Page 60 - Contributed Paper Session (CPS) - Volume 1

CPS877 Paula J.G. et al.
to 2011, the stimulus packages in the OECD countries permitted an evolution
of the variables, but there was a stagnation between 2011 and 2013
mainly due to aspects related to unemployment and income. The growth
phase was resumed in the years 2014 and 2015. In
relation to axis 2, there was a contrast between
the initial and final years (mainly 2009 and 2015)
and the intermediate years (2011 to 2013, with
2010 and 2014 being almost neutral). This trough
(Guttman effect) revealed a decline in essential
aspects after the 2008 global crisis until 2012 (pick Fig. 2 – Representation of
year of the crisis), which was gradually recovered interstructure
and surpassed by the OECD (as a whole) in 2015.
The study used normalized objects to analyze the interstructure. The first
two axes represented 98.37% of the inertia (with the first axis alone
contributing 95.26%) and so, it was viable to assess the interstructure based
on the first principal plan. The representation on the first principal plan (Figure
2) revealed that there was a common structure for all the objects (representing
the data tables) in the period from 2009 and 2015. Apart from being possible
to detect a sequential evolution from 2009 to 2015 with a good quality of the
representations (the projected norms on the first axis were close to 1), it was
interesting to notice that objects 2009 to 2011 were in opposition to the data
tables of 2012 to 2015 in terms of axis 2 (despite its reduced inertia).
With a view to obtaining the
compromise Euclidean image, the PCA of
the compromise table produced the
eigenvalues and associated inertias. For
the purpose of the study, it was decided to
focus on the interpretation of the first two
axes which represented a combined 56.9%
inertia. The meaning of each axis could be
interpreted based on the correlation
coefficient between the principal Fig. 1 – OECD evolution in 2009-2015
component of compromise and the initial
variables. In terms of axis 1, there was an opposition between variables ranging
from the indispensable needs (on the left) to the quality and conditions of life
(on the right) and so, axis 1 could be understood as the level of development
from a social and collective progress point-of-view. The aspects more exposed
to axis 1 were the absence of basic facilities, unemployment, and labor security
in opposition to employment, water quality, security, salary, and household
income. In addition, axis 2 addressed aspects that were dependent on personal
welfare and wealth and thus, ranged from the requirements that were
independent of financial means and capabilities to dimensions that were

49 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9