CHAPTER 5 Mn The human development index revisited One way the HDI has been improved is through disaggregation 0 The first Human Development Report (1990) introduced a new way of measuring human development—by combining indi- cators of life expectancy, educational at- tainment and income into a composite human development index, the HDI (box 5.1). The Report acknowledged that no sin- sle index could ever completely capture such a complex concept. Ir acknowledged, too, that the HDI would remain subject to improvements, corrections and_ refine- ments—both as a result of a growing awareness of its deficiencies, and to accom- modate criticisms and suggestions from academics and policy-makers. Also to be emphasized is that the HDI is not intended to replace the other detailed socio- economic indicators in this Report, for these are essential fora fuller understand: ing of individual countries. ‘One way the index has been improved isthrough disaggregation. A country’s over- all index can conceal the fact that different groups within the country have very differ- ent levels of human development—men and women, for example, or different eth- nic groups, regions or social classes. The 1993 Report therefore constructed separate HDIs for different population groups in five countries. ‘This Report adds nine more countries ‘The results, discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, show how different popula- tion groups in the same country seem to be living in different worlds. They also show how powerful the disaggregated HDI can be for detecting societal strains and poten- tial conflicts. ‘The 1993 Report identified the vast dis- parities between black and white commu: nities in the United States, It also identified the disparities in Mexico between people in the state of Chiapas and those in richer parts of the country—a year ahead of the political upheaval there. Another way of highlighting national disparities and comparing them across countries is by reducing the country’s over- all HDT in proportion to its internal dispar- ities. Since 1991, these Reports have offered two disparity-adjusted HDIs—one for gender, one for income distribution— the construction of which is discussed below. These HDIs illustrate how socio- economic disparities diminish the overall human development record of some coun tries In the income-distribution-adjusted HDI, more egalitarian countries, such as the Nordic countries, rise in the rankings, while others fall—nocably Brazil, with its unequal income distribution. In the gender- dlsparity-adjusted HDI, the Nordic coun- tries again improve their position, while Japan, where women earn much less than ‘men, slips in the rank A further possibilty for adjusting the HDI would be to reflect @ country’s envi- ronmental performance. Exploratory work has shown that, for the time being, there doesnot seem to be sufficient agreement on ‘which indicators would be appropriate or how this might be done. Work will therefore continue in this area, Modifications to the basic HDI In addition to the two “adjusted” HDIs, there have been modifications to compo: nents of the basic index—specifically, the indicators of educational attainment and of Educational attainment was originally measured only through the adult literacy HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1994rate, but the 1991 Report broedened this measure to incorporate mean years of schooling. For income, the HDI starts from the premise that « $300 increase in per capita income clearly makes a significant differ- cence in a country where the average is cur- rently $600—but that it will matter much less in a country where it is $20,000. The HDI originally used « threshold value be- yond which the marginal increase in income ‘was considered less significant and was therefore heavily discounted. Until 1993, this threshold was derived from the poverty-level income ofthe industrial coun- tries in the Luxembourg Income Study, with values updated and translated into purchasing power parity dollars (PPPS). Tt was always questionable, however, ‘whether the poverty level of industrial countries was an appropriate income tar get for developing countries. So, for the 1994 HDI, the threshold value has been taken to be the current average global va ue of real GDP per capita in PPP$. Once a country gets beyond the world average, any further increases in per capita income are considered to make a sharply dimin- ishing marginal contribution to human development. ‘The HDI emphasizes sufficiency rather than satiety: On the new basis of real GDP per capita, the threshold is $5,120. The ‘method of discounting remains the same, however: the discount rate increases as in- comes exceed higher multiples of the threshold. In 1994, after appropriate dis- ‘counting, the incomes of countries range from $370 to $5,371 in real purchasing power (PPPS), ‘One innovative feature of the HDI is the wayits components are combined. Each indicator is measured in different units: life expectancy in years of life, schooling in mean years of schooling, income in pur- chasing power-adjusted dollars and adult literacy as @ percentage. To combine these indicators, the range of values for each one is put onto a scale of 0 to 1, where 0 is the minimum and 1 is the maximum. So, ifthe sinimum life expectancy is 25 yearsand the ‘maximum is 85 years, and the actual value for a country is halfway between the two at THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX REVISITED. 155 years, its index value for life expectancy is05. Inprevious years, the minimum value of each dimension—longevity, educational at- tainment and income—was set at the level of the poorest-performing country, and the ‘maximum at that of the best-performing country. The HDI for any country was thus its position between the best and the worst countries, but maximums and minimums changed each year—following the perfor- ooFrom now on, the HDI value will permit more meaningful comparisons across countries and over time 92 mance of the countries atthe extreme ends of the scale. This scaling could produce a frustrating ourtcome, since a country might improve its performance on life expectancy or educa tional attainment but see its HDI score fall because the top or bottom countries had done even better—in effect, moving the goal posts. Some efforts were made to change this by using the maximum and ‘minimum fora longer period, say 1960-90, but this did not overcome the original objection. ‘The main problem with shifting the goal posts annually is that it precludes meaning ful comparisons overtime: a country’s HDI could change from year to yeat for reasons that have nothing to do with its perfor ‘mance. So, this year, we fix “normative” val- ues for life expectancy, adult literacy, mean years of schooling and income. These min- imums and maximums are not the observed values in the best- or worst-performing countries today but the most extreme val- ues observed of expected over a Jong peri- od (say, 60 years), ‘The minimums are those observed his- torically, going back about 30 years. The ‘maximums are the limits of what can be en- visioned in the next 30 years, Demographic and medical information suggests that the maximum average life expectancy for the foresceable future is 85 years, Similarly, re- cent economic growth rates indicate that the maximum income thatthe richest coun- tries are likely to achieve by 2020 is $40,000 (in 1990 PPPS) With the new fixed goal posts (table 5.1), the greatest differences from previous, values dre in the much lower minimums for life expectancy (25 years rather than 42 years) and for literacy ates (0% rather than 12%) and in the highér maximums for life ‘expectancy (85 years rather than 78.6 years) and mean years of schooling (15 years rather than 12.3 years) From now on, therefore, the HDI value will permit more meaningful comparisons across countries and over time, Using the ‘new maximums and tninimums, and recal- culating the HDIs for previous years ac cordingly, it will be legitimate to suggest, for example, that the Republic of Korea's cur- rent level of human development is similar to that ofthe United Kingdom 30 years ago. And it can now be asserted that while there were 16 countries in the high human devel- ‘opment category in 1960, among the coun- tries for which it was possible to make a comparison over time, there were 40 in 1992 Tn addition to the methodological changes, there has been @ major change in one of the sources of data—that for in- come. The HDI uses the GNP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPPS) to reflect not just income but also what that income can buy. Housing and food are cheaper in Bangladesh than in Switzerland, so adollaris worth more in Bangladesh than in Switzerland, Purchasing power parity ad. justs for this. Until this year, the main source of PPP data hi been the Penn World Tables. For the 1994 HIDI, however, we are replacing these data, where feasible, with estimates, from the World Bank, Most of the lange in~ ‘creases in estimates are in developing coun- tries, notably in Latin America, and most of the large decreases are in the successor states of the former Soviet Union. Despite these changes, the underlying principle of the HDI remains the same. Itis based on a country’s position in relation to a final target—expressed as a value be- tween 0 and 1, Countries with an HDI be- low 0.5 ate considered to have a low level of hhuman development, those between 0.5 and 0.8 a medium level and those above 0.8 a high level. ‘We have been modifying the HDI in re- sponse to constructive reviews and cit cisms to make the index a steadily more valuable measure of human progress. Following this year’s changes, we do not propose any major modifications to the ba- sie method in the near future—though next Tears Fixed maximums and minimums for HDI values Minimum Masimurt Ufecrpectancy (ears) 2585 Adult Iteracy (6) 0 100 Mean yearsafschosiing == 015 Income (ral GOP per Capita in PPPS) 200 40,000 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1994year’s Repost will review the gender-dispar ity-adjusted HIDI in preparation for the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, A priority in the years ahead must be to improve human development statisties—at country, regional and intemational levels, ‘The statistical map of human development still has far too many blanks. Too many in- Taare HDI ranking for industrial countries GNP per GNP capita per rank HO! HOI capita minus vie nk “Tanke HOI nie ‘canada os32 1 11 10 Switeland 9931 20 4 t Japan 099 3 30 Swen 0928 4 Noway 0828 SSO France a7 6 13 7 Austria «096-7181 Usa, 09 8 9 1 Netherlands 0523 9 16 7 United Kingdom 0919 10 19 9 Gamay gig 12 Austia og7 12 14 2 Begum = 0916 13.152 iceland om 86 Denmark «0912 15 7B Finland oot 16 6 10 Linembourg 0.908 17215 NewZeslnd 0.907 18 24 6 ‘sae 0900 19 25 6 lane as 21 2 6 haly cast 2 17-5 Spain Oa 2320 Greece oa 25 3510 Gecresowiia 0872 27 5629 Hungary 0.863 3155.28 Mala 0g at 2 9 Portugal «ORB 4238 Bulgaria =I 487628 Poland 085 49 79 30 Romania «0.729: 72:—«89 IF Albania 0714 76 86 10 “Successor states ofthe former Sovet Union Uthuania 0.86 286335 Estonia Oger 29 43 14 ata oats 30 47 7 Rusionfed. 0858 34 49 14 Belarus oga7 4 48 Uiroine = 0823. 4S B23 Armenia «801 53.73.20 Karathstan 0774 617110 Georg «0.747 66 8014 Aversion 0730 71 9221 MotdowaRep.of 0714 75. B16 Turkmenistan 0697 80 888 nh 0689 BP 953 Uebekisan 0.664 91 10813 ikisan 0.629 97116 18 3. A poste fgureshow hat te HD ans beer, ‘han the Ge percapta rank a neatetecppeste THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX REVISITED dicators are missing. Too much information is outdated. And too many statistics are not collected or analysed separately for differ: ent population groups—for men and women, for urban and rural, for rich and poor (particularly the growing populations (of urban poor) oF for different races or eth- nic groups. ‘To encourage the collection and analysis of comprehensive statistics, governments could undertake to prepare human devel- ‘opment country profiles—annually or every ‘other year. They already collect information regularly on trade and finance. Why should they not do so for human development? ‘The Social Summit could pethaps agree that all countries should produce such pro- files and use them to formulate policy and to monitor social programmes ‘What the 1994 HDI reveals Some of the most significant changes in the HDI estimates arise from the new fixed goal posts (tables 5.2 and 5.3). Since the ‘maximum values have increased, they are now beyond the levels already attained by the industrial countries. This change tends to reduce each country’s HDI value: in 1993, the value for the top-ranked country was 0.983, but now it is only 0,932—even the richest countries still have a fair distance to travel. Yet the minimums are also lower, which tends to inerease all HDI values, par- ticularly those of countries in the bottom category In 1993, 62 countries were classi- fied as having low human development, but in 1994 there are only 55. In 1994, Canada has returned tothe top ‘of the human development index (itwas a: s0 on top in 1992), Switzerland has moved up to second place, from fourth in 1995. ‘And Japan, which occupied the top spot in 1990, 1991 and 1995, is now in third place. Among the developing countries, there is no change either at the top (Barbados) or at the bottom (Guinea) This year’s HDI rankings underline some of the messages from previous years, with the relationship between the HDI and GNP per capita the most significant cone. Although there is some correlation be- tween the two (richer countries usually have A priority in the years abead must be to improve human development statistics 93Taare HOI ranking for developing countries GNP per GNP per GNP capita rank GNP pita rank HO! HOI percapite minus HO! HDL HDL percept minus HD! vale rank "rank ake value rank tank tank Barbados og 2038 4 Morocco oss 11 101-10 Hong Kong os a ESahador Os 11200 9715 pres 0873 2630 4 Bola 0530 113.119 6 Korea, Rep. of oas 336 a Gabon os 1140 ago Uruguay es) 20 Honduras Osa 15123 3 iidad and Tobago 085535 a6 " Viet Nam os 16 150 4 Bahamas 084 3628 10. ‘swazland oss 798 Bt ‘genta ous a 5 Maldives Os NB 132 i“ hie oa 385 8 Vanuati oa 1198326 Costa Rica os 3978. 38 Lesotho 9476 120124 4 Singapore das a a Zimbabwe 04am 121118 3 Bune Darusalam = 0.829442 15 ‘Cape Verde oa 122 2-10 Venezuela os 455 3 congo Odst 124100 a Panama ome 64770 2 Cameroon oar 1k 3 Colombia oss 50 a enys 04s 125146 2 Kuwait oa stk 23 Soloman islands 04 125115 1 Mexico ao St os Namib oa 127k Than 07 58 Fy Sao Tomé and Pincipe 0.409 128138 10 Antigua and Barbuda 0796-558. is PapuaNew Gunes 0.408 129108 2 ‘aur 078 «= 562038. Myanmar 0406 130149 is Malaysia 07 657g 4 Madagascar 0396 131162 3 Bahrain ovr 585328, Pakistan 0393 132140 8 a 077 5974 15 lao People’s Dem Rep. 0.385 133157 4 Mauris 077% 605 5 hana 038 134133 a United Arab Emirates 0.771 62108 India 03s 13514? 12 Beall 076 6352 td core dvoire 03% «13580719 Dominica om9 3 Haw oa 137 at 4 Jamaica 079 665? 2 Zambia a3 138134 a Souk Arabia O72 3-36 Nigers 0348 139145 6 Turkey 07390878 10 2ave 03a) 140160 2 Saint Vincent en 8 Comoros oa} i431 0 Srint Kits and News 073070723 Yemen 033 2816 Syrian Arab Rep, 077 67394 2 Senogal 032 143 1429 Ecuador 0718 74102 2B bere 037 i440 14 Sein Woe 07 675720 ‘ogo oan 145138 “9 Grenada o7or 78 gr at Bangladesh 0309 146159 3 Lbyan Arab lamahiiy 0703 73 Comoocla 0307 147 tea 7 Tunisia 06 6 81S 4 Tarearia, U.Rep.of 0306 148.170 2 Seychelles ose 8338 Nepal 0739 149165 7 Paraguay 677850 6 Equatoral Guinea =—«0.276.-««150—158 4 Suriname os77 85 Ba. Suden 026 1517-1 tran, samicRep.of 0.67285 G2 Burund 0276 1158 6 Botswana 067 6875829 wend 0278 153152 4 Belize oss 8 Uganda 022 184188 i4 Cubs 066s = 83110 2 angela oa 1552038, Si Lanka 066s 90128 38 Benin ogsl 156218 man esd 92 38a alot 0260 1s? 156 1 South Arica 06 6933. Mauritania 02 ie 3H chins gag 9g 143 3 Mozambique 0252 159173 14 Pow 06 9598 3 Cental Afcan Rep. 028916013525, Dominican Rep, 063 95107 " Ethiopia 029 161171 10 Jordan 0628 69898 1 Bhutan 0247 12 165 3 Priippines ost 93113 14 Dibout 07 sah i) 64 100 59a Gunes isau 0224 168167 3 Korea, Dem. Rep. of 0.609 101108 8 Somalia 027 165172 7 Mongolia gor 102103 1 Gambia ots 166 a Lebanon’ 0600 103 83-20 Mal 024 167552 Samoa 0596 108105 1 Chad 0212 168161 7 Indonesia 0586 105121 16 Niger 0209 169 a2 Nicaragua 0583105138 3 Sera Leone 0209 170163 a Guyana 0580 107151 44 Afghanistan 0208 71163 2 Guatemala 0564 108105 3 Butkine Faso 0203 12153 2 Agena 0553 1087237 Gunes oi 178 a Egypt 0551110122 12 os 1A postive gure sho that the HDI ark is beter than the GNP pa capita rank agate he cpponte UMAN DEVELOPMENT REPOKT 1994higher HIDIs), it clearly breaks down in For some countries—such as Angola, Gabon, Guinea, Namibia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—the in- come rank is far ahead of the HDI rank, showing that they still have considerable potential for translating their income into ‘improved well-being for their people. For other countries—such as China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guyana, “Madagascar and Sri Lanka—the HDI rank is fat ahead of theit income rank, showing that they have made more judicious use of their income to improve the capabilities of their people. The highest positive dif- ference between HDI and GNP ranks is, for China (+49 places), and the highest negative difference is for Gabon (-72 places)—a striking demonstration of the differences between two development strategies. Many countries in Latin America and East Asia and among the Arab States have already moved beyond the basic threshold of human development and are now in the medium or high HDI categories. Most countries in Sub-Saharan Aftica and South Asia, by contrast, are still classified as hav. ing low human development ‘As discussed ealct, the HDI is a com- posite score of three indicators. So, even countries with a high HDI may have a low score on one indicator, which is offset by a high score on another. Among the industri- alcountres, forexample, Switzerland ranks number 2 on the HDI but only 21 when it comes. to tertiary enrolment. Similarly, among the developing countries, the Republic of Korea ranks number 4 on the HDI but only 18 when it comes to life ex: pectaney (annex tables 5.1 and 3.2) Careful analysis of the tables will show where improvements are still necessary and achievable Changes in the HDI over time ‘The main advantage in fixing the goal posts is that it permits comparisons of the HDI over time—though, because of data limita tions, this can be done for only 114 coun- ities for 1960-92 (annex table 5.3). “THE, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX REVISITED ‘The comparisons reveal interesting trends, All countries have made substantial progress in human development. Between 1960 and 1992, the overall HDI for the de- veloping countries incteased from 0.260 to 0.541—more than doubling. Even the least developed countries, and those in Sub- Saharan Africa, made clear progress. True, they started from very low levels, but they managed as a group to increase their HDI values by around 80%. ‘Many countries have shifted into higher human development categories: 30 coun tries have moved from low to medium, 20, from medium to high, and four all the way from low to high. The number of countries in the low group has shrunk from 76 to 42, while that in the medium category has in- creased from 22 to 32 and that in the high category from 16 t0 40 (table 5.4 and fig- tures 5.1 and 5.2), In East Asia, the region with the largest absolute increase in HDI, the HDI value in- creased two and half times between 1960 and 192—from 0.255 100.653 (table 5.5) This shows that the fast pace of economic High human development 16 23 Medium human development 22 6 Low human development % 65 Toa na 14 ares HDI values by region, 1960-92 1960 1970 ‘All developing counties 0260 0347 Least developed counties 0165 0.209 Inaustnok 0799 0.859 Worl 0302 0.480 Sub Saharan Aca 0200 0255 Middle East and North Afoca 0.277 0.368 South Asa 0202 0248 South Asia ex nia 01s 0231 East Asa 0255 0379 ast Asa ex. China Daig+ 0547 Sourh-tast Asia and Occania «0284-0373 Latin America and the cabbean 0.267 0.568 ‘exc, Meco and Braz 0504 0.886 Region moving from aw 1 medium hurandevdoement > Regan movng fem masiim ta gh Raman espe 8: Ext easte Europe andthe Tere Soe! Una ‘The majority of the world's people have shifted from low fomedium and high human development Percentage shares of were population Seelopment Sertopment 30 40 28 2 56 a 14 14 Absolute ADI value 19801992 1960-92 0428 O58 0281 0251 0307 0142 Dass 0918 0119 sig 060s 0213 0308 0357 0.156 0480+ 0.631 0.354 0290" 0376 0174 0270 9358 0170 O44: 0.653 0397 0685> 0861 0.846 0469+ 0613 0329 0682 0757 0290 0854 0735 0281rice 52 Global improvement, but growing intercountry disparity Dirbuton a counts by HOI Medi ean 00-190 fslpont 500-599 issn = mae ‘selon 300-39 100-199 9-099 so 4 0 2 OO ow 2 30 ecentage of counties eure sa Top ten performers in human development, 1960-92 urnan deepen nex growth in East Asia was built on a solid foundation of human development ‘Some countries have made spectacular leaps. Japan jumped from a rank of 23 in 1960 to 3 in 1992. The four counties that ‘made a double jump from low to high hu: man development ranks were Portugal (among the industrial countries) and Colombia, Panama and the Republic of Korea (in the developing world). ‘The five countries showing the largest absolute increases in HDI were Malaysia (40.463), Botswana (+0.463), the Repub: lic of Korea (40.462), Tunisia (+0.432) and Thailand (+0.424)—see table 5.6 and figure 5.3, No country saw its HDI value fall over this period, unlike GDB which has on oc- casion fallen in several countries, Human capital, once it is built up, is more likely to be sustainable. A gender-disparity-adjusted HDI One of the most significant differences within the overall HDI score for any coun- tryisbetween males and females. Men gen- erally fare better than women on almost every socio-economic indicator (except life expectancy since, for biological reasons, ‘women tend to ive longer than men). One way toillustrate this difference isto adjust the HDI ranking for gender dispari- ties, expressing the female value of each component as a percentage of the male val- tue. These percentages can be calculated separately for income, educational attain ment and life expectancy—and then aver- 100 aged to give an overall gender disparity factor. A county’s overall HDI can then be Trees ‘Top performers in human development, 1960-52 Topten ‘Absolute Top ten Absolute Topten Absolute open Absolute performers increase performers ——_increase——performers. increase performers increase 1960-70, mADIvalve 1870-80. in HOvalue 1980-52 nADIvalve 1960-92 in HDIvalue Jaan 0190 Syianarab Rep. 0239 Botswana 0286 Malaia 63 Spain 0.186 Malaya 0216 Thailand O87 Bormane 0463 Hong Kong 0176 Matta 0.487 Korea Repo 0.193 Korea ep. of 0.462 Srgapore 0183 Baal 0166 nsie O15 sia 0.432 ous 134 Tania 0159 egypt bit Thalend ome eece 0.150 sera 0153 Whey 0.190 SyanAvabRep. 0.408 Barbados 0146 Portugal 0.148 an, blamic Rep. of 0.175 Turkey 0.406 Malaysia. O18 dardan O1a8 China 168 China 0366 Jamatca 0.132 Korea, Rep. of 0.143. ndonesa 0168 Fertig 0378 Portugal 0328 Hungary 0133 Morocco 0.168 ian, Wom Rep. of (0.36 9% HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1994sultplied by this factor to give a gender- dlisparity-adjusted FID figure—if the rele- vant data are available For life expectancy and educational at tainment, data are generally collected and analysed by gender. Butfor income, there is no way to determine how males and females share GDP. The distribution would be af- fected not just by the different eaming capacities of men and women but also by the distribution of resources within house- holds. ‘The only intemationally comparable data on this are the wage rates in the indus- trial sector and the labour force participa- tion rates outside agriculture. For the 43 countries with data, the female-male wage ratio ranges from a low of 51% (Japan) to a high of 90% (Sweden). Similarly, the female-male rato in non-agricultural labour force participation rates varies from 22% (Bahrain) to 89% (Finland). ‘Multiplying these two ratios gives an ‘overall “female-male income ratio” (annex table 5.4). Such ratios can paint only a par- tial picture, but they still reveal a remark- able pattern of discrimination, The combined ratios range from 21% (Bahrain) to 83% (Sweden). OF the 43 countries, 14 have a ratio below 40%, and only 11 a ratio above 60%. Even these disparities underes timate discrimination since male-female income differences are generally greater in agriculture and services than in. manu: facturing. ‘The differences alongthe other HDI ci- ‘mensions are also significant. For life ex- pectancy, women in industrial countries {and in most developing countries) live Jonger than men. In educational achieve ment, however, women are likely to lose ‘out—not so much in the industrial coun- tries, where there are relatively few differ- ences between men and women, but certainly in the developing counties, where ‘women’s literacy levels and years of school ing are much lower than men’s For the 43 countries (24 industrial and 19 developing) with data, no country im- proves its HDI value after it is adjusted for gender dispatties. All countries treat ‘women worse than men—unconscionable, after so many years of debate on gender ‘THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX REVISITED ‘equality, so many changes in national legis- lation and so many years of struggle. But some countries do less badly than others, so the gender-disparity adjustment makes a considerable difference to rank- ings. Slipping down the list are Japan, from 3 to 19, Canada from 1 to 9, Switzerland from 2 to 17, and Hong Kong from 22 to 30. Improving their rankings are Sweden from 4 to 1, Denmark from 15 to 4, Finland from 16 to 3 and New Zealand from 18 to 8 In the industrial countries, gender dis- crimination shows up in the HDI mainly in ‘employment and wages—with women of- ten getting less than two-thirds of the em- ployment opportunities and about half the earnings of men. In developing countries, the diserimina- tionis more broadly based. It occurs not on- ly in employment but also in education, nutritional support and health care literacy is always higher for wemen—who ‘make up two-thirds of the illiterate popula- tion, And neglect of women's health and nutrition is so serious in some countries, particularly in Asia, that it even outweighs ‘women’s natural biological tendency to live longer than men. Considering these early deaths, as well as those from the infanticide of gil babies, some studies estimate that up +0 100 million women are “missing”. An income-distribution-adjusted HDI Another way the HIDT can usefully be ad- justed is for income distribution. The over- all HIDI reflects national income, but in many countries, particulary in the develop- ing world, the distribution is badly skewed. ‘This makes it important to discount the in- come component of the HDI to reflect maldistributions of income. Forthe income disparity factor, we have divided the share of the income of the bot tom 20% of the population by the share of the top 20%, Multiplying this ratio by the country’s overall HDI gives the income: distribution-adjusted HDI. This informa- tion is avilable for 55 countries. No country has a perfect income distri bution, so adjusting the HDI for income distribution reduces the score for all. But Men generally fare better than women on almost every socio-economic indicator 7os South Africa: disparity between blacks and whites four times larger than in the United States “South Africa the effect is greater for some countries (an- nex table 5.5), ‘Among the industrial countries, Belgium improves its ranking inthis group by nine places and Germany by seven, But other countties slip significantly: Canada and Switzerland by seven places, and Australia by eight. Indeveloping countries, the income dis- parities can be even greater. In Brazil, the ratio between the income share of the bot- tom 20% of the population and that of the top 20% is 1 to 32, and in Botswana it is 1 to 47. As the table indicates, this causes their HDI rankings to slip significantly: Brazil by seven places and Botswana by cight places. Countries with more egalitar- an income distributions climb several places: China by six, Sri Lanka by seven and Jamaica by eight. ‘One might also consider disaggrcgating the other HDI dimensions—educational achievement and longevity: But the range ‘within a country is much greater for income than forthe other dimensions: arich person can earn 1,000 times more than a poor one but cannot live 1,000 times longer. So, hav ing a small number of healthy people in a population in which most people are un- United States whines wee 2000 ry acs Lite Pee expectancy 986 oP per “ep healthy cannot inflate the average life ex- pectancy figure by much—eertainly not to the extent that a small number of fabulous- ly wealthy people can inflate average na tional income Disaggregated HDIs ‘These adjustments to the overall HDI are particularly useful for international com- parisons of disparities among countries. Bor ‘comparisons within countries, a more use fal approach is to calculate separate HDIs for different groups—by region, perhaps, fot by gender or race. Previous Humar: Development Reports have included such diseggregations: for the United States, by trace and gender, for India and Mexico, by state, for Swaziland, by region, and for ‘Turkey, by region and gender. Case studies were prepared for this Report, and summaries of nine of them a pear here: for South Attica, Brazil, Nigetia, Egypt, China, Malaysia, Canada, Germany and Poland, + South Africa —The very fact of apartheid has made it difficult to obtain reliable data on disparities between blacks and whites. In the mid-1970s, the government stopped publishing data on the nominally indepen- dent “homelands” (home to one-quarter of the black population). But even the data available give a striking picture of inequali- ty (igure 5.4), The overall HDI for South Africa is 0.650—but that for whites is 0.878, while for blacks it is 0.462. If white South Africa were a separate country, it ‘would rank 24 in the world (just after Spain). Black South Africa would rank 123 in the world (just above Congo). Not just ‘seo different peoples, these are almost two different worlds. ‘There are also significant gender differ ences, though these are due almost entirely to disparities within the black community— the HDI for black males is 0.530, while for black femalesitis 0.426. The poorest group ofall is black rural females, whose HDI of 0.356 is only around 40% of that of the ‘white population, ‘The wide disparities between black and white raise delicate issues. The major chal- lenge for policy-makers will be to promote UMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1994social integration without provoking racial violence. Asan indication of the sale of the task, the HIDI disparity between blacks and ‘whites in South Africa is four times that be- tween blacks and whites in the United States, where racial violence remains a threat. Zimbabwe's experience may also be relevant for South Aftica. Zimbabwe at the time of independence had similar dispari- ties, fon a smaller scale, but thas achieved a considerable degree of social integration without inciting racial trouble + Brexil—Some of Brazil's greatest in- equalities are between different income groups, but there are also striking regional disparities (figure 5.5). Brazil's overall HDI is 0.756, ranked 63 in the world. Bur if the South of Brisil were a separate country, its HDI of 0.838 would rank it number 42 (equal to Portugal), while the North-East, with an HDI of 0.549, would rank number 111 (on a par with El Salvador and Bolivia)—this, despite the fact that since 1970 the disparity between the two regions has been halved. The socio-economic indicators in North-East Brazil point to the potential for considerable trouble. ‘The region lags be- hind the more prosperous South in every re- spect: the disparity between the two regions is 17 years in lfe expectancy, 33 percentage points in adult literacy and $2,000 (40%) in Guess Regional disparities in Brazil and Mexico| fercentage of over national HOE 119, Southern 20 region real GDP pet capita. These dispatities are ‘much greater than those between Mexico's state of Chiapas and the national average, and the recent trouble there should serve as a timely warning for policy-makers else where. + Nigerta—Regional disparities in Nigeria are among the worst in the world. Ranking the 19 states of Nigeria by HDI puts the state of Bendel on top with an HDI of 0.666, ahead of a progressive country like Sri Lanks (figure 5.6). At the bottom is, Boro, with an HDI of 0.156, lower than that of any country in the world. Average life expectancy in Borno is only 40 years (18, years less than in Bendel), and adult litera- cy at 12% isless than one-quarter of the na- tional average. Kaduna is another poot state, with a per capita GDP less than one fifth of that in Bendel. These disparities contain the potential for major social, eco- nomic and politcal unrest—and deserve the urgent attention of policy-makers, + Egypt—One of the most disturbing con- ‘rasts in Egypt is that between rural Upper Egypt and the Cairo Governate (figure 5.7). The Cairo Governate, with its HDI of 0.738, would rank 69 in the world (just be- hind Turkey). But rural Upper Eaypt, with ‘an HDI of 0.444, would rank 125 (behind Cameroon). These contrasts extend to all Regional disparities needing urgent attention in Nigeria ges nana peo 10 HI 00 sendel ‘Adult are) literacy vs ‘once Bendel 1s Ue 735 eipecancy 125. bende! so5 Bomno Words se ores, Sreeee somo 3 Oise Sore oa THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX REVISITED. Separate HDIs should be calculated for separate groups— by region, by gender or by raceThe HDI has already had a major impact on policy-making on buman development the major indicators of human develop- ‘ment. Adult literacy in rural Upper Egypt is less than half that in the Cairo Governate, average life expectancy is six years less and real per capita GDP, at $2,680, is 45% less. Regional disparities in Egypt may not be as extreme as those in Brazil and Nigeria, but they ate still large enough to deserve imme- diate policy attention, + China—Over a long period of time, China has invested liberally in human de velopment. So, despite its low per capita in- come, it falls in the medium HDI category China also has the largest positive gap (+49) berween its HDI rank and its GNP per capita rank—showing that it has madle judicious use of its national income, But there are large regional disparities (Figure 5.8). At the top of the regional HDI rank ing are Shanghai (0.865) and Beijing (0.861), whose HDI would give them a rank of 31. At the bottom are Qinghai (0.50) and Tibet (0.404), which would rank 110 and 131 respectively. Now that China has embarked on rapid, market-led economic growth, it will nced to take care that existing regional disparities do not widen further. Thoughtful state interven- tion wall be required to ensure a more equi- table distribution of social services. Human development lagging in rural Upper Egypt Eaypts naonal average = 100 Adult 160, litera rate itectn ” Real GOP cai cap 7 Pee HOI eo eran 1m. 10 220 Fase goss ural Rast epee furl et Upper © Umer oan fot = SE + Madaysia—There are major disparities between the Malay and Chinese communi- ties (figure 5.9). Malaysia’s overall HDI is 0.794, and it ranks number 57 in the world But the Chinese community has en HDI of 0.896—which, taken alone, would rank it number 20 in the world (five places above Hong Kong). The Malays have an HDI of 0.730, which would rank them 70. The eth- nic gaps have nevertheless been narrowing: in 1970, the Malay HDI was only 70% of that of the Chinese, but by 1991, it had reached 81%, ‘After racial riots in 1969, Malaysia em- barked on a remarkably successful strategy for social integration, as discussed in chap- ter 2, The government made large invest- ‘ments in education, health and other services for all classes of society—but with, a focus on the Malays as the more disad- vantaged group (between 1970 and 1991, the HDT of the Malays increased neatly one and a half times as fast as that of the Chinese) * Canada—The available data do not al Jow the construction ofa separate HIDI for different social groups in Canada. But they do show thatthe “aboriginals"(the Indians, the Inuit and the Metis, constituting 2.3% of the population) have a life expectaney 5.6 years lower than that of the rest of the population, and their real income is one- third less. * Germany—Now that Germany has been reunified after 47 years, formerly in- ternational disparities have become region- al ones, For life expectancy and education, these are not very great, since the former East Germany had invested significantly in human development. There is, however, a striking difference in income, which is three and a half times greater in the west than in the cast. This gap is likely to be exoded fairly rapidly following the opening of market opportunities, since there do not seem to be significant differences in human capabilities. + Poland—Poland offers a refreshing con- ‘tast to most other countries in regional dis- tribution, The country has 49 regions but the HDI of Ostrolec, the least advanced re- gion, is about 80% of that of Warsaw, the most advanced—a clear benefit of the egal- HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1995itarian model of development that Poland followed in the past. Using the HDI ‘The HDI, though only five years old, has al- ready had a major impact on policy-making con human development. It seems the world was ready for a measure of development that went beyond per capita GNP. So far, the HDT has been used in five main ways: + To stineulate national political debate— ‘The reaction of most countries when the in- dex is published is to sec how well they ate doing this year in comparison with everyone else, People have used the HDI for advo- ceacy and to hold their representatives ac- countable—fuelling a national debate involving political parties and the press as well as NGOs, +. To give priority to human development — ‘The HDI has emphasized that even the poorest countries can afford improvements, in human development, An analysis of the three components of the HDI can identify areas requiting policy attention. Specific human development strategies have been formulated by Bangladesh, Botswana, Co: lombia, Egypt, Ghana, Mexico, Pakistan, ‘Tunisia, the Pacific Islands and several Cen- tral American countries. * Tobighlight disparities within countries — ‘These disparities may already be well known, but the HDI can reveal them even ‘more starkly. The disaggregation prepared for the 1993 Report on the differences in living conditions in the United States among blacks, hispanics and whites spurred a great deal of policy debate. Disaggre- gation by social group or region can also en- able local community groups to press for more resources, making the HDI a tool for patticipatory development, + To open mew avenues for analysis— ‘Widely used for academic analysis and for country reports and statistics, the HDI ‘THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX REVISITED allows new types of international compari- son—for example, between countries that have effectively translated economic growth into human development and those less successful: berween Japan and the United States, pechaps, or between the Republic of Korea and Pakistan, And de- velopment theories that previously relied on GNP growth as an indicator of success or failure can instead consider changes in the HDL. + Te stomulate dialogue on aid poliey— Some donor countries have contemplated using the HI as the basis for aid alloca- tions, But itis not obvious how this should be done. Should aid go to countries with low HDIs—to the needy? Or should it g0 to countries showing the fastest rate of im- provement in HDI over time—to the speedy? Or should it goasa reward to coun- tsies that already have high FIDIS? A case is sometimes made for each option. The best use for the HDI, however, is to stimulate a constructive aid policy dialogue rather than to serve asa basis for aid allocations. ‘This Report has focused on the emerg- ing concept of human security and a specif- ic action agenda forthe forthcoming World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in March 1995. One of the keey issues in this analysis is the dark shad- ow of insecurity cast on the majority of the ‘world’s population: women. Although an attempt has been made to point out ‘women’s concems in this Report, gender is- sues deserve a much more detailed analysis. In fact, a major effort is needed to analyse both the policies and the politics necessary for gender equality. This willbe the princi- pal focus of Human Development Report 1995, Itishoped that the next Repor, to be rcleased in May 1995, will make a useful contribution to the deliberations of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in September 1995 figures ‘China: good overall performance, extreme regional ‘ifferences Hutran development index oa, Shanghai, Being 97m, National HDI Qingha ae... He ribet rouse so ‘Malaysia: allimprove, bbut some faster utran development index eile chinese Malay 101Ane TABLE How developing countries rank on human development indicators Real GDP GNP Daily Mean Perper fe Aceessto Infant calorle Child Adukt_yearsof copie capita HD| expectancy safe water mortality. supply malnutition literacy schooling Radios (PPPS) (USS) 19921982. 1968-91 1992 1988-90 199019921992 1990 19911991 20 Barbados 1 5 1 a ie tee 19 24. Hong Kong 2 i 8 4 i 40 ise cos 26 Gone 3 2 1 oar boo 6.3 232 Korea, Rep. of a 8 Wk 3 Se wm 8 33. Uragay . Wwe ae sat Soe 7s 38 Winidad and Tobago 6 14 Bak a 5 4 10 9 8 3? argentina 7 3 aw 1 BR Oe a as 38 Chile 8 " ee Oe oe % 2 39 Costa a 5 3 Toca eae Hea ae as ae 43. Singapore 10 7 1 2 2 ° Was a8 46. Venezuela u ee ee 8 es oN no 47 Panama 2 go ee a ae 1% ee 50. Colombia 3 3 SR we 8B eH 51 Kawa 14 6 1 ott 6 @ 2» 2 44 52 Mexico 6 20 Se ec DIK 6 30 48 34 Thailand 16 2 Bw eae 0 2 8 9 2 57 Malaysia 7 7 oS Bae 2 2 60 Mauttius 8 2 Toe a. eae Moo 302 152 United Atab Emirates 19 is Pie Cay ot Zt 3 Brau 20 3B ee ee 65 Jamaica 2 8 1 Se aR a4. Bea ag ee 67 Soudi Arabia 2 er Se ae S14 8 58 68 ney 3 31 se Bea se Ba 73 Syrian Arab Rep. 24 3 a St gOROR n 3a 7 Eeuador 25 4 Bide Bo Boat 2» 40 79 yan Arab lamahinya 26 46 4 5t ae 44538 16 10 81 nse 2 23 oa 4% S845 2 0 84 Paraguay 28 28 ce 5 se mR 86 ra, Wari Rp. of 29 2 aH 6 oe so 435 2 2 87 Botswana 30 we ae oS @ 2% 19 89 Cube 3 4 12 Be M2 Po Bae 24 90 Si'Lanka 32 2 2 ae 7 ae a 92 Oman 33 2 ee Bo Oo 3 3 94 China 34 16 mo oe S280 3 8 95 Feu 35 3 Bt 6 a a 0 78 96. Dominican Rep. 36 om wo OD 3 30 Ot 3a at 98 Jordan 7 7 Og ay % «2 50 40 37 89 Philppines 38 a BB wo 4 8 a 4% 100 ag 33 38 Wo a a6 sa a2 18 103 Lebanon rc 26 Hae ee n og 6 8 105 indonesia 4a a7 6 0 23 8 Pe 3 5 106 Nicaragua a 38 o 6 7 #7 sw Bw 108 Guatemala a 2 so 3550 358 3 a 109 Algeria a 37 8 oR BL Gs a 8 110 Egypt 45 8 BO ie m7 9 31ST 11 Morocco 46 4s SO a ae oa 35 38 112 Elsohador a 40 RoR «8 a on ee 113 Bola “3 @..@ Bo mas Bo Rt a 9 114 Gabon 4 ae we om Bs BOM 115 Honduras 50 Bay Bow 3 OS BB 136 Viet Nam St Weg ORR TO OF Ge 2 120 Lesotho 52 31 no 7 48 3 eB 5053 121 Zimbabwe 53 5S 8 8 2 8 se 7 1 50 43 123 Congo 5a OS ae 5 5 128 Cameroon 55 60 7 @ 8 at WF BM 125 Kenya 36 53 6 50S “4 7 8 8 70 129 Papua New Guinea 57 59 %& 7 8 t @ 0 57 a5 130 Myanmar 5B 55 se 9 om Boe men 131 Madagascar 50 st 70 as 35D 132 Pakistan 6 54 Ee ee ee) B87 OR 53 63 102 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1994"RANE TARE A How developing countries rank on human development indicators (continued) Real GDP GNP ally ‘Mean Per pet fe accessto Infant calorie chid Adult years of. pita apts HOL expectancy Safe water morality supply malnuitiion Iiteracy sehooling Radios (PPPS) (USS) 1992 “i992” “1988-91 "1992" 1986-90" 199019921992 199019811901, 133 Lao People's Dem. Rep. 61 75 ee ae a er) 3 80 134 Ghana a oe a 6 7 8 2 4 ge 135 Inca 6 2 o 6 8 Nn 3% 7 8 OR 136 coted'hoire “a 7 eB 6 8 7 S88 137 Hatt 5 9 me mo oo K OB. 138 Zambia 6 mp 8 2 o 2 6 Rm 139 Nigeria o oF SB 7 oe 6 St a 7 140 Zaire ek Ss & OS wa 4 5 80 142 Yemen oe 8 @ TB & % 8 98 55 143 Senegal Roe ae 2 65 5647 144 beta n 8 oe ee sae eed 145 Tego) eo & em et as 2 noe ee 146 angladesh B66 we Te ne 6 80 147 cambodia ho BRM 6S. 7 148 Tanzania, U.Rep.of 7573 a Bo mM 8 1 8 1 95 149 Nepal mB 6 BT dee os 2 2 8 6 88 151 sudan Too a age, 1 870 6 8 152 Burundi mT 2 76 86 OO 6 99 BB 153 Ananda ee 2 6 78 B 78 154 Uganda 0 9% Bo a BOS mH 155: angola at 3 a m 2 7 mM mw Bm 136 Benin 2 F 3s 8 St 56 SBR 3 oe 137 Malawi 3B 2 go. 5 BS BB Rp B 158 Mauritania a eo 2 eM ao 7 mM 56 159 Mozambique ss 8 17 95 8k 7 1 6 nm 9 160 Cental Alcan Rep, 86 Bt oe on ny nO Ree 181 Ethiopia 7 8 8 6 8B oe 7 8 7 8 162 Bhutan Br ss noe 90 88 164 Guinea-Bissau BP Pa a be 3 89 ht. 165 Somalia 9 8 4 & 9 8 9 93 DS 167 Mali 1 3 we 6B ae 9 8 8 oF 168 Chad 2 ew ron 93 8B 169 Niger ea 5 7 @ 8 9% 96 OB a 7B 170 Sata Leone oO? 7 6 6 9% 88 n 9 121 Afghanistan aoa Br eee So @ & ms 172 Burkina Fas0 6 78 Be 7 6 8 & I 173 Guinea ee oo 2 8 8 oO Note Nrncty sen deopng counts have en gh rank tht eect tar corporate performance the ete apes of human development sate in Installs the ance pari across cours hve Been ork cy Roe eer the neato, Couns wth equal erorranee ian inator ae gan ne seme ak ‘THE HUMAN DEVELOP) 103‘AANDNTABLE AS How industrial countries rank on human development indicators eal GDP GNP Population Mean News: Perper Ufe "per Material —_ysarsof Overall Tertiary paper Tew capta capita HDI expectancy decor morality schooling ervlment enrolment cicuaton sions (PPPS). (USS) tos" 199219901988 tae tag 19901990" 199019911991, 1 Canada 1 aes 2 1 Ze se 2 Switzatind 2 2 Bos t. 0 wt 6 19 Zoos 3 Japan 3 1 oe so Poa 402 Sweden 4 2 8 a 4 10 0 3 5 Nonway. 5 ee 3 7 5 1 8 na 6 France 6 n 8 6 4 5 6 6 10 7 pustalia 7 0 ie ' a 16 415 8 Usa 8 tis i 2 1 ee 19 9. Netherlands 9 oe 2 0 8 B48 10 United Kingdom 10 a 2 6b 9 2 8 1% 16 n u em a8 et a o4 a8 R 2 15 ar Be a aon B 3 4 42 1 9 7 9 8 5 4 De B 7 es 7 6 16 5 eo) oa 14 3 5 18 5 18 16 ak 16 5 som 7 18 8 7 2 78 7 oe 4 8 2B 3B 19 a 8 es oy a mR 2 2 B 13 8 toe ee ee i214 Fe 20 4a gy 26 4 9 2% 2 1907 Pa 2 5 8 So i wo oe 22 2 2 a 4: 48 0 ah as 5 16 23 2a 31 2 a 2s am Se aoe a 24 @ ow HB fo mw oF aR 6 25 3 6 26 mu on 6 7 ou 2 “9 26 ee ae ee a 26. 26 2 2 Bo hice Boom os 2B 76 28 Bao BB me we 77 Note Twenty ih instal courts hae been gen ranks ht eet hee comgarate peromancein he sels {ite tomate the ake comparable acon into, counties ave bee and On tay hav estate fr indkatar are gen he same ani ec of human desepment sated ts eters Courts wth eal peormorceim 108 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1994"eR TABLE A HDI values, 1960-92 1960 1970 19801992 19601970 1982 nada aes 088709110932 Feu Dazo+ 0528 0590 oa Switzerland 0853 0872 0897 0.931 Dominican Rep. 0385 0455-054 0638 Japan 0686> 0875 0905 0.979 Jordan 0295 0405-0553 0628 ‘Sneden 0867 088) 0898. 0.928 Philippines 0419 0489+ 0557 0.621 Noway Dass 0.872 0.901 0928 aq 0348 0452-0581 O61 France 0353 0871 0895 0927 —indonsia 0223 0.306 o4te= asa6 Austaia 0850 0.862 0890 0825 Nicaragua 03a 0462+ O53 0583 Usa 0.865 0.88) 0.905 0925 Guatemala D311 0392 OAT?~ O68 Netherland Dass 0.867 OBE 0923 Algeria 0264 0523 0476-0553 United Kingdom 0857 0.873 0.892 0919 Egypt 0210 0.268 0360-0551 Gormany 084 0.856 Oas1 0918 Morocen 0198 0282 0383-049 Austra D7ar> 0857 0880 0917 ‘Bl Sahador 0339 0.422 (Osa 0.543 aig 0a 0851 0873 0916 Bole 0308 0.369 daa 0.530 iceland 0853 0.863 0890 0914 Gabon 0259 0378 © OaeB> O25 Denmark a5? 0.878 OaBR «0.912 Honduras 0280 0350 0435+ 0.574 Finland 0g 08550880 0911 Lesotho 02a 0307 0404 0.476 Lunertourg 0a26 0.843 O69 0.908 Zimbabwe Oza 0326 0386 0.474 New Zealand 0as2 0861 0877 0.907 Congo 028 0307 0368 0.461 ‘sel O719> 0827 0862 0.900 Cameroon Orsi 0253 0332 0.487 Barbados O67e> 824 0855 0894 Kenya 0192 0258 0340 0.434 seeland O710> 0829 0.862 0.892 PapuaNew Guinea 0208 903250348. 0.408 aly 0755> O83! 0857 0.891 Myanmar 024 0318 0358 0.406 Spain 63> 0820 0851 BBR Madagnscar 0237 0291 0344 0.396 Hone Kong 0561 0737> 0830 G75 Pakistan 01a 0248 0287 0.393 reece 0573 0723> 0839 0.874 Ghana 0253 ©0283 «03230382 ‘Cyprus 0579 0733> 0844 0873 india 0206 0258 ©0206. 0.382 Hngary 0625 07052 0838 0.863 Coted noire 0168 0243 0330 0370 ores, Rep. of 039+ 0523 O66s> 0859 Hat O17 0218 0295 0.354 Uruguay 0737 0762> 0830 0.859. Zambia 0258 0315 03420352 TWndad and Tobago «0.737 O789> 0816 0.855 Nigeria 0184 02300297 0.348 ‘Argentina 06s7 0748 0790 0853 Zaire 0179 0.235 0286 0.41 Chie 0588 0682 | 0753> 0.848 Yemen oo 0138 02530323 Costa fica 0550 0847 0746> 08M8 Senegal D1ag 0.476 ©0233 (022 Malta 0517 Ost5> 0802 0843 beta 01s 0279 0277 OsI7 Portugal 0460+ 0588 0736-0838 Too. 0123 0183 0255 0311 Singapore 0519 0.682 0.780> 0836 aangladesh 0168 0199.28 0309 Venezuela 0.600 0728 O.78A> 0820 Tanzania, U.Fep.of «162. «O21. «0.282 0306 Panama 0485+ 0592 0.687> 0816 Nepal 0128 0162 02080289 Colombia 0463+ 0554 0656-0813 Suen D460 0188 02290276 Mexico 0517 0642 0.758> 080k Burund O13} 045702190276 Thaland 0373 0465+ 0551 0798 Rwanda 0188 0215 024 0274 Malaysia 0330 O47I> 0.687 0.798 Uganda pres 0213. 0215 zr Mauntiss 0486+ 0528 0626 0778 Angola 0139 0195 0212271 United Arab Emirates OS15.O60l 0719771 Benin 0130 0162 1970261 Brazil 0394+ 0507 0.673 0756 Malawi 144 0.176 0.216 0.260 amaica 0529 06620654 0.789 Mozambique 169 0248 02070252 Saud Arabia Oaas+ O51] 629 0742 —CertalAcanep. «0.160196 0226 O49 Turkey 0333 Oddly 0549 0739 Guinen-assau Oost 0125 Ota 0224 Syrian Arab ep. 0518 0419+ 0.658 0727 Somalia Orn 0124 0162 0217 Eauador 0422 © Oaas+ 0613 0718 Gambia Ones 010701480215 Tunisia 0258 0349 0.4994 0.600 Mall 0083 9102146 Ota Paraguay 0474+ 0511 0602 0679 Chad O12 0135 «ONS! 212 tran amie Rep. of «0.308.408. 0.4974 0672 Niger 0090 8134 0.1630 209 Botswana 0207 0284 © Odid+ 0.670 Siera Leone 09s 015s 01770209 Sn Lanka 0475+ 0506 0552 0.665 Afghanistan 0101 0131 0165 208 South atven ase+ 0591 0629 0.650 Burkina Faso one 0116 1s) 0203 china 02480372 0475+ 0.684 Guinea 008s OI ons oto > County moana om mum a ngh human dewoprert + Gointymaung fom ont meu rumen seweaprent THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX REVISITED 0DANE TABLES Gender-disparity-adjusted HDI Percentage Difference ‘Average siference between ‘emaismale between HDI an Females a5 Sof males ratio forthe Gender HDiand er tree HO disparity. gender dspary- Hor Life Educational Adjusted components adjusted disparity _acjusted HO! volue ___expectancy= attainment real income HOt adjusted HOI "ranks? Sweden 0978 1.0 1000 Ba 943 0880 43 3 Nowway 0927 22992711 98 08 85 3 Fnland oat 1a. 99a oa 2) 3 Denmark 0912 12994 71.0 905 0826 n France 0927 roan 1006 «61D 35 0820 1 leeland oa tooo 1007683 897 0820 8 Austra 0926 7 98a Ba Ogie 8 New Zealand 0.907 ms 113g 879 O77 10 Canad 0932 ont 89 STS 8420785 4 Netelands 0923 wily Isa Bo 7A 4 United Kingdom 0313 wos 108 53.0 BS (O78 4 Usa 825 w2z4 1008483 a7 (O75 4 Germany 0918 wig 970540 B43 07m 2 Austna 917 21 867 a2 a or 2 Cechosovakia 0872 134 959. 8730761 io Belgium 0918 toz0 100 a8 8 8290759 3 Savtzerland 0931 Mot 7B aN 805 0750 45 tay gat wis 86 a0 a5 (0735 2 Japan 0923 wos 994353 75 0730 6 Uhembourg 0.908 32985303 75 0708 2 Sosin 838 ws 77576 78 0700 ° Teeand 0.392 tos 1008333, 730688 3 Portugel 0838 1027 BST 331 0696 5 ‘Greece ogra 1004 90638 768 0.869 a Thailand 0.798 1001-896 «60S 34 0666 5 costa Rica oss 95 939 2 2 06se : Gppas 0.873 oe ea an? 71 o6ar 4 Korea, Rep. of 0353 101437373 a1 0637 2 Singapore 0.836 10s 66276 ns 0598 3 Hong Kong 0875 toa 2B 383 7 0592 a Mauris 0778 102589352 m9 ser 1 Paraguay 0673 1 9338S a3 0545 2 Bahrain 0791 94 794 208 666 0827 S Turkey 0739 wos at ag 70 osi7 a Si Lanka 0.655 990 5S 87 754 0.508 0 Philippines oz 298752 170.476 1 chins eas 76 «4 2 waa ari a E Sahador 0543 rors 68S, 3650470 1 Bala 0530 93 758 3B 795 0aa 1 Swazland 0513 76 0 BB 708 0362 1 Egyet 0551 8 8825 5900335 3 Kena 0434 980 «3755 Ba 0318 ° Myanmar 0.406, 97) 767568 7680312 0 ‘Adjusted for natura bagi le expectancy adantage ofan. 1 poi fure hove tht te gender decay aducted HD Tank bet than the unadted HDI ank. a negate te oppose 106 IUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1994‘AMOR TARE Ass Income-distribution-adjusted HDI Japan Sweden Belg Gamay Nathan Nomay France ‘Gada Switzerland Finiane usa. United Kingdom Denar aly Australia Irae! Spain Hong Kona ew Zealand Hungasy Poland Singapore Costa Rica Jamaica Chie Venez Panama Sfitanka Colombia ‘Thana Meco Malaysia Priippines Chine Pow Dominican Rep. Indonesia Bros Tunisia Honduras Lesotho Botswane Guatemala Morocco Kenya Ghana inda Pakistan Cte dvoV6 Tonzenia, U Rep. of Bangladesh Randa Nepal Ethiopia Uganda 13. A potive flour inst shat Hol vale 1992 0.929) 0328 0316 Pe 0323 0.78 0.326 0.932 031 pant 0.925 0319 0312 ast 026 0.900 O.aea 0875 0.307 0.863 gis 0.836 gaa 0749 04 0.20 oats 0.865 0813 0798 0.804 0794 Oa2t oaa oa 0.638 0586 0756 0.690 0524 0.476 0.870 0564 0549 0.434 0382 0.382 0.393 0370 0.308 0.309 o27a 0.289 0.249 0272 Income: dstrbution- between HDtand Difference adjusted distibution- Atal 199, 0.875 Daz oat 0.797 0773 on 0.765 0763 0749 0740 0.740 0731 0.730 0730 0.695 0.889 683 0.868 668 0.655 0.598 0.593 0546 0542 0.340 0534 ost 0510 0.508 0508 9.503 0.499 0.485 a.aga o.46t 9.455 0a? 0.436 0427 oat 0.385 0374 0.366 0.365 0351 0332 0324 0.294 0280 027 0253 nat 0233 0230 9219 ‘adjusted rank aoe beck pate hhh Le She bid ws 4 1 4 0 a Sajstetanuisteter thn theHbI ane anegnve the S20 THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX 10