as high priorities will give direct correlation with human development progresses in their area. In this way, policy by the government is the key factor to promote and maintain human development index.
I. INTRODUCTION
United Nations Development Program UNDP announced the rank of wealth countries around the world based on Human Development Index’s achievement. Human
Development Index HDI is a tool to measure a country’s achievements in three indicators of human development. They are health, education, and income. HDI could be
used by governments to ensure the effectiveness of human development policy in their countries. For example Indonesia which has steady progress of human development
index. Based on UNDP report, the rank of Indonesia decreased drastically, from 108 in 2010 to 124 in 2011 although the index itself has increased from 0.613 to 0.617.
The achievement shows that the improvement of HDI’s indicator in Indonesia is left behind than other countries, especially in South East Asia Region. The reality is
worrying human stakeholders in Indonesia, for example Koalisi Perempuan Indonesia Indonesian Woman Coalition asked Government and Parliament to give explanation
about HDI’s achievement Pikiran Rakyat, 511. Furthermore, the achievement becomes headline national newspaper Kompas 811 which mentioned that the development
grows was not qualified; strategy economy in Indonesia did not give welfare for the community.
This paper will discuss policy to promote human development index. The paper empirically links the theory found during the literature review with the empirical data
Coffey and Atkinson, 1996. A detailed outline of each part can be found in the following sentences. The following part will define HDI as indicator to ensure the level of welfare.
Subsequently, the next part will examine the key determinants of human development policy to increase HDI by providing case studies on the state of Kerala-India, as well as
the countries of Sri Lanka and Singapore. The reason the countries were chosen is also mentioned in this part. Finally, the last part concludes this paper.
II. DISCUSSION II.1 HDI as Indicator to Ensure the Level of Welfare
The most important reasons why governments exist are to coordinate actions for providing public goods and security while also bringing development or improving welfare
for the community. To fulfil these purposes, governments need real indicators to measure human development. Based on these indicators, an impartial or unbiased government
can apply several policies to achieve good progress in human development.
The United Nations Development Program UNDP maintains that human development is formulated to provide the people with greater choice UNDP, 2010. To
measure human development, in 1990 UNDP promoted a Human Development Index. HDI was developed by Mahbub Ul Haq with Amartya Sen and other human development
experts for the first Human Development Report in 1990 UNDP, 2011. HDI is a
composite index to measure a country’s achievements in three basic aspects of human development. They are health, education, and income. Since that time, many
policymakers at the national and local level use HDI as a guideline to construct human development strategies.
In the beginning, the objective of improving the quality of life was measured by economists with the growth in gross national product GNP. This is based on the
assumption that with higher GNP per capita of a country, the more likely it is to have a higher average of life expectancy, lower infant and child mortality rates, higher literacy
rates, and greater emphasis on human development Anand Sen, 1996. However, several recent studies have confirmed that the correlation between income per capita and
human development is not relevant. Many countries have reached a high level of human development with less gross domestic product GDP per capita. Additionally, many
countries maintain a low level of human development with a higher GDP. For example, Sen 1999 observes that the citizens of Gabon, South Africa, Namibia, and Brazil may
be much higher in terms of GNP per capita but have a lower life expectancy than people living in Sri Lanka, China, and the state of Kerala-India.
To refine the previous theory, beginning in 1954, a group of experts made specific recommendations against the use of per capita income as a measure of the quality of life
Noorbakhsh, 1996. In addition, since 1990, UNDP states that the main purpose of human development is to widen the range of human choices and also to enlarge human
capabilitie s. Capabilities itself cannot be measured by looking solely at people’s
achievements, except in the case of basic capabilities, such as being able to elude mortality, morbidity, and hunger. People in general will tend to give priority to such
elementary indicators of capabilities in a similar way Anand Ravallion, 1993. In this way, basic capabilities have an important role to promote human development in general.
However, some critics have been addressed to HDI. Murray 1993 and Srinivasan 1994 state that HDI has limited scope in measuring human development Noorbakhsh,
1996. McGillivray 1991 found that HDI is redundant. In other side, many researchers believe that HDI is better than the GNP approach to measure the level of development.
Streeten 1994 1995 states that HDI shows the insufficiency of other indicators, such
as GNP. Desai as cited in Noorbakhsh 1996 argues that HDI “captures many aspects of human condition”. To address these concerns, the Human Development Report
considers additional indicators beside HDI. For example, in 1992, the Human Development Report proposed a Political Freedom Index PFI, which has five
components. They are personal security, rule of law, freedom of expression, political participation, and equality of opportunity.
In 1995, the Human Development Report included the Gender Development Index GDI and Gender Empowerment Measure GEM. GDI measures the same dimensions
as HDI but includes inequality in achievement between women and men Anand Sen, 1995. Indicators of GEM have four components. They are seats held by women in
parliament, female administration and managers, female professional and technical
workers, and women’s real GDP per capita Hancock 2000. In 1997, the Human Poverty Index HPI was introduced. This composite is divided in terms of regions, states,
provinces, gender, races, ethnic groups, and the rural-urban divide. The HPI is meant to
elaborate human development from the perspective of deprivation and to assess whether the benefits of human development are equally distributed Jahan, 2003.
For the composite of HDI alone, UNDP made some improvements in 2010.
Health is still measured by life expectancy at birth. Education is measured by combining the expected years of schooling for a school-age child in a country today with the mean
years of prior schooling for adults aged 25 and older. It will capture the level of education and recent changes more clearly than the previous one. The measurement of income has
changed from purchasing-power-adjusted per capita Gross Domestic Product GDP to purchasing-power-adjusted per capita Gross National Income GNI. GNI provides a real
economic picture of the country in general because it includes remittances and foreign assistance income.
Figure 1. Dimensions and Indicators of Human Development Index UNDP, 2010
However, those improvements do not make HDI as a comprehensive tool to ensure human development in all aspects. The conception of human development has
wider dimension and it will not represent in limitative indicator as HDI. HDI is a valid approach to measure three basic indicators of human development. The author called
these basic indicators because the concept of human development itself is wider than can be measured in the HDI, which can only propose a general proxy on three basic
indicators of human development. They are long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. This argument agrees with Mark McGillivray and Noorbakhsh
2007. They mentioned that HDI is successful to guide policymakers particularly in developing countries to achieve higher levels of education, health, and incomes. It is in
line w
ith Jahan’s 2003 argument which mentioned HDI as a meaningful measure of development.
Table 1. Additional Indicators beside HDI to Promote Human Development by UNDP
No. Name of Index
Indicators Released
1 Political Freedom Index
PFI Personal security, rule of law, freedom of
expression, political participation and equality of opportunity.
1992
2. Gender Development Index
GDI Same as HDI but includes inequality in
achievement between women and men. 1995
3. Gender Empowerment
Measure GEM Seats held by women in parliament, female
administration and managers, female professional and technical workers and women’s
real GDP per capita. 1995
4. Human Poverty Index HPI
Regions, state, provinces, gender, races, ethnic groups and the rural-urban divide.
1997
II.2. Policy to Promote HDI on Three Case Studies of Kerala-India, Sri Lanka and Singapore
Governments need to choose the right priority for their development process. Governments must consider basic needs as indicators to improve the condition of human
development in the context where a significant population does not have access to the basic needs and social services provided by the government. The process becomes a
crucial part of government policy because having the wrong priorities will give little positive impact on the progress of human development. Griffin and Terry 1994 found
that “a large public sector with the wrong priorities will do little to promote human development, whereas a smaller public sector with better priorities can have a large
impact on human development”. This paper evaluated the state of Kerala-India, and the countries of Sri Lanka and
Singapore. The main reason the author analyses them is that they are widely known as models of human development progress in their areas. The state of Kerala-India has
achieved high levels of human development among other states in India, especially in terms of literacy, education, health, status of women, and demographic factors. Sri Lanka
has high achievements in HDI, especially in health and education; otherwise, this country has low levels of income. Singapore is one of the worlds leaders in human development
p
rogress, especially in the education and health sectors. Singapore’s HDI is above the Southeast Asian regional average and also for the world. The study empirically examines
these countries by linking the theory of human development policy and its implication in these three areas, which have high achievement in human development.
Policy to promote HDI by the government is reflected by budget allocation to support the improvement of HDI’s indicators. For example, many scholars mentioned
about high achievement on HDI in the state of Kerala-India. Chakraborty et al. 2010 found that the achievements of Kerala are mainly based on government action on human
development policies. They said that public policy and public action are the basic factors allowing Kerala to achieve remarkable progress in human development issues. The
government of Kerala has focused on creating opportunities for their community based on social justice, economic equity, and people-centred public policy UNDP, 2005. The
state also makes several breakthrough policies to improve the quality of human development, such as providing holistic healthcare, employment-oriented higher
education, high-quality social security, pro-poor food and nutrition security and gender justice Ramanathaiyer Machperson, 2000.
In addition, in the case of Sri Lanka many researchers believed that the high achievement of human development in the country has a direct correlation with
government intervention in several basic needs, especially health, education food
subsidies, and other social welfare. The low level of income in the country would not improve the condition of human development progressively Anand Kanbur, 1991.
Therefore, the role of policy by the government to promote human development is significant
. This conclusion agrees with Caldwell’s 1984 argument as cited in Anand and Kanbur 1991. Caldwell 1984 found that the provision of health services, including the
establishment of a nutrition floor and family planning programme, can reduce mortality. In addition, Griffin and McKinley 1994 found that Sri Lanka is known for giving high
priority to human development expenditures; therefore, the country has a large impact on human development.
Furthermore, Singapore has good performance on social spending and public expenditure strategies, education financing, health financing, and social health insurance.
The country has reputation as one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world Tucci, 2010. On the other argument, Mundle 1998 states that good policies for
financing human development combined with several circumstances, such as resources,
hard work, and enterprise are the key to Singapore’s success in achieving a high condition of human development. In this way, we can conclude that policy or intervention by the
government to focus expenditure on social welfare has a positive impact on improving the quality of human development, especially in three countries above.
To gain optimum result government should ensure that the program is running effective and it is based community’s need. The level of effectiveness can be measured
by the level of corruption. The World Bank 2010 defined that the low level of corruption will increase access and the quality of public services. This is also found from
Transparency International Survey which found the correlation between corruption and welfare, the lowest level of corruption in the country tend to have the high level of welfare.
In the case state of Kerala-India, the state has effective expenditure targeting and delivery, as suggested by Ranis et al. 2000. It is shown by the Transparency
International survey in 2005, which found that Kerala has the lowest rate of corruption in India. Singapore has excellent reputation in this matter as well. The data from the
Transparency International survey in 2010 shows that Singapore is one of the highest ranking countries on the Corruption Perception Index 9.3, together with Denmark and
New Zealand. In the contrary, Sri Lanka still has acute problems with corruption and bribery. The Sri Lanka Anti-Corruption Program 2007 acknowledges that corruption and
bribery is huge in the society. The Parliamentary Committee on Public Account 2006 estimated that corruption in public sectors costs the country Rs. 100 billion every year.
The indicator to ensure that the program by government is based on community’s need is public participation. Government’s policy will not have a good impact without the
participation of their people. This argument is based on UNDP’s 2005 report, which found that participation is the central objective of human development policy, especially
to formulate and implement a development programme in line with community interests. In this way, government policies to promote human development and participation from
all stakeholders have a strong correlation with the condition of human development. In the case of Kerala-India, it is found that the high achievement on human development
index is supported by real participation from the community to contribute to and support the policy actively. The state simply plays a leading role in addressing some critical
concerns; however, active participation and deliberation from various stakeholders of
Kerala’s civil society creates the real impact for the improvement of HDI in Kerala UNDP, 2005. In addition, Sri Lanka also has excellent reputation on public participation. The
people of Sri Lanka have a long tradition of participation Huizer, 1997. However, in the case of Singapore Leong 2000 notes that, even though Singapores political elite
realises that greater citizen participation can contribute to enhancing public confidence in policy decisions, Singapore has a low rate of participation by their community in
contributing to making policy.
From the three cases of the state of Kerala-India, Sri Lanka, and Singapore, it is clear that policy by the government to promote human development has a correlation with
the achievement of Human Development Index. Other indicators, such as the level of corruption
and people’s participation can also influence the progress of human development. Based on the analysis, Kerala has a good combination of policy, low level
of corruption, and a high level of public participation. Sri Lanka has two positive indicators. They are the policy to promote human development and people participation. The main
barrier in human development progress in the country is
the high level of corruption.
Singapore has human development policies, especially in the health and education sectors, but the country has a low level of participation. However, Singapore has delivers
high quality basic services to the community, as shown by having one of the cleanest governments by the Transparency International survey.
According to the three cases above, it is found that continuity to promote human development program is crucial to the human development level, because the progress
of human development itself is not an instant process but needs many years to obtain results. For example, the indicator of life expectancy is a reflection of the good condition
of the health sector in the area, which depends on complex indicators, such as sanitation, clean water, diseases, and basic health services. In addition, the education level is
measured by combining the expected years of schooling for a school-age child in a country today with the mean years of prior schooling for adults aged 25 and older.
Based on these indicators, it is almost impossible to gain the optimum result in the short-term government period, when the area already has historical factors in education
and health policy from previous eras, which will support the achievement of human development. For example the state of Kerala-India has impact from the role of Christian
missionaries in literacy since the 15
th
century Venkatraman, 2008. It is also found in the Sri Lanka. Anand and Ravallion 1993 describe that intervention by the government
predates the Independence Day in 1948, and in some areas, it has occurred even longer than that. The first Health Unit was established in 1926. This unit provides primary
healthcare and control for infectious diseases. Many other developing countries did not create this sort of unit until almost 50 years later. Sri Lanka showed success in
campaigning against several diseases, especially malaria and tuberculosis. In addition, government intervention in education began with Education Ordinance No.1 in 1920. This
country has promoted free education since 1946. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka has applied food subsidies schemes since 1942. With this approach, the government guarantees the
community a supply of basic food items at low prices.
For income, recently HDI’s indicator is using Gross National Income GNI rather than Gross Domestic Product GDP. GNI provides a real economic picture of the country
in general because it includes remittances and foreign assistance income. This approach
is relevant to the case of state of Kerala-India, which already has many labourers who work in the Middle East and the Gulf countries Venkatraman, 2008. Their remittances
gave an advantage to local economic development, which then enabled the human development approach to be sustained. This situation is also found in Sri Lanka, which
received many foreign assistance incomes to support the development programme in the area Government of Sri Lanka, 2011. However, those factors are not dominant in
Singapore.
III. CONCLUSION
