Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp06073.pdf Nontechnical SummaryNational sustainability indices provide a one-dimensional metric to valuate country-specific information on the three holistic dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social conditions. At the policy level, they suggest an unambiguous yardstick against which a country's development can be measured and even a cross-country comparison can be performed. However it remains questionable whether we can meaningfully speak from unambiguousness in the holistic subject of sustainability development.This paper reviews the consistency and meaningfulness of eleven sustainability indices that We find that -although the sustainability indices are imputed to be concise and transparentthey fail to meet fundamental scientific requirements with respect to the three central steps of indices formation: normalization, weighting, and aggregation. Normalization and weighting of indicators -which in general are associated with subjective judgments -reveal a high degree of arbitrariness without mentioning or systematically assessing critical assumptions.As to aggregation, there are scientific rules which could guarantee consistency and meaningfulness of composite indices. Yet, these rules are often not taken into account. As a consequence, sustainability indices currently employed in policy practice are doomed to be useless if not misleading with respect to concrete policy advice. Abstract. Sustainability indices for countries provide a one-dimensional metric to valuate country-specific information on the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social conditions. At the policy level, they suggest an unambiguous yardstick against which a country's development can be measured and even a cross-country comparison can be performed. This paper reviews the explanatory power of various sustainability indices applied in policy practice. We show that these indices fail to fulfill fundamental scientific requirements making them rather useless if not misleading with respect to policy advice. Measuring the Immeasurable - A Survey of Sustainability Indices

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp06073.pdf Nontechnical SummaryNational sustainability indices provide a one-dimensional metric to valuate country-specific information on the three holistic dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social conditions. At the policy level, they suggest an unambiguous yardstick against which a country's development can be measured and even a cross-country comparison can be performed. However it remains questionable whether we can meaningfully speak from unambiguousness in the holistic subject of sustainability development.This paper reviews the consistency and meaningfulness of eleven sustainability indices that We find that -although the sustainability indices are imputed to be concise and transparentthey fail to meet fundamental scientific requirements with respect to the three central steps of indices formation: normalization, weighting, and aggregation. Normalization and weighting of indicators -which in general are associated with subjective judgments -reveal a high degree of arbitrariness without mentioning or systematically assessing critical assumptions.As to aggregation, there are scientific rules which could guarantee consistency and meaningfulness of composite indices. Yet, these rules are often not taken into account. As a consequence, sustainability indices currently employed in policy practice are doomed to be useless if not misleading with respect to concrete policy advice. Abstract. Sustainability indices for countries provide a one-dimensional metric to valuate country-specific information on the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social conditions. At the policy level, they suggest an unambiguous yardstick against which a country's development can be measured and even a cross-country comparison can be performed. This paper reviews the explanatory power of various sustainability indices applied in policy practice. We show that these indices fail to fulfill fundamental scientific requirements making them rather useless if not misleading with respect to policy advice. Measuring the Immeasurable - A Survey of Sustainability Indices

No abstract

We motivate the formulation of market equilibrium as a mixed complementarity problem which explicitly represents weak inequalities and complementarity between decision variables and equilibrium conditions. The complementarity format permits an energy-economy model to combine technological detail of a bottom-up energy system with a second-best characterization of the overall economy. Our primary objective is pedagogic. We first lay out the complementarity features of economic equilibrium and demonstrate how we can integrate bottom-up activity analysis into a top-down representation of the broader economy. We then provide a stylized numerical example of an integrated model -within both static and dynamic settings. Finally, we present illustrative applications to three themes figuring prominently on the energy policy agenda of many industrialized countries: nuclear phase-out, green quotas, and environmental tax reforms.JEL classification: C61, C68, D58, Q43