UN country development ratings are dubious

By NOEL G DE SOUZA

In October this year, the UNDP (United Nations Development Program) released its Human Development Report for 2009. It rates India as the 134th country out of 182 in its “human development index” (HDI). China fares better at 92 and Brazil much better at 75.

How come these three most talked about economies fall far behind tiny Malta (whose majority migrate to get jobs), Cyprus (a small divided island) and very tiny Andorra, which are classified as having “very high human development”? Astoundingly, the Occupied Palestinian Territories are ranked at 110, higher than India at 134!

India and China are ranked as “medium developed” whilst Brazil is in the “highly developed” group. These emerging economies have high scientific achievements, including space and nuclear science, and vast pools of qualified personnel. Yet they rank much lower than small countries with no such developments at all. The “very high”, “high”, “medium” and “low” human development rankings are reminiscent of the discredited “first”, “second”, “third” and “fourth” worlds of yesteryear.

which is obtained by dividing a country’s Gross Domestic Product by its population. But this does not indicate how income is distributed. The oil-rich Gulf countries such as Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have high income which is concentrated in a few hands. This accords them “very high human development” even though they import highly educated staff from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Similarly oil-rich Libya and Venezuela get a rating of “high human development”.

The HDI supposedly measures human quality of life or well-being. Prof Daniel Kahneman (Princeton University) debunks the materialistic basis of well being in Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer: A Focussion Illusion

Though a psychologist, Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics

The other criterion used is literacy. The large emerging countries may have a sizeable illiterate minority but they also have a sizeable highly educated pool of experts. Some countries with small populations might have high literacy but mediocrity in their contribution to science and knowledge.

The World Economic Forum’s Financial Development Report (2009) tells a different story. Its Index ranks China 26, Brazil 34, India 38, Russia 40 and Pakistan 49 (out of 55). “No other countries are projected to rise to the level of China, India, or Russia, and none is likely to match their individual global clout,” says a US Government document Global Trends 2025

The undisputable world power, United States, leader amongst the world’s major inventors, ranks 13th, behind Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, despite those countries being largely dependent on it. These ratings make one believe that the system is pro-Scandinavian and the “very high human development” list indicates that the system is Eurocentric. Iceland, now considered a failed economic state, ranks third in the world!

The ratings throw up strange results. A “high human development” rating is accorded to some Caribbean nations (like Cuba, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Neves, Dominica and St Lucia) and to some Indian Ocean countries (like Seychelles and Mauritius). In contrast, ratings are heavily skewed against large and complex countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China.

One criterion used is per capita income

Surprisingly the HDI index is based on the ideas of Amartya Sen (Nobel laureate) from India and Mahbub ul Haq from Pakistan, though it is not known if their concepts have been properly utilised. The question to be asked is, does one measure fit all countries, and does that measure have to be favourable to Scandinavia? The United Nations has a duty to treat countries fairly. Its HDI listing throws up many anomalies and damages the reputation of the world’s emerging countries.

Indians would be dumbfounded to learn that Bhutan, virtually a protectorate of India, ranks two notches above India in its HDI rating. However, Bhutan itself does not give credence to materialistic ratings. Way back in 1972, King Jigme Singye, who began the process of modernising Bhutan, suggested a system of ratings not based on purely materialistic indicators but on spiritual values as well.

Known as the Gross National Happiness (GNH) indicator, it includes psychological aspects to define the quality of life being thus more holistic. This system has aroused considerable interest in certain quarters in the West and international conferences are being held to discuss it. Professor Kahneman’s work in the USA echoes this concept.

Strangely India and some other countries have been suffering this denigration of their reputation with silence. There does not seem to be any reaction in the Indian press. These ratings carry the weight of a United Nations agency. It is likely that these ratings will find their way into school and university textbooks as being authoritative and give a highly misleading picture.