HUman Development indicators

India with a large and young population has a great demographic advantage. The average age of the 1.25 billion-strong Indian population will be 29 years in 2020, even younger than the 37 years of China and the US. The proportion of working-age population is likely to increase from approximately 58 per cent in 2001 to more than 64 per cent by 2021, adding about 63.5 million new entrants between 2011 and 2016 with a large number of young persons in the 20-35 years age group. This is a great opportunity for India. Demographic dividend will benefit India if its population is educated, healthy, and adequately skilled.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (HDI)

Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of key dimensions of human development. HDI was created by a Pakistani economist Mahbub Ul Haq and Indian economist Amartya Sen in 1990. It is published by United Nations Development Programme on yearly basis. It is geometric mean of Life Expectancy Index, Education Index and Income Index. The score varies between 0 to 1, with 0 indicating very low level of development and 1 indicating a very high level of human development. The ranking of countries is based on the value of the HDI, which reflects a country’s overall achievement in its social and economic dimensions. There have been changes in the parameters since it was started in 1990. The last amends were done in 2010. Accordingly, Human Development Report the HDI combines three dimensions:

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 US$)

Levels of Development in HDR

The countries have been classified into four levels ofDevelopment (earlier three) based on their HDIs:

• very high human development
• high human development
• medium human development
• low human development

Human Development Report 2018

India climbed one spot to 130 out of 189 countries in the latest human development rankings released today by the United Nations development Program  (UNDP). India’s HDI value for 2017 is 0.640, which put the country in the medium human development category. Between 1990 and 2017, India’s HDI value increased from 0.427 to 0.640, an increase of nearly 50 percent – and an indicator of the country’s remarkable achievement in lifting millions of people out of poverty.

Top and Bottom Countries

Norway, Switzerland, Australia, Ireland and Germany lead the ranking, while Niger, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Chad and Burundi have the lowest scores in the HDI’s measurement of national achievements in health, education and income.

India in South Asia: Within South Asia, India’s HDI value is above the average of 0.638 for the region, with Bangladesh and Pakistan, countries with similar population size, being ranked 136 and 150 respectively.

BRICS: Within BRICS India remains at the lowest level as with score of 0.816 (Rank 49) Russia remains at the top followed by Brazil with score of 0.759 (Rank 79).Among other BRICS countries China with score of 0.752 stands at rank 86 and South Africa with score of 0.699 is at rank 113.

Broad Understanding:

• The overall trend globally is toward continued human development improvements, with many countries moving up through the human development categories: out of the 189 countries for which the HDI is calculated, 59 countries are today in the very high human development group and only 38 countries fall in the low HDI group. Just eight years ago in 2010, the figures were 46 and 49 countries respectively.
• Movements in the HDI are driven by changes in health, education and income. Health has improved considerably as shown by life expectancy at birth, which has increased by almost seven years globally, with Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia showing the greatest progress, each experiencing increases of about 11 years since 1990. And, today’s school-age children can expect to be in school for 3.4 years longer than those in 1990.
• Between 1990 and 2017, India’s life expectancy at birth too increased by nearly 11 years, with even more significant gains in  expected years of schooling. Today’s Indian school-age children can expect to stay in school for 4.7 years longer than in 1990. Whereas, India’s GNI per capita increased by a staggering 266.6 percent between 1990 and 2017.

Disparities between and within countries continue to stifle progress.

• Average HDI levels have risen significantly since 1990 – 22 percent globally and 51 percent in least developed countries – reflecting that on average people are living longer, are more educated and have greater income. But there remain massive differences across the world in people’s well-being.
• A child born today in Norway, the country with the highest HDI, can expect to live beyond 82 years old and spend almost 18 years in school. While a child born in Niger, the country with the lowest HDI, can expect only to live to 60 and spend just five years in school. Such striking differences can be seen again and again.
• “On average, a child born today in a country with low human development can expect to live just over 60 years, while a child born in a country with very high human development can expect to live to almost 80.   Similarly, children in low human development countries can expect to be in school seven years less than children in very high human development countries,” said Achim Steiner UNDP Administrator. “While these statistics present a stark picture in themselves, they also speak to the tragedy of millions of individuals whose lives are affected by inequity and lost opportunities, neither of which are inevitable.”
• A closer look at the HDI’s components sheds light on the unequal distribution of outcomes in education, life expectancy and income within countries. The Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) allows one to compare levels of inequality within countries, and the greater the inequality, the more a country’s HDI falls.
• While significant inequality occurs in many countries, including in some of the wealthiest ones, on average it takes a bigger toll on countries with lower human development levels. Low and medium human development countries lose respectively 31 and 25 percent of their human development level from inequality, while for very high human development countries, the average loss is 11 percent.
• “While there is ground for optimism that the gaps are narrowing, disparities in people’s well-being are still unacceptably wide. Inequality in all its forms and dimensions, between and within countries, limits people’s choices and opportunities, withholding progress,” said Selim Jahan, Director of the Human Development Report Office at UNDP.
• 26.8 percent of India’s HDI value is lost on account of inequalities -- a greater loss than for most of its South Asian neighbours (the average loss for the region is 26.1 percent).  This confirms that inequality remains a challenge for India as it progresses economically, though the Government of India and various state governments have, through a variety of social protection measures, attempted to ensure that the gains of economic development are shared widely and reach the farthest first.
• Francine Pickup, Country Director, UNDP India, noted the steady progress made by India in improving its HDI value. “The Government of India is committed to improve the quality of life for all its people. The success of India’s national development schemes like BetiBachaoBetiPadhao, Swachh Bharat, Make in India, and initiatives aimed at universalizing school education and health care, will be crucial in ensuring that the upward trend on human development accelerates and also achieve the Prime Minister’s vision of development for all and the key principle of the Sustainable Development Goals -- to leave no one behind.”

Gender gaps in early years are closing, but inequalities persist in adulthood.

• One key source of inequality within countries is the gap in opportunities, achievements and empowerment between women and men. Worldwide the average HDI for women is six percent lower than for men, due to women’s lower income and educational attainment in many countries.
• Although there has been laudable progress in the number of girls attending school, there remain big differences between other key aspects of men and women’s lives. Women’s empowerment remains a particular challenge.
• Global labour force participation rates for women are lower than for men – 49 percent versus 75 percent.  And when women are in the labour market, their unemployment rates are 24 percent higher than their male counterparts. Women globally also do much more unpaid domestic and care work than men.
• Overall, women’s share of parliamentary seats remains low although it varies across regions, from 17.5 and 18 percent in South Asia and the Arab States, respectively; to 29 percent in Latin America and Caribbean and OECD countries. Violence against women affects all societies, and in some regions childhood marriage and high adolescence birth rates undermine the opportunities for many young women and girls. In South Asia, 29 percent of women between the ages of 20 and 24 were married before their 18^th birthday.
• These challenges are also evident in India, where despite considerable progress at the policy and legislative levels, women remain significantly less politically, economically and socially empowered than men. For instance, women hold only 11.6 percent of parliamentary seats, and only 39 percent of adult women have reached at least a secondary level of education as compared to 64 percent males.  Female participation in the labour market is 27.2 percent compared to 78.8 for men. Still, India performs better than its neighbours Bangladesh and Pakistan, ranking 127 out 160 countries on the Gender Inequality Index.

Looking beyond the HDI at the Quality of Development.

• There is tremendous variation between countries in the quality of education, healthcare and many other key aspects of life.
• In Sub-Saharan Africa there are on average 39 primary school pupils per teacher, followed by South Asia with 35 pupils per teacher. But in OECD countries, East Asia and the Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia there is an average of one teacher for every 16-18 primary school pupils.  And, while in OECD countries and East Asia and the Pacific there are on average 29 and 28 physicians for every 10,000 people respectively, in South Asia there are only eight, and in Sub-Saharan Africa not even two.

Inequlaity-adjusted HDI (IHDI)

Introduced in HDR 2010, it captures the losses in human development due to inequality in health, education and income. HDI does not reflect upon disparities in human development across the population within the same country, whereas IHDI reflects upon that, thereby informing policy makers towards measures for inequality reduction.

The difference between the IHDI and HDI is the human development cost of inequality, also termed – the loss to human development due to inequality.

Coefficient of human inequality, a new measure of inequality in HDI has been introduced.

In 2017 report IHDI was calclulated for 189 countries.

In IHDI rankings 2017 India stands at 130 the with loss of 26% of Human Development Index due to Ineaquality.

GENDER DEVELOPMENT INDEX (GDI)

GDI measures gender gap in human development achievements in three basic dimensions of human development: health, education and Income. The index uses the same methodology as in the HDI. The goalposts are also the same except for life expectancy at birth where there are biological variations among males and females. Countries are ranked based on the absolute deviation from gender parity in HDI.

On average, at the global level, female HDI value is about 8% lower than male HDI but disparities do exist across countries, human development groups and regions. Across countries gender gaps in HDI values range between 0 % and 40%.

India ranks 130 out of 155 countries. India’s HDI for men is higher at 0.660 as compared to HDI for Indian women alone which is 0.525. 

Gender Inequality Index (GII)

There is no country with perfect gender equality – hence all countries suffer some loss in achievements in key aspects of human development when gender inequality is taken into account.

GII is based on reproductive health, empowerment and participation in economic activities. Reproductive Health is measured by maternal mortality and adolescent fertility rates; empowerment is measured by the share of parliamentary seats held by each gender and attainment at secondary and higher education by each gender; and economic activity is measured by the labour market participation rate for each gender.

Since the GII includes different dimensions than the HDI, it cannot be interpreted as a loss in HDI itself. Higher GII values indicate higher inequalities and thus higher loss to human development.

According to HDR - 2017, India is ranked 127 out of 189 countries with a GII value of 0.524.

This is not surprising given that women’s participation in Parliament is just 10.9 %, women participating in the labour market constitute 28.8% of workforce. The proportion of girls entering secondary level education is 26.6 % as against 50.4% for the boys.

Multidimensnal Poverty Index (MPI)

HDR also includes Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). It was developed in 2010 by Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative and United Nations Development Programme. It uses different factors to determine poverty beyond income-based statistics. It replaced Human Poverty Index.

The index uses the same three dimensions: health, education, and standard of living. These are measured using ten indicators.

The index uses the same three dimensions: health, education, and standard of living. These are measured using ten indicators.

India has made momentous progress in reducing multidimensional poverty, according to estimates from the 2018 global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) released today by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI). The incidence of multidimensional poverty has almost halved between 2005/6 and 2015/16, climbing down to 27.5 percent from 54.7 percent. 

 Among South Asian countries, only Maldives has a lower headcount ratio than India at 1.9 percent, with Nepal (35.3 percent), Bangladesh (41.1 percent), and Pakistan (43.9) having higher incidences of multidimensional poverty. Though the traditionally disadvantaged groups – across states, castes, religions, and ages –are still the poorest, they have also experienced the biggest reductions in MPI through the decade, showing that they have been “catching up”. This is in line with global trends, where deeper progress among the poorest groups is reflected in the global MPI being cut by half.

The MPI looks beyond income to understand how people experience poverty in multiple and simultaneous ways. It identifies how people are being left behind across three key dimensions: health, education and living standards, and 10 indicators – nutrition, child mortality, years of schooling, school attendance, sanitation, cooking fuel, drinking water, electricity, housing and assets. Those who are deprived in at least a third of the MPI’s components are defined as multidimensionally poor. The 2018 report, which is now closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, cover almost three-quarters of the world’s populationemerging concepts

Green GNP

A large literature has recently emerged on whether GNP can be transformed to produce both an indicator of sustainability, and a better measure of national welfare. The argument produced has been that green GNP would tell us the maximum level of consumption which was sustainable in any year, being one that leaves enough to be invested in order to preserve the national capital stock, where “capital” is given a very broad definition, to include both produced capital, but also natural and human capital. Since the standard definition of GNP can be thought of as the return on the nation’s stock of produced capital, then green GNP could be thought of as the return on all forms of capital. If green GNP is rising, then this is one economic indicator of sustainability.

Green Accounting

National Accounts have been providing the most widely used indicators for the assessment economic growth. However, the new emphasis on sustainable development draws attention to the need for a broader assessment of growth and welfare by assessing cost and capital of natural resources, which threaten the sustained productivity of the economy and the degradation of environmental quality and consequential effects on human health and welfare.

Green accounting, attempts at accounting for both socio-economic performance and its environmental effects and integrating environmental concerns into mainstream economic planning and policies.

Nevertheless, the idea of placing statistical coverage of environmental concerns in a national accounts framework commands widespread support. Already, several attempts have been made at experimenting with satellite accounts - notably in Costa Rica, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway and Papua New Guinea, among others, indicative estimates suggest that conventionally measured GDP may exceed GDP adjusted or natural resources depletion and environmental degradation by between 1.5 per cent to 10 per cent.

India's 'green accounts' were presented for the first time at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS) held in New Delhi on February 3-5, 2005. Green Indian States Trust (GIST), a Chennai-based NGO presented the Green Accounts report.

The measure of green accounted has been termed Environmental Adjusted State Domestic Product (EASDP). According to GAISP, states should use EASDP to evaluate the Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) since it takes into account changes arising from environmental degradation.

Gross National Happiness

Gross National Happiness is a term coined by His Majesty the Fourth King of Bhutan, Jigme SingyeWangchuck in the 1970s. The concept implies that sustainable development should take a holistic approach towards notions of progress and give equal importance to non-economic aspects of wellbeing. 

The concept of GNH has often been explained by its four pillars:

• good governance,
• sustainable socio-economic development,
• cultural preservation,
• And environmental conservation.

Lately the four pillars have been further classified into nine domains in order to create widespread understanding of GNH and to reflect the holistic range of GNH values. The nine domains are: psychological wellbeing, health, education, time use, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards.