Human Development Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
"HDI" redirects here. For other uses, see HDI (disambiguation).
For the complete ranking of countries, see List of countries by Human
Development Index.

World map representing Human Development Index categories (based on 2019 data, published in
2020).

  Very high (≥ 0.800)   Low (≤ 0.549)

  High (0.700–0.799)   Data unavailable
  Medium (0.550–0.699)

World map of countries by Human Development Index categories in increments of 0.050 (based on
2019 data, published in 2020).

  ≥ 0.900   0.650–0.699   0.400–0.449

  0.850–0.899   0.600–0.649   ≤ 0.399
  0.800–0.849   0.550–0.599   Data unavailable
  0.750–0.799   0.500–0.549
  0.700–0.749   0.450–0.499

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistic composite index of life

expectancy, education (mean years of schooling completed and expected years
of schooling upon entering the education system), and per capita
income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human
development. A country scores a higher level of HDI when the lifespan is
 higher, the education level is higher, and the gross national income GNI (PPP)
per capita is higher. It was developed by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul
Haq and was further used to measure a country's development by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP)'s Human Development Report
Office.[1][2][3]
The 2010 Human Development Report introduced an Inequality-adjusted
Human Development Index (IHDI). While the simple HDI remains useful, it
stated that "the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting
for inequality), while the HDI can be viewed as an index of 'potential' human
development (or the maximum level of HDI) that could be achieved if there were
no inequality."[4]
The index is based on the human development approach, developed
by Mahbub ul Haq, anchored in Amartya Sen's work on human capabilities,
often framed in terms of whether people are able to "be" and "do" desirable
things in life. Examples include – being: well fed, sheltered, healthy; doing:
work, education, voting, participating in community life. The freedom of choice is
central – someone choosing to be hungry (as during a religious fast) is quite
different from someone who is hungry because they cannot afford to buy food,
or because the country is in a famine.[5]
The index does not take into account several factors, such as the net wealth per
capita or the relative quality of goods in a country. This situation tends to lower
the ranking for some of the most advanced countries, such as the G7 members
and others.[6]

Contents

 1Origins
 2Dimensions and calculation
o 2.1New method (2010 HDI onwards)
o 2.2Old method (HDI before 2010)
 32019 Human Development Index (2020 report)
o 3.1Inequality-adjusted HDI (2020 report)
 4Past top countries
o 4.1In each original HDI
 5Geographical coverage
 6Country/region specific HDI lists
 7Criticism
o 7.1Sources of data error
 8See also
o 8.1Indices
o 8.2Other
 9Notes
 10References
 11External links

Origins[edit]
The origins of the HDI are found in the annual Human Development Reports
produced by the Human Development Report Office of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). These were devised and launched by
Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq in 1990, and had the explicit purpose "to
shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting
to people-centered policies". Haq believed that a simple composite measure of
human development was needed to convince the public, academics, and
politicians that they can and should evaluate development not only by economic
advances but also improvements in human well-being.

The underlying principles behind the Human Development Index. [5]

Dimensions and calculation[edit]

New method (2010 HDI onwards)[edit]
Published on 4 November 2010 (and updated on 10 June 2011), the 2010
Human Development Report calculated the HDI combining three dimensions: [7][8]

 A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth

 Education index: 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) 
LEI is 1 when Life expectancy at birth is 85 and 0 when Life expectancy
at birth is 20.
2. Education Index (EI) [9]
2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI) [10]
Fifteen is the projected maximum of this indicator for 2025.
2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI) [11]
Eighteen is equivalent to achieving a master's degree in most countries.
3. Income Index (II) 
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:
LE: Life expectancy at birth
MYS: Mean years of schooling (i.e. years that a person aged 25 or older has spent in
formal education)
EYS: Expected years of schooling (i.e. total expected years of schooling for children
under 18 years of age)
GNIpc: Gross national income at purchasing power parity per capita

Old method (HDI before 2010)[edit]

The HDI combined three dimensions last used in its 2009 report:

 Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and

longevity to HDI
 Knowledge and education, as measured by the
adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the
combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment
ratio (with one-third weighting).
 Standard of living, as indicated by the natural
logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing
power parity.

HDI trends between 1975 and 2004

  OECD   Arab League

  Europe (not in the OECD),   South Asia
and CIS   Sub-Saharan
  Latin America and Africa
the Caribbean
  East Asia

This methodology was used by the UNDP until their 2011 report.
The formula defining the HDI is promulgated by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP).[12] In general, to
transform a raw variable, say , into a unit-free index between 0
and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together), the
following formula is used:
where  and  are the lowest and highest values the variable  can
attain, respectively.
The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the
uniformly weighted sum with 1⁄3 contributed by each of the
following factor indices:
 Life Expectancy Index = 
 Education Index = 
o Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = 
o Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) = 
 GDP = 

2019 Human Development Index (2020

report)[edit]
Main article: List of countries by Human Development Index
The Human Development Report 2020 by the United Nations
Development Programme was released on 15 December 2020,
and calculates HDI values based on data collected in 2019. [13] The
list comprises countries and territories with very high human
development:

  = increase.
  = steady.
  = decrease.

Rank HDI Rank

Average
2019
Change
Country or Territory 2019
annual
2019
Change
data data data
over 5 HDI over 5
(2020 (2020 (2020
years growth years
report) report) report)
[14] (2014)[15] [14] (2010- [14] (2014)[1
2019)[15]

Very high human development 33

1  Norway 0.957  0.20% 34

2  (7)  Ireland 0.955  0.65% 35

2   Switzerland 0.955  0.16% 36  (4

 Rank HDI Rank

Average
2019
Change
Country or Territory 2019
annual
2019
Change
data data data
over 5 HDI over 5
(2020 (2020 (2020
years growth years
report) report) report)
[14] (2014)[15] [14] (2010- [14] (2014)[1
2019)[15]

Very high human development 37  (3

4  (7)  Hong Kong 0.949  0.54% 38  (1

4  (4)  Iceland 0.949  0.62% 39  (2

6  (3)  Germany 0.947  0.24% 40  (1

7  (3)  Sweden 0.945  0.41% 40  (4

8  (2)  Australia 0.944  0.17% 42  (6

8  (1)  Netherlands 0.944  0.32% 43

10  (6)  Denmark 0.940  0.28% 43  (2

11  (2)  Finland 0.938  0.26% 45

11  Singapore 0.938  0.35% 46  (2

13  United Kingdom 0.932  0.24% 47  (6

14  (1)  Belgium 0.931  0.25% 48  (2

14  (3)  New Zealand 0.931  0.30% 49  (2

 Rank HDI Rank

Average
2019
Change
Country or Territory 2019
annual
2019
Change
data data data
over 5 HDI over 5
(2020 (2020 (2020
years growth years
report) report) report)
[14] (2014)[15] [14] (2010- [14] (2014)[1
2019)[15]

Very high human development 50  (3

16  (1)  Canada 0.929  0.34% 51  (7

17  (3)  United States 0.926  0.12% 52  (1

18  Austria 0.922  0.22% 53  (4

19  (1)  Israel 0.919  0.29% 54  (5

19  (2)  Japan 0.919  0.39% 55  (1

19  Liechtenstein 0.919  0.18% 56  (2

22  (2)  Slovenia 0.917  0.35% 57  (5

23  (1)  South Korea 0.916  0.33% 58  (3

23  Luxembourg 0.916  0.22% 58  (6

25  (1)  Spain 0.904  0.40% 60  (3

26  (1)  France 0.901  0.28% 61  (7

27  (1)  Czech Republic 0.900  0.38% 62  (3

 Rank HDI Rank

Average
2019
Change
Country or Territory 2019
annual
2019
Change
data data data
over 5 HDI over 5
(2020 (2020 (2020
years growth years
report) report) report)
[14] (2014)[15] [14] (2010- [14] (2014)[1
2019)[15]

Very high human development 62  (1

28  (2)  Malta 0.895  0.54% 64  (5

29  (2)  Estonia 0.892  0.51% 64  (3

29  (1)  Italy 0.892  0.16% 66  (2

31  (6)  United Arab Emirates 0.890  0.91%

32  (3)  Greece 0.888  0.29%

Inequality-adjusted HDI (2020 report)[edit]

Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) "can
be interpreted as the level of human development when
inequality is accounted for. The relative difference between IHDI
and HDI values is the loss due to inequality in distribution of the
HDI within the country."[16] The list comprises countries and
territories with very high and high human development:
 2019 estimates (2020 report)[16][17][18]

Rank Country Rank Cou

Overall Growth
IHDI HDI loss since
(%) 2010

Very high human development 26  Pola

1  Norway 0.899 0.957 6.1  0.021 28  Uni

2  Iceland 0.894 0.949 5.8  0.055 29  Slov

3   Switzerland 0.889 0.955 6.9  0.015 30  Cyp

4  Finland 0.888 0.938 5.3  0.040

5  Ireland 0.885 0.955 7.3  0.066 31  Hun

6  Denmark 0.883 0.940 6.1  0.025 31  Lith

7  Sweden 0.882 0.945 6.7  0.033 31  Gre

8  Netherlands 0.878 0.944 7.0  0.036 34  Italy

9  Slovenia 0.875 0.917 4.6  0.047 34  Latv

10  Germany 0.869 0.947 8.2  0.016 34  Cro

11  Australia 0.867 0.944 8.2  0.011 34  Spa

12  Czech Republic 0.860 0.900 4.4  0.042 38  Bela

13  Belgium 0.859 0.931 7.7  0.026 39  Kaz

 2019 estimates (2020 report)[16][17][18]

Rank Country Rank Cou

Overall Growth
IHDI HDI loss since
(%) 2010

Very high human development

40  Port

14  New Zealand 0.859 0.931 7.7 NA 41  Mon

15  Austria 0.857 0.922 7.0  0.021 42  Rus

 United 43  Rom
16 0.856 0.932 8.2  0.032
Kingdom

44  Arg
17  Canada 0.848 0.929 8.7  0.025

45  Ukr
18  Japan 0.843 0.919 8.3  0.053[a]

46  Bulg
19  Estonia 0.829 0.882 7.1  0.051

47  Geo
20  Luxembourg 0.826 0.916 9.8  0.009

48  Uru
21  Hong Kong 0.824 0.949 13.2 NA

49  Chil
22  Malta 0.823 0.895 8.0  0.033[b]

50  Alba
23  France 0.820 0.901 9.0  0.022

51  Om
24  South Korea 0.815 0.916 11.0  0.074

52  Serb
 2019 estimates (2020 report)[16][17][18]

Rank Country Rank Cou

Overall Growth
IHDI HDI loss since
(%) 2010

Very high human development

25  Israel 0.814 0.919 11.4  0.031

26  Singapore 0.813 0.938 13.3 NA

Past top countries[edit]

The list below displays the top-ranked country from each year of
the Human Development Index. Norway has been ranked the
highest sixteen times, Canada eight times,
and Japan and Iceland twice.
In each original HDI[edit]
The year represents the time period from which the statistics for
the index were derived. In parentheses is the year when the
report was published.

 2019 (2020):   Norway

 2018 (2019):   Norway
 2017 (2018):   Norway
 2015 (2016):   Norway
 2014 (2015):   Norway
 2013 (2014):   Norway
 2012 (2013):   Norway
 2011 (2011):   Norway
 2010 (2010):   Norway
 2007 (2009):   Norway
 2006 (2008):   Iceland
 2005 (2007):   Iceland
 2004 (2006):   Norway
 2003 (2005):   Norway
 2002 (2004):   Norway
 2001 (2003):   Norway
 2000 (2002):   Norway
 1999 (2001):   Norway
 1998 (2000):   Canada
 1997 (1999):   Canada
 1995 (1998):   Canada
 1994 (1997):   Canada
 1993 (1996):   Canada
 1992 (1995):   Canada
 ???? (1994):   Canada
 ???? (1993):   Japan
 1990 (1992):   Canada
 1990 (1991):   Japan

Geographical coverage[edit]
The HDI has extended its geographical coverage: David
Hastings, of the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific, published a report
geographically extending the HDI to 230+ economies, whereas
the UNDP HDI for 2009 enumerates 182 economies and
coverage for the 2010 HDI dropped to 169 countries. [19][20]

Country/region specific HDI lists[edit]

 African countries
 Argentinean provinces
 Australian states
 Austrian states
 Baltic Regions
 Bolivian departments
 Brazilian states
 Canadian provinces and territories
 Chilean regions
 Chinese administrative divisions
 Colombian departments
 Danish regions
 Dutch provinces
 Ethiopian regions
 European countries
 German states
 Greek regions
 Indian states
 Tamil Nadu districts
 Indonesian provinces
 Iranian provinces
 Iraqi governorates
 Italian regions
 Japanese prefectures
 Latin American countries
 Malaysian states
 Mexican states
 New Zealand regions
 Nigerian states
 Pakistani administrative units
 Philippine provinces
 Palestinian regions
 Polish voivodeships
 Russian federal subjects
 South African provinces
 Spanish communities
 Swiss regions
 UK countries and regions of England
 U.S. states (American Human Development Report (AHDR))
 Venezuelan states

Criticism[edit]

HDI vs. ecological footprint

The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number

of grounds, including alleged lack of consideration of
technological development or contributions to the human
civilization, focusing exclusively on national performance and
ranking, lack of attention to development from a global
perspective, measurement error of the underlying statistics, and
on the UNDP's changes in formula which can lead to severe
misclassification in the categorisation of "low", "medium", "high"
or "very high" human development countries. [21]
Sources of data error[edit]
Economists Hendrik Wolff, Howard Chong and Maximilian
Auffhammer discuss the HDI from the perspective of data error in
the underlying health, education and income statistics used to
construct the HDI. They identified three sources of data error
which are due to (i) data updating, (ii) formula revisions and (iii)
thresholds to classify a country's development status and
conclude that 11%, 21% and 34% of all countries can be
interpreted as currently misclassified in the development bins due
to the three sources of data error, respectively. The authors
suggest that the United Nations should discontinue the practice
of classifying countries into development bins because: the cut-
off values seem arbitrary, can provide incentives for strategic
behavior in reporting official statistics, and have the potential to
misguide politicians, investors, charity donors and the public who
use the HDI at large.[21]
In 2010, the UNDP reacted to the criticism and updated the
thresholds to classify nations as low, medium, and high human
development countries. In a comment to The Economist in early
January 2011, the Human Development Report Office
responded[22] to a 6 January 2011 article in the magazine[23] which
discusses the Wolff et al. paper. The Human Development
Report Office states that they undertook a systematic revision of
the methods used for the calculation of the HDI, and that the new
methodology directly addresses the critique by Wolff et al. in that
it generates a system for continuously updating the human-
development categories whenever formula or data revisions take
place.
In 2013, Salvatore Monni and Alessandro Spaventa emphasized
that in the debate of GDP versus HDI, it is often forgotten that
these are both external indicators that prioritize different
benchmarks upon which the quantification of societal welfare can
be predicated. The larger question is whether it is possible to shift
the focus of policy from a battle between competing paradigms to
a mechanism for eliciting information on well-being directly from
the population.[24]