Issue: Exclusive Issue/November 2013
Launch event of 2011 Human Development Report which was moderated by Özlem Gürses, United Nations resident co-ordinator Shahid Najam, Mehmet Altan from Istanbul University and Asaf Savaş Akat from Istanbul Bilgi University was attended.
Attendants discussed about report and answered student's questions
Country rankings and values in the annual Human Development Index (HDI) are kept under strict embargo until the global launch and worldwide electronic release of the Human Development Report. The 2011 Report will be launched globally in November 2011.
It is misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports, because the underlying data and methods have changed, as well as the number of countries included in the HDI. The 187 countries ranked in the 2011 HDI represents a significant increase from the 169 countries included in the 2010 Index, when key indicators for many countries were unavailable.
Readers are advised in the Report to assess progress in HDI values by referring to Table 2 (‘Human Development Index Trends’) in the Statistical Annex of the report. Table 2 is based on consistent indicators, methodology and time-series data and thus shows real changes in values and ranks over time reflecting the actual progress countries have made.
For further details on how each index is calculated please refer to Technical Notes 1-4 in the 2011 Report and the associated background papers available on the Human Development Report website.
Human Development Index (HDI)
The HDI is a summary measure for assessing long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. As in the 2010 HDR a long and healthy life is measured by life expectancy, access to knowledge is measured by: i) mean years of adult education, which is the average number of years of education received in a life-time by people aged 25 years and older; and ii) expected years of schooling for children of school-entrance age, which is the total number of years of schooling a child of school-entrance age can expect to receive if prevailing patterns of age-specific enrolment rates stay the same throughout the child's life. Standard of living is measured by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita expressed in constant 2005 PPP$.
To ensure as much cross-country comparability as possible, the HDI is based primarily on international data from the UN Population Division, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and the World Bank. As stated in the introduction, the HDI values and ranks in this year’s report are not comparable to those in past reports (including the 2010 HDR) because of a number of revisions done to the component indicators by the mandated agencies. To allow for assessment of progress in HDIs, the 2011 report includes recalculated HDIs from 1980 to 2011.
Turkey’s HDI value and rank
Turkey’s HDI value for 2011 is 0.699—in the high human development category—positioning the country at 92 out of 187 countries and territories. Between 1980 and 2011, Turkey’s HDI value increased from 0.463 to 0.699, an increase of 51.0 per cent or average annual increase of about 1.3 per cent.
The rank of Turkey’s HDI for 2010 based on data available in 2011 and methods used in 2011 is 95 out of 187 countries. In the 2010 HDR, Turkey was ranked 83 out of 169 countries. However, it is misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports, because the underlying data and methods have changed, as well as the number of countries included in the HDI.
Table A reviews Turkey’s progress in each of the HDI indicators. Between 1980 and 2011, Turkey’s life expectancy at birth increased by 17.4 years, mean years of schooling increased by 3.6 years and expected years of schooling increased by 4.9 years. Turkey’s GNI per capita increased by about 119.0 per cent between 1980 and 2011.
Table A: Turkey’s HDI trends based on consistent time series data, new component indicators and new methodology
Figure 1 below shows the contribution of each component index to Turkey’s HDI since 1980.
Figure 1: Trends in Turkey’s HDI component indices 1980-2011
Assessing progress relative to other countries
Long-term progress can be usefully assessed relative to other countries—both in terms of geographical location and HDI value. For instance, during the period between 1995 and 2011 Turkey, Armenia and Republic of Moldova experienced different degrees of progress toward increasing their HDIs (See Figure 2).
Figure 2: Trends in Turkey’s HDI 1980-2011
Turkey’s 2011 HDI of 0.699 is below the average of 0.741 for countries in the high human development group and below the average of 0.751 for countries in Europe and Central Asia. From Europe and Central Asia, countries which are close to Turkey in 2011 HDI rank and population size are Serbia and Azerbaijan which have HDIs ranked 59 and 91 respectively (see Table B).
Table B: Turkey’s HDI indicators for 2011 relative to selected countries and groups
Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI)
The HDI is an average measure of basic human development achievements in a country. Like all averages, the HDI masks inequality in the distribution of human development across the population at the country level. The 2010 HDR introduced the ‘inequality adjusted HDI (IHDI)’, which takes into account inequality in all three dimensions of the HDI by ‘discounting’ each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The HDI can be viewed as an index of 'potential' human development and IHDI as an index of actual human development. The ‘loss’ in potential human development due to inequality is given by the difference between the HDI and the IHDI, and can be expressed as a percentage. (For more details see the technical note 2).
Turkey’s HDI for 2011 is 0.699. However, when the value is discounted for inequality, the HDI falls to 0.542, a loss of 22.5 per cent due to inequality in the distribution of the dimension indices. Serbia and Azerbaijan show losses due to inequality of 9.5 per cent and 11.4 per cent respectively. The average loss due to inequality for high HDI countries is 20.5 per cent and for Europe and Central Asia it is 12.7 per cent.
Table C: Turkey’s IHDI for 2011 relative to selected countries and groups
Gender Inequality Index (GII)
The Gender Inequality Index (GII) reflects gender-based inequalities in three dimensions – reproductive health, empowerment, and economic activity. Reproductive health is measured by maternal mortality and adolescent fertility rates; empowerment is measured by the share of parliamentary seats held by each gender and attainment at secondary and higher education by each gender; and economic activity is measured by the labour market participation rate for each gender. The GII replaced the previous Gender-related Development Index and Gender Empowerment Index. The GII shows the loss in human development due to inequality between female and male achievements in the three GII dimensions. (For more details on GII please see Technical note 3 in the Statistics Annex.)
Turkey has a GII value of 0.443, ranking it 77 out of 146 countries in the 2011 index. In Turkey, 9.1 per cent of parliamentary seats are held by women, and 27.1 per cent of adult women have reached a secondary or higher level of education compared to 46.7 per cent of their male counterparts. For every 100,000 live births, 23 women die from pregnancy related causes; and the adolescent fertility rate is 39.2 births per 1000 live births. Female participation in the labour market is 24.0 per cent compared to 69.6 for men.
In comparison Azerbaijan is ranked 50 on this index.
Table D: Turkey’s GII for 2011 relative to selected countries and groups
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
The 2010 HDR introduced the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which identifies multiple deprivations in the same households in education, health and standard of living. The education and health dimensions are based on two indicators each while the standard of living dimension is based on six indicators. All of the indicators needed to construct the MPI for a household are taken from the same household survey. The indicators are weighted, and the deprivation scores are computed for each household in the survey. A cut-off of 33.3 percent, which is the equivalent of one-third of the weighted indicators, is used to distinguish between the poor and nonpoor. If the household deprivation score is 33.3 percent or greater, that household (and everyone in it) is multidimensionally poor. Households with a deprivation score greater than or equal to 20 percent but less than 33.3 percent are vulnerable to or at risk of becoming multidimensionally poor.
The most recent survey data that were publically available for Turkey’s MPI estimation refer to 2003. In Turkey 6.6 per cent of the population suffer multiple deprivations while an additional 7.3 per cent are vulnerable to multiple deprivations. The breadth of deprivation (intensity) in Turkey, which is the average percentage of deprivation experienced by people in multidimensional poverty, is 42.0 per cent. The MPI, which is the share of the population that is multi-dimensionally poor, adjusted by the intensity of the deprivations, is 0.028. Serbia and Azerbaijan have MPIs of 0.003 and 0.021 respectively.
Table E compares income poverty, measured by the percentage of the population living below PPP US$1.25 per day, and multidimensional deprivations in Turkey. It shows that income poverty only tells part of the story. The multidimensional poverty headcount is 3.9 percentage points higher than income poverty. This implies that individuals living above the income poverty line may still suffer deprivations in education, health and other living conditions. Table E also shows the percentage of Turkey’s population that live in severe poverty (deprivation score is 50 per cent or more) and that are vulnerable to poverty (deprivation score between 20 and 30 per cent). Figures for Serbia and Azerbaijan are also shown in the table for comparison.
Table E: Turkey’s MPI for 2011 relative to selected countries
Industrial pollution and other environmental challenges could undermine development progress in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, according to the 2011 Human Development Report, released today by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The Report—‘Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All’—argues that the urgent global challenges of sustainability and equity must be addressed together—and identifies mutually reinforcing policies on the national and global level that can spur progress towards these goals.
It finds that societies with more equal human development achievement are better positioned to promote transitions to cleaner energy technologies, or to protect populations facing environmental threats like water pollution and acute climate shifts.
Throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, human development levels continue to raise, with greater equality than other areas of the developing world, the 2011 Report shows. This is particularly the case for public health and education. But the Report also warns that internal income gaps are widening in much of the region, and that environmental degradation could undermine hard-won progress.
Many countries remain highly dependent on fossil fuels, and report high levels of energy efficiency (despite notable improvements during the past two decades). Relatively high levels of air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, therefore result.
The overall human development perspective in the region is encouraging, the Report shows:
•The region’s European Union member countries all rank in the “very high human development” category in the Human Development Index (HDI) the report’s composite measure of income, health and education including Slovenia (#21), the Czech Republic (#27), Estonia (#34), Slovakia (#35), Hungary (#38), Poland (#39), Lithuania (#40) and Latvia (#43), along with EU candidate Croatia (#46). Most other countries in the region rank in the index’s second “high human development” quadrille, including the Russian Federation (#66), Ukraine (#72), and Turkey (#92).
•With many countries marking their 20th year of independence from the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the Report shows the region is a pacesetter in providing the poorest communities with basic household services—safe water and cooking fuels, and sanitation. Central Asia, however, still has significant numbers of people classified as “multi-dimensionally poor.” Tajikistan has the highest percent in the region, at 17 percent of the total population. However, even Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (the region’s poorest countries) rank in the human development index’s “medium human development” quadrille.
• Despite high achievements in education and health care, the Report finds that progress in Eastern Europe has not spread equally to the disadvantaged and disenfranchised. Groups such as the Roma are relatively more deprived than national poverty estimates would suggest, the Report notes.
The Report shows how the world’s most disadvantaged people disproportionately lack political power and suffer the most from environmental degradation, including in their immediate living environment. This is particularly relevant in a region still heavily reliant on fossil fuels and coping with the harsh environmental legacy of the Soviet era, the Report finds. His underscores the urgent need for more investments in clean fuels, renewables, and energy efficiency.
Armenia, Romania and Bulgaria lead the world in deaths from outdoor air pollution, according to Report calculations based on recent UN data. “Long-term exposure to outdoor air pollution causes respiratory disorders, immune system damage and carbon monoxide poisoning, among other deleterious effects,” the Report points out, citing industrial pollution in parts of the region as a serious health risk.
If change is to occur, the Report contends, governments must be more transparent, with strong independent watchdogs—news media, civil society and the courts—helping to encourage greater public involvement in environmental policymaking. “Stronger accountability and democratic processes, in part through support for an active civil society and media, can also improve outcomes,” says UNDP Administrator Helen Clark in the Report’s foreword.
Urban air pollution and rising carbon emissions are cited in the Report—and in accompanying surveys of public opinion—as some of the area’s leading threats to sustainable progress.
Water pollution poses another serious health threat, and with better treatment and industrial safeguards, deaths could be avoided. The Report’s findings show that Tajikistan’s death rate from unsafe drinking water (751 per million people annually) is the region’s highest, placing it between South Asia (443) and sub-Saharan Africa (1,286 deaths per million), which has the world’s most acute contamination problems. Other former Soviet republics also report high death rates from polluted water, including Turkmenistan (532 per million), Uzbekistan (335), and Kyrgyzstan (259). Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan also lead the region in deaths from indoor air pollution (516 and 418 per million a year, respectively), reflecting relatively large numbers of people without access to safe cooking and heating fuels.
Energy poses another challenge to sustainable growth. The Report shows fossil fuels account for 88 percent of primary energy supply, and the regional average for renewable energy use is the world’s lowest. Even in Poland and the Czech Republic, which are bound by the European Union’s 2020 targets to diversify energy sources and slash greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels, coal remains the leading fuel for electrical power with strong political and public support.
The Report urges countries to reconsider fossil fuel subsidies—estimated at $312 billion worldwide in 2009—and to instead promote conservation and investment in renewable energy. The publication also calls for a groundbreaking “Universal Energy Access Initiative” and backs an international tax on foreign exchange trading to help finance development aid, estimating a levy of just 0.005 percent on foreign currency trading could raise $40 billion yearly in additional development resources.
In Europe and Central Asia—home to big energy exporters like Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan—domestic subsidies can be costly. Uzbekistan, for example, spends over 10 times more on fossil fuel consumption subsidies than on health (32 percent of GDP, compared with 2.5 percent), the Report notes.
The Report shows that there is a great room for improvement in conservation of the region’s natural resources, but great potential for a more sustainable future. “UNDP is actively supporting countries of the region in the Rio+20 processes, for which the report will provides very useful input,” said Kori Udovicki, UNDP Assistant Administrator and Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
About this report: The annual Human Development Report is an editorially independent publication of the United Nations Development Programme.
Development progress in the world’s poorest countries could be halted or even reversed by mid-century unless bold steps are taken now to slow climate change, prevent further environmental damage, and reduce deep inequalities within and among nations, according to projections in the 2011 Human Development Report, launched by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) here today.
The 2011 Report—‘Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All’—argues that environmental sustainability can be most fairly and effectively achieved by addressing health, education, income, and gender disparities together with the need for global action on energy production and ecosystem protection. The Report was launched in Copenhagen today by UNDP Administrator Helen Clark with Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, whose new government has pledged to reduce Denmark’s CO2 emissions by a dramatic 40 percent over the next 10 years.
As the world community prepares for the landmark UN Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, the Report argues that sustainability must be approached as a matter of basic social justice, for current and future generations alike.
"Sustainability is not exclusively or even primarily an environmental issue, as this Report so persuasively argues,” Helen Clark says in the foreword. “It is fundamentally about how we choose to live our lives, with an awareness that everything we do has consequences for the seven billions of us here today, as well as for the billions more who will follow, for centuries to come.”
UNDP has commissioned the editorially independent Human Development Reports each year since 1990, when its Human Development Index (HDI), a composite measure of health, education and income, first challenged purely economic measures of national achievement and called for consistent global tracking of progress in overall living standards.
Between 1970 and 2010 the countries in the lowest 25 percent of the HDI rankings improved their overall HDI achievement by a remarkable 82 percent, twice the global average. If the pace of improvement over the past 40 years were to be continued for the next 40, the great majority of countries would achieve HDI levels by 2050 equal to or better than those now enjoyed only by the top 25 percent in today’s HDI rankings, the Report notes—an extraordinary achievement for human development globally in less than a century. Yet because of escalating environmental hazards, these positive development trends may instead be abruptly halted by mid-century, the Report contends, noting that people in the poorest countries are disproportionately at risk from climate-driven disasters such as drought and flooding and exposure to air and water pollution.
Sustainability and social justice
Despite the human development progress of recent years, income distribution has worsened, grave gender imbalances still persist, and accelerating environmental destruction puts a “double burden of deprivation” on the poorest households and communities, the Report says. Half of all malnutrition worldwide is attributable to environmental factors, such as water pollution and drought-driven scarcity, perpetuating a vicious cycle of impoverishment and ecological damage, the Report notes.
High living standards need not be carbon-fueled and follow the examples of the richest countries, says the Report, presenting evidence that while CO2 emissions have been closely linked with national income growth in recent decades, fossil-fuel consumption does not correspond with other key measures of human development, such as life expectancy and education. In fact, many advanced industrial nations are reducing their carbon footprints while maintaining growth.
“Growth driven by fossil fuel consumption is not a prerequisite for a better life in broader human development terms,” Helen Clark said. “Investments that improve equity—in access, for example, to renewable energy, water and sanitation, and reproductive healthcare—could advance both sustainability and human development.”
The Report calls for electricity service to be provided to the 1.5 billion people who are now off the power grid—and says that this can be done both affordably and sustainably, without a significant rise in carbon emissions. This new UN-backed ‘Universal Energy Access Initiative’ could be achieved with investments of about one-eighth of the amount currently spent on fossils fuel subsidies, estimated at $312 billion worldwide in 2009, according to the Report.
The Report adds its voice to those urging consideration of an international currency trading tax or broader financial transaction levies to fund the fight against climate change and extreme poverty. A tax of just 0.005 percent on foreign exchange trading could raise US$40 billion yearly or more, the Report estimates, significantly boosting aid flows to poor countries—amounting to $130 billion in 2010—at a time when development funding is lagging behind previously pledged levels due to the global financial crisis.
“The tax would allow those who benefit most from globalization to help those who benefit least,” the Report argues, estimating that about US$105 billion is needed annually just to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
The Report examines social factors not always associated with environmental sustainability:
• Expanding reproductive rights, health care and contraceptive access would open a new front in the fight against gender inequality and poverty, the Report contends. Reproductive rights can further reduce environmental pressures by slowing global demographic growth, with the world population now projected to rise from 7 billion today to 9.3 billion within 40 years.
• The Report argues that official transparency and independent watchdogs—including news media, civil society and courts—are vital to civic engagement in environmental policymaking. Some 120 national constitutions guarantee environmental protections, but in many countries there is little enforcement of these provisions, the Report says.
• Bold global action is urgently required for sustainable development, but local initiatives to support poor communities can be both highly cost-effective and environmentally beneficial, the Report emphasizes. India’s Rural Employment Guarantee Act cost about 0.5 percent of GDP in 2009 and benefited 45 million households—one-tenth of the labour force; Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and Mexico’s Oportunidades programmes cost about 0.4 percent of GDP and provide safety nets for about one-fifth of their populations.
The authors forecast that unchecked environmental deterioration—from drought in sub-Saharan Africa to rising sea levels that could swamp low-lying countries like Bangladesh—could cause food prices to soar by up to 50 percent and reverse efforts to expand water, sanitation and energy access to billions of people, notably in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
By 2050, in an “environmental challenge” scenario factoring in the effects of global warming on food production and pollution, the average HDI would be 12 percent lower in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa than would otherwise be the case, the Report estimates. Under an even more adverse “environmental disaster” situation—with vast deforestation, dramatic biodiversity declines and increasingly extreme weather —the global HDI would fall 15 percent below the baseline projection for 2050, with the deepest losses in the poorest regions.
Environmental deterioration could undermine decades of efforts to expand water, sanitation and electricity access to the world’s poorest communities: “These absolute deprivations, important in themselves, are major violations of human rights,” the authors say.
About the report: The annual Human Development Report is an editorially independent publication of the United Nations Development Programme.
[BAGLANTILAR]
Norway, Australia and the Netherlands lead the world in the 2011 Human Development Index (HDI), while the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger and Burundi are at the bottom of the Human Development Report’s annual rankings of national achievement in health, education and income, released today by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The United States, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Germany and Sweden round out the top 10 countries in the 2011 HDI, but when the Index is adjusted for internal inequalities in health, education and income, some of the wealthiest nations drop out of the HDI’s top 20: the United States falls from #4 to #23, the Republic of Korea from #15 to #32, and Israel from #17 to #25.
The United States and Israel drop in the Report’s Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) mainly because of income inequality, though health care is also a factor in the U.S. ranking change, while wide education gaps between generations detract from the Republic of Korea’s IHDI performance.
Other top national achievers rise in the IHDI due to greater relative equalities in health, education and income: Sweden jumps from #10 to #5, Denmark climbs from #16 to #12, and Slovenia rises from #21 to #14.
The IHDI and two other composite indices—the Multidimensional Poverty Index and the Gender Inequality Index—were designed to complement the Human Development Report’s HDI, which is based on national averages in schooling, life expectancy, and per capita income. The 2011 HDI covers a record 187 countries and territories, up from 169 in 2010, reflecting in part improved data availability for many small island states of the Caribbean and the Pacific. The 2011 country rankings are therefore not comparable to the 2010 Report’s HDI figures, the authors note.
“The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index helps us assess better the levels of development for all segments of society, rather than for just the mythical ‘average’ person,” said Milorad Kovacevic, chief statistician for the Human Development Report. “We consider health and education distribution to be just as important in this equation as income, and the data show great inequities in many countries.”
The 2011 Report—“Equity and Sustainability: A Better Future for All”—notes that income distribution has worsened in most of the world, with Latin America remaining the most unequal region in income terms, even though several countries including Brazil and Chile are narrowing internal income gaps. Yet in overall IHDI terms, including life expectancy and schooling, Latin America is more equitable than sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia, the Report shows.
To assess income distribution, as well as varying levels of life expectancy and schooling within national populations, the IHDI uses methodology developed by the renowned British economist Sir Anthony Barnes Atkinson. “We use the Atkinson approach to measure inequalities in health, education and income, because it is more sensitive to changes at the lower end of the scale than the more familiar Gini coefficient,” Kovacevic said.
HDI rankings adjusted for inequality
Average HDI levels have risen greatly since 1970—41 percent globally and 61 percent in today’s low-HDI countries—reflecting major overall gains in health, education and income. The 2011 HDI charts progress over five years to show recent national trends: 72 nations moved up in rank from 2006 to 2011, led by Cuba (+10 to #51), Venezuela and Tanzania (+7 each to #73 and #152, respectively), while another 72 fell in rank, including Kuwait (-8 to #63) and Finland (-7 to #22).
The 10 countries that place last in the 2011 HDI are all in sub-Saharan Africa: Guinea, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Chad, Mozambique, Burundi, Niger, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Despite recent progress, these low-HDI nations still suffer from inadequate incomes, limited schooling opportunities, and life expectancies far below world averages due in great part to deaths from preventable and treatable diseases such as malaria and AIDS. In many, these problems are compounded by the destructive legacy of armed conflict. In the lowest-ranking country in the 2011 HDI, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more than three million people died from warfare and conflict-linked illness in recent years, prompting the largest peacekeeping operation in UN history.
Gender Inequality Index
The Gender Inequality Index (GII) shows that Sweden leads the world in gender equality, as measured by this composite index of reproductive health, years of schooling, parliamentary representation, and participation in the labour market. Sweden is followed in the gender inequality rankings by the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Germany, Singapore, Iceland and France.
Yemen ranks as the least equitable of the 146 countries in the GII, followed by Chad, Niger, Mali, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea, Liberia, Central African Republic and Sierra Leone. In Yemen, just 7.6 percent of women have a secondary education, compared to 24.4 percent for men; women hold just 0.7 percent of seats in the legislature; and only 20 percent of working-age women are in the paid work force, compared to 75 percent of men.
“In sub-Saharan Africa the biggest losses arise from gender disparities in education and from high maternal mortality and adolescent fertility rates,” the Report’s authors write. “In South Asia, women lag behind men in each dimension of the GII, most notably in education, national parliamentary representation and labour force participation. Women in Arab states are affected by unequal labour force participation (around half the global average) and low educational attainment.”
Multidimensional Poverty Index
The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) examines factors at the family level—such as access to clean water and cooking fuel and health services, as well as basic household goods and home construction standards—that together provide a fuller portrait of poverty than income measurements alone.
Some 1.7 billion people in 109 countries lived in ‘multidimensional’ poverty in the decade ending in 2010, by the MPI calculus, or almost a third of the countries’ entire combined population of 5.5 billion. That compares to the 1.3 billion people estimated to live on $1.25 a day or less, the measure used in the UN Millennium Development Goals, which seeks to eradicate “extreme” poverty by 2015.
Niger has the highest share of multidimensionally poor, at 92 percent of the population, the Report says, followed by Ethiopia and Mali, with 89 percent and 87 percent, respectively. The 10 poorest nations as measured by the MPI are all in sub-Saharan Africa. But the largest group of multidimensionally poor is South Asian: India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have some of the highest absolute numbers of MPI poor.
The MPI provides insight into environmental problems in the poorest households, including indoor air pollution and disease from contaminated water supplies. The Report notes that in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, more than 90 percent of the multidimensionally poor cannot afford clean cooking fuel, relying principally on firewood, while some 85 percent lack basic sanitation services.
About the Human Development Index (HDI): The HDI has been published annually since the first Human Development Report in 1990 as an alternative measurement of national development, challenging purely economic assessments of progress such as Gross Domestic Product. HDI rankings are recalculated annually using the latest internationally comparable data for health, education and income.
The Inequality adjusted HDI (IHDI) was introduced along with the Gender Inequality Index (GII) and Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) in last year’s Human Development Report to complement the original HDI, which as a composite measure of national averages does not reflect internal inequalities.
Due to data limitations these composite indexes do not gauge other factors considered equally essential elements of human development, such as civic engagement, environmental sustainability or the quality of education and health standards.
About this report: The annual Human Development Report is an editorially independent publication of the United Nations Development Programme.
The 2011 Report ‘Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All’ was launched in Copenhagen today by UNDP Administrator Helen Clark with Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, whose new government has pledged to reduce Denmark’s CO2 emissions by a dramatic 40 percent over the next 10 years.
The UN Resident Coordinator and the UNDP Resident Representative in Turkey Mr. Shahid Najam launched the Report in Turkey in the Bilgi University in İstanbul.
The Report adds its voice to those urging consideration of an international currency trading tax or broader financial transaction levies to fund the fight against climate change and extreme poverty.
A tax of just 0.005 percent on foreign exchange trading could raise US$40 billion yearly or more, the Report estimates.
Norway Ranks First in the Human Development Index
To accompany the Human Development Index this year’s Report provides a variety of policies, data and other findings as in previous years.
Countries like Norway, Australia and the Netherlands are the top-ranking countries in the 2011 Human Development Index (HDI) whereas the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger and Burundi are among the last.
As the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Lichtenstein, Germany and Sweden ranked among the first ten countries in the 2011 Human Development Report, after the amendments that came under the Report’s chapters on health, education and income, some of the wealthiest countries of the world were left out of the first 20; USA receded back to #23 from #4, Korea to #32 from #15 and Israel to #25 from #17 in the list.
The USA and Israel were re-ranked as above especially due to their income equalities in the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) of the Report. Among other countries that were relatively more equitable in health, education and income, Sweden for example, went up from #10 to # 5 in the list; Denmark from #16 to #12 and Slovenia from #21 to #14.
Number of countries and territories involved in the 2010 Human Development Report, which was 169, was increased to a record level, 187 countries and territories in the 2011 Report to include more comprehensive data on the Caribbean and the small island states of the Pacific. The authors for this reason say that the country rankings in the 2011 Human Development Report are not comparable to those in the 2010 Report.
Turkey Ensures A Real Improvement of its HDI Value and Ranking
Turkey’s HDI value for 2011 is 0.699—in the high human development category—positioning the country at 92 out of 187 countries and territories. Between 1980 and 2011, Turkey’s HDI value increased from 0.463 to 0.699, an increase of 51.0 per cent or average annual increase of about 1.3 per cent.
The rank of Turkey’s HDI for 2010 was 83rd among 169 countries However, it could be misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports, because the underlying data and methods have changed, as well as the number of countries included in the HDI.
“When real HDI values are compared, it is seen that Turkey has gone up three more steps in the 2011 index than in 2010. ”
The Turkish Gross National Income (GNI), which was relatively less affected by the financial crisis, and the fact that the life expectancy at birth has increased to 74 years from the previous 72,2 years have played an important role in this improvement in Turkey’s real value in the Human Development Index.
Between 1980 and 2011, Turkey’s life expectancy at birth increased by 17.4 years, mean years of schooling increased by 3.6 years and expected years of schooling increased by 4.9 years. Turkey’s GNI per capita increased by about 119.0 per cent between 1980 and 2011.”
However, Turkey’s 2011 HDI of 0.699 is below the average of 0.741 for countries in the high human development group and below the average of 0.751 for countries in Europe and Central Asia.
When the value is ‘discounted’ for inequality, the HDI falls to 0.542, a loss of 22.5 per cent due to inequality in the distribution of the dimension indices.
The IHDI and two other composite indices—the Multidimensional Poverty Index and the Gender Inequality Index—were designed to complement the Human Development Report’s HDI, which is based on national averages in schooling, life expectancy, and per capita income.
Gender Inequality Index and Turkey
The Gender Inequality Index (GII) shows that Sweden leads the world in gender equality, as measured by this composite index of reproductive health, years of schooling, parliamentary representation, and participation in the labor market. The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Germany, Singapore, Iceland and France follow Sweden in the gender inequality rankings.
Among the 146 countries covered in the GII, Yemen has the most widespread gender inequality.
Turkey has a GII value of 0.443, ranking it 77 out of 146 countries in the 2011 index. In Turkey, women hold 9.1 per cent of parliamentary seats, and 27.1 per cent of adult women have reached a secondary or higher level of education compared to 46.7 per cent of their male counterparts. For every 100,000 live births, 23 women die from pregnancy related causes; and the adolescent fertility rate is 39.2 births per 1000 live births. Female participation in the labor market is 24.0 per cent compared to 69.6 for men.
Multidimensional Poverty Index and Turkey
The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) examines factors at the family level—such as access to clean water and cooking fuel and health services, as well as basic household goods and home construction standards—that together provide a fuller portrait of poverty than income measurements alone.
Niger has the highest share of multidimensionally poor, at 92 percent of the population, the Report says, followed by Ethiopia and Mali, with 89 percent and 87 percent, respectively. The 10 poorest nations as measured by the MPI are all in sub-Saharan Africa. But the largest group of multidimensionally poor is South Asian: India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have some of the highest absolute numbers of MPI poor.
The most recent survey data that were publically available for Turkey’s MPI estimation refer to 2003. In Turkey 6.6 per cent of the population suffer multiple deprivations while an additional 7.3 per cent are vulnerable to multiple deprivations. The breadth of deprivation (intensity) in Turkey, which is the average percentage of deprivation experienced by people in multidimensional poverty, is 42.0 per cent. The MPI, which is the share of the population that is multi-dimensionally poor, adjusted by the intensity of the deprivations, is 0.028.
About The Human Development Index (HDI): The HDI has been published annually since the first Human Development Report in 1990 as an alternative measurement of national development, challenging purely economic assessments of progress such as Gross Domestic Product. HDI rankings are recalculated annually using the latest internationally comparable data for health, education and income. The Inequality adjusted HDI (IHDI) was introduced along with the Gender Inequality Index (GII) and Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) in last year’s Human Development Report to complement the original HDI, which as a composite measure of national averages does not reflect internal inequalities. Due to data limitations these composite indexes do not gauge other factors considered equally essential elements of human development, such as civic engagement, environmental sustainability or the quality of education and health standards.
About this report: The annual Human Development Report is an editorially independent publication of the United Nations Development Programme.