The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The human development index: a critical review
Open accessAbstract
Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has published a series of annual Human Development Reports (HDRs) in which the human development index (HDI) is computed for each country. This index has become an important alternative to the traditional unidimensional measure of development (i.e. the gross domestic product). Although the index still fails to include any ecological considerations, it has broadened the discussion surrounding the evaluation of development. Unfortunately, over the years, the HDRs seem to have become stagnant, repeating the same rhetoric without necessarily increasing the HDI's utility. This paper evaluates how well these reports have lived up to their own conceptual mandate and assesses the ability of the HDI to further the development debate. We find that the reports have lost touch with their original vision and the index fails to capture the essence of the world it seeks to portray. In addition, the index focuses almost exclusively on national performance and ranking, but does not pay much attention to development from a global perspective. We propose the incorporation of three simple modifications for the index as a first step to overcome these shortcomings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9 · Cited by 1,325
“Having received paramount criticism (Desai 1991; Sagar and Najam 1998; Chowdhury and Squire 2006; Ray 2008; Davies 2009), the developers of the HDI switched the aggregation function from linear to geometric in 2010, addressing one of their main methodological criticisms.”
BackgroundA critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability
Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., & Horner, M. (2008) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.09.002 · Cited by 416
A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment analysis
Despotis, D. K. (2005) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601927 · Cited by 363
Dhahri, S., & Omri, A. (2018) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.008 · Cited by 361
A mathematical programming approach to constructing composite indicators
Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. L. (2007) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.020 · Cited by 325
Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9472-3 · Cited by 240
A common weight MCDA–DEA approach to construct composite indicators
Hatefi, S. M., & Torabi, S. A. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.08.014 · Cited by 213
Adaptive capacity: Exploring the research frontier
Mortreux, C., & Barnett, J. (2017) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.467 · Cited by 211
Robust human development rankings
Cherchye, L., Ooghe, E., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2008) · The Journal of Economic Inequality · doi:10.1007/s10888-007-9058-8 · Cited by 107
Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Levine, K., Allard, S., Christian, L., Volentine, R., Boehm, R., et al. (2014) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2014.08.002 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Sagar, A. D., & Najam, A.
- Venue
- Ecological Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 249-264
- ISSN
- 0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997222788
- Cited by
- 824
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.