The Human Development Index ( HDI ) is a composite statistic (composite index) of life expectancy , education , and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development . A country scores higher HDI when the lifespan is higher, the education level is higher, and the GDP per capita is higher. The HDI was developed by Pakistani economist, Mahbub ul Haq , for the UNDP . [11] [12]

The 2010 Human Development Report introduced an Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI). 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)".

The index is based on the human development approach, developed by Ul Haq, often framed in terms of whether people are able to "be" and "do" desirable things in life. Examples include—Beings: well fed, sheltered, healthy; Doings: work, education, voting, participating in community life. It must also be noted that the freedom of choice is central—someone choosing to be hungry (e.g. during a religious fast) is quite different to someone who is hungry because they cannot afford to buy food. [13]

## Origins

World map indicating the categories of by country (based on 2015 and 2016 data, published on 21 March 2017).
 Very high High Medium Low Data unavailable

The origins of the HDI are found in the annual Human Development Reports produced by the Human Development Reports Office 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 formed a group of development economists including Paul Streeten , Frances Stewart , Gustav Ranis , Keith Griffin , Sudhir Anand, and Meghnad Desai . Nobel laureate Amartya Sen utilized Haq's work in his own work on human capabilities. Haq believed that a simple composite measure of human development was needed to convince the public, academics, and politicians that they can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also improvements in human well-being .

## Dimensions and calculation

### New method (2010 Index onwards)

Published on 4 November 2010 (and updated on 10 June 2011), the 2010 Human Development Index (HDI) combines three dimensions: [14] [15]

• 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: GNI per capita ( 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:

LEI is 1 when Life expectancy at birth is 85 and 0 when Life expectancy at birth is 20.
2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI) ${displaystyle ={frac {textrm {MYS}}{15}}}$ [17]
Fifteen is the projected maximum of this indicator for 2025.
2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI) ${displaystyle ={frac {textrm {EYS}}{18}}}$ [11]
Eighteen is equivalent to achieving a master's degree in most countries.

3. Income Index (II) ${displaystyle ={frac {ln({textrm {GNIpc}})-ln(100)}{ln(75,000)-ln(100)}}}$

II is 1 when GNI per capita is \$75,000 and 0 when GNI per capita is \$100.

Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalized indices:
${displaystyle {textrm {HDI}}={sqrt[{3}]{{textrm {LEI}}cdot {textrm {EI}}cdot {textrm {II}}}}.}$ LE: Life expectancy at birth
MYS: Mean years of schooling (i.e. years that a person aged 25 or older has spent in formal education)
EYS: Expected years of schooling (i.e. total expected years of schooling for children under 18 years of age)
GNIpc: Gross national income at purchasing power parity per capita

### Old method (before 2010 Index)

The HDI combined three dimensions last used in its 2009 Report:

This methodology was used by the UNDP until their 2011 report.

The formula defining the HDI is promulgated by the United Nations Development Programme ( UNDP ). [11] In general, to transform a raw variable , say ${displaystyle x}$ , into a unit-free index between 0 and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together), the following formula is used:

• ${displaystyle x{text{ index}}={frac {x-a}{b-a}}}$
HDI trends between 1975 and 2004
 Europe not in the OECD and CIS Latin America and the Caribbean

The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the uniformly weighted sum with 1 3 contributed by each of the following factor indices:

• Life Expectancy Index = ${displaystyle {frac {LE-25}{85-25}}}$
• Education Index = ${displaystyle {frac {2}{3}}times ALI+{frac {1}{3}}times GEI}$
• GDP = ${displaystyle {frac {log left(GDPpcright)-log left(100right)}{log left(40000right)-log left(100right)}}}$

Other organizations/companies may include other factors, such as infant mortality, which produces a different HDI.

## 2016 Human Development Index

The 2016 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was released on 21 March 2017, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2015. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries: [11]

• = increase.
• = decrease.
• The number in brackets represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in the 2015 report.
Rank Country Score
2016 estimates for 2015
Change in rank from previous year 2016 estimates for 2015
Change from previous year
1 Norway 0.949 0.001
2 Australia 0.939 0.002
2 Switzerland 0.939 0.001
4 (2) Germany 0.926 0.002
5 (1) Denmark 0.925 0.002
5 (6) Singapore 0.925 0.013
7 (1) Netherlands 0.924 0.001
8 Ireland 0.923 0.003
9 (7) Iceland 0.921 0.002
10 (2) United States 0.920 0.002
12 Hong Kong 0.917 0.001
13 (4) New Zealand 0.915 0.002
14 (1) Sweden 0.913 0.004
15 (1) Liechtenstein 0.912 0.001
16 (4) United Kingdom 0.909 0.003
17 (3) Japan 0.903 0.001
18 South Korea 0.901 0.002
19 Israel 0.899 0.001
20 Luxembourg 0.898 0.002
21 (1) France 0.897 0.003
22 (1) Belgium 0.896 0.001
23 Finland 0.895 0.002
24 Austria 0.893 0.001
25 (2) Spain 0.892 0.005
26 Slovenia 0.890 0.002
27 (1) Italy 0.887 0.006
28 Czech Republic 0.878 0.003
29 Greece 0.866 0.001
30 Brunei 0.865 0.001
30 (1) Estonia 0.865 0.002
32 Andorra 0.858 0.001
33 (1) Cyprus 0.856 0.002
33 (2) Malta 0.856 0.003
33 Qatar 0.856 0.001
36 Poland 0.855 0.003
37 Lithuania 0.848 0.002
38 (4) Chile 0.847 0.002
38 Saudi Arabia 0.847 0.002
40 (5) Slovakia 0.845 0.003
41 Portugal 0.843 0.002
42 United Arab Emirates 0.840 0.004
43 Hungary 0.836 0.002
44 Latvia 0.830 0.002
45 (5) Argentina 0.827 0.001
45 (1) Croatia 0.827 0.004
47 (1) Bahrain 0.824 0.001
48 (1) Montenegro 0.807 0.003
49 (1) Russia 0.804 0.001
50 (1) Romania 0.802 0.004
51 (1) Kuwait 0.800 0.001

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) [12] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 206).

Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI: New Zealand , Singapore , Hong Kong , Liechtenstein , Brunei , Qatar , Saudi Arabia , Andorra , United Arab Emirates , Bahrain , and Kuwait .

## 2015 Human Development Index

The 2015 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was released on 14 December 2015, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2014. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries: [12] [22] [23]

• = increase.
• = decrease.
• The number in brackets represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in the 2014 report.
Rank Country Score
2015 estimates for 2014
Change in rank from previous year 2015 estimates for 2014
Change from previous year
1 Norway 0.944 0.002
2 Australia 0.935 0.002
3 Switzerland 0.930 0.002
4 Denmark 0.923
5 Netherlands 0.922 0.002
6 Germany 0.916 0.001
6 (2) Ireland 0.916 0.004
8 (1) United States 0.915 0.002
9 (1) New Zealand 0.913 0.002
11 (2) Singapore 0.912 0.003
12 Hong Kong 0.910 0.002
13 Liechtenstein 0.908 0.001
14 Sweden 0.907 0.002
14 (1) United Kingdom 0.907 0.005
16 Iceland 0.899
17 South Korea 0.898 0.003
18 Israel 0.894 0.001
18 Macau 0.894 [24]
19 Luxembourg 0.892 0.002
20 (1) Japan 0.891 0.001
21 Belgium 0.890 0.002
22 France 0.888 0.001
23 Austria 0.885 0.001
24 Finland 0.883 0.001
25 Taiwan 0.882
26 Slovenia 0.880 0.001
27 Spain 0.876 0.002
28 Italy 0.873
29 Czech Republic 0.870 0.002
30 Greece 0.865 0.002
31 Estonia 0.861 0.002
32 Brunei 0.856 0.004
33 Cyprus 0.850
33 (1) Qatar 0.850 0.001
34 Andorra 0.845 0.001
35 (1) Slovakia 0.844 0.005
36 (1) Poland 0.843 0.003
37 Lithuania 0.839 0.002
37 Malta 0.839 0.002
39 Saudi Arabia 0.837 0.001
40 Argentina 0.836 0.003
41 (1) United Arab Emirates 0.835 0.002
42 Chile 0.832 0.002
43 Portugal 0.830 0.002
44 Hungary 0.828 0.003
45 Bahrain 0.824 0.003
46 (1) Latvia 0.819 0.003
47 (1) Croatia 0.818 0.001
48 (1) Kuwait 0.816
49 Montenegro 0.802 0.001

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) [12] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

Note: The green arrows ( ), red arrows ( ), and blue dashes ( ) represent changes in rank. The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 216).

1. Norway 0.893 ( )
2. Netherlands 0.861 ( 1)
3. Switzerland 0.861 ( 1)
4. Australia 0.858 ( 2)
5. Denmark 0.856 ( 3)
6. Germany 0.853 ( 1)
7. Iceland 0.846 ( 1)
8. Sweden 0.846 ( 1)
9. Ireland 0.836 ( 1)
10. Finland 0.834 ( 1)
12. Slovenia 0.829 ( )
13. United Kingdom 0.829 ( 3)
14. Czech Republic 0.823 ( 1)
15. Luxembourg 0.822 ( 1)
16. Belgium 0.820 ( 1)
17. Austria 0.816 ( 4)
18. France 0.811 ( )
19. Slovakia 0.791 ( 2)
20. Estonia 0.782 ( 4)
21. Japan 0.780 ( 1)
22. Israel 0.775 ( 3)
23. Spain 0.775 ( 1)
24. Italy 0.773 ( 1)
25. Hungary 0.769 ( 2)
26. Malta 0.767 ( )
27. Poland 0.760 ( 2)
28. United States 0.760 ( )
29. Cyprus 0.758 ( 1)
30. Greece 0.758 ( 5)
31. Lithuania 0.754 ( )
32. South Korea 0.751 ( 1)
33. Portugal 0.744 ( 1)
34. Croatia 0.743 ( 1)
35. Belarus 0.741
36. Latvia 0.730

Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI: New Zealand , Singapore , Hong Kong , Liechtenstein , Brunei , Qatar , Saudi Arabia , Andorra , United Arab Emirates , Bahrain , Cuba , and Kuwait .

## 2014 Human Development Index

The 2014 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was released on 24 July 2014 and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2013. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries: [12] [22] [23]

• = increase.
• = decrease.
• The number in brackets represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in the 2013 report.
Rank Country HDI
New 2014 estimates for 2013
[26]
Change in rank between 2014 report and 2013 report [26] New 2014 estimates for 2013
[26]
Change compared between 2014 report and 2013 report
[26]
1 Norway 0.944 0.011
2 Australia 0.933 0.002
3 Switzerland 0.917 0.001
4 Netherlands 0.915
5 United States 0.914 0.002
6 Germany 0.911
7 New Zealand 0.910 0.002
9 (3) Singapore 0.901 0.002
10 Denmark 0.900
11 (3) Ireland 0.899 0.017
12 (1) Sweden 0.898 0.001
13 Iceland 0.895 0.002
14 United Kingdom 0.892 0.002
14 Macau 0.892 [24]
15 Hong Kong 0.891 0.002
15 (1) South Korea 0.891 0.003
17 (1) Japan 0.890 0.002
18 (2) Liechtenstein 0.889 0.001
19 Israel 0.888 0.002
20 France 0.884
21 Taiwan 0.882
22 Austria 0.881 0.001
22 Belgium 0.881 0.001
22 Luxembourg 0.881 0.001
23 Finland 0.879
24 Slovenia 0.874
25 Italy 0.872
26 Spain 0.869
27 Czech Republic 0.861
28 Greece 0.853 0.001
29 Brunei 0.852
30 Qatar 0.851 0.001
31 Cyprus 0.845 0.003
32 Estonia 0.840 0.001
33 Saudi Arabia 0.836 0.003
34 (1) Lithuania 0.834 0.003
34 (1) Poland 0.834 0.001
35 Andorra 0.830
35 (1) Slovakia 0.830 0.001
36 Malta 0.829 0.002
37 United Arab Emirates 0.827 0.002
38 (1) Chile 0.822 0.003
38 Portugal 0.822
39 Hungary 0.818 0.001
40 Bahrain 0.815 0.002
40 Cuba 0.815 0.002
41 (2) Kuwait 0.814 0.001
42 Croatia 0.812
43 Latvia 0.810 0.002
44 Argentina 0.808 0.002

### Countries not included

Some countries were not included for various reasons, primarily due to the lack of necessary data. The following United Nations Member States were not included in the 2014 report: [12] North Korea , Marshall Islands , Monaco , Nauru , San Marino , Somalia , South Sudan , Sudan , and Tuvalu .

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) [12] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

Note: The green arrows ( ), red arrows ( ), and blue dashes ( ) represent changes in rank. The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 168).

1. Norway 0.891 ( )
2. Australia 0.860 ( )
3. Netherlands 0.854 ( 1)
4. Switzerland 0.847 ( 3)
5. Germany 0.846 ( )
6. Iceland 0.843 ( 2)
7. Sweden 0.840 ( 4)
8. Denmark 0.838 ( 1)
10. Ireland 0.832 ( 4)
11. Finland 0.830 ( )
12. Slovenia 0.824 ( 2)
13. Austria 0.818 ( 1)
14. Luxembourg 0.814 ( 3)
15. Czech Republic 0.813 ( 1)
16. United Kingdom 0.812 ( 3)
17. Belgium 0.806 ( 2)
18. France 0.804 ( )
19. Israel 0.793 ( 1)
20. Japan 0.779 (New)
21. Slovakia 0.778 ( 1)
22. Spain 0.775 ( 2)
23. Italy 0.768 ( 1)
24. Estonia 0.767 ( 1)
25. Greece 0.762 ( 2)
26. Malta 0.760 ( 3)
27. Hungary 0.757 ( 1)
28. United States 0.755 ( 12)
29. Poland 0.751 ( 1)
30. Cyprus 0.752 ( 1)
31. Lithuania 0.746 ( 2)
32. Portugal 0.739 ( )
33. South Korea 0.736 ( 5)
34. Latvia 0.725 ( 1)
35. Croatia 0.721 ( 4)
36. Argentina 0.680 ( 7)
37. Chile 0.661 ( 4)

Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI: New Zealand , Singapore , Hong Kong , Liechtenstein , Brunei , Qatar , Saudi Arabia , Andorra , United Arab Emirates , Bahrain , Cuba , and Kuwait .

## 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 thirteen times, Canada eight times, and Japan three times. Iceland has been ranked highest twice.

### In each original HDI

The year represents when the report was published. In parentheses is the year for which the index was calculated.

## Geographical coverage

The HDI has extended 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. [12] [12]

## Criticism

The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of grounds, including alleged 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. [28]

### Sources of data error

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. They identified 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 conclude 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. [28]

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 [12] to a 6 January 2011 article in the magazine [12] 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 continuously updating the human development categories whenever formula or data revisions take place.

In 2013, Monni and Spaventa underline that in the debate between GDP and HDI, it is forgotten that these are both external indicators that purport to privilege different goals as reflective of human welfare. The larger question is whether it is possible to shift the focus of policy from a battle between competing paradigms to a mechanism for eliciting information on well-being directly from the population. [31]