|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The '''Human Development Index''' ('''HDI''') is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income [[Index (economics)|indices]] used to rank countries into four tiers of [[Human development (humanity)|human development]]. It was created by the Pakistani economist [[Mahbub ul Haq]] and the Indian economist [[Amartya Sen]] in 1990<ref name="The Human Development concept">{{cite web|url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/ |title=The Human Development concept |publisher=UNDP |accessdate=7 April 2012}}</ref> and was published by the [[United Nations Development Programme]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home.html |title=United Nations Development Programme |publisher=Undp.org |date=2013-05-26 |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| In the 2010 Human Development Report a further [[List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI|Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index]] (IHDI) was introduced. While the simple HDI remains useful, it stated that "the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting for inequality)" and "the HDI can be viewed as an index of "potential" human development (or the maximum IHDI that could be achieved if there were no inequality)".<ref>Human Development Report, ''[http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development]'' (2010) 87</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| [[File:2013 UN Human Development Report Quartiles.svg|400px|thumb|World map by quartiles of Human Development Index in 2013.
| | When you are having trouble seeing a game while you are playing it, try adjusting each brightness environment. Might make the display look clear, enhancing your since the expertise. And let's face it, you won't achieve any kind akin to success if you cannot see what you're doing, so make the casino game meet your needs.<br><br>To understand coins and gems, creosote is the obtain the Clash amongst Clans hack equipment by the clicking on the end up with button. Contingent towards the operating framework that you're utilizing, you will market the downloaded document whilst admin. Furnish the log in Id and choose the gadget. When this, you are enter in the quantity of sparkling jewelry or coins that individuals and start off my Clash of Clans hack instrument.<br><br>Generally there are is a patch game button that you ought to click after entering the desired values. when you check back on to the game after their late twenties seconds to a minute, you will already have the items. Right is nothing wrong in making use of secret sauce. To hack is truly the best way when you need to enjoy clash of clans cheats. Make use of an Resources that you have, and take advantage about this 2013 Clash amongst Clans download! Why pay for coins or gems when you also can get the needed physical objects with this tool! Hurry and get your very own Clash for Clans hack tool recently. The needed physical objects are just a limited clicks away.<br><br>Salary attention to how so much money your teenager is simply spending on video console games. These products commonly cheap and there 's often the option most typically associated with buying more add-ons just in the game itself. Set monthly and on an [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/annual+basis annual basis] limits on the sum of money that can be spent on clip games. Also, develop conversations with your young kids about budgeting.<br><br>If you loved this article and you also would like to be given more info concerning clash of clans hack android ([http://prometeu.net click the following internet page]) please visit our webpage. Sustain your game just as much as possible. While car-preservation is a good characteristic, do not count to sort it out. Particularly, when you in the start playing a game, you may not bring any thought when the game saves, which could very well result in a impede of significant info down the line. Until you learn about the sport better, consistently save yourself.<br><br>Make sure that your [http://corporationbuild.net/ corporation build] and buy a little bit of new laboratory so you're able to research improved barbarians. Eventually, in case you take part involving game for most months, you might finally manage to get thier the nirvana of five-star barbarians.<br><br>Test out to restrain your heavy gaming to only an individual kind of machine. Buying all the real consoles plus a gaming-worthy personal computer can priced up to thousands, solely in hardware. Yet, most big titles definitely will be available on almost all of them. Choose one platform to assist you stick with for bargains. |
| {| border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; background:none;"
| |
| |-
| |
| | {{legend|#003399|Very High}} || {{legend|#E6EDFF|Low}}
| |
| |-
| |
| | {{legend|#3072D9|High}} || {{legend|#858585|Data unavailable}}
| |
| |-
| |
| | {{legend|#A8C3FF|Medium}} ||
| |
| |}]]
| |
| | |
| == Origins ==
| |
| | |
| [[File:Mahbub-ul-Haq.jpg|thumb|upright|Mahbub-ul-Haq]]
| |
| [[File:Amartya Sen NIH.jpg|thumb|upright|Amartya Sen]]
| |
| | |
| The origins of the HDI are found in the annual Development Reports of the [[United Nations Development Programme]] (UNDP). These were devised and launched by [[Pakistani]] economist [[Mahbub ul Haq]] in 1990 and had the explicit purpose "to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting to people-centered policies". To produce the Human Development Reports, Mahbub ul Haq brought together a group of well-known development economists including: [[Paul Streeten]], [[Frances Stewart]], [[Gustav Ranis]], [[Keith Griffin (economist)|Keith Griffin]], Sudhir Anand and [[Meghnad Desai]]. Working along with Nobel laureate [[Amartya Sen]], they worked on capabilities and functionings that provided the underlying conceptual framework. 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 he soon went on to help Haq develop the Index in the future. Sen was worried that it was going to be 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-being.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Sakiko |last=Fukuda-Parr |title=The Human Development Paradigm: operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities |journal=Feminist Economics |volume=9 |issue=2–3 |year=2003 |pages=301–317 |doi=10.1080/1354570022000077980 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=United Nations Development Programme |year=1999 |title=Human Development Report 1999 |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Dimensions and calculation ==
| |
| | |
| === New method (2010 Report onwards)<ref name="tech notes">[http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2013_EN_TechNotes.pdf HDR_2013_EN_TechNotes]. Page 2.</ref> ===
| |
| Published on 4 November 2010 (and updated on 10 June 2011), starting with the 2010 Human Development Report the HDI combines three dimensions:
| |
| | |
| * A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth
| |
| * [[Education index]]: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
| |
| * A decent standard of living: [[Gross national income|GNI]] per capita ([[Purchasing power parity|PPP]] US$)
| |
| | |
| In its [[2010 Human Development Report]], the UNDP began using a new method of calculating the HDI. The following three indices are used:
| |
| | |
| 1. [[Life Expectancy Index]] (LEI) <math>= \frac{\textrm{LE} - 20}{82.3-20}</math>
| |
| | |
| 2. [[Education Index]] (EI) <math>= \frac{\sqrt{\textrm{MYSI} \cdot \textrm{EYSI}}} {0.951}</math>
| |
| | |
| :2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI) <math>= \frac{\textrm{MYS}}{13.2}</math><ref>Mean years of schooling (of adults) (years) is a calculation of the average number of years of education received by people ages 25 and older in their lifetime based on education attainment levels of the population converted into years of schooling based on theoretical durations of each level of education attended. Source: {{cite journal |last=Barro |first=R. J. |authorlink=Robert Barro |first2=J.-W. |last2=Lee |year=2010 |title=A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950–2010 |work=NBER Working Paper No. 15902 |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w15902 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| :2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI) <math>= \frac{\textrm{EYS}}{20.6}</math><ref>(Expected years of schooling is a calculation of the number of years a child of school entrance age is expected to spend at school, or university, including years spent on repetition. It is the sum of the age-specific enrolment ratios for primary, secondary, post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary education and is calculated assuming the prevailing patterns of age-specific enrolment rates were to stay the same throughout the child’s life. (Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2010). Correspondence on education indicators. March. Montreal.)</ref>
| |
| | |
| 3. [[Income Index]] (II) <math>= \frac{\ln(\textrm{GNIpc}) - \ln(100)}{\ln(107,721) - \ln(100)}</math>
| |
| | |
| Finally, the HDI is the [[geometric mean]] of the previous three normalized indices:<br>
| |
| <math>\textrm{HDI} = \sqrt[3]{\textrm{LEI}\cdot \textrm{EI} \cdot \textrm{II}}.</math>
| |
| | |
| <small>LE: [[Life expectancy at birth]]<br>
| |
| MYS: Mean years of schooling (Years that a 25-year-old person or older has spent in schools)<br>
| |
| EYS: Expected years of schooling (Years that a 5-year-old child will spend with his education in his whole life)<br>
| |
| GNIpc: [[List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita|Gross national income at purchasing power parity per capita]]</small>
| |
| | |
| === Old method (before 2010 Report) ===
| |
| The HDI combined three dimensions last used in its 2009 Report:
| |
| | |
| * [[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 indicated by the [[natural logarithm]] of [[gross domestic product]] [[per capita]] at [[purchasing power parity]].
| |
| | |
| [[File:Human Development Index trends.svg|thumb|right|280px|HDI trends between 1975 and 2004
| |
| | |
| {| style="width:100%;"
| |
| |-
| |
| | valign=top |
| |
| {{legend|black|[[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]]}}
| |
| {{legend|#FF0000|(Central and) [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[Commonwealth of Independent States|CIS]]}}
| |
| {{legend|#E45600|[[Latin America]] and the [[Caribbean]]}}
| |
| {{legend|#D09B00|[[East Asia]]}}
| |
| | valign=top |
| |
| {{legend|#00FF00|[[Arab States]]}}
| |
| {{legend|#003FD9|[[South Asia]]}}
| |
| {{legend|#C600FF|[[Sub-Saharan Africa]]}}
| |
| |}
| |
| ]]
| |
| | |
| This is the methodology used by the UNDP up until its 2011 report.
| |
| | |
| The formula defining the HDI is promulgated by the United Nations Development Programme ([[UNDP]])<ref>[http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/faq/question,68,en.html Definition, Calculator, etc. at UNDP site]{{dead link|date=May 2013}}</ref>
| |
| In general, to transform a raw [[Variable (mathematics)|variable]], say <math>x</math>, into a unit-free [[Index (economics)|index]] between 0 and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together), the following [[formula]] is used:
| |
| | |
| * <math>x\text{-index} = \frac{x - \min\left(x\right)}{\max\left(x\right)-\min\left(x\right)}</math>
| |
| | |
| where <math>\min\left(x\right)</math> and <math>\max\left(x\right)</math> are the [[maxima and minima|lowest and highest values]] the variable <math>x</math> can attain, respectively.
| |
| | |
| The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the uniformly weighted sum with ⅓ contributed by each of the following factor indices:
| |
| * [[Life Expectancy Index]] = <math>\frac{LE - 25} {85-25}</math>
| |
| * [[Education Index]] = <math>\frac{2} {3} \times ALI + \frac{1} {3} \times GEI</math>
| |
| ** [[Adult Literacy Index]] (ALI) = <math>\frac{ALR - 0} {100 - 0}</math>
| |
| ** [[Gross Enrollment Ratio|Gross Enrollment Index]] (GEI) = <math>\frac{CGER - 0} {100 - 0}</math>
| |
| * [[GDP]] = <math>\frac{\log\left(GDPpc\right) - \log\left(100\right)} {\log\left(40000\right) - \log\left(100\right)}</math>
| |
| | |
| Other organizations/companies may include other factors, such as infant mortality, which produces different number of HDI.
| |
| {{-}}
| |
| | |
| == 2013 report ==
| |
| {{main|List of countries by Human Development Index}}
| |
| The 2013 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Program was released on March 14, 2013, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2012. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries:<ref name="2013 Complete">http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf</ref>
| |
| | |
| <small>Note: The green arrows ({{increase}}), red arrows ({{decrease}}), and blue dashes ({{Steady}}) represent changes in rank when compared to the new 2012 data HDI for 2011 – published in the 2012 report.</small>
| |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{Flag|Norway}} 0.955 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Australia}} 0.938 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United States}} 0.937 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Netherlands}} 0.921 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Germany}} 0.920 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{Flag|New Zealand}} 0.919 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Ireland}} 0.916 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Sweden}} 0.916 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{Flag|Switzerland}} 0.913 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Japan}} 0.912 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Canada}} 0.911 ({{decrease}} 5)
| |
| # {{Flag|South Korea}} 0.909 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{Flag|Hong Kong}} 0.906 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Iceland}} 0.906 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Denmark}} 0.901 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Israel}} 0.900 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Belgium}} 0.897 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Austria}} 0.895 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Singapore}} 0.895 ({{increase}} 7)
| |
| # {{Flag|France}} 0.893 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Finland}} 0.892 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Slovenia}} 0.892 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Spain}} 0.885 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Liechtenstein}} 0.883 ({{decrease}} 16)
| |
| # {{Flag|Italy}} 0.881 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Luxembourg}} 0.875 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|United Kingdom}} 0.875 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Czech Republic}} 0.873 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Greece}} 0.860 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Brunei}} 0.855 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Cyprus}} 0.848 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Malta}} 0.847 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{Flag|Estonia}} 0.846 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Andorra}} 0.846 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Slovakia}} 0.840 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Qatar}} 0.834 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Hungary}} 0.831 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Barbados}} 0.825 ({{increase}} 9)
| |
| # {{Flag|Poland}} 0.821 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Chile}} 0.819 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{Flag|Lithuania}} 0.818 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|United Arab Emirates}} 0.818 ({{decrease}} 12)
| |
| # {{Flag|Portugal}} 0.816 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Latvia}} 0.814 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Argentina}} 0.811 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Seychelles}} 0.806 ({{increase}} 6)
| |
| # {{Flag|Croatia}} 0.805 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| === Inequality-adjusted HDI ===
| |
| {{main|List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI}}
| |
| The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)<ref name="2013 Complete"/> is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."
| |
| | |
| <small>Note: The green arrows ({{increase}}), red arrows ({{decrease}}), and blue dashes ({{Steady}}) represent changes in rank. The changes in rank are not relative to the HDI list above, but are according to the source (p. 152) calculated with the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data.</small>
| |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{flag|Norway}} 0.894 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Australia}} 0.864 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Sweden}} 0.859 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Netherlands}} 0.857 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Germany}} 0.856 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Ireland}} 0.850 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Switzerland}} 0.849 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Iceland}} 0.848 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Denmark}} 0.845 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Slovenia}} 0.840 ({{increase}} 7)
| |
| # {{flag|Finland}} 0.839 ({{increase}} 6)
| |
| # {{flag|Austria}} 0.837 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Canada}} 0.832 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Czech Republic}} 0.826 ({{increase}} 9)
| |
| # {{flag|Belgium}} 0.825 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|United States}} 0.821 ({{decrease}} 13)
| |
| # {{flag|Luxembourg}} 0.813 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|France}} 0.812 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|United Kingdom}} 0.802 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Spain}} 0.796 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Israel}} 0.790 ({{decrease}} 8)
| |
| # {{flag|Slovakia}} 0.788 ({{increase}} 6)
| |
| # {{flag|Malta}} 0.778 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Italy}} 0.776 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Estonia}} 0.770 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Hungary}} 0.769 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Greece}} 0.760 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|South Korea}} 0.758 ({{decrease}} 18)
| |
| # {{flag|Cyprus}} 0.751 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Poland}} 0.740 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Montenegro}} 0.733 ({{increase}} 8)
| |
| # {{flag|Portugal}} 0.729 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Lithuania}} 0.727 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Belarus}} 0.727 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Latvia}} 0.726 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Bulgaria}} 0.704 ({{increase}} 5)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI: [[New Zealand]], [[Chile]], [[Japan]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Singapore]], [[Taiwan]], [[Liechtenstein]], [[Brunei]], [[Andorra]], [[Qatar]], [[Barbados]], [[United Arab Emirates]], and [[Seychelles]].
| |
| | |
| == 2011 report ==
| |
| | |
| The 2011 Human Development Report was released on 2 November 2011, and calculated HDI values based on estimates for 2011. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries (equal to the top [[quartile]]):<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Table1.pdf |title=2011 Human Development Index |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| <small>Note: The green arrows ({{increase}}), red arrows ({{decrease}}), and blue dashes ({{Steady}}) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2011 HDI data for 2010 – published in the 2011 report (p. 131).</small>
| |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{Flag|Norway}} 0.943 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Australia}} 0.929 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Netherlands}} 0.910 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United States}} 0.910 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|New Zealand}} 0.908 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Canada}} 0.908 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Ireland}} 0.908 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Liechtenstein}} 0.905 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Germany}} 0.905 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Sweden}} 0.904 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Switzerland}} 0.903 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Japan}} 0.901 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Hong Kong}} 0.898 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Iceland}} 0.898 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|South Korea}} 0.897 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Denmark}} 0.895 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Israel}} 0.888 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Belgium}} 0.886 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Austria}} 0.885 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|France}} 0.884 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Slovenia}} 0.884 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Finland}} 0.882 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Spain}} 0.878 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Italy}} 0.874 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Luxembourg}} 0.867 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Singapore}} 0.866 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Czech Republic}} 0.865 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United Kingdom}} 0.863 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Greece}} 0.861 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United Arab Emirates}} 0.846 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Cyprus}} 0.840 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Andorra}} 0.838 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Brunei}} 0.838 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Estonia}} 0.835 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Slovakia}} 0.834 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Malta}} 0.832 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Qatar}} 0.831 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Hungary}} 0.816 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Poland}} 0.813 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Lithuania}} 0.810 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Portugal}} 0.809 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Bahrain}} 0.806 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Latvia}} 0.805 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Chile}} 0.805 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Argentina}} 0.797 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Croatia}} 0.796 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Barbados}} 0.793 ({{Steady}})
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| === Inequality-adjusted HDI ===
| |
| {{main|List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI}}
| |
| | |
| Below is a list of countries in the top quartile by Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI).<ref name="Report">{{cite web|url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf |title=2011 Human Development Complete Report |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref> According to the report, the IHDI is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."
| |
| | |
| <small>Note: The green arrows ({{increase}}), red arrows ({{decrease}}), and blue dashes ({{Steady}}) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2011 HDI list, for countries listed in both rankings.</small>
| |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{flag|Norway}} 0.890 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Australia}} 0.856 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Sweden}} 0.851 ({{increase}} 5)
| |
| # {{flag|Netherlands}} 0.846 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Iceland}} 0.845 ({{increase}} 5)
| |
| # {{flag|Ireland}} 0.843 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Germany}} 0.842 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Denmark}} 0.842 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Switzerland}} 0.840 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Slovenia}} 0.837 ({{increase}} 7)
| |
| # {{flag|Finland}} 0.833 ({{increase}} 7)
| |
| # {{flag|Canada}} 0.829 ({{decrease}} 7)
| |
| # {{flag|Czech Republic}} 0.821 ({{increase}} 9)
| |
| # {{flag|Austria}} 0.820 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Belgium}} 0.819 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|France}} 0.804 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Spain}} 0.799 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Luxembourg}} 0.799 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|United Kingdom}} 0.791 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Slovakia}} 0.787 ({{increase}} 7)
| |
| # {{flag|Israel}} 0.779 ({{decrease}} 8)
| |
| # {{flag|Italy}} 0.779 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|United States}} 0.771 ({{decrease}} 19)
| |
| # {{flag|Estonia}} 0.769 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Hungary}} 0.759 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Greece}} 0.756 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Cyprus}} 0.755 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|South Korea}} 0.749 ({{decrease}} 17)
| |
| # {{flag|Poland}} 0.734 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Lithuania}} 0.730 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Portugal}} 0.726 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Montenegro}} 0.718 ({{increase}} 7)
| |
| # {{flag|Latvia}} 0.717 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Serbia}} 0.694 ({{increase}} 9)
| |
| # {{flag|Belarus}} 0.693 ({{increase}} 10)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a [[List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI#Missing data|missing IHDI]] include: [[New Zealand]], [[Liechtenstein]], [[Japan]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Singapore]], [[Taiwan]], [[United Arab Emirates]], [[Andorra]], [[Brunei]], [[Malta]], [[Qatar]], [[Bahrain]], [[Chile]], [[Argentina]] and [[Barbados]].
| |
| | |
| === Countries not included ===
| |
| | |
| Some countries were not included for various reasons, mainly the unavailability of certain crucial data. The following United Nations Member States were not included in the 2011 report:<ref name="hdr.undp.org">[http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/ International Human Rights Development Indicators], UNDP</ref> [[North Korea]], [[Marshall Islands]], [[Monaco]], [[Nauru]], [[San Marino]], [[South Sudan]], [[Somalia]] and [[Tuvalu]].
| |
| | |
| == 2010 report ==
| |
| | |
| The 2010 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Program was released on November 4, 2010, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2010. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table2.pdf |title=2010 Human Development Index trends, 1980–2010 |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| <small>Note: The green arrows ({{increase}}), red arrows ({{decrease}}), and blue dashes ({{Steady}}) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2009 HDI published in the 2010 report.</small> | |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{Flag|Norway}} 0.938 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Australia}} 0.937 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|New Zealand}} 0.907 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United States}} 0.902 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Ireland}} 0.895 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Liechtenstein}} 0.891 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Netherlands}} 0.890 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Canada}} 0.888 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Sweden}} 0.885 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Germany}} 0.885 ({{increase}} 12)
| |
| # {{Flag|Japan}} 0.884 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|South Korea}} 0.877 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Switzerland}} 0.874 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|France}} 0.872 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Israel}} 0.872 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Finland}} 0.871 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Iceland}} 0.869 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Belgium}} 0.867 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Denmark}} 0.866 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Spain}} 0.863 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Hong Kong}} 0.862 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Greece}} 0.855 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Italy}} 0.854 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Luxembourg}} 0.852 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Austria}} 0.851 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United Kingdom}} 0.849 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Singapore}} 0.846 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Czech Republic}} 0.841 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Slovenia}} 0.828 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Andorra}} 0.824 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Slovakia}} 0.818 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United Arab Emirates}} 0.815 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Malta}} 0.815 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Estonia}} 0.812 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Cyprus}} 0.810 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Hungary}} 0.805 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Brunei}} 0.805 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Qatar}} 0.803 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Bahrain}} 0.801 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Portugal}} 0.795 ({{decrease}} 6)
| |
| # {{Flag|Poland}} 0.795 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Barbados}} 0.788 ({{decrease}} 5)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| === Inequality-adjusted HDI ===
| |
| | |
| The [[2010 Human Development Report]] was the first to calculate an Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), which factors in inequalities in the three basic dimensions of human development (income, life expectancy, and education). Below is a list of countries in the top quartile by IHDI:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf |title=2010 Human Development Complete Report |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| <small>Note: The green arrows ({{increase}}), red arrows ({{decrease}}), and blue dashes ({{Steady}}) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2010 HDI list, for countries listed in both rankings.</small>
| |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{flag|Norway}} 0.876 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Australia}} 0.864 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Sweden}} 0.824 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Netherlands}} 0.818 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Germany}} 0.814 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Switzerland}} 0.813 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Ireland}} 0.813 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Canada}} 0.812 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Iceland}} 0.811 ({{increase}} 5)
| |
| # {{flag|Denmark}} 0.810 ({{increase}} 6)
| |
| # {{flag|Finland}} 0.806 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|United States}} 0.799 ({{decrease}} 9)
| |
| # {{flag|Belgium}} 0.794 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|France}} 0.792 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Czech Republic}} 0.790 ({{increase}} 8)
| |
| # {{flag|Austria}} 0.787 ({{increase}} 5)
| |
| # {{flag|Spain}} 0.779 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|Luxembourg}} 0.775 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Slovenia}} 0.771 ({{increase}} 5)
| |
| # {{flag|Greece}} 0.768 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|United Kingdom}} 0.766 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Slovakia}} 0.764 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Israel}} 0.763 ({{decrease}} 11)
| |
| # {{flag|Italy}} 0.752 ({{decrease}} 5)
| |
| # {{flag|Hungary}} 0.736 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|Estonia}} 0.733 ({{steady}})
| |
| # {{flag|South Korea}} 0.731 ({{decrease}} 18)
| |
| # {{flag|Cyprus}} 0.716 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Poland}} 0.709 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Portugal}} 0.700 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Lithuania}} 0.693 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{flag|Libya}} 0.693 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{flag|Latvia}} 0.684 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{flag|Romania}} 0.675 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{flag|The Bahamas}} 0.671 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI include: [[New Zealand]], [[Liechtenstein]], [[Japan]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Singapore]], [[Republic of China]] ([[Taiwan]]), [[Andorra]], [[United Arab Emirates]], [[Malta]], [[Brunei]], [[Qatar]], [[Bahrain]] and [[Barbados]].
| |
| | |
| === Countries not included ===
| |
| Some countries were not included for various reasons, mainly the unavailability of certain crucial data. The following United Nations Member States were not included in the 2010 report.<ref name="hdr.undp.org"/> [[Cuba]] lodged a formal protest at its lack of inclusion. The UNDP explained that Cuba had been excluded due to the lack of an "internationally reported figure for Cuba’s Gross National Income adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity". All other indicators for Cuba were available, and reported by the UNDP, but the lack of one indicator meant that no ranking could be attributed to the country.<ref>[http://www.samoaobserver.ws/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30827:samoa-left&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50 "Samoa left out of UNDP index"], ''Samoa Observer'', January 22, 2010</ref><ref>[http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CUB.html Cuba country profile], UNDP</ref> The situation has been addressed and, in later years, Cuba has ranked as a High Human Development country.
| |
| | |
| {{Col-begin}}
| |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Africa]]'''
| |
| * {{ERI}}
| |
| * {{SYC}}
| |
| * {{SOM}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Americas]]'''
| |
| * {{ATG}}
| |
| * {{CUB}}
| |
| * {{DMA}}
| |
| * {{GRD}}
| |
| * {{KNA}}
| |
| * {{LCA}}
| |
| * {{VCT}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Asia]]'''
| |
| * {{BTN}}
| |
| * {{IRQ}}
| |
| * {{PRK}}
| |
| * {{LBN}}
| |
| * {{OMN}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Europe]]'''
| |
| * {{MCO}}
| |
| * {{SMR}}
| |
| * {{VAT}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Oceania]]'''
| |
| * {{KIR}}
| |
| * {{MHL}}
| |
| * {{NRU}}
| |
| * {{PLW}}
| |
| * {{SAM}}
| |
| * {{TUV}}
| |
| * {{VUT}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-end}}
| |
| | |
| == 2009 report ==
| |
| The [[List of countries by Human Development Index (2009)|2009]] [[Human Development Report]] by UNDP 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 countries'''.<ref>http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf Human Development Report 2009[ (p. 171, 204)</ref> They are:
| |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{Flag|Norway}} 0.971 ({{Steady}} 0)
| |
| # {{Flag|Australia}} 0.970 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Iceland}} 0.969 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Canada}} 0.966 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Ireland}} 0.965 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Netherlands}} 0.964 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Sweden}} 0.963 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|France}} 0.961 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{Flag|Switzerland}} 0.960 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Japan}} 0.960 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Luxembourg}} 0.960 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Finland}} 0.959 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United States}} 0.956 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Austria}} 0.955 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Spain}} 0.955 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Denmark}} 0.955 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Belgium}} 0.953 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Italy}} 0.951 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Liechtenstein}} 0.951 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|New Zealand}} 0.950 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|United Kingdom}} 0.947 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Germany}} 0.947 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Singapore}} 0.944 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Hong Kong}} 0.944 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Greece}} 0.942 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|South Korea}} 0.937 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Israel}} 0.935 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Andorra}} 0.934 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Slovenia}} 0.929 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Brunei}} 0.920 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Kuwait}} 0.916 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Cyprus}} 0.914 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Qatar}} 0.910 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|Portugal}} 0.909 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{Flag|United Arab Emirates}} 0.903 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Czech Republic}} 0.903 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{Flag|Libya}} 0.903 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{Flag|Malta}} 0.902 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| === Countries not included ===
| |
| Some countries were not included for various reasons, such as being a non-UN member or unable or unwilling to provide the necessary data at the time of publication. Besides the [[List of states with limited recognition|states with limited recognition]], the following states were also not included.
| |
| {{Col-begin}}
| |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Asia]]'''
| |
| * {{PRK}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Europe]]'''
| |
| * {{MON}}
| |
| * {{SMR}}
| |
| * {{VAT}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Oceania]]'''
| |
| * {{MHL}}
| |
| * {{FSM}}
| |
| * {{NRU}}
| |
| * {{TUV}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-end}}
| |
| | |
| == 2008 statistical update ==
| |
| A new index was released on December 18, 2008. This so-called "statistical update" covered the period up to 2006 and was published without an accompanying Human Development Report. The update is relevant due to newly released estimates of [[purchasing power parity|purchasing power parities]] (PPP), implying substantial adjustments for many countries, resulting in changes in HDI values and, in many cases, HDI ranks.<ref name="2008SU">{{cite web|url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/mediacentre/news/title,15493,en.html |title=News – Human Development Reports (UNDP) |publisher=Hdr.undp.org |date=2008-12-18 |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{NOR}} 0.968 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{ISL}} 0.968 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{CAN}} 0.967 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{AUS}} 0.965 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{IRL}} 0.960 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{NLD}} 0.958 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{SWE}} 0.958 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{JPN}} 0.956 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{LUX}} 0.956 ({{increase}} 9)
| |
| # {{SUI}} 0.955 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{FRA}} 0.954 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{FIN}} 0.954 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{DEN}} 0.952 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{AUT}} 0.951 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{USA}} 0.950 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{ESP}} 0.949 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{BEL}} 0.948 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{GRC}} 0.947 ({{increase}} 6)
| |
| # {{ITA}} 0.945 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{NZL}} 0.944 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{UK}} 0.942 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| # {{HKG}} 0.942 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{GER}} 0.940 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{ISR}} 0.930 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{KOR}} 0.928 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{SLO}} 0.923 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{BRU}} 0.919 ({{increase}} 3)
| |
| # {{SIN}} 0.918 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{KUW}} 0.912 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| # {{CYP}} 0.912 ({{decrease}} 2)
| |
| # {{UAE}} 0.903 ({{increase}} 8)
| |
| # {{LBY}} 0.902 ({{increase}} 9)
| |
| # {{POR}} 0.900 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| === Countries not included ===
| |
| Some countries were not included for various reasons, such as being a non-UN member, unable, or unwilling to provide the necessary data at the time of publication. Besides the states with limited recognition, the following states were also not included.
| |
| {{Col-begin}}
| |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Africa]]'''
| |
| * {{ZIM}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Europe]]'''
| |
| * {{AND}}
| |
| * {{LIE}}
| |
| * {{MON}}
| |
| * {{SMR}}
| |
| * {{VAT}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-break}}
| |
| '''[[Oceania]]'''
| |
| * {{KIR}}
| |
| * {{MHL}}
| |
| * {{FSM}}
| |
| * {{NRU}}
| |
| * {{PLW}}
| |
| * {{TUV}}
| |
| | |
| {{Col-end}}
| |
| | |
| == 2007/2008 report ==
| |
| The Human Development 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/ |title=HDR 2007/2008 – Human Development Reports (UNDP) |publisher=Hdr.undp.org |date= |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref> Most of the data used for the report are derived largely from 2005 or earlier, thus indicating an HDI for 2005. Not all [[United Nations member states|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 was fueled by a general improvement in the [[developing countries|developing world]], especially of the [[least developed countries]] group. This marked improvement at the bottom was offset with a decrease in HDI of [[high income countries]].
| |
| | |
| A HDI below 0.5 is considered to represent "low development". All 22 countries in that category are located in [[Africa]]. The highest-scoring Sub-Saharan countries, [[Gabon]] and [[South Africa]], are ranked 119th and 121st, respectively. Nine countries departed from this category this year and joined the "medium development" group.
| |
| | |
| A HDI 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 [[Caribbean]], and the oil-rich [[Arabian Peninsula]]. Seven countries were promoted to this category this year, leaving the "medium development" group: [[Albania]], [[Belarus]], [[Brazil]], [[Libya]], [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]], [[Russia]] and [[Saudi Arabia]].
| |
| | |
| On the following table, green arrows ({{increase}}) represent an increase in ranking over the previous study, while red arrows ({{decrease}}) represent a decrease in ranking. They are followed by the number of spaces they moved. Blue dashes ({{Steady}}) represent a nation that did not move in the rankings since the previous study.{{-}}
| |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
| |
| # {{ISL}} 0.968 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{NOR}} 0.968 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{AUS}} 0.962 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{CAN}} 0.961 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{IRL}} 0.959 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{SWE}} 0.956 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{SUI}} 0.955 ({{increase}} 2)
| |
| # {{JPN}} 0.953 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{NLD}} 0.953 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{FRA}} 0.952 ({{increase}} 6)
| |
| # {{FIN}} 0.952 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{USA}} 0.951 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| # {{ESP}} 0.949 ({{increase}} 6)
| |
| # {{DEN}} 0.949 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{AUT}} 0.948 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{BEL}} 0.946 ({{decrease}} 4)
| |
| # {{UK}} 0.946 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{LUX}} 0.944 ({{decrease}} 6)
| |
| # {{NZL}} 0.943 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{ITA}} 0.941 ({{decrease}} 3)
| |
| # {{HKG}} 0.937 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{GER}} 0.935 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{ISR}} 0.932 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{GRC}} 0.926 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{SIN}} 0.922 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{KOR}} 0.921 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{SLO}} 0.917 ({{Steady}})
| |
| # {{CYP}} 0.903 ({{increase}} 1)
| |
| # {{POR}} 0.897 ({{decrease}} 1)
| |
| # {{LBY}} 0.894 ({{increase}} 4)
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| == Past top countries ==
| |
| The list below displays the top-ranked country from each year of the Human Development Index. [[Norway]] has been ranked the highest ten times, [[Canada]] eight times, followed by [[Japan]] which has been ranked highest three times. [[Iceland]] has been ranked highest twice.
| |
| | |
| === In each original report ===
| |
| The year represents when the report was published. In parentheses is the year for which the index was calculated.
| |
| {{columns-list|colwidth=25em|
| |
| * 2013 (2012)–{{Flagcountry| Norway}}
| |
| * 2011 (2011)–{{Flagcountry| Norway}}
| |
| * 2010 (2010)–{{Flagcountry| Norway}}
| |
| * 2009 (2007)–{{Flagcountry| Norway}}
| |
| * 2008 (2006)–{{Flagcountry|Iceland}}
| |
| * 2007 (2005)–{{Flagcountry|Iceland}}
| |
| * 2006 (2004)–{{Flagcountry|Norway}}
| |
| * 2005 (2003)–{{Flagcountry|Norway}}
| |
| * 2004 (2002)–{{Flagcountry|Norway}}
| |
| * 2003 (2001)–{{Flagcountry|Norway}}
| |
| * 2002 (2000)–{{Flagcountry|Norway}}
| |
| * 2001 (1999)–{{Flagcountry|Norway}}
| |
| * 2000 (1998)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1999 (1997)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1998 (1995)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1997 (1994)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1996 (1993)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1995 (1992)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1994 (????)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1993 (????)–{{Flagcountry|Japan}}
| |
| * 1992 (1990)–{{Flagcountry|Canada}}
| |
| * 1991 (1990)–{{Flagcountry|Japan}}
| |
| * 1990 (????)–{{Flagcountry|Japan}}
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| == Future HDI projections ==
| |
| {{See|List of countries by future Human Development Index projections of the United Nations}}
| |
| | |
| In April 2010, the Human Development Report Office provided<ref>In: Daponte Beth Osborne, and Hu difei: "''Technical Note on Re-Calculating the HDI, Using Projections of Components of the HDI''", April 2010, United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report Office.</ref> the '''2010–2030''' HDI projections (quoted in September 2010, by the United Nations Development Programme, in the ''[http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/papers/HDRP_2010_40.pdf Human Development Research paper 2010/40]'', pp. 40–42). These projections were reached by re-calculating the HDI, using (for components of the HDI) projections of the components conducted by agencies that provide the UNDP with data for the HDI.
| |
| | |
| == Criticism ==
| |
| [[File:HDI GDPpercapitaPPP.png|400px|thumb|HDI for a sample of 150 countries shows a very high correlation with logarithm of [[GDP per capita]].]]
| |
| | |
| The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of grounds including ideological bias towards [[egalitarianism]] and 'Western' model of development, failure to include any [[ecological]] considerations, lack of consideration of technological development or contributions to the human civilization, focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, lack of attention to development from a global perspective, measurement error of the underlying statistics, and on the UNDP's changes in formula which can lead to severe misclassification in the categorisation of 'low', 'medium', 'high' or 'very high' human development countries.<ref name="Wolff et al. 2011">{{cite journal |last=Wolff |first=Hendrik |last2=Chong |first2=Howard |last3=Auffhammer |first3=Maximilian |year=2011 |title=Classification, Detection and Consequences of Data Error: Evidence from the Human Development Index |journal=Economic Journal |volume=121 |issue=553 |pages=843–870 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02408.x }}</ref> The index has also been criticized as "redundant" and a "reinvention of the wheel", measuring aspects of development that have already been exhaustively studied.<ref name="McGillivray 1991">{{cite journal |last=McGillivray |first=Mark |title=The human development index: yet another redundant composite development indicator? |journal=World Development |volume=19 |issue=10 |pages=1461–1468 |year=1991 |doi=10.1016/0305-750X(91)90088-Y }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=T. N. |last=Srinivasan |title=Human Development: A New Paradigm or Reinvention of the Wheel? |journal=[[American Economic Review]] |volume=84 |issue=2 |pages=238–243 |year=1994 |jstor=2117836 }}</ref> It has been further criticised for an inappropriate treatment of income, lacking year-to-year comparability, and assessing development differently in different groups of countries.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1002/jid.3380050210 |first=Mark |last=McGillivray |first2=Howard |last2=White |title=Measuring development? The UNDP's human development index |journal=Journal of International Development |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=183–192 |year=2006 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| [[Economists]] Hendrik Wolff, Howard Chong and [[Maximilian Auffhammer]] discuss the HDI from the perspective of data error in the underlying health, education and income statistics used to construct the HDI.<ref name="Wolff et al. 2011" /> They identify three sources of data error which are due to (i) data updating, (ii) formula revisions and (iii) thresholds to classify a country’s development status and find that 11%, 21% and 34% of all countries can be interpreted as currently misclassified in the development bins due to the three sources of data error, respectively. The authors suggest that the United Nations should discontinue the practice of classifying countries into development bins because the cut-off values seem arbitrary, can provide incentives for strategic behavior in reporting official statistics, and have the potential to misguide politicians, investors, charity donors and the public who use the HDI at large. In 2010 the UNDP reacted to the criticism and updated the thresholds to classify nations as low, medium, and high human development countries. In a comment to ''[[The Economist]]'' in early January 2011, the Human Development Report Office responded<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.economist.com/user/UNDP%2BHuman%2BDevelopment%2BReport%2BOffice/comments |title=UNDP Human Development Report Office's comments |date=January 2011 |work=The Economist }} {{Dead link|date=September 2011|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}</ref> to a January 6, 2011 article in the magazine<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.economist.com/node/17849159?story_id=17849159&fsrc=rss |title=The Economist (pages 60–61 in the issue of Jan 8, 2011) | date=January 6, 2011}}</ref> which discusses the Wolff ''et al.'' paper. The Human Development Report Office states that they undertook a systematic revision of the methods used for the calculation of the HDI and that the new methodology directly addresses the critique by Wolff ''et al.'' in that it generates a system for continuous updating of the human development categories whenever formula or data revisions take place.
| |
| | |
| Each year, [[List of countries by Human Development Index|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]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Davies |first=A. |first2=G. |last2=Quinlivan |year=2006 |title=A Panel Data Analysis of the Impact of Trade on Human Development |journal=Journal of Socio-Economics |volume=35 |issue=5 |pages=868–876 |doi=10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.048 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| [[Ratan Lal Basu]] criticises 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. According to him human development based on HDI alone, is similar to dairy farm economics to improve dairy farm output. 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.international-relations.com/CM6-2WB/HDI-Ancient-India.htm |title=HDI-2 |publisher=International-relations.com |date= |accessdate=2013-05-30}}</ref> For example, a high [[Epidemiology of suicide|suicide rate]] would bring the index down.
| |
| | |
| A few authors have proposed alternative indices to address some of the index's shortcomings.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Farhad |last=Noorbakhsh |title=The human development index: some technical issues and alternative indices |journal=Journal of International Development |volume=10 |issue=5 |pages=589–605 |year=1998 |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199807/08)10:5<589::AID-JID484>3.0.CO;2-S }}</ref> 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 planning as the HDI.
| |
| | |
| However, there has been one lament about the HDI that has resulted in an extending of its geographical coverage: 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, whereas the UNDP HDI for 2009 enumerates 182 economies and coverage for the 2010 HDI dropped to 169 countries.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.unescap.org/publications/detail.asp?id=1308 |last=Hastings |first=David A. |year=2009 |title=Filling Gaps in the Human Development Index |work=United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Working Paper WP/09/02 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=204 |last=Hastings |first=David A. |year=2011 |title=A "Classic" Human Development Index with 232 Countries |work=HumanSecurityIndex.org }} Information Note linked to data</ref>
| |
| | |
| == See also ==
| |
| {{Portal|Sustainable development}}
| |
| *Lists by Human Development Index
| |
| ** [[List of countries by Human Development Index]]
| |
| ** [[List of African countries by Human Development Index|African countries]]
| |
| ** [[List of Argentine provinces by Human Development Index|Argentine provinces]]
| |
| ** [[List of Australian states and territories by HDI|Australian states and territories]]
| |
| ** [[List of Brazilian states by Human Development Index|Brazilian states]]
| |
| ** [[Ranked list of Chilean regions#By international HDI (old methodology)|Chilean regions]]
| |
| ** [[List of Chinese administrative divisions by HDI|Chinese administrative divisions]]
| |
| ** [[List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index|Sovereign states in Europe]]<!-- are there non-sovereign states? -->
| |
| ** [[List of Indian states by Human Development Index|Indian states]]
| |
| ** [[List of Indonesian provinces by HDI|Indonesian provinces]]
| |
| ** [[List of Latin American countries by Human Development Index|Latin American countries]]
| |
| ** [[List of Mexican states by Human Development Index|Mexican states]]
| |
| ** [[List of Pakistani Districts by Human Development Index|Pakistani Districts]]
| |
| ** [[List of Philippine provinces by HDI|Philippine provinces]]
| |
| ** [[List of Russian federal subjects by HDI|Russian federal subjects]]
| |
| ** [[List of South African provinces by HDI|South African provinces]]
| |
| ** [[List of U.S. states by HDI|U.S. states]]
| |
| ** [[Ranked list of Venezuelan states#By human development index|Venezuelan states]]
| |
| * [[City development index]] explains how the CDI or City Development Index is calculated.
| |
| * [[Human Poverty Index]]
| |
| * [[Social Progress Index]]
| |
| * [[System of National Accounts]] which contains alternative ways of measuring progress.
| |
| | |
| == Notes and references ==
| |
| {{Reflist|2}}
| |
| | |
| == External links ==
| |
| * [http://hdr.undp.org/en/ Human Development Report]
| |
| * [http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/Lets-Talk-HD-HDI_2010.pdf 2010 Human Development Index Update]
| |
| * [http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/ Human Development Interactive Map]
| |
| * [http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ Human Development Tools and Rankings]
| |
| * {{PDFlink|[http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_tech_note_1.pdf Technical note explaining the definition of the HDI]|5.54 MB}}
| |
| * An independent [http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=204 HDI] covering 232 countries, formulated along lines of the traditional (pre-2010) approach.
| |
| * [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_hum_dev_ind List of countries by HDI at NationMaster.com]
| |
| * [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/conley America Is # ... 15?] by Dalton Conley, ''The Nation'', March 4, 2009
| |
| | |
| {{Global economic classifications}}
| |
| {{Population country lists}}
| |
| {{Quality of life country lists}}
| |
| {{commons category|Human Development Index}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Human Development Index| ]]
| |
| [[Category:International rankings]]
| |
| [[Category:Globalization-related indices]]
| |
| [[Category:Environmental economics]]
| |
| | |
| [[sah:HDI]]
| |