Importance Of Human Development. Importance Of Human Development. Importance Of Human Development

Importance Of Human Development

1. International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)
www.ijrisat.com, Vol.3, Issue.
Importance of Human Development
S.P. College, Pune

The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index used to rank countries by level
of “human development”, which usually also implies whether a country is
developed, developing, or underdeveloped.
The origins of the HDI are to be found in the Programmes (UNDP) Human
Development Reports (HDRs). These were launched by Mahbub ul Haq in 1990
and had the explicit purpose: "to shift the focus of development econom
national income accounting to people centered policies."
To produce the HDRs, Haq brought together a group of well known
development economists
Keith Griffin, Sudhir Anand and Meghnad Desai. But it was Amartya Sen's work
on capabilities and functioning that provided the underlying conceptual frame
work. Haq was sure that a simple composite m
needed in order to convince the public, academics, and policy
can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also
improvements in human well
on to help Haq develop the Human Development Index (HDI). Sen was worried
that it was difficult to capture the full complexity of human capabilities in a single
index but Haq persuaded him that only a single number would shift the attention
of policy-makers from concentration on economic to human well
1.1 Three Dimensions in the HDI
The HDI combines three dimensions:
 Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity.
 Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult l
thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross
enrollment ratio (with one
 Standard of living, as measured by the natural logarithm of gross domestic
product per capita at $ purchasing powe
The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the average of the
following three general indices:
 Life Expectancy Index = LE (a) 25/85
International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)


, Issue.11 November 2019

Importance of Human Development
Dr. Pravin Ransure
S.P. College, Pune-30, Maharashtra, India
ABSTRACT
The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index used to rank countries by level
of “human development”, which usually also implies whether a country is
developed, developing, or underdeveloped.
The origins of the HDI are to be found in the Programmes (UNDP) Human
Development Reports (HDRs). These were launched by Mahbub ul Haq in 1990
and had the explicit purpose: "to shift the focus of development econom
national income accounting to people centered policies."
1. INTRODUCTION
To produce the HDRs, Haq brought together a group of well known
development economists including: Paul Streeten, Frances Stewart, Gustav Ranis,
Keith Griffin, Sudhir Anand and Meghnad Desai. But it was Amartya Sen's work
on capabilities and functioning that provided the underlying conceptual frame
work. Haq was sure that a simple composite measure of human development was
needed in order to convince the public, academics, and policy-makers that they
can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also
improvements in human well-being. Sen initially opposed this idea, but
on to help Haq develop the Human Development Index (HDI). Sen was worried
that it was difficult to capture the full complexity of human capabilities in a single
index but Haq persuaded him that only a single number would shift the attention
makers from concentration on economic to human well
Three Dimensions in the HDI
The HDI combines three dimensions:
Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity.
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 measured by the natural logarithm of gross domestic
product per capita at $ purchasing power parity.
The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the average of the
following three general indices:
Life Expectancy Index = LE (a) 25/85-25
ISSN-2581-5814
Page193119

Importance of Human Development
The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index used to rank countries by level
of “human development”, which usually also implies whether a country is
The origins of the HDI are to be found in the Programmes (UNDP) Human
Development Reports (HDRs). These were launched by Mahbub ul Haq in 1990
and had the explicit purpose: "to shift the focus of development economics from
To produce the HDRs, Haq brought together a group of well known
including: Paul Streeten, Frances Stewart, Gustav Ranis,
Keith Griffin, Sudhir Anand and Meghnad Desai. But it was Amartya Sen's work
on capabilities and functioning that provided the underlying conceptual frame-
easure of human development was
makers that they
can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also
being. Sen initially opposed this idea, but he went
on to help Haq develop the Human Development Index (HDI). Sen was worried
that it was difficult to capture the full complexity of human capabilities in a single
index but Haq persuaded him that only a single number would shift the attention
makers from concentration on economic to human well-being.
Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity.
iteracy rate (with two-
thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross
Standard of living, as measured by the natural logarithm of gross domestic
The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the average of the

2. International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)
www.ijrisat.com, Vol.3, Issue.
Page1931110
 Education Index = 2/3 ALI +1/3 GEI
 Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = ALR
 Gross Enrollment Index (GEI)
 GDP = log(GDP PC)
HDR2009
The 2009 report was released on October 5,2009, and covers the period up
to 2007. It was titled "Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development”.
The top countries by HDI
Human Development”. The report refers to these countries as “developed
countries”.[4] They are:
Norway
Australia 0.962
Iceland 0.968
Canada 0.961
Ireland 0.959 18. Italy 0.941
Netherlands 0.953
Sweden 0.956
France 0.952 21. United Kingdom 0.946
Switzerland 0.955
Japan 0.953
Luxembourg 0.944
Finland 0.952
United States 0.951 26. South Korea 0.921
In this report, five countries were promoted from the "medium" category to the
"high development" category: Grenada, Peru, Colombia, Turkey, and Lebanon.
Furthermore Angola, Lesotho, Uganda and Nigeria left the "low" category and are
now in the "medium" group.

1.2 Countries not included:
The following nations are not ranked in the 2008 Human Development
Index, for being unable or unwilling to provide the necessary data at the time of
publication.
Africa
Somalia
Zimbabwe
Andorra
Liechtenstein
Monaco
San Marino
Vatican Citv

1.3 2008 statistical update
International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)


, Issue.11 November 2019

Education Index = 2/3 ALI +1/3 GEI
Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = ALR-0/100-0
Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) = CGER-0/100-0
GDP = log(GDP PC)- log (100)/ log (40000)- log (100)
The 2009 report was released on October 5,2009, and covers the period up
to 2007. It was titled "Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development”.
The top countries by HDI were grouped in a new category called “Very High
Human Development”. The report refers to these countries as “developed
14. Austria 0.948 27. Israel 0.932
15. Spain 0.949 28. Andorra
16. Denmark 0.949 29. Slovenia
17. Belgium 0.946 30. Brunei
Italy 0.941 31. Kuwait
19. Liechtenstein 32. Cyprus
20. New Zealand 0.943 33. Qatar
United Kingdom 0.946 34. Portugal
22. Germany 0.935 35. U A E
23. Singapore 0.922 36. Czech Re pub
24. Hong Kong 0.937 37. Barbados
25. Greece 0.926 38. Malta
26. South Korea 0.921
t, five countries were promoted from the "medium" category to the
"high development" category: Grenada, Peru, Colombia, Turkey, and Lebanon.
Furthermore Angola, Lesotho, Uganda and Nigeria left the "low" category and are
now in the "medium" group.
Countries not included:
The following nations are not ranked in the 2008 Human Development
Index, for being unable or unwilling to provide the necessary data at the time of
Europe Oceania
Andorra
Liechtenstein
Monaco
San Marino
Vatican Citv
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Naum
Palau
Tuvalu
2008 statistical update
ISSN-2581-5814

The 2009 report was released on October 5,2009, and covers the period up
to 2007. It was titled "Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development”.
were grouped in a new category called “Very High
Human Development”. The report refers to these countries as “developed
27. Israel 0.932



37. Barbados
t, five countries were promoted from the "medium" category to the
"high development" category: Grenada, Peru, Colombia, Turkey, and Lebanon.
Furthermore Angola, Lesotho, Uganda and Nigeria left the "low" category and are
The following nations are not ranked in the 2008 Human Development
Index, for being unable or unwilling to provide the necessary data at the time of
Oceania
Marshall Islands

3. International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)
www.ijrisat.com, Vol.3, Issue.
A new index was released on December 18, 2008. This so
update" covers the period up to 2006 and was published without an
accompanying report on human development. The update is relevant due to
newly released estimates of purchasing power parities (PPP), implying substantial
adjustments for many countries, resulting in changes in HDI values and, in many
cases, HDI ranks. [5].

1.4 2007/2008 Report
The report for 2007/2008 was launched in Brasilia, Brazil, on November
27, 2007. Its focus was on "Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided
world. "[6] Most of the data used for the report are derived largely from 2005
earlier, thus indicating an HDI for 2005. Not all UN member states choose to or
are able to provide the necessary statistics.
The report showed a small increase in world HDI in comparison with last
year's report. This rise
AHDI of 0.8 or more is consi
includes all developed countries, such as those in North America, Western
Europe, Oceania, and Eastern Asia, as well as some developing countries in
Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Southeast Asia, the
the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. Seven countries were promoted to this category
this year, leaving the "medium development" group: Albania, Belarus, Brazil,
Libya, Macedonia, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
On the following table, green arrows (
over the previous study, while red arrows (
They are followed by the number of spaces they moved. Blue dashes (
represent a nation that did not move in the rankings since the previous stu
Iceland 0.968 (A 1)
Norway 0.968 (T 1)
Australia 0.962 (—)
Canada 0.961 (A 2)
Ireland 0.959 (T 1)
Sweden 0.956 (T 1)
Switzerland 0.955 (A 2)
Japan 0.953 (T 1)
Netherlands 0.953 (A
France 0.952 (A 6)
Hong Kong 0.937 (A 1)
Germany 0.935 (A 1)
Israel 0.932 (—)
Greece 0.926 (—)
Singapore 0.922 (—)
South Korea 0.921 (—)
International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)


, Issue.11 November 2019

A new index was released on December 18, 2008. This so-
update" covers the period up to 2006 and was published without an
accompanying report on human development. The update is relevant due to
newly released estimates of purchasing power parities (PPP), implying substantial
adjustments for many countries, resulting in changes in HDI values and, in many
2007/2008 Report
The report for 2007/2008 was launched in Brasilia, Brazil, on November
27, 2007. Its focus was on "Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided
world. "[6] Most of the data used for the report are derived largely from 2005
earlier, thus indicating an HDI for 2005. Not all UN member states choose to or
are able to provide the necessary statistics.
The report showed a small increase in world HDI in comparison with last

AHDI of 0.8 or more is considered to represent “high development”. This
includes all developed countries, such as those in North America, Western
Europe, Oceania, and Eastern Asia, as well as some developing countries in
Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Southeast Asia, the
rich Arabian Peninsula. Seven countries were promoted to this category
this year, leaving the "medium development" group: Albania, Belarus, Brazil,
Libya, Macedonia, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
On the following table, green arrows (▲) represent an increase in ranking
over the previous study, while red arrows (▼) represent a decrease in ranking.
They are followed by the number of spaces they moved. Blue dashes (
represent a nation that did not move in the rankings since the previous stu

ISSN-2581-5814
Page1931111
-called "statistical
update" covers the period up to 2006 and was published without an
accompanying report on human development. The update is relevant due to
newly released estimates of purchasing power parities (PPP), implying substantial
adjustments for many countries, resulting in changes in HDI values and, in many
The report for 2007/2008 was launched in Brasilia, Brazil, on November
27, 2007. Its focus was on "Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided
world. "[6] Most of the data used for the report are derived largely from 2005 or
earlier, thus indicating an HDI for 2005. Not all UN member states choose to or
The report showed a small increase in world HDI in comparison with last
dered to represent “high development”. This
includes all developed countries, such as those in North America, Western
Europe, Oceania, and Eastern Asia, as well as some developing countries in
Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and
rich Arabian Peninsula. Seven countries were promoted to this category
this year, leaving the "medium development" group: Albania, Belarus, Brazil,
epresent an increase in ranking
▼) represent a decrease in ranking.
They are followed by the number of spaces they moved. Blue dashes (—)
represent a nation that did not move in the rankings since the previous study.

4. International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)
www.ijrisat.com, Vol.3, Issue.
Slovenia 0.917 (—)
Cyprus 0.903 (A 1)
Portugal 0.897 (T 1) Brunei 0.894 (A 4)
Finland0.952 (—)
United States 0.951 (T 4)
Spain 0.949 (A 6)
Denmark 0.949 (A 1)
Austria 0.948 (T 1)
Belgium 0.946 (▼ 4)
United Kingdom 0.946 (A
Luxembourg 0.944 (T 6)
New Zealand 0.943 (A
Italy 0.941 (T 3)
The list below displays the top
Canada has been ranked the highest eight times, followed by
times. Japan has been ranked highest three times and Iceland twice.
In each original report
The year represents when the report was published. In parentheses is the
year for which the index was calculated.
2009 (2007)-
2002 (2000)
Norway 2001 (1999)
2000 (19981
1999

1998 (1995)
1997 (1994)
2.1 2009 revision:
The 2009 Report calculated HDIs for past years
methodology and data series. They are not strictly comparable with those in earlier
Human Development Reports. The index was calculated using data pertaining to
the year shown.
■ 2007-Norway
■ 2006- Norway
■ 2005-Norway
■ 2000-Norway
Criticisms:
The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of
grounds, including failure to include any ecological considerations, focusing
exclusively on national performance and ranking, and not paying much attention
to development from a global perspec
International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)


, Issue.11 November 2019

1) Brunei 0.894 (A 4)

United Kingdom 0.946 (A

2. PAST TOP COUNTRIES
The list below displays the top-ranked country from each year of the index.
Canada has been ranked the highest eight times, followed by Norway at seven
times. Japan has been ranked highest three times and Iceland twice.

The year represents when the report was published. In parentheses is the
year for which the index was calculated.
2002 (2000)- Norway 1996 (1993)- Canada
2001 (1999)-Norway 1995 (1992)-Canada
2000 (19981- Canada 1992 119901-Canada
1999 (19971- Canada 1991 (1990)-Japan
1998 (1995)-Canada
1997 (1994)-Canada

The 2009 Report calculated HDIs for past years using a consistent
methodology and data series. They are not strictly comparable with those in earlier
Human Development Reports. The index was calculated using data pertaining to
■ 1995-Norway
■ 1990-Canada
■ 1985-Canada
■ 1980-Norway
The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of
grounds, including failure to include any ecological considerations, focusing
exclusively on national performance and ranking, and not paying much attention
to development from a global perspective. Two authors claimed that the human
ISSN-2581-5814
Page1931112
ranked country from each year of the index.
Norway at seven
times. Japan has been ranked highest three times and Iceland twice.
The year represents when the report was published. In parentheses is the
Canada
Canada
Canada
Japan
using a consistent
methodology and data series. They are not strictly comparable with those in earlier
Human Development Reports. The index was calculated using data pertaining to
The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of
grounds, including failure to include any ecological considerations, focusing
exclusively on national performance and ranking, and not paying much attention
tive. Two authors claimed that the human

5. International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)
www.ijrisat.com, Vol.3, Issue.
development reports "have lost touch with their original vision and the index fails
to capture the essence of the world it seeks to portray “.[7] The index has also
been criticized as "redundant" and a “reinvention
of development that have already been exhaustively studied. [8] [9] The index has
further been criticized for having an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking
year-to-year comparability, and assessing development differ
groups of countries. [10]
Economist Bryan Caplan has criticized the way scores in each of the three
components are bounded between zero and one, so rich countries effectively
cannot improve their ranking in certain categories, even thoug
scope for economic growth and longevity left, “This effectively means that a
country of immortals with infinite per
(lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and neve
went to school.”[11] Scandinavian countries consistently come out top on the
list," he argues, “because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your
country is.”
The HDI has been criticized as a redundant measure that adds little to the
value of the individual measures composing it; as a means to provide legitimacy to
arbitrary weightings of a few aspects of social development; as a number
producing a relative ranking which is useless for inter
difficult to compare a country's progress or regression because the HDI for a
country in a given year depends on the levels of, say, life expectancy or GDP per
capita of other countries i
listed and ranked according to the comp
be easily used as a means of national aggrandizement; alternatively, if low, it can
be used to highlight national insufficiencies. Using the HDI as an absolute index
of social welfare, some authors have used pane
of economic policies on quality of life.
Ratan Lai Basu criticizes the HDI concept from a completely different
angle. According to him the Amartya Sen
considers that provision of material ameni
Development, but Basu opines that Human Development in the true sense should
embrace both material and moral development. To quote: 'so human
development effort should not end up in amelioration of material deprivations
alone: it must undertake to bring about spiritual and moral development to assist
the biped to become truly human.'[l
A few authors have proposed alternative indices to address some of the
index's shortcomings.fi 8] However, of those proposed
few have produced alternatives covering so many countries, and that no
development index (other than, perhaps, Gross Domestic Product per capita) has
been used so extensively
planning as the HDI.
International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)


, Issue.11 November 2019

development reports "have lost touch with their original vision and the index fails
to capture the essence of the world it seeks to portray “.[7] The index has also
been criticized as "redundant" and a “reinvention of die wheel", measuring aspects
of development that have already been exhaustively studied. [8] [9] The index has
further been criticized for having an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking
year comparability, and assessing development differently in different

Economist Bryan Caplan has criticized the way scores in each of the three
components are bounded between zero and one, so rich countries effectively
cannot improve their ranking in certain categories, even though there is a lot of
scope for economic growth and longevity left, “This effectively means that a
country of immortals with infinite per-capita GDP would get a score of .666
(lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and neve
went to school.”[11] Scandinavian countries consistently come out top on the
list," he argues, “because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your
The HDI has been criticized as a redundant measure that adds little to the
of the individual measures composing it; as a means to provide legitimacy to
arbitrary weightings of a few aspects of social development; as a number
producing a relative ranking which is useless for inter-temporal comparisons, and
country's progress or regression because the HDI for a
country in a given year depends on the levels of, say, life expectancy or GDP per
capita of other countries in that year.However, each year, UN member states are
listed and ranked according to the computed HDI. If high, the rank in the list can
be easily used as a means of national aggrandizement; alternatively, if low, it can
be used to highlight national insufficiencies. Using the HDI as an absolute index
of social welfare, some authors have used panel HDI data to measure the impact
of economic policies on quality of life.
Ratan Lai Basu criticizes the HDI concept from a completely different
angle. According to him the Amartya Sen-Mahbub ul Haq concept of HDI
considers that provision of material amenities alone would bring about Human
Development, but Basu opines that Human Development in the true sense should
embrace both material and moral development. To quote: 'so human
development effort should not end up in amelioration of material deprivations
lone: it must undertake to bring about spiritual and moral development to assist
iped to become truly human.'[l 1]
A few authors have proposed alternative indices to address some of the
index's shortcomings.fi 8] However, of those proposed alternatives to the HDI,
few have produced alternatives covering so many countries, and that no
development index (other than, perhaps, Gross Domestic Product per capita) has
been used so extensively - or effectively, in discussions and developmental
ISSN-2581-5814
Page1931113
development reports "have lost touch with their original vision and the index fails
to capture the essence of the world it seeks to portray “.[7] The index has also
of die wheel", measuring aspects
of development that have already been exhaustively studied. [8] [9] The index has
further been criticized for having an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking
ently in different
Economist Bryan Caplan has criticized the way scores in each of the three
components are bounded between zero and one, so rich countries effectively
h there is a lot of
scope for economic growth and longevity left, “This effectively means that a
capita GDP would get a score of .666
(lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and never
went to school.”[11] Scandinavian countries consistently come out top on the
list," he argues, “because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your
The HDI has been criticized as a redundant measure that adds little to the
of the individual measures composing it; as a means to provide legitimacy to
arbitrary weightings of a few aspects of social development; as a number
temporal comparisons, and
country's progress or regression because the HDI for a
country in a given year depends on the levels of, say, life expectancy or GDP per
However, each year, UN member states are
uted HDI. If high, the rank in the list can
be easily used as a means of national aggrandizement; alternatively, if low, it can
be used to highlight national insufficiencies. Using the HDI as an absolute index
l HDI data to measure the impact
Ratan Lai Basu criticizes the HDI concept from a completely different
Mahbub ul Haq concept of HDI
ties alone would bring about Human
Development, but Basu opines that Human Development in the true sense should
embrace both material and moral development. To quote: 'so human
development effort should not end up in amelioration of material deprivations
lone: it must undertake to bring about spiritual and moral development to assist
A few authors have proposed alternative indices to address some of the
alternatives to the HDI,
few have produced alternatives covering so many countries, and that no
development index (other than, perhaps, Gross Domestic Product per capita) has
or effectively, in discussions and developmental

6. International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)
www.ijrisat.com, Vol.3, Issue.
However, there has been one lament about the HDI that has resulted in an
alternative index: David Hastings, of the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific published a report geographically extend
the HDI to 230+ economies, where the UNDP HDI for2009 enumerates
182economies.

1. Haq, Mahbub ul. 1995. Reflections on Human Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.
2. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalising
Sen's ideas on capabilities Feminist Economics 9(2 3), 2003,301 317
3. United Nations Development Programme. 1999. Human Development
Report 1999. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. http://hdr.undp.oig/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdfHuman
Development Report 2009[ (p. 171,.204)
5. News - Human Development Reports (UNDP)
6. HDR 2007/2008 -
7. Ambuj D. Sagara,AdilNajam, "The human development index: a critical
review", Ecological Eco
8. McGillivray, Mark, "The human development index: yet another redundant
composite develop
10,pp. 1461-1468, Oct. 1991.
9. T.N. Srinivasan "Human De
the Wheel?", American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 238
May 1994.
10. Mark McGillivray, Howard White, "Measuring development? The UNDP's
human development index", Journal of International Development, Vol.
No. 2, pp. 183-192, Nov, 2006.
11. Human Development Index Comment Posted May 22,2009, Bryan Caplan
- Library of Economics and Liberty

International Journal of Research in Informative
Science Application & Techniques (IJRISAT)


, Issue.11 November 2019

However, there has been one lament about the HDI that has resulted in an
alternative index: David Hastings, of the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific published a report geographically extend
the HDI to 230+ economies, where the UNDP HDI for2009 enumerates
REFERENCES
Haq, Mahbub ul. 1995. Reflections on Human Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Parr The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalising
n's ideas on capabilities Feminist Economics 9(2 3), 2003,301 317
United Nations Development Programme. 1999. Human Development
Report 1999. New York: Oxford University Press.
hdr.undp.oig/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdfHuman
Development Report 2009[ (p. 171,.204)
Human Development Reports (UNDP)
Human Development Reports (UNDP)
Ambuj D. Sagara,AdilNajam, "The human development index: a critical
Ecological Economics, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 249-264, June 1998.
McGillivray, Mark, "The human development index: yet another redundant
composite development indicator?", World Development, Vol. 19,No.
1468, Oct. 1991.
T.N. Srinivasan "Human Development: ANew Paradigm or Reinvention of
the Wheel?", American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 238
Mark McGillivray, Howard White, "Measuring development? The UNDP's
human development index", Journal of International Development, Vol.
192, Nov, 2006.
Human Development Index Comment Posted May 22,2009, Bryan Caplan
Library of Economics and Liberty.
ISSN-2581-5814
Page1931114
However, there has been one lament about the HDI that has resulted in an
alternative index: 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, where the UNDP HDI for2009 enumerates
Haq, Mahbub ul. 1995. Reflections on Human Development. New York:
Parr The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalising
n's ideas on capabilities Feminist Economics 9(2 3), 2003,301 317
United Nations Development Programme. 1999. Human Development
hdr.undp.oig/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdfHuman
Human Development Reports (UNDP)
Ambuj D. Sagara,AdilNajam, "The human development index: a critical
264, June 1998.
McGillivray, Mark, "The human development index: yet another redundant
ment indicator?", World Development, Vol. 19,No.
velopment: ANew Paradigm or Reinvention of
the Wheel?", American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 238-243,
Mark McGillivray, Howard White, "Measuring development? The UNDP's
human development index", Journal of International Development, Vol. 5,
Human Development Index Comment Posted May 22,2009, Bryan Caplan