Table 4. Computed targets for adult literacy (indicator 2) for all provinces
|
Target |
Actual |
M2 |
δj |
M2 И δj 2j | |
|
value | |||||
|
1. Ardebil |
68.9 |
63.2 |
5.7 |
0.59 |
3.4 |
|
2. Booshehr |
72.4 |
72.5 |
-0.1 |
0.33 |
0.0* |
|
3. Chahar Mahal B. |
71.2 |
67.2 |
4.0 |
0.48 |
1.9 |
|
4. East Azarbayjan |
70.5 |
67.5 |
3.0 |
0.47 |
1.4 |
|
5. Fars |
76.4 |
74.7 |
1.7 |
0.27 |
0.5 |
|
6. Gilan |
73.7 |
72.6 |
1.1 |
0.33 |
0.3 |
|
7. Hamedan |
69.8 |
68.1 |
1.7 |
0.45 |
0.8 |
|
8. Hormozgan |
69.6 |
63.3 |
6.3 |
0.58 |
3.7 |
|
9. Ilam |
71.0 |
67 |
4.0 |
0.48 |
1.9 |
|
10. Isfahan |
72.6 |
79.5 |
-6.9 |
0.14 |
0.0* |
|
11. Kerman |
71.3 |
70.5 |
0.8 |
0.39 |
0.3 |
|
12. Kermanshah |
71.5 |
68.1 |
3.4 |
0.45 |
1.5 |
|
13. Khoozestan |
71.0 |
69.2 |
1.8 |
0.42 |
0.8 |
|
14. Khorasan |
70.2 |
73.9 |
-3.7 |
0.30 |
0.0* |
|
15. Kohkilooyeh & B. A. |
66.6 |
61.9 |
4.7 |
0.62 |
2.9 |
|
16. Kordestan |
64.1 |
56.9 |
7.2 |
0.76 |
5.4 |
|
17. Lorestan |
70.1 |
65 |
5.1 |
0.54 |
2.8 |
|
18. Markasi |
77.2 |
71.7 |
5.5 |
0.36 |
1.9 |
|
19. Mazandaran |
74.1 |
72 |
2.1 |
0.35 |
0.7 |
|
20. Qom |
80.1 |
75.4 |
4.6 |
0.25 |
1.2 |
|
21. Semnan |
79.0 |
79.5 |
-0.5 |
0.14 |
0.0* |
|
22. Sistan & B. |
54.6 |
48.1 |
6.5 |
1.00 |
6.5 |
|
23. Tehran |
84.7 |
84.7 |
0.0 |
0.00 |
0.0 |
|
24. West Azarbayjan |
66.9 |
61.1 |
5.8 |
0.64 |
3.7 |
|
25. Yazd |
78.7 |
77.9 |
0.8 |
0.19 |
0.1 |
|
______26. Zanjan__________________ |
68.1 |
65.2 |
2.9 |
0.53 |
1.5 |
* δjr is set equal to 0 as Mrj is negative.
Using the above method we have computed the adjusted targets for all indicators and provinces.
They are presented in Table B3 in Appendix B.
Finally it should be pointed out that δjr computed by the suggested method (iv) may have other
applications outside the adjustment method or project selection model outlined above. These
coefficients can be computed for all indicators and provinces. It would then be possible to use
them for the (proportionate) regional allocation of activities which will affect the level of
indicators. However, in this approach only the concept of relativity is taken into account while
our suggested procedure as outlined above takes both relativity and capacity into account in
obtaining the adjusted targets for provinces. Indeed δjr are introducing the concept of relativity
into the analysis while Mrj are addressing the question of capacity in the manner discussed
above.
16
More intriguing information
1. Brauchen wir ein Konjunkturprogramm?: Kommentar2. Macro-regional evaluation of the Structural Funds using the HERMIN modelling framework
3. The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke
4. Elicited bid functions in (a)symmetric first-price auctions
5. Technological progress, organizational change and the size of the Human Resources Department
6. Monetary Policy News and Exchange Rate Responses: Do Only Surprises Matter?
7. EXPANDING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE U.K: FROM ‘SYSTEM SLOWDOWN’ TO ‘SYSTEM ACCELERATION’
8. On s-additive robust representation of convex risk measures for unbounded financial positions in the presence of uncertainty about the market model
9. The Tangible Contribution of R&D Spending Foreign-Owned Plants to a Host Region: a Plant Level Study of the Irish Manufacturing Sector (1980-1996)
10. Olfactory Neuroblastoma: Diagnostic Difficulty