Document 1

HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT
INDEX
Dimensions and calculation
Published on 4 November 2010 (and updated on 10 June 2011), the 2010 Human Development
Report calculated the HDI combining three dimensions:
 A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth
 Education: Mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling
 A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP international dollars)
In its 2010 Human Development Report, the UNDP began using a new method of
calculating the HDI. The following three indices are used:
1. Life Expectancy Index (LEI) = (Life Expectancy at birth - 20) / (85 - 20)
 LEI is equal to 1 when life expectancy at birth is 85 years, and 0 when life
expectancy at birth is 20 years.
2. Education Index (EI) = (Mean Years of Schooling + Expected Years of Schooling)/2
 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI) =MYS/15
Fifteen is the projected maximum of this indicator for 2025.
 Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI) = EYS/18
Eighteen is equivalent to achieving a master's degree in most countries.
3. Income Index (II) = [ln(GNIpc) - ln(100)] / [ln(75000) - ln(100)]
 II is 1 when GNI per capita is $75,000 and 0 when GNI per capita is $100.
Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalized indices:
Criticism Directed at the Human
Development Index.
The following are common criticisms directed at the HDI: that it is a redundant measure that
adds little to the value of the individual measures composing it; that it is a means to provide
legitimacy to arbitrary weightings of a few aspects of social development; that it is a number
producing a relative ranking which is useless for inter-temporal comparisons, and difficult to
compare a country's progress or regression since the HDI for a country in a given year depends
on the levels of, say, life expectancy or GDP per capita of other countries in that year. However,
each year, UN member states are listed and ranked according to the computed HDI. If high, the
rank in the list can be easily used as a means of national aggrandizement; alternatively, if low, it
can be used to highlight national insufficiencies. Using the HDI as an absolute index of social
welfare, some authors have used panel HDI data to measure the impact of economic policies on
quality of life. Critics argue that the HDI assigns weights to certain factors that are equal
tradeoffs when these measurements may not always be equally valuable. For example, countries
could achieve the same HDI through different combinations of life expectancy and GNI per
capita. This would imply that a person's life expectancy has an economic value.
Ratan Lal Basu criticizes the HDI concept from a completely different angle. According to him
the Amartya Sen-Mahbub ul Haq concept of HDI considers that provision of material amenities
alone would bring about Human Development, but Basu opines that Human Development in the
true sense should embrace both material and moral development. According to him human
development based on HDI alone, is similar to dairy farm economics to improve dairy farm
output. To quote: ‘So human development effort should not end up in amelioration of material
deprivations alone: it must undertake to bring about spiritual and moral development to assist the
biped to become truly human.’ For example, a high suicide rate would bring the index down.
It also correlates factors that are more common in developed economies. For example, a higher
level of education would tend to lead to higher GNI per capita. Critics argue the benefit or lack
thereof of including two highly correlated values when perhaps one would be a better indicator
of a country's well-being. The HDI also fails to take into account factors such as inequality,
poverty, and gender disparity. A country with a high value for GNI per capita would indicate a
developed country, but what if that GNI is reached by marginalizing certain genders or ethnic
classes? And what if that GNI is achieved by a small percentage of the population that is wealthy
and, therefore, ignores the poor?
Furthermore, the values of the factors that make up the HDI are bound between 0 and 1. This
means that certain countries that already have high GNIs, for example, have little room to
improve in terms of GNI score even if their GNI continues to grow and improve. This same
parameter affects the logic of the life expectancy score
Top 10 Countries with the Highest
Human Development Index (HDI) –
2022
1. Switzerland — .962
2. Norway — .961
3. Iceland — .959
4. Hong Kong (China) — .952
5. Australia — .951
6. Denmark — .948
7. Sweden — .947
8. Ireland — .945
9. Germany — .942
10. Netherlands — .941
Most developed countries have an HDI score of 0.8 or above, landing them in the very
high human development tier. These countries have stable governments, widespread
affordable education and healthcare, high life expectancies and quality of life, and
growing, powerful economies.
In contrast to this are the world's least-developed countries (LDCs), which tend to have
HDI scores below 0.55, in the "low human development" category. LDCs face unstable
governments, widespread poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and poor education.
Additionally, these countries have low income and low life expectancies, coupled with
high birth rates. This illustrates the fundamental purpose of the HDI: to help the United
Nations determine which countries (especially which least-developed countries) are most
in need of assistance.
Top 10 Countries with the Lowest
Human Development Index (HDI) –
2022
1. South Sudan — .385

2. Chad — .394
3. Niger — .400
4. Central African Republic — .404
5. Burundi — .426
6. Mali — .428
7. Mozambique — .446
8. Burkina Faso — .449
9. Yemen — .455
10. Guinea — .465
11.
Look at the 3 factors considered in the HDI: Income, Life expectancy and Education. A low
score on any of these will drag down the country’s overall score.
The three factors also play off each other. A wealthy country can generate more taxes to provide
health and education services. Wealthier people can afford to have their children stay in school
longer and eat better quality food so they live longer. When the people live longer, healthier
lives, they are more productive so the national income increases. People with better educations
can perform more high-value work so the national income increases.
As workers’ wealth increases, people are less likely to work on dangerous or toxic work
conditions so their life expectancy increases. Better-educated populations will understand the
risks of living near toxic chemical plants so their health and life expectancy should increase.

Document 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUMAN

1. South Sudan — .385

You might also like