" human development index in education "
The success of development in the region in general can be seen from the development of the Human Development Index ( HDI ), which reflects the achievement of development in education, health and the economy. However, This shows that the achievement of development is still lagging behind. Therefore, clean themselves and work hard to improve is the most important thing for the sake of unequal development.
Kingsbury perhaps reasonably equates standard of living with that report’s Human Development Index ( HDI ), in that it has — since the first publication of that annual report in 1990 — moved beyond simply measuring progress in terms of income per capita as per the World Bank’s longer-running annual World Development Report. But the perennial concern with the HDI (perhaps confusing to the reader of Friday’s article in moving between the “index” and broader “human development indicators”) is that of how it is used.
Which of the most affluent countries is top of the pile in a publication aimed to assist development planning seems to me to be a moot point. Nevertheless, Norway — not Australia — remains in that position; by 1995 Australia was ahead of Norway and not “approaching” it ( from the UN table that Kingsbury refers to, it would seem that Australia lost its edge over Norway during the period starting with Howard’s prime ministership and may now be improving its comparative position ) Ireland is ranked 5th (not 4th); and progress in UN statistical systems means that the 2011 indicators are 2013 estimates, and not the 2-3-year lag time of earlier years’ HDI tables.
This latter point still means, as Kingsbury says, that the effect of recent disasters in Australia is not factored in, but I’m not sure whether this will raise or lower such measures, given likely boosts to public expenditure and associated employment and consumption by recovery efforts and the limitations or quirks of GNI/GDP measures.
Also, it is important to clarify that one value of the HDI has been that it has remained a composite of a small number of the core and more “causal” development indicators: life expectancy, education and income per capita, so that it is only “ longevity ” and education that are factored into the HDI from among Kingsbury’s “ complex range of factors, including income distribution, longevity, infant and maternal mortality rates, education, crime rates, natural disasters and so on”.
Hopefully, the stronger inequality data for countries will be of more policy utility than looking at where a country sits on a global list. Although, I’m also interested in such things, as I presently live in indonesia, which has an income inequality rate much higher than any other country in the world (well entrenched at the top of the global list of national measures of the Gini coefficient), in a country deemed stable and democratic and with a wealth of natural resources such as diamonds, copper and uranium.
The capital, Windhoek, has a standard of living up there with many Western cities, and the chronic poverty of the more remote populations is well concealed by national measures of human development such the HDI. But the same is true of Australia and several other countries at the top of lists of “standards of living”.