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. INSTITUTIONS AND PRICE TRANSMISSION IN THE VIETNAMESE HOG MARKET2. Deprivation Analysis in Declining Inner City Residential Areas: A Case Study From Izmir, Turkey.
3. Public-private sector pay differentials in a devolved Scotland
4. AGRICULTURAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION UNDER NAFTA: REPORTING ON THE REPORT CARD
5. The Trade Effects of MERCOSUR and The Andean Community on U.S. Cotton Exports to CBI countries
6. The name is absent
7. Campanile Orchestra
8. Spatial agglomeration and business groups: new evidence from Italian industrial districts
9. Learning-by-Exporting? Firm-Level Evidence for UK Manufacturing and Services Sectors
10. The name is absent