FLOYD FALL 2019
Interest in Human Development Index (HDI)
Human development index (HDI) is an interesting concept because it is a tool used by
several organizations in order to rank nations' ability to provide development and progress for a
better standard of living of its citizens. In simple terms, HDI acts as a human life indicator and
enables nations to identify areas where they need to improve to ameliorate standard of living, life
expectancy, and education. By addressing the individual components, namely income, health,
and education, of the HDI, nations can focus on solving and minimizing social and economic
problems such as unemployment, poverty, mortality rates. HDI is a useful analytical tool for
countries to set their priorities for human development and economic progress.
Explanation of HDI
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index that measures a country's
achievement and progress towards human well-being by combining health, income, and
education criteria (Deb, 2015). It is an index used by several organizations such as the United
Nations (UN), the World Trade Organizations (WTO), and the World Bank to classify nations as
developed, developing, or newly industrialized nations (Satterlee, 2018). Health is measured by
in terms of long and healthy life, and life expectancy at birth, while education is measured in
terms of combined enrollment ratios for primary, secondary, and tertiary schools and adult
literacy rate, whereas income or standard of living is measured by Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) per capita in purchasing power (Dumith, Hallal, Reis, & Khol, 2011).
Major Article Summary
In their article, the authors Dumith, Hallal, Reis, and Khol (2011) discuss how physical
inactivity affects the human development index in several countries. According to the World
Health Organization (WHO), physical inactivity has been identified as the “fourth leading risk
FLOYD FALL 2019
factor for global mortality” (Dumith et al., 2011, p. 24). In an article, the authors Gonzalez,
Fuentes, and Marquez (2017) state that physical inactivity triggers about 3.7% of the overall
health care costs in Canada while more than 15% of both medical and non-medical costs are
attributed to physical inactivity in China per year. The WHO estimated that physical inactivity
causes about 2 million death per year (Dumith et al., 2012). Because physical inactivity is
affecting the life expectancy and health of nations, it can be considered as a factor affecting the
HDI of several countries (Dumith et al., 2011). Therefore, because physical inactivity is a
determinant of health, it should be factored in the calculation of the HDI for more accurate
results and classification of nations.
In order to conduct their research, they performed a pooled analysis of 3 multicenter
studies from 2002 to 2004 to investigate worldwide extensiveness of physical inactivity in 76
countries with a survey of 300,000 people from 15 years old and older (Dumith et al., 2011). The
research revealed that the crude worldwide extent of physical inactivity happens to be about
21.4%. Other findings included: physical inactivity is higher among women, at 23.7% compared
to men which is at 18.9% (Dumith et al., 2011). Comoros had the lowest percentage of physical
inactivity at 2.6%, while Mauritania had the highest at 62.3% (Dumith et al., 2011). The authors
performed a weighted calculate to include the total of the population of each country to reveal a
weighted prevalence of physical inactivity of 17.4% (Dumith et al., 2011). According to Dumith
et al. (2011), there is a positive association between the prevalence of physical inactivity and
HDI.
Discussion
Application to Module 2
FLOYD FALL 2019
The reading assignment of Module 2 provided an understanding of the use of HDI by
several organizations to classify nations as developed, newly industrialized, and developing
nations (Satterlee, 2018). According to the HDI, the following nations are among some nations
classified as developed nations: Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States (Satterlee,
2018). The Caribbean nations, African countries, Asian countries, and Latin American countries
are considered as newly industrialized nations (Satterlee, 2018). Research from the article that
was reviewed revealed that physical inactivity was more prevalent among the most developed
countries at 27.8% compared to less developed countries which was at 18.7% (Dumith et al.,
2011). Developed countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Japan, France, and Belgium had
more prevalence of physical inactivity compares to developing nations such as Zambia,
Mauritius, Zambia, Comoros, and Guatemala (Dumith et al., 2011). In their article, the authors
stated that about “3% of the global burden of disease in developed countries and more than 20%
of cardiovascular diseases and 10% of strokes were caused by physical inactivity”, and
consequently “placing physical inactivity among the 10 leading causes of death and disabilities
in the developed world” (Dumith et al., 2011, p. 24). Because physical inactivity affects the
health component of HDI, it has a direct correlation to the calculation of HDI. According to
Dumith et al. (2011), physical inactivity is the most significant public health problems in the 21st
century.
Comparison of articles
All five articles discuss the concept of HDI with several points of views while suggesting
new additions to provide a more comprehensive calculation of human development. The primary
This study source was downloaded by 100000863313351 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 00:15:21 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/48444305/Busi-604-DB-2-Key-Term-Human-Development-Indexdocx/
FLOYD FALL 2019
article reviewed discuss how physical inactivity directly impacts HDI and propose to factor it as
a component for better calculation of HDI.
In their article, the authors Saagar and Najam (1998) discusses how HDI is being used as
an alternative to using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to measure development.
However, the authors bring up an important point of how HDI fails to include ecological
consideration in its computations. The authors propose some modifications to HDI in terms of
integrating inequity consideration as well as the sustainability of countries such as environmental
performances.
The authors Herrero, Matinez, and Villar (2019), on the other hand, propose to take
explicit account of the differences in the population structures among the nations in order to
measure human development. The authors argue that a demographically adjusted HDI can help
to address the consequences of an aging population, and not only capture “achievements but also
possibilities” (Martinez et al., 2019, p. 743). The authors believe that the differences in
population structure are relevant variables for sustainable development, and ignoring them leads
to a “distorted view of human development, making some developed countries look artificially
better” (Martinez et al., 2019, p. 745).
Deb (2015) argues that the HDI is a simple representation of only 3 components (health,
income, and education) and exclude other fundamental dimensions such as human rights, social
cohesion, environmental dimensions of development, and political freedom. He points out that
methodological revisions of the Human Development Index should integrate above-mentioned
components to create more comprehensive and accurate HDI calculations to compare nations.
In their article, the authors Ibar-Alonso, Cosculluela-Martínez, and Hewings (2019) also
argue that the HDI computation needs some revision because it does not measure the real
FLOYD FALL 2019
development of a nation. The authors suggest that the HDI needs to be combined with other
indexes such as poverty, Gini index, and inequality index as well as adding periods of time as
another component in the calculation in order to improve the index.
Therefore, the review of all the 5 articles suggests that the Human Development Index
can be improved and revised in order to account for more realistic human development and
progress among nations.
FLOYD FALL 2019
References
Deb, S. (2015). The Human Development Index and Its Methodological Refinements. Social
Change, 45(1), 131–136. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/full/10.1177/0049085714561937?
utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider
Dumith, S.C., Hallal, P.C., Reis, R.S., & Khol, H.W. (2011). Worldwide prevalence of physical
inactivity and its association with human development index in 76 countries. Preventive
Medicine, 53(1-2). 24-28. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/science/article/pii/S0091743511000764
Gonzalez, K., Fuentes, J., & Marquez, J. L. (2017). Physical Inactivity, Sedentary Behavior and
Chronic Diseases. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 38(3). 111-115. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5451443/
Herrero, C., Martinez, R., & Villar, A. (2019). Population Structure and the Human Development
Index. Social Indicators Research, 141(2). 731-763. Retrieved from https://link-springer-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs11205-018-1852-0
Ibar-Alonso, R., Cosculluela-Martínez, C., & Hewings, G. (2019). Time indicator of the Human
Development Index. Time & Society, 28(1), 273–296. Retrieved from https://journals-
sagepub-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/full/10.1177/0961463X17716553?
utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider
Sagar, A.D., & Najam, A. (1998). The Human Development Index: A Critical Review.
Ecological Economics, 25(3). 249-264. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222478054_The_Human_Development_Index_
A_Critical_Review
