The selection of dimensions and indicators The construction of the HDI was driven to a great extent by the cross-country

The selection of dimensions and indicators The construction of the HDI was driven to a great extent by the cross-country

data available in 1990, as well as the need to generate a simple compelling policy message. Only three dimensions and four indicators are involved. However the HDI has been so powerful that many have come to associate human development only with health and education in addition to income. This led Fukuda-Parr to title an article ‘Rescuing the Human Development Concept from the HDI’ (Fukuda-Parr, 2000). The HDI does not include all capabilities that might be of interest. However, in addition to the composite indices (the HDI, the HPI, the GDI and the GEM), the Human Development Reports include a plethora of other data, which complement the information provided by the indices. Yet human development remains associated mainly with health and education.

The HDI – supposedly intending to measure objectives of human development (ends) – has also been criticized for retaining income as one of the relevant dimensions, because in the human development approach income is regarded exclusively as a means. The justification given is that the income variable serves ‘as a surrogate for all the dimensions of human development not reflected in a long and healthy life’ (HDR, 2007/2008, Technical Note 1).

Also, achievements across countries vary deeply in terms of the HDI indicators, which raises issues of policy relevance. Access to knowledge in the UK might not be adequately captured by literacy rates. Analogously, the ability to live healthy lives in the US might be more adequately represented in an obesity rate than infant mortality rate. While the HDI and HPI evolved two forms to improve their relevance to rich countries, issues remain.

Others criticize the specific choice of indicators because they are highly

TOPICS

correlated with one another; choosing indicators with lower correlations would have created a more powerful index in some ways. Yet others argue that the HDI would have been of greater policy relevance if its indicators moved more swiftly in response to policy than life expectancy, and were all either stock or flow indicators.

Box 6.8 Beyond the HDI: What dimensions might matter? In an attempt to go beyond the HDI, Ranis, Stewart and Samman (2006) identify 11

categories of human development. These are: mental well-being, empowerment,

political freedom, social relations, community well-being, inequality, work

conditions, leisure conditions, economic stability, political security and environment conditions. Within each category, they identify several existing internationally comparable indicators and estimate the correlations between each of them and the HDI. They find that a few of the considered indicators are highly correlated with the HDI, and therefore not worth including. However, most indicators in each category have little correlation with the HDI and could be included, as when assessing human development (p342).

The problem of the availability of cross-country data in these areas remains. A practical attempt to increase the data available on ‘Missing dimensions’ of human development is led by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (www.ophi.org.uk). Its ‘Missing Dimensions’ work seeks to develop internationally comparable indicators and to add modules on these dimensions in standardized survey instruments. The selected missing dimensions of well-being are (Alkire, 2007, p348):

employment: particularly informal employment and safety at work; empowerment or agency: the ability to advance goals one values and has reason to value; physical

safety: focusing on security from violence to property and person, and perceived violence; the ability to go about without shame: to emphasize the importance of dignity, respect and freedom from humiliation, and psychological and subjective well-being: to emphasize meaning, its determinants, and satisfaction.