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. Altruism with Social Roots: An Emerging Literature
3. Reversal of Fortune: Macroeconomic Policy, International Finance, and Banking in Japan
4. Integration, Regional Specialization and Growth Differentials in EU Acceding Countries: Evidence from Hungary
5. A Dynamic Model of Conflict and Cooperation
6. Flatliners: Ideology and Rational Learning in the Diffusion of the Flat Tax
7. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives
8. Education as a Moral Concept
9. Olfactory Neuroblastoma: Diagnostic Difficulty
10. Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries: The Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education