|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
|
Country |
HDI score |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Canada |
0.932 |
|
2 |
Norway |
0.927 |
|
3 |
United States |
0.927 |
|
4 |
Japan |
0.924 |
|
5 |
Belgium |
0.923 |
|
6 |
Sweden |
0.923 |
|
7 |
Australia |
0.922 |
|
8 |
Netherlands |
0.921 |
|
9 |
Iceland |
0.919 |
|
10 |
UK |
0.918 |
In 1999 Canada came first in the HDI league, with a HDI value of 0.932, and Sierra Leone came last, out of a list of 174 countries, with an HDI of 0.254. Australia was ranked seventh with an HDI of 0.922.
The UNDP makes the point that the gap between a country's HDI rank and GDP per capita rank is a reflection of how effectively economic growth has been converted into human development. A higher HDI ranking compared to a GDP ranking is an indication that a nation's economic wealth has more equitably benefited its citizens. From this it would appear that Australia, which only rates as twenty-second in terms of GDP per capita, is a fairer place to live than many other wealthier developed nations. Luxembourg, for instance, has the best GDP per capita figure in the world yet only manages a seventeenth placing in the HDI league, ten places behind Australia.
HDI progress 1975-1999
The latest report highlights the progress that has been made in terms of human development since the first report was published in 1990. In general terms people are living longer, they are better educated and more affluent. The report compares the HDI score of 79 countries from 1975 to 1999. Amongst the high development countries, classified as countries with an HDI of over 0.800, Australia improved its HDI score the most, up from 0.838 to 0.922.
However, the emphasis of the 1999 report is that all is not well with the world. For most of the world's population, progress in terms of human development has been slow. In some countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, some of the indicators of human development have actually declined in the last 25 years. This has been particularly the case in Zambia, which holds the unique position of lowering its overall HDI from 0.453 to 0.451 between 1975 and 1999. This has largely been due to the impact of AIDS/HIV, which has had a devastating impact on the life expectancy of its citizens as it has in a number of other African countries. To put this into perspective the AIDS rate in Zambia is 530 per 100 000 of the population compared to Australia which has a rate of 41. The result is that life expectancy at birth in Zambia fell from 46.3 years in 1970 to 40.1 years in 1997.
Human Poverty
The UNDP points out that developed countries, like Australia, are not immune from poverty. Not all of the citizens of developed countries have benefited to the same degree from their national economic wealth. In an attempt to illustrate this point the UNDP has developed an Index of Poverty, referred to as the HPI-2, for 17 of the high development countries.
The HPI-2 seeks to ascertain the level of poverty in developed countries using indicators relevant to the aspirations of a developed country's citizens. The indicators used to calculate the HPI-2 include the proportion of the population expected to live past aged 60, proportion of the population that is functionally illiterate, long-term unemployment rate and income distribution statistics. Many countries that rated highly in the HDI table did not do so well here. These included Australia, which was ranked twelfth on the HPI-2. Sweden came first and the UK, Ireland and USA were fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth respectively. By comparison the USA was ranked third in the HDI.
Relative to the other 16 countries ranked by this index Australia performs well in terms of life expectancy. However, in terms of the other indicators used to compile this index the performance is not so good. A larger proportion of the adult population is classified as functionally illiterate than in many of the countries in the list and income distribution is less equitable. Compared to other countries in the HPI-2 league Australia and Britain have the highest level of income inequality. In both countries the richest 20 per cent have an income that is 9.6 times greater than the poorest 20 per cent. This compares with Sweden, where the richest 20 per cent have incomes which are 4.6 times greater than the poorest 20 per cent.
Criticisms of the report
In 1998 the former Australian Statistician, Ian Castles, wrote a highly critical review of the HDR and its conclusions(2). Castles cites many examples of what he states are inconsistencies with the findings of the HDR and its main indices. For example, he argues that the UNDP's analysis of development in Madagascar and Mauritius was at odds with the facts and the analysis of other observers.
Madagascar is lauded by the UNDP for having a higher HDI than its GDP per capita, which, it claims, reflects how effectively the country's wealth has been used to improve the lives of its people. However, Mauritius is regarded as having failed to convert its economic wealth into developing the capabilities of its people by the UNDP because its HDI rank is lower than its GDP rank. Castles quotes from other development economists who regard the rate of development in Mauritius as a model for other developing nations. He compares statistics from the HDR that show the lot of the average citizen of Mauritius to be considerably better than that of the average citizen of Madagascar in terms of income, life expectancy, child mortality and adult literacy. This is despite the fact that Madagascar is well endowed with natural resources. World Bank analysis of Madagascar's development shows that it has actually declined in terms of the eradication of poverty in the last two and a half decades.
In a letter to the Canberra Sunday Times Castles was also critical of some of the findings in the 1999 HDR. This time he focussed on some of the claims made by the HDR in relation to income distribution in Australia. He quotes an OECD study that contradicts the UNDP claim that the gap between the rich and the poor in Australia and Britain is the worst in the developed world. Castles says the OECD data shows that the USA has a worse record than Australia or Britain. It also states that according to some indices it examined there has been a decline in inequality in Australia, not quite what the UNDP said(3).
Policy implications
The HDR contains over 30 statistical tables that provide a profile of the economic, political and social development of 174 countries. In terms of benchmarking these might be used to set targets for policy makers trying to achieve world best standards. They could also be regarded as evidence that past and present policies are achieving their goal and to point out areas where policies need to be improved.. For a developed country like Australia the evidence presented in this report could have implications for both domestic and foreign policy. How and why are some of its citizens missing out in a developed and affluent country? In terms of foreign policy the report could be used for the effective targeting of foreign aid. Where will aid funds be most effective and what are the problems that need to be addressed?
Conclusion
The Human Development Report contains a wealth of statistics and commentary that may be very useful for developing policies to assist the less fortunate. However, given the comments by analysts, such as Ian Castles, it needs to be read in the light of other research.
