International Development - national indicator development: research report

Footnotes

1. The details are set out in Section 2 and Annex B.

2. International Framework (2017)

3. These three Scottish values are based on the author's own interpretation and are based on Scottish Government publications and discussions with stakeholders.

4. This proposed indicator component is not further included in the report and the proposed indicator calculations, because its data was not yet available. This variable will be drawn from the newly designed NPF indicator 'International networks' that is currently under review.

5. see Annex 1 for a list of devolved and reserved policy areas

6. See King and Matthews (2012) Policy Coherence for Development: Indicators for Ireland, Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, January 2012, for a full analysis of the criteria for the development of indicators and the role of weighting in the assessment process.

7. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Policy Coherence

8. King and Matthews (2012) Policy Coherence for Development: Indicators for Ireland, Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, January 2012

9. Knoll, A. 2014. Bringing Policy Coherence for Development into the Post-2015 Agenda - Challenges and Prospects. ECDPM Discussion Paper 163. Maastricht: ECDPM

10. ECDPM Discussion paper 171, Use of PCD indicators by a selection of EU Member States, Jan 2015, p7

11. Knoll A op cit.

12. 2016 PCDI Report: Another Way to Grow, Chapter 4 p129.

13. See Annexes B and C for detail on CDI and PCDI mapping. The OECD has a long-standing work programme on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development and the Meeting Summary of the 16^th Meeting of the National Focal Points for Policy Coherence, 20 February 2019 provides an overview of progress to date.

14. Tewes-Gradl et al (2014) Proving and Improving: the Impact of Development Partnerships, 12 Good practices for results measurement, German Federal Ministry for Eonomic Cooperation and Development, 2014, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, Narobi Outcome Document, 1 December 2016 and NIDOS (2014) Policy Coherence for Development: Exploring and Learning from European PCD Approaches, NIDOS, November 2014.

15. CGD (2018) Commitment to Development Index: 2018 Edition, Methodological Overview Paper September 2018. p44

16. CGD (2018) Commitment to Development Index: 2018 Edition, Methodological Overview Paper September 2018. p44 and CPC interviews with HEI stakeholders on the importance of a diverse student body.

17. Raised in discussions with external stakeholders at a workshop held by Scottish Government, 7 August 2019.

18. OECD (2015) Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development in the SDG Framework: Shaping Targets and Monitoring Progress, 2015.

19. CGD (2018) Commitment to Development Index: 2018 Edition, Methodological Overview Paper September 2018, p30

20. CGD (2018) Commitment to Development Index: 2018 Edition, Methodological Overview Paper September 2018. p35 Rich countries' policies have a significant impact on the trading prospects of developing countries.

21. Ibid.

22. PCDI| (2016) PCDI Report Chapter 4, p132.

23. King et al (2012) Measuring Policy Coherence for Development, European Centre for Development Policy Management, May 2012 and OECD (2015) op cit.

24. CGD (2018) Commitment to Development Index: 2018 Edition, Methodological Overview Paper September 2018. p26

25. King et al (2012) op cit.

26. OECD (2019) Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, 16^th Meeting of the National Focal Points for Policy Coherence, 20 February 2019.

27. Following the workshop with the Center for Global Development it was agreed that the indicators should not include binary (i.e. yes/ no) measures such as whether Scotland has adopted an international standard or other policy etc. The reasoning behind this choice is that such measures can only have two values (0 or 100%) and rarely change. This would distort any incremental changes in other indicators.

28. This indicator is currently not included in the calculation. It will be drawn from the 'International networks' indicator in the international outcome which allows for the singling out of countries with the attribute 'ODA recipient' to calculate a single score of how internationally connected Scotland is to them in economic, political, social and cultural domain.

29. The HDI is not a measure of policy coherence and so was not included in the review but does use a method to combine different indicators into a single index.

30. It is also worth noting that the min-max method of normalisation may introduce a degree of inconsistency between years as changes in the upper and lower values would deliver changes in the normalised indictor even where the country indicator did not itself change in value.

31. The formula for this calculation is Year1/Baseline year x 100.

32. This is due to two very large Global Challenge Research Fund awards in 2017. While these increase the value of the indicator significant we have no reason to suggest that this is anomalous.

33. Devolved and Reserved Matters

34. We assume that the variation referred to here is over time between different years of the same indicator in a specific country but we have not yet been able to confirm this.

35. Soria, E. (2015) Implementing policy coherence for sustainable development beyond 2015, p.40-42, OECD (2015) Better Policies for Development 2015: Policy Coherence and Green Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris.

36. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Policy Coherence

37. Soria, E. (2015) Implementing policy coherence for sustainable development beyond 2015, p.40-42, OECD (2015) Better Policies for Development 2015: Policy Coherence and Green Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris.

38. See King and Matthews (2012) Policy Coherence for Development: Indicators for Ireland, Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, January 2012 and ECDPM Discussion paper 171, Use of PCD indicators by a selection of EU Member States, Jan 2015 for detailed analysis of the logic chains and reviews of the PCD measures proposed.

39. Nunez-Borja et al (2018), External Evaluation of the European Union's Policy Coherence for Development (2009-2016), Final Report, July 2018.

40. ECDPM Discussion paper 171, Use of PCD indicators by a selection of EU Member States, Jan 2015, p7.

41. Knoll, A. 2014. Bringing Policy Coherence for Development into the Post-2015 Agenda - Challenges and Prospects. ECDPM Discussion Paper 163. Maastricht: ECDPM

42. DevStat (2015) Development of a Policy Coherence for Development Index: Methodology for the development of the PCDI.

43. It is also worth noting that this method must introduce a degree of inconsistency between years as changes in the upper and lower values would deliver changes in the normalised indictor even where the indicator did not itself change value.

44. The pattern of weighting is described in Annex B and a detailed description of the weighting methodology can be found in Roodman (2013) The Commitment to Development Index: 2013 Edition, Center for Global Development, September 2013.