Measuring HDI - the old, the new and the elegant

The Human Development Index (HDI), since its inception in 1990, has come up with an indicator for each country that aggregates the three dimensions of health (representing how long and fulfilled a life one lives), literacy (representing knowledge) and income (as a proxy for standard of living) into a single dimension. This was an important departure from income-based measures that focused on a single dimension. Before aggregating across dimensions, each indicator was normalized and took values between zero and unity.[1]

Prior to 2010, the approach followed to aggregate was a simple averaging across dimensions. A problem with this method was that a deficit in one dimension will perfectly substitute an equal attainment in another dimension. Income remaining same, this means that a country where both health and education attainments have the same value (say, 0.4 each) will have the same HDI as another country where health is 0.2 and education is 0.6 (a situation not quite uncommon in some of the Sub-Saharan countries reeling under a HIV/AIDS epidemic a few years ago).[2]

In 2010, to address perfect substitutability across dimensions, the calculation of HDI was aggregated by the geometric mean. Usage of the geometric mean also meant that the ordinal ranking across countries would not change if the maximum used for normalizing changed therefore the pegging of a maximum to a goalpost was done away with. Note that this was an advantage of the method, but not a requirement to begin with, definitely not when millennium development goals that can influence the various outcomes that are of relevance in the measure of HDI are themselves pegged to a goalpost.

Source: Human Development Index, The Encyclopedia of Earth

We propose another alternative method of aggregation by taking the additive inverse of the distance from the ideal. This method also addresses the perfect substitutability across dimensions. In addition, this proposed method satisfies two other conditions. One is that the emphasis across dimensions should be based on their proportionate shortfall from the ideal (note that this ideal is a goalpost and not be understood as a transcendental ideal) or is shortfall sensitive. The other is that the same gap should be considered worse-off at higher levels of attainment. Or, simply put the gaps should decrease as attainment increases.

We impose a set of intuitive properties as axioms. They are as follows.

Monotonicity (M): An increase/decrease in the value of any of the three indicators, value of other two indicators remaining constant, will lead to an increase/decrease in the value of HDI.

Anonymity (A): If there are two situations where the values of the indicators get interchanged then they will give the same HDI value. For instance, if in one situation health is 0.4 and education is 0.6 while in another situation heath is 0.6 and education is 0.4 then both these will give the same HDI value if income remains same. This is a simple symmetry condition and not to be considered as subsitutability.

Normalization (N): If all the three indicators have zero value then the HDI value should be  zero while if all the indicators have unity value then the HDI value should be unity. The extremes representing no development and full development, respectively.

Uniformity (U): For a given average attainment, a greater deviation should give a lower HDI value. This is in consonance with uniform development across dimensions, which are considered intrinsic.

Shortfall sensitivity (S): The emphasis for future progress across dimensions should be at least in proportion to the shortfall from the ideal. This means that if education is 0.7 and health is 0.1 (their shortfalls being 0.3 and 0.9) then health should get at least three times the emphasis that is given to education in our future enhancement of capabilities.

Hiatus sensitivity to level (H): The same gap across dimensions at a higher level of attainment should be considered worse-off. Suppose at an average value across dimensions of 0.5 we have education at 0.6 and health at 0.4 and when this average value across dimensions increases to 0.7 then we have education at 0.8 and health at 0.6 then the gap remains same. It has not narrowed down with an increase in attainment and we consider this as worse-off. A corollary in a single dimension will be like this. Consider gender differential in literacy attainment to be 10 percentage points when average literacy rate is 50 per cent. Now, the gender differential remains the same even when literacy rate increases to 80 per cent. Thus, an increase in literacy attainment did not narrow down the differential and we consider this as worse-off.

It so turns out the linear averaging method of aggregation satisfies the first three axioms (or MAN axioms), the geometric mean method of aggregation satisfies the first fours axiom (or MANU axioms, of course, montonicity fails when one of the dimension values is at zero and continues to be so while the others dimension increase) while our proposed method (the displaced ideal method) satisfies all the six axioms (or MANUSH axioms).

We also propose an α-class of measures where special cases turn out to be the linear averaging method when α=1 and our proposed displaced idea method when α=2. Further, when α≥2 then these class of measures satisfy the MANUSH axioms.

Our proposed class of measures can be used in different contexts. It can also consider the dimensions as subgroups. Under such an interpretation, the shortfall sensitivity axiom and the related discussions gives two extremes. One is the leximin ordering (like the Rawlsian scenario) where entire emphasis should be given to the neglected subgroup and then equal emphasis needs to be given after they are equal. The other extreme is to give the entire increment to the better off and leave the worse-off subgroup at their subsistence level till the better off group reaches its maximum and after that efforts can be put to increase the capabilities of the worse-off group. The problem with the latter suggestion is that the better-off group will never reach its maximum so the worse-off will continue to be at its subsistence level. In popular understanding, the two extremes may be referred to as ‘left’ and ‘right’,[3] respectively. To address these extreme positions, many proponents have suggested scale invariance or translation invariance as possible reconciliatory approaches. However, these options would still keep convergence across subgroups at bay. Hence, a proportionate to shortfall approach should be considered as an intermediary position. Of course, we are aware that implementation at the ground level might be different from this measurement exercise, but nevertheless, this will facilitate our understanding.

The word MANUSH means human in many South Asian Languages such as Assamese, Bengali, Marathi and Sanskrit among others. Besides, MANUSH can be rearranged to HUMANS. Thus, we propose the axiom of MANUSH or HUMANS for a human development index.

This blog post is based on a working paper working paper co-authored with Hippu Salk Kristle Nathan. In September 2014, this was further revised and put up as another working paper Measuring HDI - the Old, the New and the Elegant: Implications for Multidimensional Development and Social Inclusiveness at the Asia Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).  One can also listen to podcasts of presentation at OPHI or CASE Social Exclusion Seminars at LSE.[4]

_______________

[1] The scales used to measure available information, the normalizing of these information to indicators, the weights given to each of these indicators or their sub-components are important aspects but beyond the scope of the current exercise.

[2] HIV/AIDS denote human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

[3] Note that the Rawlsian scenario identified with the left is not an extreme scenario that takes away from one subgroup in favour of another subgroup. That kind of left extremism, analytically speaking, would be a mirror opposite of the current right. In short, the Rawlsian position is actually a middle position akin to respecting pluralism. This can be achieved through a leximin ordering or by following a proportionate to shortfall approach. These two as also all possibilities within these should be considered as possible Rawlsian approaches.    

[4] The antecedents of this works goes back to more than six/seven years and led to two working papers in 2008, viz., An Alternative Approach to Measure HDI, and On a Class of Human Development Index Measures, and a publication in 2010 Progress in Human Development: Are we On the Right Path? (see working paper version). A related work that we propose to do is the Inclusiveness of Human Development in India; also see video below.

Remembering Angulimala, Buddha and Ignorance

Today, I recall the story of Angulimala, a dreaded bandit who killed people and cut their fingers (anguli) and formed a garland (mala) that he wore around his neck. In the past, the society had been unkind to him by disowning him for no fault of his and as a vengeance he showed no mercy. When Buddha heard about Angulimala, he went to meet him. Angulimala, as was his wont, intended to kill the Buddha and cut his fingers, but ended up being his disciple. As a monk, Angulimala went to villages for alms, but on one occasion he was beaten up and left for dead. By this time, Angulimala had already overcome his remorse over his past misdeeds and also did not show any anger and retaliation. When asked, he said that "the people did not know what they were doing in the same way that he did not know what he did." These are acts of ignorance. I was reminded of the story because of a happening during the day (Friday, 13 September 2013). 

A special court gave the verdict of death sentence to four perpetrators of a heinous gang rape that took place on 16 December 2012 at the national capital region of Delhi in India. I must confess, with whatever little knowledge of criminology I have, that the brutality and ease with which the perpetrator committed the crime suggests that at least some of them would be repeat offenders. The prosecution has failed to unravel this and the popular discourse has also missed this.

While there would be no two opinion on the crime being rarest-of-rare, but then does this mean that as a society we bring in typologies of rape and as an extension end up being immune to or legitimise certain kinds of rape. In particular, those that do not appeal to our public consciousness.

The special court and prosecution need to be appreciated for taking only nine months from the date of crime to arrive at a verdict. However, we should not loose sight that there are umpteen cases that have been languishing for years. This certainly is an area of reform that the courts should undertake.

It is also quite well-known that a large number of rapes (that are largely not reported) take place by known individuals - family members, neighbours, and colleagues among others. There are instances where a compromise is arrived at a social level when the rapist ends up marrying the survivor - what a travesty of justice.  And then there is the case of marital rape, which is not acknowledged under the Indian system. We need to come up with social and legal measures to address these.

One really does not understand why an equal (rather, more than equal) perpetrator in crime can be reformed in three-years time because he was of 17 years while committing the crime while those who are 19 and 20 years cannot be reformed. Assuming that the former can be reformed, what are the steps taken to ensure that such a thing happens by the time the individual is freed.

In the euphoria, we are forgetting that as per the principles of jurisprudence, the convicts have a right to appeal in the higher courts. A right that the surviving perpetrator of terrorist attack (of Mumbai in November 2008) also had.

One should also know that in the comity of nations, India is among the few, that is against banning capital punishment. I want to desist from getting into a discussion on this because the real issues in the current context, as indicated above, are something else.

Well, I do agree that we do not have the Buddha in our midst to change the multitude of Angulimalas roaming around freely. However, as a society, it is a challenge for us to come up with systems that change these Angulimalas while not giving any preferential treatment to some of them over the others.

India's best dramebaaz

India's Best Dramebaaz is a reality show for 5-12 year old children that is different from many others. Unlike many other shows the children are not stressed and seem to be enjoying while learning and honing not only their acting skills but also lessons in life. The concepts are educating for adults too.

I was tempted to write this after the play depicting farmers predicament (18 May 2013, starts at 18th minute). In the act, Aditya was brilliant and the judges have already conveyed that and I cannot add to it. But, what is even more commendable is the concept and the message that was portrayed that taking ones life is not the solution. A socially relevant issue was handled very sensitively. It also has lessons for reportage.  Kudos to the mentors and the judges.

Of course, the sensitivity with which issues are handled is true of many other acts such as pressure of studies on children, caring for old parents, the environment and many others while opening up our eyes to history, culture and other contemporary issues. I am not elaborating on those. The reason for speaking about a particular theme could also be because of my own related research on Maharashtra or about Agrarian Crisis in India leading to possible solutions in rainfed agriculture among others.

Farmers’ suicides and crisis in Indian agriculture

Nearly a quarter million farmers’ suicides have been recorded in India in the last 15 years, ie 45 farmer suicides per day or almost one every 33 minutes. The suicide mortality rate (SMR, suicide deaths per 100,000 persons) of male farmers has been greater than that of male non-farmers (see Figure 1). The SMR for male farmers peaked to 19.2 (almost 40 per cent higher than that of non-farmers) in 2004. Subsequently, it has been declining (except for 2009, a drought year) and is to be at 16.1 in 2011.  Despite the continuing high incidences of farmers’ suicides, the declining trend gives a hope that the farm sector is perhaps getting back and other data also show that the farm sector was doing relatively well in recent years.

Calculated using a method described in an earlier work by the author and based on data from the National Crime Records Bureau and Census of India.

While acknowledging, the relatively better performance of agriculture in recent years, the decline in the incidence of farmers’ suicides is also because of the reporting of farmer suicides in some other category that led to recording zero farmers’ suicides in the state of Chhattisgarh, which had been reporting more than 1,000 farmers’ suicides per annum prior to 2011. Then, of course, there is the overall underreporting of suicides because of social stigma and the fact that suicide continues to be criminal offence under the statute books of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping aside our apprehension on data for a different exercise, SMR for male farmers in 2011 are 290 for Kerala, 49 for Maharashtra,  42 for Andhra Pradesh, and 37 for Karnataka and more than three-fifths of the farmers’ suicides in the year were reported from these four states.

Following the classic work of Durkheim on suicides, almost a hundred years ago, it goes without saying that a high incidence of suicides among a particular sub-group of population is indicative of a socio-economic problem. Of course, its absence does not deny the absence of a crisis among farmers in other regions/states. The crisis in Indian agriculture is pervasive and much more spread out than the spread of famers’ suicides.

Besides farmer distress, the social crisis is observed in food and nutrition insecurity, and social conflicts that has also taken the form of extremism in some parts of the country among others. The economic crisis in agriculture is said to be on account of technology fatigue, stagnating productivity, declining fertilizer use efficiency, low growth with high input usage, subsidies surpassing investments, and increasing cost of cultivation. To add to it there is the ecological crisis reflected through soil degradation, falling water tables, destruction of friendly predators and parasites, biomass loss in commons, and increasing risks from climate change.

This crisis is as much because of inadequate and inappropriate planning as much it is because of an emphasis on means rather than ends. To address this crisis, the government has responded with a number of programmes. The major response was to expand the green revolution areas beyond the irrigated areas to other areas that are largely rainfed.  This comes with the assumption that the technology and science meant for irrigated water abundant areas should be transferable to other areas. The current response, unfortunately, is suggesting more of the same which has already brought about the crisis.

Further, such an argument stems from the perspective of making food available at a macro level and it is this that subsumes the issues of accessibility and affordability to the public distribution system and not by strengthening the local production system, but by imposing a production system that is largely mono-cropping in nature. This also compromises the risk taking ability inherent in a system that thrives on diversity and mutual dependence. For instance, a good foliage cover will provide fodder for livestock, who in turn will provide manure to the soil that in turn will help the plant grow. Similarly, cultivation of multiple crops could also mean that all the crops need not be vulnerable to a particular unforeseen climatic fluctuation, but it could have adverse implications in a mono-cropping system.

A very nice initiative of the Government of India is the Rashtriya Krishi Vikash Yojana initiated since the 11^th Five Year Plan. The logic behind this initiative is that the planning from agriculture should start from the village level and then be aggregated to block, district, state and nation, respectively. In short, it should be bottom-up, and, I would say a novel initiative. But, the problem is that this initiative also comes with a message from the Prime Minister that we should be able to achieve 4 per cent growth per annum in agriculture. In real terms, this means that there should be production growth. Independent, of the fact that this is impossible and not even required because our population growth is about 1.6 per cent per annum.  What is more, this imposition from top comes with a plan that moves from state to district to the village.

So, we have a bottom-up thinking being implemented through a top-down structure. This top-down structure is entrenched in many of our institutions. Scientists and technocrats, more often than not working in silos, would come up with ideas that is to be the input the farmer will use. The agricultural administration facilitates the provisioning of these inputs that are largely tied through some subsidy schemes. This top-down structure unfortunately means that generation and dissemination of knowledge is a one-way process. The farmers become passive recipients and are not active participants in the process.

Another much talked about initiative is the farm debt waiver of 70,000 INR in 2008 (17.5 billion USD; the approximate exchange rate then is 1 USD=40 INR). This, of course, is a fiscal decision and government in many parts of the world have been taking such decisions and I would leave it at that. However, it needs to be mentioned that this is book-keeping exercise that helped the banks do away with their non-performing assets. For the farmers who benefitted (there are many who didn’t), it would reduce the mental burden and also make them eligible for fresh loans. It is the fresh loans that would help them get back to the agricultural activities. However, the market-dependent input-intensive production where rate of increase in cost is greater than net returns, debt-servicing would be a casualty, particularly in bad years. This also increases the risks in the agricultural production process.

Many a times proponents of the input-intensive argument would suggest that the criticisms are well taken, but there is no alternative, TINA. This is not correct. Actually, like mother earth, multiple alternatives exist, MAE. The alternatives focus on diverse and integrated production systems that are better adapted to climatic variability and take into consideration the local specificities. It needs to be mentioned that the alternative being proposed is not a blind call to tradition. It does borrow some of the positive aspects from tradition, but it is based on science and is knowledge-centric. This means that to propagate this alternative will require an investment that has a different logic. In particular, investments that enable peoples’ capabilities to make them active participants will be crucial, as they are the real wealth of nations.

(This write-up is based on related recent work that the author has been associated with and meant for spring 2013 edition of the Newsletter of the Association of Indian Economic and Financial Studies, AIEFS, http://www.aiefs.org/. It was first written on 2 April 2013 and has been slightly edited for this blog.)

HDR 2013 - Rise of the Global South

The Human Development Report 2013 - Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World is out. In HDI rankings, Norway ranks first, but Australia (#2) and New Zealand (#6) do better than Norway when it comes to non-income HDI.
 
US (#3) fares poorly in terms of life expectancy as it is below 30 countries. This means that at a higher level of attainment, shortfalls in one dimension are compensated by attainments in other dimensions. Future calculations of HDI could use An Alternative Approach to Measure HDI or choose from A Class of Human Development Index Measures. These address the inequity across dimensions. In other words, as the average attainment increases, the same deviation from a balanced approach is considered worse off. It turns out that the HDI computed with geometric mean does not satisfy this.

Conflict-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo and drought-affected Niger jointly take the last position at #186, but despite the odds they are the ones that have made impressive improvements. In fact, the story from HDR 2013 is the rise of the Global South. It is pertinent that when the North slowed down because of the financial crisis during 2007/2008, it is the entrepreneurship of masses and social innovations in diverse settings with proactive state that have helped in this progress. Fourteen countries, mostly low-HDI ones from Africa (including DR Congo and Niger), made HDI gains of at least 2 per cent per annum since 2000.

In 150 years, the year 2010 marks a turnaround as Brazil (#85), China (#101) and India (#136) together have a combined income as that of the six industrial countries of Canada (#11), France (#20), Germany(#5), Italy(#25), UK (#26) and US. The middle class is growing in the South and they are demanding better services, but one should not forget that income inequalities are widening.

I take the liberty to get out of the report and provide some pointers for India. Some recent successes in India are the state-facilitated livelihood missions (see BRLPS, SERP and also NRLM) among others. Civil society participation also have made significant contributions leading to recent legislations on Right to Education and Right to Information. There also have been public movements such as India Against Corruption, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, and Right to Food. Another recent initiative is the RRA Network, which advocates for a differentiated policy and support system for revitalizing rainfed agriculture.

To sustain the momentum, the report calls for enhancing equity, enabling voice and participation, confronting environmental challenges and managing demographic change.The report reiterates the need to change the structures of global institutions to involve and articulate the concerns of the South, to bring in plural concerns and to unravel that the notions of 'publicness' and 'privateness' in our understanding of public goods are social constructs. Bringing about effective interventions needs good leadership who can keep vested interests out of decision making.

'Development' as Threat

It is not poverty, but 'development' that is the greatest threat to society, polity, humanity and environment. This is so because the notion of development envisaged is very narrowly defined leading to a misplaced emphasis on superficial aspects and is focused on the 'economy' which also is very narrowly defined. It follows that the impacts from such an endeavour are at best illusory as if in a mirage. This has led to a neglect of real aspects and thereby neglecting people and other matters of relevance. 

This comes as a reaction to the picture posted above, that I saw in facebook. The caption of the picture is as follows.

Face of Development and Plight of the Displaced:

These couple were newly married when the Hirakud Dam was constructed in the 50s. They were forced to vacate their village as the reservoir water started entering the village. They gathered all that they could and carried to a new place which the Govt. said they should go and stay. They built their own hut with local materials like twigs, grass and clay. They owned 5 acres of land in their original village but are landless now. They are wage earners at this age!!

Fifty years on, that is still their fate. The government says this is development. The couple asks, 'is it?'

This, of course, questions the interpretation of Indira Gandhi's speech, as the then Prime Minister of India, at the UN Conference in Stockholm in 1972 which some people equate with tagging poverty being a threat to environment. And, of course, questions the narrow interpretation of the  governments in India as also elsewhere on the meaning of development.