In today’s data-driven society, indexes are everywhere. From gauging economic health through Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to assessing environmental performance via sustainability rankings, indexes shape how we see the world and how we act within it. They are the scorecards that influence global policy, corporate strategy, investor behavior, academic performance, and public perception. Yet, for all their power, many of our most widely used indexes are failing us.
The call for better indexes is not a fringe complaint—it is an urgent demand from economists, scientists, activists, educators, and even political leaders who recognize that existing metrics often tell only part of the story, or worse, the wrong one. In a world facing climate change, rising inequality, and technological disruption, our tools for measurement must evolve. Without better indexes, we are flying blind.
The Problem with Conventional Indexes
At their best, indexes simplify complexity. They allow decision-makers to quickly interpret and compare large volumes of data. But at their worst, indexes oversimplify, mislead, or incentivize destructive behavior. The problems with many current indexes fall into several categories:
1. Inadequate Scope
Most traditional indexes focus on narrow objectives. For example, GDP measures economic output but ignores income distribution, environmental degradation, mental health, and household well-being. A country might see its GDP rise while its citizens become poorer, sicker, or more unequal.
Similarly, university rankings may emphasize research output or faculty credentials while neglecting student well-being, teaching quality, or inclusivity.
2. Opaque Methodologies
Many popular indexes do not disclose how they weigh individual components, or they rely on subjective judgments from elites. This opacity breeds distrust and makes it difficult to interpret results meaningfully. Users of these indexes are often unaware of the assumptions embedded in the data, which can skew interpretation and decision-making.
3. One-Size-Fits-All
Indexes often apply uniform criteria across vastly different contexts. A business climate ranking may penalize countries with strong labor protections or environmental regulations, ignoring the fact that these policies may be culturally or politically appropriate. Uniform scoring systems can mask local needs and priorities, creating a distorted global standard.
4. Perverse Incentives
Perhaps the most damaging flaw of flawed indexes is their ability to incentivize harmful behavior. Schools may “teach to the test” to improve standardized test scores. Governments might manipulate data or neglect meaningful but hard-to-measure reforms in order to climb global rankings. In essence, what gets measured gets managed—even if it shouldn’t be.
Real-World Consequences
Indexes have real influence. The World Bank’s now-discontinued “Ease of Doing Business” index guided billions in foreign investment decisions and policy reforms—until it was discovered that some of its rankings had been manipulated. Global university rankings affect student applications, hiring, and funding. ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores determine the flow of capital in financial markets.
Flawed indexes can therefore have disastrous consequences. They can prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability, marginalize certain populations, and propagate narrow conceptions of success. In the digital age, they can even be weaponized for political or economic advantage.
The Case for Better Indexes
To correct these issues, we must demand and develop better indexes—tools that are more accurate, transparent, inclusive, and aligned with our global challenges. Here’s what that might look like:
1. Multidimensional Metrics
The world is not one-dimensional, and our indexes shouldn’t be either. Metrics must reflect the complex interdependence between social, economic, environmental, and governance factors.
The Human Development Index (HDI) was one of the first to recognize this need, combining income, life expectancy, and education into a single measure. More recently, the Social Progress Index (SPI) has gone further, incorporating 50 indicators from basic human needs to personal freedom. These models begin to reflect the world as people actually experience it.
2. Transparency and Accountability
Indexes must make their methodologies clear and publicly accessible. This includes explaining data sources, weighting schemes, and any assumptions made. Users should be able to scrutinize, question, and replicate the results.
The move toward open-source data and peer-reviewed methodologies is gaining momentum, particularly among international organizations and NGOs. However, commercial index providers are often lagging behind, hiding their formulas behind proprietary walls.
3. Contextual Sensitivity
No index should pretend that a country, institution, or company operates in a vacuum. Instead, metrics must be calibrated to context, recognizing the unique cultural, environmental, and political conditions that influence performance.
For instance, rather than punishing countries for higher tax rates or stronger worker protections (as some economic freedom indexes do), better indexes should recognize these as potential strengths depending on societal goals.
4. Participation and Inclusivity
The people being measured should have a say in how they are measured. This means involving civil society, marginalized communities, and subject matter experts in the design of indexes. Participatory metrics can reflect more diverse values and experiences, resulting in fairer and more legitimate tools.
Promising Developments
Encouragingly, new and innovative indexes are beginning to emerge. Some noteworthy examples include:
-
Doughnut Economics Framework (by Kate Raworth): This index visualizes a safe and just space for humanity, balancing essential human needs with planetary boundaries.
-
OECD’s Better Life Index: An interactive tool that allows individuals to prioritize values like housing, community, or work-life balance, revealing how life quality varies depending on what one values most.
-
Inclusive Wealth Index: Created by the UN, it accounts for natural capital, human capital, and manufactured capital—an advancement over GDP that reflects sustainability.
-
Gender Inequality Index (GII): Tracks disparities in reproductive health, empowerment, and labor force participation, encouraging gender-equitable policy.
These indexes don’t just offer better metrics—they encourage better decisions.
A New Philosophy of Measurement
Ultimately, what we measure reflects what we value. If we measure only economic growth, we prioritize profit over people and planet. If we measure student test scores alone, we risk ignoring creativity, empathy, and civic responsibility. If we rank countries only by competitiveness, we overlook cooperation, resilience, and well-being.
A new philosophy of measurement must emerge—one that embraces complexity, centers human dignity, and sees sustainability as a core indicator of success. Better indexes are not just technical improvements; they are moral choices.
Conclusion: Building a Better Data Future
As the 21st century unfolds, data will continue to shape every sphere of life. The stakes are high. Misleading indexes can fuel inequality, environmental collapse, and institutional distrust. But well-designed indexes can empower us to build more inclusive, just, and resilient societies.
Now is the time for governments, academic institutions, tech companies, and civil society to join forces in creating better indexes. We need interdisciplinary research, global collaboration, and public engagement. We need tools that guide us toward the future we want—not the one we fear.
This is not merely a technical challenge; it is a civic responsibility. Better indexes will not solve every problem—but without them, we may fail to see the problems clearly enough to solve them at all.
