Human Development Report 2015

Work for human development
Briefing note for countries on the 2015 Human Development Report

The 2015 Human Development Report (HDR) Work for Human Development examines the intrinsic
relationship between work and human development. Work, which is a broader concept than jobs or
employment, can be a means of contributing to the public good, reducing inequality, securing livelihoods
and empowering individuals. Work allows people to participate in the society and provides them a sense of
dignity and worth. In addition, work that involves caring for others or voluntarism builds social cohesion and
strengthens bonds within families and communities.
These are all essential aspects of human development. But a positive link between work and human
development is not automatic. The link can be broken in cases of exploitative and hazardous conditions,
where labour rights are not guaranteed or protected, where social protection measures are not in place,
and when unequal opportunities and work related discrimination increase and perpetuate socioeconomic
Work can enhance human development when policies are taken to expand productive, remunerative and
satisfying work opportunities; enhance workers’ skills and potentials; and ensure their rights, safety, and
wellbeing. Measuring aspects of work, both positive and negative, can help shape policy agendas and track
progress toward human development enhancing work. But many countries are missing international data
at the country level on key indicators including child labour, forced labour, unpaid care work, time use,
labour regulations, and social protection. This limits the ability of countries to monitor progress on these
This briefing note is organized into seven sections. The first section presents information on the country
coverage and methodology of the Statistical Annex of the 2015 HDR. The next five sections provide
information about key indicators of human development including the Human Development Index (HDI),
the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), the Gender Development Index (GDI), the
Gender Inequality Index (GII), and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). The final section presents a
selection of additional indicators related to the topic of work.
It is important to note that national and international data can differ because international agencies
standardize national data to allow comparability across countries and in some cases may not have access
to the most recent national data. We encourage national partners to explore the issues raised in the HDR
with the most relevant and appropriate data from national and international sources.

Country coverage and the methodology of the Statistical Annex of the 2015 HDR
The Statistical Annex of the 2015 HDR presents the 2014 HDI (values and ranks) for 188 countries and
UN-recognized territories, along with the IHDI for 151 countries, the GDI for 161 countries, the GII for 155
countries, and the MPI for 101 countries. Country rankings and values of the annual Human Development
Index (HDI) are kept under strict embargo until the global launch and worldwide electronic release of the

India’s GNI per capita increased by about 338. the HDI values and ranks in this year’s report are not comparable to those in past reports (including the 2014 HDR) because of a number of revisions to the component indicators. India’s HDI value and rank India’s HDI value for 2014 is 0. To allow for assessment of progress in HDIs. As stated in the introduction. . Standard of living is measured by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita expressed in constant 2011 international dollars converted using purchasing power parity (PPP) rates. Readers are advised to assess progress in HDI values by referring to table 2 (‘Human Development Index Trends’) in the Statistical Annex of the report. and additional source information are available online at http://hdr.undp. Table A reviews India’s progress in each of the HDI indicators.It is misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports. Between 1980 and 2014. which is the total number of years of schooling a child of school-entry age can expect to receive if prevailing patterns of age-specific enrolment rates stay the same throughout the child's life. and access to learning and knowledge by expected years of schooling for children of school-entry age. the United Nations Educational.5 years and expected years of schooling increased by 5. mean years of schooling increased by 3. which is the average number of years of education received in a life-time by people aged 25 years and older. Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics (the mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling data) and the World Bank (the GNI per capita data).0 percent between 1980 and 2014. reflecting the actual progress countries have made.609. India’s life expectancy at birth increased by 14. Generally speaking.609— which put the country in the medium human development category— positioning it at 130 out of 188 countries and territories. the 2015 report includes recalculated HDIs from 1990 to 2014 using consistent series of data. along with technical notes on the calculation of composite indices. Between 1980 and 2014. tables use data available to the Human Development Report Office (HDRO) as of 15 April 2015. Small changes in values should be interpreted with caution as they may not be statistically significant due to sampling variation. changes at the level of the third decimal place in any of the composite indices are considered Human Development Index (HDI) The HDI is a summary measure for assessing long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life.undp. To ensure as much cross-country comparability as possible. India’s HDI value increased from 0.1 years. Table 2 is based on consistent indicators. methodology and time-series data and thus shows real changes in values and ranks over time. an increase of 68. Unless otherwise specified in the source. Knowledge level is measured by mean years of education among the adult population.54 percent.3 years. access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. All indices and For further details on how each index is calculated please refer to Technical Notes 1-5 and the associated background papers available on the Human Development Report website: http://hdr. because of revisions and updates of the underlying data and adjustments to goalposts. A long and healthy life is measured by life expectancy.362 to 0. the HDI is based primarily on international data from the United Nations Population Division (the life expectancy data).1 percent or an average annual increase of about 1.

7 8.Table A: India’s HDI trends based on consistent time series data and new goalposts 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Life expectancy at birth 53.7 11. . during the period between 1980 and 2014 India.745 4.496 0.3 67.609 Figure 1 below shows the contribution of each component index to India’s HDI since 1980. For instance.4 4.597 0.754 2.397 0.5 66.046 2.4 5.4 3. Figure 1: Trends in India’s HDI component indices 1980-2014 Assessing progress relative to other countries Long-term progress can usefully be compared to other countries.539 0.9 67. Pakistan and Bangladesh experienced different degrees of progress toward increasing their HDIs (see figure 2).6 64.7 Mean years of schooling 1.8 5.604 0.5 4.0 Expected years of schooling 6.499 4.497 HDI value 0.4 5.4 5.239 4.7 11.8 57.600 0.9 11.9 55.462 0.4 7.4 GNI per capita (2011 PPP$) 1.1 11.586 0.909 5.428 0.5 66.9 2.180 5.3 7.3 8.0 3.6 68.446 1.4 5.7 11.5 9.4 62.522 3.255 1.9 60.362 0.

0 71.0 7.570 0.4 68.538 0.2 68. the loss in human development also increases.Figure 2: HDI trends for India. We also present the coefficient of human inequality as a direct measure of inequality which is an unweighted average of inequalities in three dimensions. Like all averages.353 Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) The HDI is an average measure of basic human development achievements in a country. As the inequality in a country increases.4 5. countries which are close to India in 2014 HDI rank and to some extent in population size are Bangladesh and Pakistan. The ‘loss’ in human development due to inequality is given by the difference between the HDI and the IHDI. the HDI falls to 0. The IHDI is basically the HDI discounted for inequalities. Bangladesh and . The 2010 HDR introduced the IHDI.497 3. 1980-2014 India’s 2014 HDI of 0.2 GNI per capita (PPP US$) 5.2 11.607 for countries in South Asia. which have HDIs ranked 142 and 147 respectively (see table B).191 4. which takes into account inequality in all three dimensions of the HDI by ‘discounting’ each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality.7 5.630 130 142 147 — — Life expectancy at birth 68.1 4.609.6 Expected years of schooling 11.435.6 66. Table B: India’s HDI indicators for 2014 relative to selected countries and groups India Bangladesh Pakistan South Asia Medium HDI HDI value HDI rank 0.8 Mean years of schooling 5. India’s HDI for 2014 is 0.6 percent due to inequality in the distribution of the HDI dimension indices.5 6.605 6.7 10. However. For more details see Technical Note 2.609 is below the average of 0. a loss of 28. From South Asia.866 5.609 0. Pakistan and Bangladesh. when the value is discounted for inequality. and can be expressed as a percentage.607 0.8 11. the HDI masks inequality in the distribution of human development across the population at the country level.630 for countries in the medium human development group and above the average of 0.

377 0. and command over economic resources (measured by female and male estimated GNI per capita).3 10.4 29. education (measured by female and male expected years of schooling for children and mean years for adults aged 25 years and older).9 67.525 0. empowerment is measured by the share of parliamentary seats held by women and attainment in secondary and higher education by each gender.4 21.198 3.9 70.450 2.795 0.917 0.1 38.726 0. HDRO introduced a new measure.9 25.436 0. This means that the grouping takes into consideration inequality in favour of men or women equally. Table D: India’s GDI value and its components relative to selected countries and groups India Bangladesh Pakistan South Asia Medium HDI Life expectancy at birth Expected years of schooling Mean years of schooling Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 69.574 0. ranking it 130 out of 155 countries in the 2014 index.525 in contrast with 0. based on the sex-disaggregated Human Development Index.8 percent and for South Asia it is 28.660 0.601 0.4 percent and 29. The GDI is calculated for 161 countries.3 11. Reproductive health is measured by maternal mortality and adolescent birth rates.6 70.7 percent.6 17. and economic activity.656 4. The average loss due to inequality for medium HDI countries is 25.9 28.8 Human inequality coefficient (%) 27.801 0. and 27. defined as a ratio of the female to the male HDI.9 7.1 3. Table C: India’s IHDI for 2014 relative to selected countries and groups India Bangladesh Pakistan South Asia Medium HDI IHDI value Overall loss (%) 0.917 and 0.468 28.7 4.1 29.9 7.7 percent.5 Inequality in life expectancy at birth (%) 25. For every 100.7 8.827 9.9 19.590 0. The Human inequality coefficient for India is equal to 27. GDI values for Bangladesh and Pakistan are 0. 12.3 2.8 11.8 3.3 11.6 percent of their male counterparts.333 8.726 respectively (see Table D).6 27.1 28.9 percent respectively.541 0.6 66.9 Inequality in income (%) 16.403 0.7 Gender Development Index (GDI) In the 2014 HDR.083 8. The GII can be interpreted as the loss in human development due to inequality between female and male achievements in the three GII dimensions.8 11.2 5.4 41. The GDI measures gender inequalities in achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: health (measured by female and male life expectancy at birth).5 11. which reflects gender-based inequalities in three dimensions – reproductive health.433 0. resulting in a GDI value of 0.5 6.9 24.563.5 34.257 0. Country groups are based on absolute deviation from gender parity in HDI.0 percent of adult women have reached at least a secondary level of education compared to 56.6 4.2 percent of parliamentary seats are held by women. For more details on GII please see Technical Note 4.7 25. In comparison.3 67. The 2014 female HDI value for India is 0.116 2.000 live F-M ratio GDI value 0.2 69.5 11. For details on how the index is constructed refer to Technical Note 3.7 29.8 Inequality in education (%) 42.525 0.660 for males.4 65.861 . the GDI.0 10.795.Pakistan show losses due to inequality of 29.435 0.0 28.2 6.1 66.3 7.278 1.8 9.5 3.655 0. and economic activity is measured by the labour market participation rate for women and men.6 29.6 44. empowerment. In India.100 8.667 GNI per capita HDI values Gender Inequality Index (GII) The 2010 HDR introduced the GII. India has a GII value of 0.5 72.0 20.

Female participation in the labour market is 27.237 and 0. The multidimensional poverty headcount is 31.3 percent of the population (631.1 41. A deprivation score of 33.8 55.4 24. and the deprivation scores are computed for each household in the survey. adjusted by the intensity of the deprivations. .9 for men.536 0.0 percent compared to 79.3 38.3 percent or greater.1 29. The MPI.1 54.1 percent.8 Maternal mortality ratio is expressed in number of deaths per 100. and the adolescent birth rate is 32.3 79. The contributions of deprivations in each dimension to overall poverty complete a comprehensive picture of people living in multidimensional poverty in India.563 0.8 Population with at least some secondary education (%) Female Male 27. Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) The 2010 HDR introduced the MPI. as well as methodology of the MPI are given in Technical Note 5.503 0.536 0. households with a deprivation score greater than or equal to 50 percent live in severe multidimensional poverty. In India 55. measured by the percentage of the population living below PPP US$1.000 women of ages 15-19.8 births per 1.282.3 46.5 18.9 80. Definitions of deprivations in each dimension. Bangladesh and Pakistan have MPIs of 0.6 29. is 0.588 thousand people).000 women ages 15-19. Table F also shows the percentage of India’s population that lives near multidimensional poverty and that lives in severe multidimensional poverty.1 82. Households with a deprivation score greater than or equal to 20 percent but less than 33. Figures for Bangladesh and Pakistan are also shown in the table for comparison. All of the indicators needed to construct the MPI for a household are taken from the same household survey.0 56. In comparison.3 percent are near multidimensional poverty.3 percent (one-third of the weighted indicators). and multidimensional poverty.4 12. health and living standards. The breadth of deprivation (intensity) in India.25 per day. which identifies multiple deprivations in the same households in education.7 17. while the standard of living dimension is based on six indicators.0 19.999 thousand people) are multidimensionally poor while an additional 18. The most recent survey data that were publically available for India’s MPI estimation refer to 2005/2006.6 34. Bangladesh and Pakistan are ranked at 111 and 121 respectively on this index. This implies that individuals living above the income poverty line may still suffer deprivations in education. the household (and everyone in it) is classified as multidimensionally poor.9 84. Table E: India’s GII for 2014 relative to selected countries and groups India Bangladesh Pakistan South Asia Medium HDI GII value GII Rank Maternal mortality ratio Adolescent birth rate Female seats in parliament (%) 0.5 Male 79.506 130 111 121 — — 190 170 170 183 168 32.237 respectively. which is the share of the population that is multidimensionally poor. Table F compares income poverty. If the household deprivation score is 33. 190 women die from pregnancy related causes. Finally.6 27.7 43. The education and health dimensions are each based on two indicators.6 34.0 57.3 19.8 37. The indicators are weighted to create a deprivation score. which is the average of deprivation scores experienced by people in multidimensional poverty. It shows that income poverty only tells part of the story.8 80. is used to distinguish between the poor and nonpoor.3 Labour force participation rate (%) Female 27.2 20.7 percentage points higher than income poverty.births.000 live births and adolescent birth rate is expressed in number of births per 1. health and other living conditions.2 percent live near multidimensional poverty (208. is 51.

6 5. PPP $2 per day (% of total employment) 55.9 Share of employment in services (% of total employment) 28.0 26.237 Intensity of deprivations (%) 55.8 52.Table F: The most recent MPI for India relative to selected countries Contribution to overall poverty of deprivations in (%) Population share (%) Survey year India Bangladesh Pakistan 2005/2006 2011 2012/2013 MPI value Headcount (%) 0.5 Working poor.8 44.9 33.5 -- -- 0.7 80.8 14.6 32.7 28.9 Internet users (% of population) 18.2 Male 0.117 Child labour (% ages 5-14 years) 11.0 Near poverty In severe poverty Below income poverty line Health Education Living Standards 18.3 12.237 0.7 51.8 Male 79.5 12.2 44.0 21.483 -- 8.6 .6 43.2 75.2 55.9 27.4 -- -- -- Youth unemployment (% of youth labour force) 10. Note that not all indicators have sufficient country coverage for aggregate estimation.2 Long term unemployment (% of labour force) 1.7 32.9 79.821 9.0 Mandatory paid maternity leave (days) 84.5 0.6 14.5 36.3 5. The data provide a partial picture of the conditions surrounding work in the country and the areas that may benefit from policy attention.7 58.8 78.3 49.5 49.1 14.6 Work Indicators Table G collates the work related indicators that are available for India from the HDR 2015 Statistical Annex.2 55.7 15.0 77.9 31.6 4.8 65.5 23.2 18.7 2.5 26.9 17.0 23.4 36.9 31.3 22.3 Share of employment in agriculture (% of total employment) 47.0 37.0 98. Table G: Additional indicators related to work for India India Medium HDI Developing countries South Asia Employment to population ratio (% ages 15 and older) Labour force participation rate (% ages 15 and older) 52.0 99.9 Labour force with tertiary education (%) Youth not in school or employment (% ages 15-24) -- -- -- -- Labour productivity: output per worker (2011 PPP $) 8.3 53.8 21.9 45.8 11.6 Mobile phone subscribers (per 100 people) 74.3 Total unemployment (% of labour force) 3.0 1.8 60.6 Female 27.5 91.1 35.3 Female 2.282 0.2 54.2 -- -- 2.1 54.2 42.5 46.0 84.5 91.6 51.1 47.5 29.6 -- -- -- -- Vulnerable employment (% of total employment) 80.0 Old age pension recipients (% of statutory pension age population) 24.7 64.5 45.3 39.8 54.1 30.1 27.6 10.9 Domestic workers (% of total employment) Unemployment benefits recipients (% of unemployed ages 15-64) 0.

Table H: Paid versus unpaid work in India by gender Total paid work Country Survey year Female Male (minutes per day) India 1998-1999 160 360 Total unpaid work Female Male (minutes per day) 297 31 . Table H presents the number of minutes spent per day in paid and unpaid activities separately for women and men. time use survey data is not available for many countries and regional aggregates cannot be calculated. Unfortunately.Additionally.

1 .