Equal weighting for different indicators can be problematic

Comments on Lorenzo Fioramonti "Forget the G7, the world needs a new alliance to lead it in the 21st century", 30/06/2015

I guess there is an issue in weighing different indicators to form an overall indicator or measurement.What are the weights given to the different areas? If it is equal weights, are they reasonable and reflecting their relative importance?

Reply to Lincoln Fung by Lorenzo Fioramonti, Full Professor of Political Economy at University of Pretoria:

These aggregate indices give equal weight to the various underlying dimensions. The key point is not whether these indicators are 'accurate' in their own right, but in the overall picture that they portray. There is a indeed high level of correlation among them. The result is politically relevant: progress in the 21st century is radically different from what it was in the 20th century. This should also be reflected in how our governance is organized.In reply to Lorenzo Fioramonti by Lincoln Fung:

While I cannot state the following in absolute certainty, it is likely that the group of countries that you argue should be the leaders in this century will not be taken seriously by most if not all major world/international leaders. It is likely to fall into deaf ears.

That, to a degree, reflects the significant weaknesses and shortcomings of your approach.

A "power" measure or indicator?

Further comments on Ian Castles’ article “Measuring China’s size and power”, 10/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/10/measuring-chinas-size-and-power-correctly/

Further to my comments yesterday, it seems that there is a need to develop some measures or indicators of "power", for an more informed and transparent 21st century. It will be much more difficult, but if developed they will be very useful and helpful.

I think any such measures are likely to be a combination of a number of different sub-indicators. Potential sub-indicators might include: economic indicators such as GDP, trade; demographic indicators such as population and man power indicators; wealth indicators such as financial and physical assets; natural endowment indicators such as land and mineral reserves; social stability indicators; military and intelligence indicators; and so on. One could also develop some dynamic indicators. In the end, one may not necessarily need so many sub-indicators, maybe a handful will serve most purposes.

I remember some people in China in the past (maybe still now) used the term comprehensive/composite national power, although I don’t know what they meant and what they included in that.