There are strong conceptual and practical arguments for integrating the complex nature of

development in an integrated and systematic way. Over the years, various contributions to the
literature have emphasized the importance of distinguishing between inputs and outputs of
development processes (Torlockyj (1975); Hicks and Streeten (1979)), the means and ends of
development (Streeten (1994); Haq (1995)) and the many complex links and interactions between
different capacities and freedoms (Sen (1999); Clark (2005); Biggeri and Ferrannini (2014)).

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is poised to represent a single, unified framework
that can draw on different perspectives and schools of thought. Of course, it is still possible to
challenge the content, structure and coherence of the Sustainable Development Goals. Some critics
have argued that the new consensus does not go far enough, as it does not cover key issues likely to
concern the world today in the coming decades, such as migration, terrorism, capital flight and
democracy (Gasper (2005)). Others noted the lack of key indicators for specific targets and goals,
including total carbon emissions, women's share of non-agricultural employment, and various
indicators related to trade, aid and debt. In terms of consistency, Vandemoortele (2017) "warns that
only 30 of the 169 targets formulated in the SDGs are clear, precise and quantified". In an analysis
Gasper (2019) argued that, as things stand, less than half of the indicators for monitoring the
Sustainable Development Goals are classified in Category 1, i.e. they are conceptually clear with a
standard methodology and data available for all regions. Kanbur and Stiglitz. (2015) also show that
both the SDGs and the MDGs continue to mix inputs, outputs and outcomes.

Some unseemly critics point to the need to reduce the Sustainable Development Goals by claiming
that they are "foolish, dreamy and confused" Easterly (2015). However, the Sustainable Development
Goals should not be judged solely in terms of conceptual or technical precision. They represent a
roadmap for a better future that inspires action and cooperation between diverse actors and agents
of change at multiple levels. In addition, the argument that 17 goals and 169 targets are depends on
the context and purpose of the exercise. In this regard, Kanbur and Stiglitz. (2015) argued that the
SDGs provide "a useful platform from which to select and refine a set of indicators". They suggest
that there are good reasons to keep the number of indicators on dashboards well below ten. In the
case of South Africa and other African countries, they expect high-level indicators to include per
capita income, income inequality, employment, a multidimensional devaluation index based on
access to basic public services and long-term environmental degradation. Such a scoreboard can
clarify priorities, simplify and reduce costs, and stimulate partnerships for development.

However, even streamlined dashboards aren't the best tools for all jobs. One of the main advantages
of a single aggregate measure (such as the SDG Index) is that it provides a simple and easy-to-
interpret summary of overall performance that would be difficult to distinguish from an analysis of
multiple targets and indicators that often overlap and move in different directions (Clark et al. (2017);
Schmidt-Traub et al. (2017)). In other words, "it is essential to have a well-equipped dashboard, but it
is also essential to know where you are going and whether you are progressing towards the goal"
Costanza et al. (2016). In addition, they may be "more effective in stimulating public debate than
many individual outcomes that could lead to selective selection" Schmidt-Traub et al. (2017).
Another advantage is that a comprehensive measure facilitates the monitoring of progress over time,
as well as easy cross-country comparisons to rank and compare relative performance in given areas,
in order not only to stimulate public awareness and discussion (OECD (2008)), but accountability and
transparency, and stimulate further analysis (Freudenberg (2003)) to help design better policies.
For these reasons, composite measures have considerable analytical power as well as appreciable
political weight, as evidenced by their frequent use by international organizations (Bandura (2011);
OECD (2008); Yang (2014)) and by social scientists (Booysen (2003); Cherchye et al. (2007); Michener
(2015); Sundström et al. (2017); Greco et al. (2019)). It follows that the pragmatic value of composite
indicators such as the UNDP Human Development Index, the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business
Index, the OECD Quality of Life Index and the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index
is reflected in their ability to guide dominant policy debates and discourses (Paruolo et al. (2013)) by
simplifying and effectively communicating complex multidimensional concepts.

The Human Development Index is perhaps the most obvious and well-known example. This "catchy"
statistic has caught the attention of politicians and the press, guiding government planning, policy
and allocation processes towards multidimensional development. Moreover, it has partially
succeeded in threatening the hegemony of GNP in development accounting (Streeten (1994); Haq
(1995); Sen (2006)) as well as to inspire innovation and efforts in measuring different aspects of well-
being at local, national and regional level Dervis and Klugman (2011).

There are, however, well-known difficulties with the construction and use of composite indicators to
gauge social phenomena such as "development" (Saisana and Tarantola (2002); OECD (2008); Stiglitz
et al. (2009)). First, their practical value comes at the expense of losing the wealth of information
attached to specific targets and indicators; for this reason, it is "not credible to claim that a single
clue can capture everything that matters in all contexts" Kanbur et al. (2015). Second, the arbitrary
nature of the procedures used to select, aggregate and weigh their components (among other
methodological issues) raises normative issues that are not explained or justified (Stiglitz et al.
(2009)). Third, their construction and analysis require more data and requires more commitment and
understanding than simpler individual indicators before they can benefit from widespread
recognition, acceptance and support. Fourth, if misconstructed, misinterpreted or misused, synthetic
indicators are likely to send misleading messages based on overall results distorting policy measures
(Saltelli (2007)) and (OECD (2008)). Similar concerns have been raised about the HDI, described as a
"quick and imperfect look at human lives" Sen (2006) which "can conceal at least as much as it
reveals about the nature of human well-being and development".

Although the debate on the relative merits of social indicators may never be settled, these
parameters can nevertheless play a preponderant role in social analysis, provided that their
limitations are fully taken into account and appropriate compensation is allocated. With regard to
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, such a measure can help assess the complex and
integrated nature of the Sustainable Development Goals for research, advocacy and advocacy
purposes. But it is also important to remember that the SDGs can be designed "from a broad
perspective, as a platform providing global civil society with a basis from which to organize around
one of the many challenges of the SDGs (Stiglitz (2015)). Such a design requires a framework of global
indicators that provides multiple entry points for policy-making by providing a starting point for
discussing, evaluating and comparing progress and identifying priority areas for performance
improvement (Nhemachena et al. (2018)).

In addition, from a technical point of view, we also highlight an important gap in each of the methods
analyzed. None of these methods take interconnections into account. Although this topic is
extremely complex (Miola et al. (2019)), the holistic nature of the 2030 Agenda makes it a key part of
the policy of implementing all the Sustainable Development Goals, thus placing greater emphasis on
contextualizing the choice of the method of performance of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Of course, any composite measure of sustainable development could only provide a partial and
imperfect representation of a comprehensive indicator framework. Although the former provides an
informative synthesis measure, a disaggregated set of indicators is still needed to identify priorities
and design a coherent set of policies to guide specific goals and targets, as observed (Stiglitz et al.
(2009)).

Overall, composite indicators are best seen as invitations to take a closer look at the different
components underlying them. This type of function of composite indicators has often been
presented as one of their main reasons for being. Once the overall view is obtained, we can return to
the detailed elements: a poorly ranked country can look at the variables that are mainly responsible
for its situation and try to improve its score based on these variables. Such an incentive for a change
in policy should not be overlooked at all.

Finally, governance and decision-making processes should also feature prominently in the discussion
of frameworks (Allen et al. (2019) and Bartniczak and Raszkowski (2019)). This context raises the
need for a heuristic approach to the post-2015 sustainable development agenda focusing on
integrated governance, design review, and the establishment of transparency mechanisms in policy-
making (Müller et al. (2004)).