementsof planners in an in-
dividual country situation,than those which are highly
aggregated and tailored for international comparison.
The indicators of relevance to this particular project will
be drawn from lower levels of aggregation in both the
geographical and the social space. They will relate to
some of the major sets of determinantsof distributionof
development and welfare such as: geographical location
and ecology,social characteristics,and economic function.
1. See a list of these in Annex on page 27.
(These mimeographed papers are avai )le on request).
 A third project which will be launched in 1975 will methodology of indicator identificationand selection,
relate to indicators of the quality of life and of the which with concept definition,has occupied a privileged
environment. place in the old project. The present paper illustrates
A common concern of these new projects is the this effort.

4
 Table of contents

Part I Social Indicators: Problems of Methodology and Selection

.

by Serge Fanchette ................................................. 7

Part I1 A Method for the Selection of a Compact Set of Variables

.
by Zdzislaw Hellwig ................................................. 11

Part 111 A method of Establishing a List of Development Indicators ...................

.

by Branislav Ivanovic ................................................ 21

Annex .................................................................. 27

5
 Part I
Social Indicators:
Problems of Methodology and Selection
by Serge Fanchette
Methods and Analysis Division
Department of Social Sciences
U nesco
1. DEFINITION AND PURPOSES OF
SOCIAL INDICATORS
The first question which arises is that of definition of a
social indicator,followedby a corollary question related
to the purposes. Most of the definitions which have been
put forward contain reference to the purposes of social
indicatorsthereby making artificial the distinction defini-
tionlpurpose. In the rapidly growing literature on social
indicatorsdefinitionsof great diversity are proposed,
ranging from the term being used to qualify good social
statistics obtainable as time-seriesto series which can
fit explicitly into sociological,social policy or social pro-
cesses models. Within this wide spectrum we find the in-
dicatorswhich under the broad appellation of social
are described as normative,further distinction being
made between input and output variables,i.e. indicators
of means as distinguished from indicators of results.
There are the structuralvariables characterized by their
interrelationshipswithin part or the whole of a social
system,as opposed to those which are amenableto some
kind of summation into a composite index. And,finally,
we find.those indicatorswhich are not viewed within any
system and which will rank as performance indicators,
socialreporting or socialintelligence,etc.
All these aspects are combined in Stuart Rices defini-
tion of social indicators: Social indicators are needed
to find pathways through the maze of societysinter-
connections. They delineatesocial states, define social
problems and trace social trends,which by social engineer-
ing may hopefully be guided towards social goals formu-
lated by social planning.
In the above definition three main elements emerge
which define social indicators and their purpose:
(i) the descriptive functionof the indicators - the
description of social states and of trends in social
change;
(ii) their interconnections- which suggestsa systems
approach;
(iii) the analytical tools they can be to the social planner -
for the monitoring of social change.
(i) appears to be the main function served by social
indicators in general. (ii) requires the building of a
system of indicators or the construction of models
which should integrate at least some of the main com-
ponents of social reality. The conceptual difficulties
arising from the many complexitiesinvolvingamong
others the interplay of empirical and theoreticalfactors
in this field have limited attemptsto build social models.
Such attempts have either over-simplifiedreality in order
to capture some relationshipsthat may exist between a
very limited number of social variables,or have attempted
to introduceintothe model somany parametersbelonging
to a host of social phenomena as to blur out any existing
relationships.
By-passing(ii) it has been customary to link up (i) and
(i), going from the descriptive to the prescriptive through
an intuitive or a heuristic approach,more often of the
former than of the latter.
The definition of Stuart Rice,especially in its prag-
matic approach,finds an echo in the following quotation
from Sheldon and Moore (eds.), Indicatorsof Social
Change (NewYork,Russell Sage Foundation,1968,p.4):
It is especially for those who have undertaken responsi-
bility for bringing about publicly approved changes that
the notion of social indicatorsis appealing. Such in-
dicatorswould give a reading both on the current state of
some segment ofthe social universe and on past and future
trends,whether progressive or regressive,according to
some normative criteria. The notion of social indicators
leads directly to the idea of monitoring social change.
If an indicator can be found that will stand for a set of
correlated changes,and if intervention can be introduced
(whether on the prime,indicative,variable or on one of
its systenlic components), then the programme administra-
tor may have been provided a powerfulanalytical and
policy tool.
The above passage introducesthe hypothesis of a set
ofcorrelated changes for which an indicator could stand;
a similar concept runs through the second and third sec-
tions of this paper when it comesto selecting a reduced
7
number ofindicators from a larger set. In the section by
Z.Hellwig a clusterhgofdevelopment indicatorswill be
effected by the use of taxonomic graphs on the scale of
distances calculated according to correlationcoefficients.
In the section by B. Ivanovic a method of establishing a
list of development indicatorsis proposed,based on the
I-distance.
The definition of Stuart Rice and the quotation from
Sheldon and Moore appear to circumscribe directly and
precisely the attributes of a socialindicator. However,
with the wide interestexpressed in socialindicatorsgrow-
ing into what has been called the Social Indicators
Movement,there has been a great laxity in the use of the
term,to the extent that most of the social statistics which
are usually collected for administrativepurposes are being
rebaptized Social Indicators. There is a good deal of
uncertainty as to where to draw the line. At a consulta-
tion on social indicators with the secretariatsofinterna-
tional organizations,convened in Geneva by the Con-
ference of European Statisticians,a body of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe,an eminent
participant with the view of tidying up terminology
proposed a classificationof statisticalseries into six types.
GROUP A:
(i) Raw statistical series.
Key series, e.g. a common sense attempt to pick
(ii)
out series which one regards as most interesting or
important for presentation. The Social Trends,
published in the U.K., could be considered as a care-
ful,thoughnot rigorous,selection ofseries.
(iii) The system of social and demographic statistics;
which is still basically the raw material but put to-
gether in a comprehensive and systematic way.
GROUP B:
(iv) Composite indices derived from somehow combin-
ing individualseries. This is an application of the
classicalindex number approach.
(v) Synthetic representative series derived by multi-
variate techniquessuch as discriminant analysis etc.
(vi) Series which fit explicitly into social models.
The United Nations have been attempting to develop
an Integrated System of Demographic and Social Statis-
tics. In the many documents which have appeared as
working papers for meetings held for that project no
criteria have been proposed by which social indicators
and socio-demographicstatistics are differentiated.
Thus the different tables in one of the documents2 show
in the first and fifth columns statistics which appear as
both itemsof data and social indicatorswithout
apparent justification. It is true that most of the series
listed in these tables could rank within Social intelligence
or Social accounting. Short of a social model into which
these indicators will fit explicitly,one may still use
certain criteria,based on specialist knowledge,to select
the social indicators in view of some specific purpose.
8
A social statistic may rank as a social indicator only in a
specific social field for a specific purpose. Instead of
drawing up a long comprehensive list of social indicators
for universal usage it might be appropriate to subject each
candidate indicator to close scrutiny within the context
of specific areas of social concern and through rigorous
interdisciplinary treatment. The UN system of social and
demographic statistics could be seen as the ordering and
classification of the raw material in a comprehensive and
systematic way as suggested in Group A (iii) on this page.
Some of the data upon which such a system will focus
will initiate the construction of certain indicatorsor may,
without further manipulation,serve directly as indicators.
The inductive approach underlying much of the current
data collection and selection should be supersededby a
deductive approach;the identification ofdemands,of
aspirations,of social concernsin general,should influence
and consequentlyprecede the collecting and marshalling
of relevant data.
The Unesco Social Science work on indicatorshas
until recently focused on human resources indicators.
These may not all be termed social indicatorsand cer-
tainly most of the indicators in the system would not if
Rices definition were accepted in toto. Many of the in-
dicators regarded as human resourcesindicatorsin
Unesco work would,however,fit the definition of social
indicatorsas implied in some of the tables which appear
in the UN document. This definitionwould be considered
by many as being too loose,showing a great laxity in the
use of the term. The list of human resources indicators
which has been drawn up as the project developed does
not refer to the indicators as social indicators. The dif-
ferent fieldswhich have been delineated contain indicators
which are described as educational indicators,health
indicators,employmentindicatorsand the like. They
would be regarded as definitional indicatorsin the
first place,i.e.they refer to such phenomena as are wholly
or partly identical with the indicatum. Other indicators
may be termed inferential,i.e.they reflect the directly
unobservable or unobserved indicatum indirectly.The
educational indicators are termed educational because
they relate to education and are therefore definitional.
But they would also be inferential indicatorsof human
resources,showing the flow aspect of human re-
sources development. As such they would better qualify
as indicators,i.e.in the second sense,since many believe
1. T h e participant later added that he would not want his
proposals to be regarded as too weighty from the point of
view of substance and that there was quite a lot wrong with
this classification. H e went on to say that the essence of
the social indicator,by definition, must be that it is indicative
of something else, and that this attracted him to confining
the term to category (vi). H e thought that in practice that
was asking too much, since people are almost bound to want
to use the term for some of the other categories. But what is
important is that w e think in terms of a hierarchy of types of
series.
2. An integrated system of demographic and social statistics, etc.
- -
(E/CN3/432)United Nations Geneva.
that the essence of an indicator is that it is indicative of
something else (see footnote on page 8)
The series listed as human resources indicatorsin the
Unesco project would belong to type (ii) in Group A
(see page 8).
2. COMPOSITE INDICES
However they may be qualified many series in the Unesco
list have been sometimesaggregated into composite in-
dices to provide development measures constructedas
better substitutesfor GDP,to establish international com-
parison and to show movement over time at both within-
country and internationallevels. Many sophisticated
methods (including Wroclaw Taxonomy,the I-distance
method) have been used to derive such indices. In other
organizations,a few years back,the eagerness to have a
social development measure to match the economic
development measure,the GNP,led to the construction of
various indices. The most interesting have been the dif-
ferent level of living indicesconstructedunder the
aegis of the United Nations and for which considerable
work at both conceptualand methodologicallevels has
been done by the United Nations Research Institute for
SocialDevelopment,at Geneva. This quest for some
sort of Gross HappinessProducthas been inspired by
the conviction that GNP is not everything and does not
in itself reflect the welfare of people. This inspiration
has unfortunately become an obsession and GNP,despite
its many shortcomings,is always present,so much so that
the system of social accountsbeing envisaged tries to be
too close an imitation of the economic accounts. Adding
up the componentsof production,with a convenientcom-
mon measure like their price,is not attended by the many
conceptualproblems underlying the aggregation of com-
ponents of welfare,ifnot componentsof the goodlife.
A short article in the 25 December 1971 issue of the
Economistentitled Where the grass is greener,com-
menting on the construction of a Social thermometer
which is the equivalent of the gross national product,
said: Certainly,social statistics are improving and in-
creasing; statisticiansare making ever more ambitious
attempts to compare like with unlike and to marshal1
prioritiesin the social services into neat statisticalbalances.
But the task of selecting and weighting for the calculation
of an umbrella index of the quality of life makes the cal-
culation of GNP seem like schoolboy arithmetic....
Discussing the different definitions of a social indicator,
Professor Claus Moser,Director,Central Statistical Office,
London,wrote recently: ...in some writings,it is held
that socialindicators should necessarily be combinations
of series,i.e. index number in the conventionalsense,
This is an undesirable restriction of the term. Apart from
anything else, the technical objections to such indices - of a theory. The analogy in this respect to the economic
-
most basically the problem of weighting are substantial.
All the inadequaciesof concepts,measurement,inter-
pretation are compounded,and in our approach,work on
index number combinationsis envisaged for later stages....
Thus it would appear that the construction ofthe com-
posite indices,however big the difficultiesmentioned above
and despite the lack of success which has met the many
endeavours,both for developing such indices or for find-
ing a use for them,is stiU envisaged by quite a few organi-
zations or institutesin their programme of work on indica-
tors. It is true that on the whole the construction ofsuch
indiceshas lost much attraction,because ofthe many in-
adequaciesmentioned by Professor Moser. But somehow
we know that work for their constructionwill go on for
quite some time. The aggregation that work involves
hinges heavily on selectionand weighting.
The division into the various fieldsin the Unesco list
ofhuman resources indicators was not only a matter of
classification. There was the intention of aggregatingthe
indices for indicators within each field into a composite
index for that field. The studies on the problem of
weighting had in view,among other aims, the solutionto
such a problem of aggregation.
The aggregation of several componentindicatorsinto
one composite index has as many opposers as supporters.
The former believe that a composite index tells us much
less than the individualindices shown separately and is
thereforeless useful. For those who believe that develop-
ment forms a distinctive pattern with progress along its
various componentsbehaving rather uniformly and con-
tinuously,a profile made up of all the elements separately
is more illuminating. It provides a picture of dispersion
measures in the human resources componentsof develop-
ment,thereby pointing to imbalance and bottlenecks in
the system. On the other hand,if the trajectories of
development are not parallel and substitutability exists
to some extentbetween indicatorsof the same field,
aggregating several componentindicators within that
field would provide a unitary measure which could be of
great value in international comparison.
3. THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL MODELS
The hierarchy of series listed on page 8,which proceeds
in ascending order of relevance to the social indicator
concept,shows the last type of series as comprising
those which fit explicitly into social models. Accord-
ing to a strong body of opinion,these series would better
qualify than others for the term social indicator. Some
of the protagonists in the quarrelover the definition
of a social indicatorwould reserve the term to a series
which satisfies expressly the followingconditions,i.e.
that,to rank as an indicator,it must have a place within
some sociological or social policy model. Economic in-
dicatorsfit into economic models,constructedon the
basis of economic theories. A social indicatorshould
likewise find an interpretation only within the context
indicatorhas to be pursued to a logical conclusion,
which appears to many social scientistsas the ultimate
phase of work in the field of social indicators before
they can become useful tools of planning,namely their
9
integration as parametersin social models or models of
social change,built upon social theory and policy. But
prior to the launching of that phase and implicit in the
preliminary work remaining to be done is the analysis
by social scientists ofall the currently collected com-
ponents of social accmting,the indicators,so as to
bring out their real & cmtextual meaning. There is
the constant shift in interest,and some indicators
either age quickly or else are discovered irrelevantor
useless. Other indicatorsstep to the front of the stage,
propelled by concerns of real urgency,or simply by
fashion. For over a decade now quality of life has.
become a major preoccupation without there emerging
any indicators which purport to measure it however
-
crudely indicatorswhich,it is expected,would dethrone
GNP or rate of economic growth in the public eye. These
economic indicators are still faring well,though ancillary
economic indicatorslike the rate of inflation,loss of pur-
chasing power,unemploymentor inequality of income
distribution,which should be more relevant,seldom enjoy
with development economists the status they should have
in planning. There has been the failure to develop indi-
cators which might be conceived as describing the quality
oflife. Indicatorswill eventually be constructed for the
description of the environment in its physical,social and
cultural aspects and in the interreactionsthereof. There
is still a long way to go for the construction or identifica-
tion of the indicatorsrelating to todays concerns. That
work lags far behind the emergence of these concerns
which have been asserting themselves for more than two
decades. One no longer can invoke fashion to explain
the appearance of these new preoccupations,or con-
jecture that with the passage of time some of them will
fade away. The environment and the quality oflife,
for which interestis relatively new,will assume more
importance within the economy of penury which appears
more likely from now on to govern the existence of man
on space-shipEarth. For those who are responsible for
the badly needed dashboards,the struggle will have to be
carried on at two levels: at the higher one,constructing
the indicatorsto serve as dashboard or danger signals
relative to these concerns,and at a lower one scrutinize,
test,analyse the mass of data which are regularly col-
lected at great cost in a variety of fields,and weed out
those for which no utilization has ever been recorded
and the collectionever been questioned.
An area which has received a great deal of attention
has been the study ofinterrelationshipsbetween socio-
economic factors,reflected by many of the favourite
indicators,and economic growth. The selection of in-
dicatorsis relatively much easier to achieve in this case.
Many indicatorswhich relate to the welfare ofa
10
nation,to the quality oflife are not always correlated
positively with economic growth. As a result,socio-
economicmodels,despite the appellation,will rarely
seek to include these,and will most times lean heavily
towards the purely economic side. Such models,despite
their complexity are still within reach of some of the
more enterprising model builders; the relatively easy
conceptualization of the ingredientindicators,their
ready measurability and availability,coupled with the
mammoth capacity ofsome third generation computers
to extricate relationships,have led to a proliferation of
models,on which often by hindsight theoriesare built.
One can conjecture that with the softer, societalin-
dicatorswhich would go into social models dealing with
real social progress,improvementof the quality of life
and the like,the difficultiesfacing the social model
builder would make the effortsof the econometrician
pale into insignificance. All the interacting,conflicting,
reinforcing,inhibitingvariables changing their directions
as time unfolds would all have to be taken in and would
indeed make macro-economic models look like schoolboy
arithmetic,to use the expression of the article of the
Economist. The difficultiesare such that the number
of those is increasingwho consider the difficultiesas
insuperableand societalmodels as a wild dream!
An important task which remainsbefore the elabora-
tion of such models,if one followed the hierarchy sug-
gested in the listing of types of series on page 8is the
selection of series,within the inductive approach,among
those that are currently collected and are sufficiently
reliable. Such selectionshave been based on common
sense,intuition or on interdisciplinary treatmentand will
vary with the specificpurpose the series are intended to
serve. When it comes to measuring development levels,
both at within-country and internationallevels,there is
the necessity ofreducing the set of development indicators
usually available. Parts I1 and I11 propose methods for
the selectionof key or core indicators of socio-
economic development. The exerciseswhich have been
worked out in the presentation of the methods have more
illustrativethan substantivevalue. They had to rely on
those series which are usually available for a sufficient
number of countries. One should not read too much into
the selection of the original series,which was governed
more by the availability of data than by the conceptual
validity ofthe series themselves.The methods are evidently
applicable to series which may better qualify themselves
as socialindicators. As such they would prove a useful
tool for the study and selection of indicatorswhich as
suggested in Sheldon and Moore stand for a set of cor-
related changes.
 Part I I
A Method for the Selection
of a CompactSet of Variables
by Zdzislaw Hellwig
Graduate School of Economics
Wroclaw, Poland
1. EMPIRICAL MODELS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
It is a known fact that the problem of economic growth
belongs to the most complex,difficult,and thereby con-
troversial part of theoreticaland applied economics. This
problem has attracted a lot of scientific interest and atten-
tion and has been tackled from many view-pointsby many
outstandingeconomistsand mathematicians. The per-
spective has ranged from a historical or descriptive pur-
pose at one end of the spectrum to abstract and sophisti-
cated relationshipsof a causal nature,at the other.
An analysis of the practical function of purely descrip-
tive or even more advanced mathematical models usually
based upon trend extrapolation will show that while they
may be useful for pedagogical reasons they do not help
to solve some basic problems of economic development
which planners have to face in their every-daywork. This
has led some investigatorsto look for alternative approaches
to the important problems of economic development and
growth. One of these approaches has been presented in
the series of studiespublished as working documents under
the Unesco project on human resources indicators.
Implicitin the approach is a concept which will be
roughly sketched as follows:
6) The object ofany scientific study has to be pre-
cisely defined. In cases where political,administra-
tive,geographical or social structuresare being in-
vestigated the most concise and convenientdescrip-
tion is by the way of vectors. The object of study,
a country for example,or any of its administrative
parts,is usually a very complex geo-politicaland
socio-economicobject. Precision and concision which
are both very important here can find expression in
the vector concept.
(ii) If any socio-economicunit is to be presented and
described in vector terms then the most essential
part of the exercise will obviously be the appropriate
selection of the vector components.
(iii) One has to distinguish between the optional list of
11
all variables (the number of which is limited only
by data availability) and the many different subsets
of variables selected the best way so as to throw
light on the many facetsof the object under study.
(iv) Having selected optimal sets of variables one can
then define countries in vector terms. This allows
the division of the whole universe of countries into
a number of sub-groupswhich are more homo-
geneous than the universe itself. This clustering
process is of real importance because it reveals the
main differences and proximities between particu-
lar countries. Statisticalanalysis can now allow a
deeper investigationof the internal nature of the
phenomena concerned (for instance by applying
variance analysis and related techniques).
(v) When countries have been represented by vectors
they can be more easily compared. This may be
effected by defining the distance of one country
from another. This distance can simultaneously
play the r61e of a yardstick of socio-economic
development (by finding how far a country lags
behind the ideal country) and may be looked
upon as a composite index of the overall achieve-
ment of that country in a specific sphere of its
activity. Recent studieshave shown that the use
of certain metrics allows the possibility to go up
and construct more general composite indices,
solving thereby a very important problem of
measure aggregation,or to go down,i.e. split a com-
posite structure into some more simple and elemen-
tary parts (see for example the study by S.Fanchette,
proposing a method for the aggregation and dis-
aggregation of socio-economicmeasures based on
the Euclidean metric).l In this respect,the pos-
sibility of both analysis and synthesishas been
demonstrated.
1. Study XX: Distance-based analysis, numerical taxonomy and
classification of countries according to selected areas of socio-
-
economic development, by Serge Fanchette, Unesco mimeo.
(Ref. SHC/WS/237, M a y 1972).
 Nowadays one cannot speak of the development of
any country by isolating it from its geographical
environment or from the family of countries to
which it is bound by geo-politicalties. One may go
further still and say that its development cannot be
studied in ignoring the rest of the world. Since we
cannot construct a model which will describe and
explain on a world scale all the movements on the
map of development we may accept the following
fundamentalassumption: it can be judged and
measured only by making comparisons. There are
two main dimensions of comparison: time and
space,the latter being understood in a very broad
sense. By comparing countries we may discover the
pattern of a well-balancedstrategy of devel3p-
ment and also point out this country within a
relatively homogeneous group of countries whit 7
could play for the others the r61e of an empirickLLy
verified model of development. One could study
with the utmost attention the conscious or uncon-
scious development patterns adopted by the leading
country. The implication is that instead of trying
to construct some more or less primitive (or sophi-
sticated as one may in fact judge) models of de-
velopment,it would be easier,cheaper,safer and
better to have a real,living model. The problem is
only how to detect this model in the number of
families of homogeneous countries.
Having outlined,and commented upon, this concept,
let us consider the methodological aspects and working
procedure in building such empirical models. In this
procedure the selection of variables will play a very
crucial r6le.
In some modern fields of experimentation,e.g.in
biology, medicine, agriculture etc., it is beyond our
reach to develop a very strong and reliable basis for des-
cribing and explaining interrelationshipsbetween all the
phenomena involved. There are two main reasons for
this:
(a) The whole set of phenomena is, at least in theory,
unlimited;
@) There is the strong influence of some random fac-
tors which distorts a pure functional relation-
ship between identifiable and measurable variables
which are known to be involved.
To meet this methodological challenge in some applied
sciences (sociology and economics offer good illustrations)
a great deal of scientific effort has been recently under-
taken,aimed at the elaboration of a statistical procedure
which leads to the construction of more or less sophisti-
cated models which could simulate with some degree of
accuracy the behavioural pattern and performance of
the object under investigation.
Such a procedure may consist of the following
stages:
1. An introductory penetration of the field of interest.
2. Elaboration of definitions of some basic phenomena,
facts,variables and categories.
12
3. Development of some intuitive approach toward the
problem, formulation of working hypotheses which
could provide us with some plausible explanation of
the internal structure of the whole system of inter-
related phenomena.
4. Designing of statistical experiments.
5. Data collection.
6. Data testing.
7. Introductory statistical data analysis.
8. Setting up correlation tables.
9. Clustering statistical units (which are formally under-
stood as vectors in an N-dimensionalmace).I ,
10. Clustering statisticalvariables which are also inter-
preted as vectors in an N-dimensionalspace.
11. Selection of the most representative variables.
12. Aggregation and construction of some composite
indices.
13. Final statistical analysis and building empirical
models.
14. Estimation of parameters.
15. Final tests of coherence between the theoretical
description of the phenomena involved and their
true description.
In the research project on human resources indicators
being carried out by the Unesco Department of Social
Sciences,steps 1-9and also 12 have already been dealt
with to a greater or lesser extent. In this paper we will
concentrate on stages 10 and 1 1.
2. S O M E SELECTION CRITERIA
There are many methods available which could be applied
for the selection of such a set of variables. One can divide
the whole range of these methods into two groups accord-
ing to the character of the criteria chosen for effecting
this selection. If we decide on intuition or on commonly-
held views that one of the variables belonging to the
complete set of candidate variables should serve as such
a criterion then we refer to an endogenous criterion.
This is the case for instance when we choose per capita
GNP as the most valuable indicator of economic perform-
ance and use this variable as a yardstick for measuring
the relevance of components of a system,of which it is
a part,which cuts across economic and social fields,a
system of which economic performance measured in the
value of goods and services produced is one of the
characteristics.
Sometimes having decided on the components of a
system reflected by the number of variables chosen,one
may turn to an external variable to serve as the yard-
stick to assess the relevance of each of the candidate
variables we have defined as likely to be part of the set
we should select for describing the system. In this case
we speak of an exogenous criterion. For example a
composite index of socioeconomic development identi-
fied with the distance from the ideal country of
Wroclaw Taxonomy 1 may serve as such a criterion.
1. The ideal country concept is expounded in Study 111, by
Z.Hellwig.
This involves a certain amount of circularity,since the
taxonomic distance is made up of distances on dimensions
represented by all the candidate variables. A better ex-
ample may be chosen from principal componentsanalysis
where the criterion of selecting the most representative
variables is the degree of explained total variance.
If we opt for an endogenous criterionwe may apply
a method developed in some earlier studies carried out
under the Uneco project and which relates to the con-
cept of maximum information capacityof a predict0r.l
Alternatively one may as well ayply a better-known
method: that of examining the statistical significance
of regression function parameters in a multidimensional
case. For the application of this method which falls
within a closely-relatedfamily of multiple regression
analytical methods,the use of the very handy and effec-
tive stepwise regression and checking procedure is
strongly advocated. In any reasonablewell-equipped
computational centre there are ready-madeprogrammes
available for these operations. It should however be
remembered that when choosing this method the check-
ing of some assuptions should be carried out beforehand.
These assumptions are implied in the method with re-
gard to the multidimensional random variable distribu-
tion. This checking is usually a rather dull exercise.
3.CHARACTER (OR TYPE) OF VARIABLES
There are two other points which should be emphasized
when analysing the different methods for selecting from
the total set of candidate variables the best combination
of these. The first point is mainly theoretical and relates
to the nature of the variables. All social indicators can be
looked upon as continuous variables. This statement has
far-reachingmethodological consequences. It means
among other things that we are justified to apply such
basic statistical parameters as the mean value,the standard
deviation or the coefficient of correlation. It also means
that if we do not involve discrete or categorial variables,
then for clustering countriesand variables we can use
either the Wroclaw taxonomic method or the principal
componentsmethod to mention but two of them. The
use of the majority of socio-economicvariables selected
for analysing the statistical aspects of socio-economicde-
velopment rests upon the assumption of their continuous
character. However,the range of variables normally appli-
cable to the description of countries may include those we
might describe as discrete or categorial. Some of these
variables may be,for instance,as following: the number
of ethnic groups living in a country with a plural society,
or the number of languagesor dialects spoken in that
country. We have here examples of a discrete variable.
The variables may also be categorialones,e.g.when they
can assume the form of a question like Does the country
belong to the UN?, which is illustrative of a categorial
variable capable of having only the two dichotomized
values yes or no. GNP,life expectancy.birth and
death rates which are among the favourite variables
13
selected for describing socio-economicdevelopment are
the continuous variables most closely associated with the
categorialvariable whether the country falls within the
denomination L.D.C.or M.D.C.It is very difficult to deal
adequately with a mixed bag ofcontinuous,discrete and
categorialvariables simultaneously.Most times the distinc-
tion between those types is clear-cut.Sometimesthe line
of division is blurred,just as a continuousstream may have
successive cascadingjumps. Another example is the con-
tinuous flow of cars in a city and the interruptionsof that
flow by traffic lights,converting it from a continuousto
a quantum form. Luckily the problem of classificationis
not intractable enough to suggest the analogy with the
contemporaiieous wave theory and corpuscular theory of
light which testified differently to its continuousor tQ its
discrete nature. Neither will it be necessary to carry the
analogy further still with the electron,which partakes of
both natures.
When our list contains all the types then one has either
to convert by appropriate scaling continuousvariables
into discrete variables,or vice-versa.
In tilt: first case we would have to stop speaking ofthe
variables and of their numerical values. We would have to
translate them into adequate probabilities. It means,for
instance,that the expected value E (X)would have to be
replaced by np, the standard deviation S (X)by (np (1 -p))
the correlation coefficient r (X,Y)by the coefficient of
stochasticaldependence:
d2 =
1-xyf(Pij-Pi x P.)J
1
1- .
min (s,t)
(where p-.= probabilitiescorresponding to
?1
(Y,5); p- p.-
1 J
marginal probability distributions;s,t - number of rows
and columnsrespectively in the probability contingency
table). It means also that instead of applying a conceptu-
ally and numerically easy taxonomic method or the less
easy but well-knownprincipal componentsmethod,we
would have,for clustering and selecting the most appro-
priate variables,to devise some special methods to deal
with discrete variables and categories. One of these
methods is the Analyse des correspondanceswhich can
be regarded as an adaptation of the classical principal
componentsmethod to cover a discrete case.
If instead of converting continuous variables into dis-
crete ones we operated in the opposite direction,we
could expect at least two advantages:
(a) Since the number of discrete variables and categories
in the list of socio-economicindicators should be by
far smaller than the number of continuous variables,
the amount of computational effort to convert dis-
crete and categorialvariables into the continuoustype
1. Studies VI and XVI: O n the optimal choice of predictors;
approximative methods of selection of an optimal set of
predictors,by Z.Hellwig. (Studies and working papers pre-
pared within the Unesco Social Science project on h u m a n
resources indicators).
 would be much smaller than if we proceeded the other
way round.
The continuous case is much simpler from the con-
ceptual,and much better known,from the theoreti-
cal,point of view. It means that in this case we are
not only better equipped with powerful tools of
statistical analysis but we have also many ready-made
programmes if we choose to use a computer.
There are different methods of converting discrete and
categorial variables into continuousones. For discrete
variables one of the usual techniquesis linear interpolation.
Recently a new technique has been successfully applied,
the so-calledlinear randomizationprocedure. To convert
categorial variables into continuousones the best-known
and widely recommendedmethod is the so-calleddummy
variables procedure.
4.THE PROBLEM OF WEIGHTS
The modern techniqueof describing some objects of
scientificinvestigation by means of vectors in an
N-dimensionalspace immediately brings up the question
of the relative importance of particular vector components.
Experience or intuition,even in the absence of knowledge
of a particular field,would suggest that the relative im-
portance of particular variables,whether descriptive or
explanatory,cannot be uniform. Data in raw form would
at the very start cloud any quick evidence of that relative
importance. The common practice before examining by
the usual tools of statisticalanalysis the relative import-
ance of these variables is to standardize the latter. The
standardizing procedures are conventional. These do not
constitute a difficult task. They however cover a wide
range of practices. The common standardizing practice
of replacing xi by (xi-%)/ s, where 5 is the standard
deviation,introducesalso the element of weighting.
While eliminating the problem of units,it also favours the
variable with a smaller standard deviation. This first bias
left aside,there comes the real problem of ascribing
weights to the variables. This cannot be satisfactorily
solved unless there is agreement upon the most appro-
priate criterion for evaluating the relative importance of
particular variables. This brings us to the examination of
the different criteria one may consider for differentiating
between the variables and for situating them on the various
steps of a hierarchical ladder. As however we need the
same criteria to select the most meaningful variables and
point out the most important among the selected ones,
we may conclude that the problem of selecting the vari-
ables and that of assessing their relative importance by
means of a given system of weights are mutually equivalent
and show the two different sides of the same coin i.e. that
before one starts speakingabout weighting variables one
has to determine the most adequate criterion for compar-
ing and selecting these variables.
There is also another important fact about weighting
which is worth remembering.Weights are non-negative
numbers: pl,p2 ...pn such that >: p. = 1. If _n is a
J
j=1
14
large number it follows that unity is partitioned into many
sub-intervalsthe mean length of which should tend to-
wards zero. Hence if we agree to accept a given number
po with 0<po<l as a threshold value and retain all those
5
variables correspondingto weightsp. arranged in a
J
decreasing order which fulfil the condition:
E p j 2 1 - p ~ ;no\< n
and if we take into account on the one hand that po is an
arbitrary value which can vary within a pretty wide inter-
val and on the other hand that we can never measure the
relative importance of variables with a high degree of
accuracy,then we should adopt a practical rule that all
retained variables are of the same high relative importance
and should be given the same weights,say p,whereas all
rejected variables being of minor importance have their
weights,say q ,although equal as well but smaller than
weights p ascribed to the retained variables (see fig. 1).
Hence the problem of selecting the most appropriate
variables boils down to the equivalent problem of weight-
ing which in turn consists in finding such a number
no = f(p,) that no)p 1 - p, ,where of course
no p + (n-no) q = 1
since
p = n1, pj and q = - 1 1 Pj
n-no j>no
jSn0
We have attempted to show that the problem of measuring
the relative importance of variables (or components of
vectors by means of which we define the object of our in-
vestigation) is equivalent to the weighting problem and this
can always be expressed in terms of reducing the initial
tentative list of variables to a much smaller size.
This reduced set of variables should contain only the
most important or the most representative ones among
the original set. The problem of finding this reduced or
compact set of variables is at the very heart of cross-
sectionalanalysis and constitutes a primordial element in
the whole theory of internationalcomparison in the socio-
economic field.
1 2 3...n0.........j ............ n-1 n
Whether the objective be theory-buildingaround causal
hypotheses or,more soberly,the testing of empirical
models,the selection of a smallnumber of relevant
variables from the forest of those for which data are col-
lected has paramount importance. Both thiorie and
empirie are required; the latter is usually within better
reach of analysts. The reason is that work usually starts
with data that are available. Other variables might be
more relevant which are unfortunately not collected.The
testing oftheoretical or hypothetical constructs would
require that data be collected on variables which are
absent from international compendia,national reportsor
administrative files. The problem of selection on the
contrary implies a reduction of the number of variables
forwhich data are collected internationallyaiid are there-
fore available. This type of analysis therefore suits
empirical investigations better. Put differently empirical
studies would come earlier in the day than theory building
and testing. The importance of selecting a set of core
variables to describe or predict some phenomenon,like
for example,socio-economicdevelopment is for the reasons
given above very important. No wonder therefore that so
much attention has already been given to the problem and
so much effort has gone into the search for satisfactory
solutions. Earlier studies carried out within the Unesco
project , research studies carried out by various institutes
and agencies2havedealt with the methodology of indica-
tor selection and weighting. They have shown most of
them varying degrees of sophistication. If+ it is suggested
above,selectionand weighting are looked at as being in-
timately connected,we could propose a rather simplified
approach to the whole problem.
This is of course a conclusion the importance of which
should not be underestimated. After all the most sophi-
sticated contemporary statistical methods such as Fishers
test of overall significance of regression parameters, step-
wise regression,principal components method,factor
analysis,the method of maximum capacity of informa-
tion,la mkthode danalysedes correspondancesare all
dealing with the same bunch of questions: how to deter-
mine a compact set of variables,how to split the set of
variables into some more homogeneous groups and how to
find the best representativesfor particular groups.
In the next paragraph a very simple and convenient
method will be presented which could supply some
answers to these questions. The method is graph-based
and does not therefore require going through complex
computationalprocesses which are unavoidable when
utilizing other techniquese.g. the principal components
method.
5. VARIABLES CLUSTERING BY MEANS
OF THE TAXONOMIC METHOD
To make the method more easily understandable we shall
in the course of its presentation illustrateit with numeri-
cal examples.
(i) The algorithm starts with a correlationmatrix
R (n x n) where n stands forthe number of vari-
ables (see Table 13).
(ii) In the second step the following transformationis
i~ I 1
effected d.. = 1- r
ij
by means of which the matrix R is mapped into a
new matrix D (see Table 2). This matrix is also of
(n x n )type,symetricaland with elements d-
1J
5
where i,j = 1,2,...and d.. 0)
1J
>
Now the smallest element has to be found in each
row of the matrix D. If we denote these elements
by dithen di = m i n d..
4
j
After having found diin the ith row,one finds the
number of the column which forms with the given
row a cross-cellcontaining the value di. In this way
one gets n pairs of indices:
(l,Jl), (2,J2),......(njjn)
Let us now define a few terms. The terminology
will be very simple. Each of our pairs of indices
will be called a link whereas i and jiin (i, ji) are
nodes. The first node is the begirinirzg of the link
which ends with the second node. The links may
therefore be called oriented links. When we draw
a graph all nodes will be represented by points and
all links by arrows. The number of arrows pointing
at a given node will be called the power of that node
The node with the highest power is next found. If
there are more than one with the highest power the
choice will fall on the one to which corresponds the
smallest value of - n
d.=l C d..
i n j - 1 1J
Now all nodes which are beginnings of links point-
ing towards the node of the highest power are to be
linked with this node. All nodes attached to the
node of the highest power can be now looked upon
as the ends of some other nodes which are in to be
linked with all these ends. By continuing this pro-
cess ofjoining together all the nodes related to the
node of the highest power,one obtains a certain
family of nodes which can be referred to as the
first concentrationof nodes,or as the first
cluster of points.
Next,one finds all the clusters which correspond to
the nodes with powers below the highest one,in a
decreasing order of magnitude.
The node with the highest power in a cluster is
termed the centre of the cluster. If in a cluster
nodes of the highest order number more than one,
we select the one to which corresponds the highest
value of d.. The centre of a cluster can be looked
J
upon as the representative of variables belonging to
this cluster. The set of representativesof all clusters
will be referred to as a set of core variables.
The range of variation of the parameters dishould
now be divided into three parts:
1. Studies VI,VII,IX (Unesco mimeographed working documents).
2. A valuable example of selecting key indicators from a wide
range of thesc is given in a research report of the United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development: Report No. 70.10
Geneva 1970: Contents and measurement of socio-economic
development: A n empirical enquiry.
3. N.V. Sovani, A.M. Subramanian: A n Index of Socio-Economic
Development of Nations, UNRISD, 1969.

where -
d--
1
n
i= 1
di ; Sd [5
= -
i=l
(di-d)*
I
All nodes which are beginnings of some links the length
d. of which belongs to the first interval can be removed
3 refers to the problems of selection and weighting as close
from the graph and the correspondingvariables may be
called redundant. Nodes which are beginnings of some
other links the length diof which falls in the third inter-
val can also be eliminated and the respective variables
may be referred to as irrelevant. All remaining variables
would form the compact set. All the steps which lead
to the obtention of particular clusters,the core variables
as well as the compact set of variables are summarized
and illustrated in the diagrams which follow.
The procedure which has been described is simple and
liable to easy interpretation. It is equally applicable to
variables which are continuous,discrete or categorial.If
however one is put off by,or is suspiciousof,its great
simplicity,there are more sophisticatedmethods avail-
able,like for example,the principal componentsmethod,
which will provide good solutionsto the problem as it
has been posed above,but at much greater cost.
16
6. CONCLUSION
The selectionmethod which has been proposed,while
being a variation on the intercorrelationtheme,has the
virtue of simplicity and provides a clear picture,through
the taxonomic graph,of the relationshipsand distances
between the variables. Furthermore a novel idea has
found expression in the elaboration of the method: it
correlates requiring a unique solution.
The clusteringtechniquewhichhas been described here
hasidentified clustersofvariables and clustercentres. Each
centre could be made representative of the whole group.
Expanding the number of the more representativevariables
would mean a movement in concentric circles from the
centre towards the periphery so as to include the number
of variables which would be retained for any specific
purpose. The two exercises which have been carried out
have led to taxonomic graphswhich are reproduced on
the following pages. It may be that in each case the
original number of variables has been somewhattoo
limited to derive many useful conclusionsfrom the
clustering. Most of the groupingsappear to be consistent
with what is already known or suspected of the relative
movement of variables as development proceeds.
 z
m
N
N
N
3
N
0
N
2
00
3
o 2
s5
W
3
w In
2i
n
3
0
W b,
m m d 0 0 d m W 3 N
3
';? 9 \9 Y T ? b S T 3
2
3
3
2
m
00
l-
Q
m
Tt
m
N
3 3
17
 a
n
c
--
3
I1
.I
:3
a
II
5-
W
43
0
0
18
w
I
n
-s
&I
e,
+J
U
\
k
 0
(1
20
 Part 1 1 1
A Method of Establishing a List of
Development I ndicators
by Branislav lvanovic
Statistics Division
United Nations Conference o n Trade and Development
I. INTRODUCTION
The choice of social and economic development indicators
is certainly one of the most important problems in the
project for development evaluation and forecasting during
the Second Development Decade: the more complete the
information about national development levels contained
in the indicators selected,the better the results.
There are a certain number of indicatorswhich we al-
ways think of as providing the most reliable information
about national social and economic development and
which are the most frequently used in evaluating a countrys
development level,for example,the per capita GDP,the
number of illiterates,the percentage of the population
not employed in agriculture or the share of the GDP
accounted for by industrialproducts.
However,the lists of development indicators used in
various national or internationalresearch institutions
are not always identical,and there is constant controversy
about the value and importance of one or other of these
well-establishedindicators. In actual fact,it may be
wondered whether there are any objective reasons why
they should all be considered as social and economic de-
velopment indicators and whether others,so far over-
looked or neglected,might not be more suitable than
certain ofthe ones traditionally used.
We have thus endeavoured to find new development
indicators,and in so doing we have defined and examined
the indicatorof concentration of births in relation to the
age of the mother.I This indicator provides informa-
tion about the family situation in a given country and is
obviously also an important development indicator.First
of all,a high degree of concentrationof births in relation
to the mothersage in a particular country signifiesthat
the number of children per family is limited,which en-
sures a higher standard ofliving in that country. Next,
if the area of concentrationis situated between the
mothers ages of twenty and thirty,this means that the
parents are of an age which makes it possible for the
children to have a good family education,prolonged
economic protection,favourable physical development
21
and a more complete school education. Lastly,where
there is a high degree of concentration,one rarely en-
countersunfavourable cases such as those ofmothers who
are too young or too old,children born of a second mar-
riage,etc. In short,the more concentrated the births are
in relation to the age of the mother,the more ordered is
the family life and the more effective the familysactivity
from the social and economic points of view.
Quantitative analysis shows that this indicatorgives
more information about a countryslevel of development
than certain traditional indicators such as per capita ex-
ports of manufactured goods,average expectation of life,
number of literates,the contribution ofthe manufacturing
industries to the GDP,the number of school enrolments,
etc.
The conclusion could be that to arrive at an exhaustive
list of development indicators,those which have previously
been neglected or overlooked should be added to those
appearing in all the lists used hitherto.
This would make a very long list,which we shall call
the maximum list ofsocial and economic development
indicators. The statistics established for these indicators
would give a very complete picture of all aspects of de-
velopment in the countries concerned.
However,if we examine all the statistical publications
of the United Nations StatisticalOffice,regional economic
commissions,and various Specialized Agencies of the
United Nations,as well as national publications and other
official or semi-officialdocuments,we see that the choice
of development indicatorsis greatly limited by the absence
of statistical data about many developing countries.
1. In a country j, the measurement of this indicator is given by
where n represents the number of age groups, x.. the number
U
of births in which the mothers age is in the i-th group, and
X.the total number of births in the country j during the year
J
in question.
 The absence or poor quality of statistical data hinders
the introduction of a large number of development in-
dicators such as those providing information about pro-
ductivity in industry or agriculture,standard of living,
infrastructure,industrial and educational cadres etc.
The introduction of even a single indicator into a
countrys statistical system frequently involves setting
up a new department with suitably qualified staff and
adequate equipment for the compilation,processing and
publication of the data. These data should be of a high
quality and comparable with data from other countries.
The introduction of new items into our list of develop-
ment indicators consequently requires time,new institu-
tions and great financial efforts. It goes without saying
that this problem is even more serious in developing
countries.
If we are to keep track of the development of coun-
tries during the Second Decade with anything like suf-
ficient accuracy to reach our objectives,some new items
ought unquestionably to be included in the list of develop-
ment indicators. The question is, however,which should
be chosen from the many already suggested.
The first problem to be solved in carrying out the pro-
ject for the evaluation and forecasting of development
during the Second Decade will thus be to establish,on a
scientific basis, an optimum list of a limited number of
development indicators.
2. CRITERION FOR SELECTING SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS
Various statistical indicatorsmay be used to estimate and
keep track of the social and economic development of a
country. Each of these indicators provides information
about one aspect of the level of development,and informa-
tion about this aspect is not,generally speaking,identical
with other information.The indicator percentage of the
population not employed in agriculture,for example,
gives us information about a countryslevel of develop-
ment which is not identical with the information given by
the indicator per capita energy consumption. A choice
must thus be made and a whole set of indicatorshas to be
prepared in order to give a more complete idea of the level
of development of the countries concerned.
First conclusion: Increasing the number of indicators
also increases the total amount of information about the
countrys level of development.
The various development indicators do not contain the
same volume of information about the development level
of a country,i.e.they are not all of equal importance in
relation to development. The per capita GDP indicator
thus provides more information about the social and
economic development level of a country than,for example,
the average life expectancy indicator. If the quantity of
information contained in development indicators is
measurable,it should be possible to classify them in order
of importance.
Second conclusion: Sets of indicators of the same size
(same number of indicators)do not, in general,contain
22
the same quantity of information about the countrysde-
velopment level.
Generally speaking,development indicatorsare not in-
dependent of each other, so that information provided by
one indicator is partially contained in the information al-
ready provided by others. Taking the whole set of indi-
cators selected, therefore,it could be that certain quanti-
ties of information are repeated two or more times. It is
obvious that these duplicated items would have to be sub-
tracted from the total volume of information so as to
leave only the basic information contained in this set of
indicators.
Third conclusion: The total amount of information
(withoutduplication)given by a set of indicators is
generally less than the sum of the quantities of informa-
tion contained individually in each indicator of that set.
Let us take the example of two completely inter-
dependent indicators. If we arrange the countries in
question according to the values corresponding to either
indicator,we shall obtain two identical lists. This means
that both indicators contain the same information about
the countriesdevelopment level and that consequently
only one of the indicators need be considered,the other
being superfluous.
Fourth conclusion: Despite the fact that two given
indicators may be very important from the point of
view of the information they provide, separately,about
a country 3 development level, the contribution of one
of them is insignificantif there is a high degree of cor-
relation between the two.
Fifth conclusion: Indicators producing information
which is completely contained in the overall information
provided by the indicators already taken into account
should be discarded.
It follows that a relatively small number of carefully
chosen indicators could contain a greater sum total of
information than a large number of badly chosen
indicators.
Consequently,to obtain as complete an idea as possible
of the development level of the countries under observa-
tion,it is not enough to increase the number of indicators.
To increase the total amount of information,the import-
ance of each indicator,expressed in the form of a quantity
of information,and duplications of information,expressed
in the form of interdependence between indicators,must
be taken into account.
The optimum selection of a limited number of develop-
ment indicators should give a maximum total amount of
information (without duplication), whilst the sum total of
duplications should be reduced to a minimum.
The more information an indicator provides which is
not already contained in the sum of the information pro-
vided by more important indicators,the greater that in-
dicators contribution to the evaluation of the countrys
development level will be. Nevertheless,even an indicator
which makes quite a considerable contribution will not be
very useful if its value is almost constant in all the coun-
tries observed. The indicator percentage of illiterates
over ten years of age in the population, for example,is
of no significance in the rich countries where it has be-
come stabilized at between l and 3 per cent. On the
other hand,in the poor countries this value varies between
5 and 99 per cent,so that this same indicator provides a
high degree of discriminationin the evaluation of the
development level ofdeveloping countries. The opposite
would be true if we took contribution ofindustrial pro-
duction to the GDPas the development indicator.
Sixth conclusion: A good development indicator should
be discriminatory in all the countries under observation.
W e may therefore complete the criterion for selecting
a development indicator for a given set ofcountriesas
follows:
The greater UFIindicatorsdiscriminatory capacity in
all the countries observed and the greater the quantity of
information it provis7swhich is not contained in the sum
of the informatioil giwii by more important indicators al-
ready taken into condcration, the greater its contribu-
tion to an evaluation of the countries development level.
3. OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE DEGREE
OF IMPORTANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT
INDICATOR
The degree of importance or significance of a development
indicator may be thought of as the quantity of informa-
tion about a countrysdevelopment level it contains.
This quantity of information cannot,of course,be ex-
pressed in absolute terms. What we are able to determine
is more a relative quantity,dependent on which countries
are being observed and which indicatorsare selected.
Ifa given indicator is completely dependent on the
development level of a country,we shallhave the same
classificationofcountries if we list them according to
their value in terms of this indicator,or according to their
development level. In this case,we may say that all the
informationabout the development level of countries is
contained in this single indicator,since one only has to
list these countries by their values according to this in-
dicator to obtain at the same time the list by levels of
development.
If dependence is partial,the information contained in
the given indicatoris only part of the total information
about the development level of the countries.
Consequently,we may say that the degree of import-
ance of a development indicator corresponds to the
degree of dependence between that indicator and the
development level.
Ifwe take the I-distanceD1 as the relative measure
of a countryslevel of development and ifwe express
the degree of dependence between indicator Xiand the
development level by the simple correlationcoefficient
ri,the value ri will express the degree of importance of
Xi.
Listing the given indicatorsaccording to the order of
magnitude of their coefficients of normal correlation
with the I-distance,we obtain the classificationof de-
velopment indicatorsin order of importance.
23
Developmentindicators could thus be classified ob-
jectively according to the correlation between the various
indicatorsactually used and the overall index containing
the maximum amount of information. We cannot cal-
culate the correlation coefficients directly,however,
since before we can do so we need the series of I-distances,
to calculate which we need the indicator classification
which we are in the process of establishing.
As we are thus in a vicious circle,we have to see
whether it is at least possible to resolve the problem of
classifying development indicators by an approximate
method.
It should be observed,first of all,that there are two
possible extreme cases of our problem. In the first,all
indicatorsare independentand the problem of the same
quantitiesof informationbeing duplicated no longer
occurs. In the second case,all the indicators selected
are completely dependent on one of them,i.e. the quanti-
ties of informationof all the indicatorsare contained in
the information of the dominant indicator. In both
cases,it is possible to establish the series of I-distances
without any difficulty and subsequently to order the
indicators by their degree of importance.
In practice,however,one is usually in a position mid-
way between these two extremes. One may say,never-
theless,that one is always either in a position in which
one indicator contains most of the sum total of informa-
tion about the countriesdevelopment level,or in a posi-
tion in which it is impossible to say that one indicatoris
obviously dominant in relation to the rest.
The first position is closer to the extreme case of the
total dependence of all indicators on one dominant in-
dicator than to the extreme case of the total independence
of all indicators. This is why,as a first approximation,
we shall take the dominant indicator as containing the
sum total of all the informationin all the indicators be-
ing studied. In other words,we shall assume for the
time being that the development level correspondsto the
value of the dominant indicator for the country in
question.
Ifwe calculate the correlation matrix and list the given
indicatorsin accordance with the order of magnitude of
their coefficients of correlationwith the dominant indica-
tor,we shall obtain a provisional list of development in-
dicatorsby degree of importance. This we shall call the
first-stageclassification.
Using for the time being,the indicators arranged in
this order,we are able to calculate the I-distancevalues
for all the countries under consideration. As this
I-distancebased on all the indicators under consideration
contains more informationabout the development level
of the countries than the dominant indicator,we shall,
in the second stage,determine the order of the indicators
according to the magnitude of their coefficients of cor-
relation with the Idistance of the first stage. This will
be the second-stageclassification.
1.See Research Memorandum No. 41 of5 November 1970
(UNCTAD).
 If we calculate the series of I-distancesaccording to 7 Concentration of births in relation 0.77
the second-stageclassification and if we calculate the to the age of the mother
coefficients of correlation between the indicators under 8 Exports of manufactured goods per 0.76
consideration and the I-distancethus obtained,we arrive head of population
at the third-stageclassification of indicators. 9 Average expectation of life 0.71
This iterative process is continued until such time as 10 Literacy rate 0.69
the classification of indicatorsis identical with that of the 11 Share of manufacturingindustries 0.66
previous stage. The classificationis then definitive since in the GDP
it remainsinvariable in all succeeding stages. 12 Rate of school enrolments 0.64
In the second case (without a dominant indicator) one
is closer to the extreme case of the complete independence
of all the indicators than to the extreme case of the com- 4.QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE
plete dependence of all the indicatorson the dominant CONTRIBUTION OF AN INDICATOR TO THE
one. We thus assume,as a first approximation,that all EVALUATION O F A COUNTRYS
the indicators are independent and that there is conse- DEVELOPMENT LEVEL
quently no duplication of information.
The I-distanceis reduced in this case to FrBchets 4.1 Statistical parameters
distance F,the calculation of which requires no order
of indicators since they enter into the F formula on an {
Let X = X1, ..., %} represent the set of n indicators
equal footing. being considered for possible use in evaluating the devel-
If we calculate the values of the F distance for all opment level of all the countries under observation,
countries under consideration and if we subsequently
determine the Coefficients of correlation between the in-
{
represented by P = P1,...,Pm 1 *

Assuming that statistics are available for each indicator

dicators observed and the F distance,this gives us the of X and for each country of P,if the value of the indica-
first-stage classification of development indicators by
their degree of importance.
3
tor for country P.is expressed by the formula x..
J 4
The same iterative method as in the first case is sub- these statistics may be presented in the form of the matrix
sequently used to arrive at the definitive list of indicators. M = [x.. 1,i = 1, ...,n,j = 1, ...,m.
4
It should be noted that the selection of social and Calculation of the statistical parameters of the indica-
economic development indicators is an instance of the tors X, requires the values x.. to be weighted. Designating
1J
first case,since the indicator per capita GDP is quite the matrix of the weighting coefficientsby the formula
clearly dominant. N =[ n.. 1,the arithmetic mean will be defined by the
If the development indicators observed {Xl,X2,..., 4
are arranged according to the definitive classification and
if the I-distanceD for each country is calculated accord-
formula: - -2
xi =
1 m
nij xij , i = 1 ,....,n
ing to this classification,the quantitative measurement of C nij j=1
j
the importance of the indicator will be expressed by
the formula: Ii = r(%; D). and the standard deviations by:
Their order of magnitude corresponds to the definitive
classification,namely:
r(X1;D)2 r(X2; D)>, ... >/ 4%; D).
Taking the developing countries and restricting the Using the covariance wicof the indicators and Xc,
development indicators to 12, the order of importance of it is possible to calculate normal correlation coefficients:
these indicators in 1968 was as follows:
Degree of Wic .
Order Indicator ric = - i,c=l, ...,n ,
importance ai ac
1 Per capita GDP 0.97 partial correlation coefficients:
2
3
Per capita energy consumption
GDP of the population employed
0.95
0.81
-
ric ris rcs
in agriculture
4 Number of doctors per 100,000 0.81
ric--= i
inhabitants fori<c, i, c = l , ...,nands#i,c,
5 Number of newspapers printed per 0.80 and multiple correlation coefficients:
1,000inhabitants
6 Percentage of the population not 0.79
employed in agriculture

24
where R representsthe determinant of the correlation k i- 1
matrix and RI the minor of R corresponding to the
element r 1. (4.3.1) C (1,2,...,k) = 1 CDi (P)
i =I
n
j =1
(1-rji.12...j-1)

4.2 The discriminatory capacity where CDi(P)representsthe coefficientof discrimination

of an indicator
As a measurement of the discriminatory capacity of
the indicatorX,in the countries P as a whole,we suggest
the coefficient of discrimination which can be expressed
algebraically in the following form:
or
It should be noted that this coefficientdoes not have
the same significance as the coefficient of variation which
measures the relative mean dispersion of Xiin P.
Thus in our example,which illustratesthree distribu-
tions in which the discriminatory capacity obviously
varies (with respective coefficients of discrimination of
3.22,3.00and 2.67), the dispersion is practically con-
stant (2.88,2.86 and 2.83).
A . A
WWW
..
of indicator Xiin all the countries P and rjie12 ...j-l the
coefficientof partial correlation between indicatorsXi
and X,.
This formula is increasingand homogeneousin relation
to the discriminatory capacities of the indicatorsselected.
Each capacity is weighted so that the higher the indicator's
rank and the smaller the partial correlationsbetween it
and the indicators preceding it, the greater the importance
of its contribution in the sum total of information.
If all indicatorsare mutually independent,the total
amount of information becomes the sum of the dis-
criminatory capacities of all the indicators selected,namely:
k
(4.3.2) C (1,2,...,k)= C CDi (P) ,
i=l
and if a functional-lineardependence exists between them,
the total amount of information is reduced to the dis-
criminatory capacity of the first indicator,namely to:
(4.3.3) C (1J ...,k= ) CD1 (P).
If the set of indicators selected can be divided into two
mutually independent groups,the total amount of informa-
tion will be the sum of the total information correspond-
X1* ing to the two groups.
It should be emphasized again that in accordance with
x2
the analytical formula for the total amount of informa-
tion (4.3.1), the discriminatory capacities of all the in-
~

.e
dicatorsrepresent additive quantitiesand that the quantity
of information from indicator Xialready contained in the
..
e. x3

information from the indicators preceding it in order of

importance may be subtracted by using the weighting
I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I X * factor
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

4.3 Total information of a group

ofdevelopment indicators
To determine the total quantity of information con-
tained in the set of k indicators selected XI, x2,...xk,
we must follow the criterion concerning the choice of
development indicators formulated in section 2,accord-
ing to which we must take into account each indicator's
degree of importance,the duplicationsof information
contained in the various indicators,and each indicator's
discriminatory capacity.
Given that the indicators XI,X2,...xk are already
arranged in order of their importance,the overall con-
tribution of this set of indicators to the evaluation of the
development level of the countries under observation
is expressed by the formula:
4.4 Optimum list of a limited number
of development indicators
The fundamental question involved in the choice of a
list of development indicatorsis: if we have a maximum
list of n indicators,how can it be reduced to a list of k
<
indicators (k n) such that this set of k indicatorsshall
contain a total quantity of informationabout the develop-
ment level of the countries under observation greater
than any other set of k indicators selected from the n in-
dicatorsof the maximum list?
Let us assume that the indicators{XI, X2,...,Xn}
are already arranged according to the definitive classifica-
tion

25
and that
is an ordered sub-setof k indicatorsin which
The total contribution of this set of indicators to the
evaluation of the development level of the countries is,
according to formula (4.3.1), as follows:
The optimum list of k indicators will thus consist of
the group 1 x,, xp,...x k 1
which maximizes formula (4.4.1). In other words,the
optimum list will consist of the indicators Xa,Xp , ...x k ,
if I forik+1 E
It will not be easy to determine this optimum list,
even using a computer,if the maximum list contains a
large number of indicators.
In practice,however,high-levelauthorities such as the
United Nations General Assembly,UNCTAD's Trade and
Development Board,ECOSOC,etc., which decide on and
adopt a definitive list of development indicators,could
insist on a certain number of indicatorsbeing included
in advance and leave it to the experts to add others to
make up an optimum list. This list would perhaps no
longer be the best possible,but from the technical point
of view it would be much easier to carry out calculations.
Let X1,X2, ...,Xp be the p indicators decided in ad-
vance and let X. ,...,X, be the (k-p)indica-
'p+175p+2 k cators is defined as the sum of the coefficients of the dis-
tors to be chosen from the (n-p)indicators of the maxi-
m u m list. We can order the set formed by the union of
any combination of (k-p)indicatorswith the p indicators
decided in advance,i.e.
<]1, 2,...)P/U I ip+l, ip+2, ik 1>
The order of these indices will be established according
to the degree ofimportance of the corresponding indicators.
The optimum list will now be made up of the p indica-
tors decided in advance and the (k-p)indicators
1 xu, x,Uw,..-,
xk 1 for which
26
(4.4.3)
Lastly,if the k indicators are already selected,either
by establishing them in advance or by identifying them
by the formulae (4.4.2) or (4.4.3), it remains to identify
the indicator xk+l which would produce the maximum
increment in the total amount of information C (1,2, ...,k).
This will be the indicator X m if
1 -
k+l, k+2, ...,n
1 .
5. CONCLUSION
We have tried in this study to outline an objective pro-
cedure for establishing an optimum list of development
indicatorswhich would provide statistics of use in evaluat-
ing and forecasting development in the Second Develop-
ment Decade.
The first step is to establish the maximum list of
development indicatorsby combining the various lists
used hitherto with other indicatorswhich have been
neglected or overlooked in the past.
The procedure then consists of making a quantitative
evaluation of the discriminatory capacity and importance
of each indicator in this maximum list.
The total amount of information of a group of indi-
criminatory capacity of all the indicatorsin this group
whose weighting coefficients correspond to the import-
ance of the indicatorsand do away with duplications of
the same quantities of information. The optimum short
list of development indicators will then be formed by the
indicatorswhich provide the maximum quantity of total
information.
Considering the absence of statistics in certain cases
or the poor quality of the statistics provided by the
large number of indicators in a maximum list, and the
expense and time involved in introducing new indicators
into the statistical system of developing countries,this
procedure makes it possible to draw up a rational plan
for determining a limited number of indicatorspro-
viding the maximum amount of total information.
 Annex
ProgressReport I on the Methodology of Human Re-
sourcesIndicators. (Unesco/COM/(SHC)CS/ 194/5).
Study 11. An Analytical Approach to Educational Attain-
ment Indicators Based on the Analysis of School En-
rolment by Grade.
Study 111. Procedure of Evaluating High-LevelManpower
Data and Typology of Countriesby means of the
Taxonomic Method,by Zdzislaw Hellwig.
Study IV.On the Definition and Theory of Development
with a View to the Application of Rank Order Indi-
cators in the Elaboration of a Composite Index of
Human Resources (Paper prepared for the Unesco
Expert Meeting on the Methodology of Human Re-
sources Indicators,held in Warsaw 11-16December
1967. The paper can also be identified as PRIO-
publication No.6-4from the InternationalPeace
Research Institute,Oslo), by Johan Galtung &Tord
Hoivik.
Study V. Discussion of methodological guidelines,
problem areas and difficulties connected with the
e!aboration of coherent systems of indices of human
resources,by ZygmuntGostkowski.
Study VI. On the Optimal Choice of Predictors,by
Zdzislaw Hellwig.
Study VII. On the Problem of Weighting in Internation-
al Comparisons,by Zdzislaw Hellwig.
Study VIII. Indices of Development for Selected Latin
American and Middle African Countries. An Experi-
mental Exercise using the Hellwig Taxonomic Method,
by Frederick H.Harbison,Joan Maruhnic,Jane R.
Resnick.
Study IX. Alternative Combinations of Human Re-
sources Components as Predictors of Economic
Growth in Latin America, by The Higher School of
Economics,Wroclaw,Poland.
Study X. Concerning Data Availability and Conceptual
Validity,Selected Latin American and African Coun-
tries, by Frederick H. Harbison,Joan Maruhnic and
Jane R. Resnick.
Study XI. The Assessment of the Validity of Human
Resources Indicatorsby means of a Cobb-Douglas
27
Type Production Function,by H.V.Muhsam,Hebrew
University,Jerusalem,Israel.
Study XII. The Use of Taxonomic Measures in Target
Setting Based on InternationalComparisons,by
Zygmunt Gostkowski.
Study XIII. Human Resources and Economic Growth:
The Case of Mexico,by Tord Hoivik,International
Peace Research Institute,Oslo.
Study XIV. Human Resources and Socio-Economic
Development: I. Theory,Methods and Data;
11. The Case of Japan,by Johan Galtung.
Study XV. Human Resources and Socio-Economic
Development: The Case of Venezuela,by Kristin
Tornes,Internaitonal Peace Research Institute,Oslo.
Study XVI. Approximative Methods of Selection of
an Optimal Set of Predictors,by Zdzislaw Hellwig.
Study XVII. Mathematical Methods in the Unesco
Project on Human Resources Indicators:
(i) An evaluation
(ii) Alternative Analytical Methods.
by Ludovic Lebart (SHC/WS/219).
Study XVIII.Human Resources and Economic Develop-
ment. Some Problemsof Measurement by Prof.
Wilfred Beckerman (University College,London).
Study XIX. Distance-basedanalysis,numerical taxonomy
and classification of countriesaccording to selected
areas ofsocio-economicdevelopment,by Serge
Fanchette,Methods and Analysis Division,Unesco.
Study XX. Diachronic Analysis of Relationships between
Human Resources Componentsand the Rate of
Economic Growth in Selected Countries (COM/WS/13 1)
by Johan Galtung.
Study XXI. The Selectionof a Set of Core Indicators
of Socio-EconomicDevelopment,by Zdzislaw Hellwig
and Serge Fanchette.
Study XXII. The Quest for an Employment Strategy in
Developing Countries and its Relationship to the Work
on Human Resources Indicators,by H.W.Singer
(Institute of Development Studies,The University of
Sussex,UK).
Study XXIII. Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches
in the Unesco Project on Human Resources Indicators.
Wroclaw Taxonomy and Bivariate Diachronic Analysis
-
(SHC/WS/209), by Serge Fanchette Methods and
Analysis Division,Unesco.
Study XXIV. A method of establishing a list of develop-
ment indicators,by B. Ivanovic (Director of the
Office of Statisticsof UNCTAD).
Study XXV. Grouping and ranking of 30 countriesof
Sub-SaharanAfrica. Two distance-basedmethods
compared,by B. Ivanovicand Serge Fanchette.
Study XXVI. Aspects of the distribution of income and
28
wealth in Kenya,by H.W. Singer and Stuart D.
Reynolds (The Instituteof Development Studies,
University of Sussex,UK).
Study XXVII.Distributionalpatterns of development
and welfare: A case study of Zambia,by Charles
Elliott (Overseas Development Group,School of
Development Studies,University of East Anglia).
Study XXVIII.Typologicalstudy using the Wroclaw
Taxonomic Method (A study of regional disparities
in Venezuela), by JosC F.Silvio-Pomenta(Centro de
Estudios del Desarrollo(CENDES), Universidad
Central de Venezuela.
 UNESCO PUBLICATIONS: NATIONAL DISTRIBUTORS

Argentina Editorial Losada, S.A., Alsina I 131. BUENOSAI=.

Australia Publications :Educational Supplies Pty. Ltd., Box 33, Post Office BROOKVALE 2100, N.S.W. Periodicals :
Dominie Pty. Ltd., Box 33, Post Office, BROOKVALE 2100,N.S.W.Sub-agent: United Nations Association
of Australia (VictorianDivision), 5th Floor, 134-136Flinders St.. MELBOURNE 3000.
Austria Verlag Georg Fromme & Co., Arbeitergasse 1-7,1051 WIEN.
Belgium Jean D e Lannoy, 112, rue du Trsne, BRUXFLLES5. CCP 708 23.
Bolivia Libreria Universitaria.Universidad San Francisco Xavier. apartado 212.SUCRE.
Brazil Fundacgo G e t W o Vargas, Serviso de Publicasiies, caka postal ZIIZO Praia de Botafogo 183,RIO DE JANEIRO
G.B.
Bulgaria Hemus, Kantora Literatura, bd. Rousky 6,SOFIIA.
Burma Trade Corporation n.O (9),550-552 Merchant Street, RANGOON.
Cameroon L e Secrktaire gknkral de la Commission nationale de la Rkpublique fkdkrale du Cameroun pour IUnesco,
B.P. 1061,YAOUND6.
Canada Information Canada. OTTAWA (Ont.); Bookshops: 640 Ouest, rue Ste Catherine, MONTR~AL I I I (Que.);
1683 Burrington St.HALIFAX(N.S.); 393 Portage Ave., WINNIPEG (Manitoba), 171 rueslater,OTTAWA (Ont.);
221 Yonye St, TORONTO (Ont.); 800 Granville St, VANCOUVER (B.C.).
Chile Editorial Universitaria,S.A., casilla IOZZO,SANTIAGO.
Colombia Libreria Buccholz Galeria, avenida Jimknez de Quesada 8-40,apartado a6reo 49-56,BOGOTA; Distrilibros
Ltda., Pi0 Alfonso Garcia, carrera 4, non 36-119y 36-125,CARTAGENA; J. Germin Rodriguez N.,Calle
17,6-59,apartado nacional 83, GIRARDOT (Cundinarnarca). Editorial Losada Ltda., Calle 18A. n.O 7-37.
apartado akreo 5829,apartado nacional 931.BOGOTA. Sub-depots :Edificio L a Ceiba, Oficina 804 MEDELLfN;
Calle 37. n.O 14-73Oficina, 305, BUCARAMANGA; Edificio Zaccour, Oficina 736. CALI.
Congo Librairie populaire. B.P. 577,BRAZZAVILLE.
Costa Ricn Libreria Trejos S.A.,apartado 1313.SAN Jose.Telkfonos: 2285 y 3200.
Cuba Distribuidora Nacional de Publicaciones,Neptuno 674,LA HABANA.
CYPNS M A M ,Archbishop Makarios 3rd Avenue, P.O.Box 1722, NICOSIA.
Czechoslovakia SNTL,Spalena 51.PRAHAI (Permanent display) ; Zahranicni literatura, I I Soukenicka,PRAHA I.
For Slovakia only :Alfa Verlag. Publishers.Hurhanovo nam. 6,893 31 BRATISLAVA.
Dahomey Librairie nationale,B.P. 294,PORTONovo.
Denmark Ejnar Munksgaard Ltd.. 6 Nsrregade. 1165KUBENHAVN K
Egypt Librairie Kasr El Nil 38, rue K a s r El Nil.LE CAIRE.National Centre for Unesco Publications I Tlaat
Harb Street,Tahrir Square. CAIRO.
Ethiopia National Commission for Unesco, P.O. Box 2996,ADDIS ABARA.
Finland Akateeminen Kirjakauppa, z Keskuskatu,H ~ I N K I .
France Librairie de IUnesco,7 place de Fontenoy, 75700 PARIS. CCP 12598-48.
French West Indies Librairie Au Boul Mich. L Rue Perrinon and 66 Avenue du Parquet, 972 FORT-DE-FRANCE (Martinique).
German Dem. Rep. Deutscher Bucb-Export und -Import G m b H , Leninstrasse 16, 701 LEIPZIG.
Fed. Rep. of Germany Verlag Dokumentation, Postfach 148, Jaiserstrasse 13. 8023 MLNCHEN-PULLACH. The Courier (German
edition only): Bahrenfelder Chaussee 160 HAMBURG-BAHRENFELD. CCP 27 66 50. For scientific maps only:
GEO C E N T R E , D - 7 STUTTGART 80, Postfach 800830.
Ghana Presbyterian Bookshop Depot Ltd., P.O. Box 195, ACCRA; Ghana Book Suppliers Ltd., P.O. Box 7869,
ACCRA;T h e University Bookshop of Ghana, ACCRA; T h e University Bookshop of Cape Coast; T h e Uni-
versity Bookshop of Legon, P.O. Box I, LEGON.
Greece Anglo-Hellenic Agency, 5 Koumpari Street, ATHINAI138.
Hong K o n g Swindon Book Co., 13-15 Lock Road, KOWLOON.
Hungary Akadhiai Konyvesbolt Vdci U 22, BUDAPE~T V. A.K.V. Konyvtarosok Boltja. NkpkGztPrsasig utja 16,
BUDAPFST VI.
Iceland Snaebjorn Jonsson &Co. H.F.. Hafnarstracti 9. REYKJAVIK.
India Orient Longman Ltd.; Nicol Road, Ballard Estate, BOMBAYI; 17 Chittaranjan Avenue, CALCUTTA 13;
36A Anna Salai, Mount Road, MADRAS 2 ; B-3/7Asaf Ali Road, NEW DELHI I. Sub-depots: Oxford Book &
Stationery Co., 17Park Street,CALCUTTA 16;and Scindia House, NEWDELHI; Publications Section, Ministry
of Education and Social Welfare, 72 Theatre Communication Building, Connaught Place, NEW DELHI I.
Indonesia Indira P.T.,JI. Dr.Sam Ratulangie 37, JAKARTA.
Iran Commission nationale iranienne pour IUnesco, avenue Iranchahr Cbomali no 300. B.P. 1533. T ~ H ~ R A N .
Kharazmie Publishing and Distribution Co., 229 Daneshgahe Street, Shah Avenue, P.O. Box 14l1486,
TBHBRAN.
Iraq McKenzies Bookshop, AI-Rashid Street, BAGHDAD; University Bookstore, University of Baghdad, P.O.
BOX75.BAGHDAD.
Ireland T h e National Press, 2 Wellington Road, Ballsbridge. DUBLIN 4.
Israel Emanuel Brown, formerly Blumsteins Bookstores: 35 Allenby Road and 48 Nachlat Benjamin Street, TEL
Avrv; 9 Shlomzion Hamalka Street. JERUSALEM.
Italy L I C O S A (Libreria Commissionaria Sansoni S.p.A.). via Lamarmora 45. casella postale 552, 50121 FIBENZE.
Jamaica Sangsters Book Stores Ltd., P.O. Box 366, I O I Water Lane, KINGSTON.
Japan Maruzen Co. Ltd.. P.O.Box 5050. Tokyo International,TOKYO.
Kenya T h e E S A Ltd.. P.O.BOX 30167,NAIROBI.
Khmer Republic Librarie Albert Portail, 14.avenue Boulloche. PHNOM-PENH.
Republic of Korea Korean National Commission for Unesco. P.O. Box Central 64,SEOUL.
Kuwait T h e Kuwait Bookshop Co.Ltd., P.O. Box 2942, KUWAIT.
Liberia Cole &Yancy Bookshops Ltd., P.O. Box 286, MONROVIA.
Libya Agency for Development of Publication and Distributlon,P.O. Uox 34-35,TRIPOLI.
Luxembourg Librairie Paul Bruck, 22 Grande-Rue, LUXEMBOURG.
Madagascar Cornmission Nationale de la RBpublique Malpache, MinistAre de 1Education Nationale, TANANARIVB.
Malaysia Federal Publications Sdn. Bhd.. Balai Berita, 31 Jalan Riong. KUALA LUMPUFL
Malta Sapienzas Library, 26 Kingsway, VALLETTA.
Mauritius Nalanda Co. Ltd, 30 Bourbon Street, PORT-LOUIS.
Mexico C I L A (Centra Interamericano de Libros Acadhicos), Sullivan 31 bis, MfXlCO 4. D.F.
Monaco British Library. 30. boulevard des Moulins, MONTE-CARLO.
Netherlands N.V. Martinus Nijhoff, Lange Voorhout 9. s-GRAVENHAGE; Systemen Keesing, Ruysdaelstraat 71-75>
AMSTERDAM.
Netherlands Antilles G.C.T.Van Dorp &Co. (Ned. Ant.) N.V., WILLEMSTAD (Curacao,N.A.).
New Caledonia Reprex S.A.R.L., B.P. 1572, N O U M ~ A .
New Zealand Government Printing Office, Government Bookshops: Rutland Street, P.O. Box 5344, AUCKLAND; 130
Oxford Terrace. P.O. Box 1721,CHRISTCHURCH; Alma Street, P.O. Box 857, HAMILTON; Princes Street,
P.O. Box I 104,DUNEDIN; Mulgrave Street, Private Bag, WELLINGTON.
 Niger Librairie Manclert, B.P. 868, NIAMEY.
Nigeria T h e University Bookshop of Ife; T h e University Bookshop of Ibadan,P.O. Box 286,IBADAN; T h e University
of Nsukka; T h e University Bookshop of Lagos; T h e Ahmadu Bello University Bookshop of Zaria.
Norway All publications: Johan Grundt Tanum, Karl Johans gate 41!43. OSLO I. TheCmUieronly :A/SNarveqns
Litteraturtjeneste. Box 6125,OSLO 6.
Pakistan T h e West-Pak Publishing Co. Ltd., Unesco Publications House, P.O. Box 374, G.P.O., LAHORE.
Showrooms :Urdu Bazaar, LAHORE and 57-58 Murree Highway, G/6-1,ISLAMABAD. Pakistan Publications
Bookshop: Sarwar Road, RAWALPINDI; Mina Book Agency, 65 Shahrah Quaid-e-azam, P.O. Box 729
pi3.
Peru The Courier only :Editorial Losada Peruana, apartado 472, LIMA.Otk publications: Distribuidora Inca
S.A., Emilio Althaus 470. Lince, casilla 3115.LIMA.
Philippines T h e M o d e m Book Co., 926 Rizal Avenue, P.O. Box 632. MANILA.
Poland Osrodek Rozpowzechniania Wydawnictw Naukowych PAN,Palac Kultury i Nauki, WARSZAWA.
Portugal Dias &Andrade Ltda., Libraria Portugal, rua o Carmo 70, LISBOA.
Southern Rhodesia Textbook Sales PVT) Ltd., 67 Union Avenue, SALISBURY.
Romania I.C.E. LIBRI. Calea Victoriei nr. 126, P.O. Box 134-135 BUCURESTI.SubscriptMns to p ~ r i ~ d ti ~ ~ l ~
Rompresfilatelia. Calea Victoriei nr. 29, BUCURESTI.
Senegal La Maison du Livre, 13, avenue Roume, B.P. 20-60,DAKAR; Librairie Clairafrique, B.P. zoos, DAKAR;
Librairie LeSenegal. B.P. 1594,DAKAR.
Singapore Federal Publications Sdn Bhd., Times House, River Valley Road, SINGAPORB 9
South Africa Van Schaiks Bookstore (Pty.) Ltd., Lihri Building, Church Street,P.O.Box 7.24. PRBTORIA.
Spain AI1 publications :Editiones Iberoamericanas, S.A., calle de OEate 15, MADRID 20; Distribuci6n de Publi-
caciones del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Vitrubio 16,MADRID 6 ; Libreria del Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Epigciacas 15. BARCELONA. For TheCourieronly :Ediciones Liber,
apartado 17.ONDdRROA (Viscaya).
Sri Lanka Lake House Bookshop, Sir Chittampalam Gardiner Mawata, P.O.Box 244, C O L o m o 2.
Sudan AI Bashir Bookshop,P.O. Box I I 18,KHARTOUM.
Sweden All publications: A/BC.E. Fritzes Kungl. Hovbokhandel, Fredsgatan 2, Box 16356,10327 STOCKHOLM16.
For TheCourier: Svenska FN-Forbundet, SkolgrPnd 2, Box 150 so. s-Io4 65 STOCKHOLM.
Switzerland Europa Verlag. Ramistrasse 5, ZURICH; Librairie Payot, 6,rue Grenus, 1211 GENBVE XI.
Tanzania D a r es Salaam Bookshop,P.O. Box 9030, DARES SALAAM.
Thailand Suksapan Panit, Mansion 9. Rajdamnem Avenue, BANGKOK.
Togo Librairie evangPlique, B.P. 378; LoMB; Librairie du Bon Pasteur, B.P. 1164, LoMB; Librairie modeme,
B.P.777, LoM~.
Turkev Librairie Hachette. 469 Istiklal Caddesi, Beyoglu, ISTANBUL.
Uganda Bookshop, P.O.Box 145.KAMPALA.
Mezhdunarodnaja Kniga, MOSKVA, G-zoo.
H.M.Stationery Office, P.O. Box 569, LONDONSEIgNH; Government bookshops: London, Belfast, Bir-
mingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Manchester.
United States Unesco Puhlicstions Center, P.O. Box 433. N e w York, N.Y. 10016.
U p p e r Volta Librairie Attie B.P.64. Ouagadougou, Librairie catholique JeunessedAfrique, OUAGADOUGOU.
Venezuela Libreria Historia, Monjas a Padre Sierra, Edificio Oeste 2. n.O 6 (frente a1 Capitolio), apartadode correo8
7320-101,CARACAS.
Yugoslavia Jugoslovenska Knjiga. Terazije 27. BEOGW. Drzavna Zalozba Slovenije Mestni Trg. 7.6, LJUBLJANA.
Zaire L a Librairie,Institut national detudes politiquen, B.P. 2307, KINSHASA:
Commiaaion nationale de la Rdpu-
blique du ZaIre Dour IUnenco, Ministere de IMucntion nationale. KINSFIMA.

ISBN 92-3-1
01 1 29-4