 |
 |
|||
 |
|
     |
||
| |
|
|||
|
|
|
||
Statistically Speaking
Are We Measuring Human Development Properly? 
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola 1
Secretary General, NSCB
Last Friday, the world was witness to the fifth strongest recorded earthquake in Japan which moved its main island by 2.4 meters and shifted the earth on its axis by 10 cms. We will probably never be able to establish the exact number of human casualties and the amount of loss to properties, but the horrifying television pictures of the devastation wrought by the 8.9 strong earthquake triggering tsunamis that reached the Americas are stern reminders of our utter helplessness at having to face the fury of Mother Nature. The world grieves and has offered support to the Japanese government but we must pray and hope that the victims and their families will recover from the pain and sorrow and trauma that now engulf them. We must pray too that the Japanese experts will be able to prevent the disaster of a meltdown that has threatened three of their nuclear reactors. And we in the Philippines must very seriously come up with plans and programs to better prepare the government as well as the private sector and our citizens if such a crisis, heaven forbid, would occur in our country. And yes, time to review our position on the operation of nuclear plants in the country.
Until last Friday, the Libyan crisis had pervaded the news. Many found it unthinkable to see the events that have unfolded in Libya and in other parts of the Arab world. Obviously, the world was caught unaware of the “social volcano” that had been building up in Libya. What do we official statisticians have to do with the ongoing struggle in Libya?
Last month, we attended 2 the 42nd Session of the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC) where we were invited to be a panelist during the seminar on “Shifting Paradigms: Innovative Statistical Frameworks to Meet Global Challenges”, specifically on “Innovative Frameworks for Social/Household Statistics” 3 . We were also invited to be a speaker during the joint side event at the 42nd Session of the UNSC and the 55th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women on “Making Gender Statistics Meaningful on the Ground” 4. Another interesting session was the High Level Forum On Official Statistics “Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics: Threats and Responses” where possible/alleged violations of the FPOS were cited with the alleged use of census records in Israel against Palestinians, the “lies” on swap contracts reported by Greece to Eurostat, the resignation of the Chief Statistician in Canada, the replacement of the Chief Statistician in Argentina, and the release of household-level information in Indonesia.
During the seminar on social statistics, our friend Pali Lehohla, the eloquent Chief Statistician of South Africa called our attention to the possibility that the Libyan crisis might have been prevented or at least managed better, if we official statisticians had formulated a comprehensive framework on social statistics that adequately and appropriately captured the true pulse and aspirations of the people. In the case of economic statistics, the corresponding framework is the System of National Accounts which is universally used and accepted as the tool to monitor economic performance.
One may recall that after the world financial crisis in 2008, the international community realized that although the lack of sufficient statistical information on global trade, international financial transactions and early warning indicators definitely was not the cause of the crisis, it could have been an aggravating factor. Likewise, social discontent in countries could certainly be addressed better with the availability of reliable statistics highlighting the country’s social development concerns.
Until recently, monitoring progress of societies 5 focused mainly on e
conomic performance. Progress of societies has been traditionally measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the Gross National Product/Income (GNP/GNI). Of course, as has been pointed out many times in the past, neither the GDP nor the GNP was meant to measure well-being. Realizing that poverty has persisted despite economic growth as captured by the GDP/GNI, other measures of progress have surfaced, such as the human development index (HDI), families of measures of poverty, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) indicators and happiness index, among others, to improve the monitoring of the development of a nation.
In line with the need to generate better statistics on the 
progress of Philippine society, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) has undertaken initiatives on measuring good governance, happiness, and the contribution of women to the economy. Unfortunately, the so-called rationalization program of government, which is largely oblivious to the all too obvious fact that demand for statistics has greatly expanded, has severely depleted the manpower resources of the NSCB preventing us from continuing to improve on our products and services. As we have said many times in the past, improving the PSS is definitely not about reorganizing the PSS 6.
Last year, the Human Development Report Office (HDRO) with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), released the Human Development Report (HDR) 2010 – 20th Anniversary Edition, with the theme, The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. It assessed the HDIs of 169 countries, including the Philippines, using a new/revised methodology.
The HDR 2010 was however, severely criticized in the 42nd Session of the United Nations Statistical Commission. During the 41st Session of the UNSC last year, when preparations for the HDR 2010 were underway, the UNSC communicated its grave concern about the HDI/HDR process to the HDRO/UNDP. In particular, the UNSC, while recognizing the importance of the HDI
“ expressed regret that there had been a lack of consultation with the Statistical Commission on the revision of the current Human Development Index” and
“requested the Human Development Report Office to take note of the transparent procedures of the Statistical Commission in developing new statistical methodology on indices that have an impact on countries”.
In response to Decision 41/112 7 of the UNSC, the UNSD convened an Experts Group Meeting 8 on the HDI on 24-25 March 2010 in New York “to review the proposed revisions to the methods of constructing the HDI and to prepare a set of recommendations to improve the methodological soundness and the appropriateness of the data used”. Its recommendations which were approved in the 42nd Session included the following:
“ to use official statistical series…., Non-official sources may occasionally be used ..in cases where official data are not available; however, …official statisticians should be engaged with the aim of developing appropriate official sources;”
“ to provide full transparency and proper presentation of all data sources and methodologies…. ” and
“ to reactivate the Human Development Report Statistical Advisory Panel with appropriate representation from the official statistical community during the preparation of future issues of the Human Development Report”.
Probably in line with the third recommendation cited in the preceding paragraph, after the release of HDR 2010, the HDRO planned to create a Consultative Expert Group on HDR statistical issues “to provide expert opinion and advise the Director of the HDRO on issues generally related to statistical quality of indicators used and presented in Human Development Reports”. They had proposed that this Group include Brazil, South Africa, the Philippines, Morocco, Australia, the United States, and an EU representative. We attended the meeting convened for this purpose on the margins of the 42nd Session of the UNSC but the discussions and decisions at the UNSC made it clear that the creation of such a Group was not what the UNSC wanted to improve the HDI process.
The HDI was conceptualized by the UNDP in 1990, to promote a more balanced concept of human development rather than focusing mainly if not solely on economic growth as what the System of National Accounts (SNA) does. Thus, the HDI is a “composite measure of achievements in three basic dimensions of human development – a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living.”9
For all 169 10 countries considered in the HDR 2010, the following indicators are used: life expectancy at birth 11 for the health component/index, expected years of schooling 12 and mean years of schooling 13 for education, and gross national income per capita 14 converted into purchasing power parity (PPP) 15 for income. The average value of achievements in these three dimensions 16 is put on a scale of 0 to 1, where greater is better.
Countries are classified based on HDI quartiles. A country is in the very high group if its HDI is in the top quartile, in the high group if its HDI is in percentiles 51-75, in the medium group if its HDI is in percentiles 26-50 and in the low group if its HDI is in the bottom quartile.
Further, in the latest HDR 2010, new measures were released: 1) Inequality Adjusted HDI (IAHDI) – a measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account; 2) Gender Inequality Index – a measure that captures the loss in achievements due to gender disparities in the dimensions of reproductive health, empowerment and labor force participation; and 3) Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) – a measure of serious deprivations in the dimensions of health, education, and living standards that combines the number of deprived and the intensity of their deprivation.
In the first HDR in 1990, the HDI was computed based on the same three dimensions of human development – longevity, knowledge, and decent standard of living. For longevity, the same indicator was used. For knowledge, the indicator used was adult literacy rate which, beginning with the 1995 HDR was complemented by gross enrolment rate. For standard of living, the indicator used to be the logarithm of real GDP per capita. In the computation of the component indexes, hypothetical/pre-determined minima and maxima were applied. The HDI is then computed as a simple average of the computed indexes of the three dimensions. Countries are classified into High, Medium, or Low human development if their HDI falls between 0.8 to 1.0, between 0.5 to less than 0.8, or less than 0.5, respectively. 
The source of the dissatisfaction was not that the HDI was revised, but mainly how it was revised and the data support to how it is compiled. As we have previously emphasized, official statisticians are used to revisions 17 to improve statistical methodologies and practices.
Following are excerpts from the Draft Report 18 of the 42nd Session of the UNSC, which was efficiently chaired by Ali bin Mahboob Al-Raisi, the Chief Statistician of Oman. Obviously, the UNSC was very unhappy with the response of the HDRO and with the release of the HDR 2010 without appropriately responding to its recommendations.
The Statistical Commission
“ recognized that the Human Development Report is an important document which informs discussions on national and international development and therefore expressed serious concern on the statistical sources and methods used for the Human Development Report”
“expressed deep regret and strong dissatisfaction that the Human Development Report Office did not respond adequately to the recommendations of the Expert Group on the Human Development Index with respect to
“stressed the relevance of the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics and of the Principles Governing International Statistical Activities to the issue at hand and urged the UNDP to review these Principles and subscribe to them;…”
“recognized that while the choice of the theme and of the indicators for the Human Development Report is the prerogative of the UNDP, t
he issue of data quality and adequacy falls within the purview of the UNSC on behalf of the global statistical system and prior consultation is necessary;”
Further, Brazil, Morocco, and South Africa produced a Report on Member States’ Concerns with Indicators Released by the UN Agencies 19 which basically expressed the same concerns collectively raised by the UNSC. Morocco also “considered the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) unacceptable for various (very valid) reasons “
If only the HDR 2010 had been coordinated/consulted with national statistical systems (NSSs) while it was being prepared…. if only the HDRO had recognized the mandate of the UNSC to provide methodological guidance in the compilation of statistics by and for member countries, specifically on the generation of the HDI … the purposes of the global statistical system would have been so much better served. But then we would probably have not witnessed the passionate floor discussion during the 42nd Session of the UN Statistical Commission!
From the Philippine perspective, we see an obvious absence of appropriate statistical coordination between the HDRO and the many stakeholders of the HDI. Indeed, we are very lucky that the Philippine Statistical System has established statistical coordination mechanisms that are so lacking in the national statistical systems of most countries. As a result we have established a culture of collaboration and coordination that is the envy of many countries. And despite the many areas left for further improvement, the Philippines has been recognized in the global statistical community for the functioning statistical coordination mechanisms instituted within the PSS. It is therefore sad that the proposals in Congress for the reorganization of the PSS are geared towards undermining the very strength of the PSS! No wonder we keep losing our comparative advantages to our neighbors!
After all that has been said about the HDR 2010, what do the HDI results say about the Philippines?
The Philippine HDI was estimated at 0.638 classified as medium human development in 2010. We ranked 97th out of 169 countries. (Table 1)
Between 2005 and 2010, the country’s HDI rankingdeteriorated by 2 ranks – from 95th in 2005 down to 97th among 169 countries. In 2009, the Philippines ranked 96th. Let us hope the slide is arrested in the next HDR. (Table 2)
Comparing our performance with our neighbors in the ASEAN Region…
Among ASEAN member countries, the Philippines ranked 5th – lower than Singapore (0.846), Brunei Darussalam (0.805), Malaysia (0.744), and Thailand (0.654), but higher than Indonesia (0.600), Viet Nam (0.572), Lao People’s Democratic Republic (0.497), Cambodia (0.494), and Myanmar (0.451). (Table 1)
In terms of the longevity and income dimensions, the Philippines ranked 5th among the 10 ASEAN member countries. (Table 3)
The Philippines slightly performed better in the knowledge dimension, ranking 4th (with an education index of 0.636) besting Thailand, which ranked 5th (with an education index of 0.598). However, emerging trends in education statistics in the country point to the possibility that our advantage will be lost in future HDRs 20. (Table 3)
Comparing our HDI performance in 2007 using the old methodology and our 2007/2010 performance using the new methodology introduced by HDRO…
Using the old methodology, the Philippine HDI released through the HDR 2009 was estimated at 0.751 in 2007, translating to a rank of 105 out of 182 countries or 42% of the countries had lower HDI than us. As cited above, with the use of the new methodology in the HDR 2010, the Philippines posted an HDI of 0.638 in 2010, with a rank of 97 out of 169 countries meaning that almost 43% of the countries had lower HDI. (Table 3)
It is also worth noting that if we are to use the new methodology in 2007, the Philippines posted a lower HDI of 0.628 with a rank of 96 out of 169 countries. (Table 4) Contributing to the lower HDI and lower HDI ranking using the new methodology is the fact that the old methodology used enrolment rate for education; while mean years of schooling, along with expected years of schooling, are used under the new methodology which are adversely affected by our low cohort survival rates. This more than offset the increase in HDI resulting from the use of Gross National Income in the new methodology compared to GDP in the old methodology. The Philippines, of course, benefits from the much bigger share of Net Factor Income From Abroad to GNP/GNI because of our OFWs and would be better off when the GNP/GNI is used instead of the GDP. (Table 5).
So, what awaits us?
The HDR 2011 will focus on the growing evidence of inequality and environmental threats. We certainly hope that the HDRO and the statistical community will be able to address the various methodological issues raised about the HDR 2010. And we hope that our concerned decision makers will be able to come up with programs that will raise our relative ranking in the HDI.
The limitations of the HDI/HDR 2010 considered, an HDI of 0.638 with a rank of 97 out of 169 countries and 5th among the ten ASEAN countries is something we should improve on. Compared to our ASEAN neighbors, we have lost our advantage in education, suffering a definitive deterioration of the country’s human capital over the years as cited in an earlier Statistically Speaking article 21. In fact, as far as the Philippine MDG is concerned, MDG 2 on education shows a low probability of achieving our target by 2015. In the health and income components of the HDI, we are mired in
the middle within ASEAN, with Indonesia threateningly close to overtaking us. Big challenges therefore face our leaders in the education and health sectors and our economic managers!
But of course, we do not lose hope and let us not lose hope… let us continue to believe that despite everything, we can rise beyond our differences, overcome our divisiveness and like the Talentadong Pinoy, fulfill our dreams. Especially if we agree that “people are the real wealth of a nation”! We must not forget too, that we all have our own roles to play in helping our government govern!
The last two nights we watched Talentadong Pinoy and we were glad to hear that Joseph the Sand Artist, was declared the winner. Our texted vote must have counted! Congratulations Joseph!
Happy Women’s Month to all!
Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph
_______________
1 Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, U.S.A. and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. This article was co-written by Jessamyn O. Encarnacion OIC-Director of the NSCB. The authors thank Anna Jean G. Casañas, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Bernadette B. Balamban, Candido J. Astrologo, Jr., Ma. Libertie V. Masculino, Albert Garcia, Andrea Baylon, and Jeffrey Enrado for the assistance in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB.
2 Our participation was funded by the Development Account Project of the UN Statistics Division.
3 The Keynote Speaker was Martine Durand, the Chief Statistician of OECD while the other panelists were Gerry O’Hanlon and Grace Bediako, the Chief Statisticians of Ireland and Ghana, respectively. Our presentation was on “A Developing Country Perspective: View from the Philippines”.
4 It was co-chaired by Werner Haug and Francesca Perucci of the UNFPA and UNSD, respectively. The other presentors were John B. Male-Mukasa and Treva Braun of the Uganda Bureau of Statistics and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, respectively, while Jeff Edmeades of the International Center for Research on Women was discussant. Our presentation was “On Meeting Gender Data Needs in the Philippines”.
5 Virola, Romulo A. Measuring Progress of Societies: Would You Rather Be Rich or Would You Rather Be Happy? Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 13 August 2007. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2007/081307_rav_happiness.asp)
6 Virola, Romulo A. Coordination of National Statistical Systems: The Current Thrust of Statistical Development. Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 10 November 2008.
(http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2008/111008_rav_statcoordination.asp)
7 E/2010/24, Economic and Social Council, Official Records 2010, Supplement No. 4, Report of the Statistical Commission on the forty-first session, 23-26 February 2010, Chapter I.B, Decision 41/112.
8 The NSCB was invited and sent Bernadette B. Balamban, Division Chief, Social Sectors B Division to the EGM.
9 United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2010. 2010. (Source: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/)
10 168 UN member countries plus Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China.
11 HDRO’s source of data: World Population Prospects 1950-2050: The 2008 Revision (UNDESA 2009d) using data from national vital registration systems, population censuses and surveys.
12 HDRO’s source of data: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics based on enrolment by age at all levels of education and population of official school age for all levels of education by age.
13 HDRO’s source of data: estimates from Barro and Lee (2010) that are based on population censuses and household survey data compiled by UNESCO, Eurostat and other sources to provide benchmarks for school attainment by gender and age group.
14 HDRO’s source of data: World Bank’s World Development Indicators database.
15 HDRO’s source of data: latest round of the International Comparison Program (ICP).
16 These indicators are aggregated using geometric means.
17 Virola, Romulo A. and Balamban, Bernadette B. Refinements in Measuring Poverty. Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 14 February 2011.
(http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2011/021411_rav_joe_bbb.asp) and
Virola, Romulo A. Revision of Official Statistics – Is It Cheating? Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 12 September 2005.
(http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/091205_rav_revPolicy.asp)
18 United Nations Statistics Division. Draft Report on the 42nd Session of the United Nations Statistical Commission. 02 March 2011. (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc11/DraftReport-2011.pdf )
19 Report of Brazil, Morocco and South Africa on Member States’ concerns with indicators released by the United Nations agencies. Note by the Secretary General. 42nd Session of the United Nations Statistical Commission. February 2011.
20 Virola, Romulo A. Statistics on Save Our Children. Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 10 June 2008.
(http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2008/061008_rav_children.asp)
21 Virola, Romulo A. Statistics on Philippine Education: Good News and Bad News. Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 08 January 2007.
(http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2007/010807_rav_educ.asp)
Table 1. Human Development Index (HDI) of Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), by component: 2010
(using the new methodology introduced in the HDR 2010)
| Human Development Index (HDI) value | HDI Rank out of | Life expectancy at birth | Mean years of schooling | Expected years of schooling | Gross national income (GNI) per capita | Nonincome HDI1/ | |||||||
| 169 countries | 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in years) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in years) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in years) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in PPP 2008 $) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | Value | Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | ||
| VERY HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||
| 1. Singapore | 0.846 | 27 | 1 | 80.7 | 1 | 8.8 | 2 | 14.4 | 1 | 48,893 | 2 | 0.831 | 1 |
| 2. Brunei Darussalam | 0.805 | 37 | 2 | 77.4 | 2 | 7.5 | 4 | 14.0 | 2 | 49,915 | 1 | 0.769 | 3 |
| HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||
| 3. Malaysia | 0.744 | 57 | 3 | 74.7 | 4 | 9.5 | 1 | 12.5 | 5 | 13,927 | 3 | 0.775 | 2 |
| MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||
| 4. Thailand | 0.654 | 92 | 4 | 69.3 | 7 | 6.6 | 5 | 13.5 | 3 | 8,001 | 4 | 0.683 | 5 |
| 5. Philippines | 0.638 | 97 | 5 | 72.3 | 5 | 8.7 | 3 | 11.5 | 6 | 4,002 | 5 | 0.726 | 4 |
| 6. Indonesia | 0.600 | 108 | 6 | 71.5 | 6 | 5.7 | 7 | 12.7 | 4 | 3,957 | 6 | 0.663 | 6 |
| 7. Viet Nam | 0.572 | 113 | 7 | 74.9 | 3 | 5.5 | 8 | 10.4 | 7 | 2,995 | 7 | 0.646 | 7 |
| 8. Lao People's Democratic Republic | 0.497 | 122 | 8 | 65.9 | 8 | 4.6 | 9 | 9.2 | 9 | 2,321 | 8 | 0.548 | 9 |
| 9. Cambodia | 0.494 | 124 | 9 | 62.2 | 10 | 5.8 | 6 | 9.8 | 8 | 1,868 | 9 | 0.566 | 8 |
| LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||
| 10. Myanmar | 0.451 | 132 | 10 | 62.7 | 9 | 4.0 | 10 | 9.2 | 10 | 1,596 | 10 | 0.511 | 10 |
Source: Human Development Report 2010, 20th Anniversary Edition, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Note: 1/ - Computing the HDI, excluding the third dimension on income to show countries that are not relatively "rich", but are regarded as relatively good performers in terms of health and education.
Table 2.Trends in HDI of ASEAN Member Countries: 2005, 2009 and 2010
(using the new methodology introduced in the HDR 2010)
| Human Development Index (HDI) value | HDI Rank out of 169 countries | HDI Rank Change |
HDI Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | ||||||||
| 2005 | 2009 | 2010 | 2005 | 2009 | 2010 | 2005-2010 | 2009-2010 | 2005 | 2009 | 2010 | |
| VERY HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 1. Singapore | 0.826 | 0.841 | 0.846 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2. Brunei Darussalam | 0.801 | 0.804 | 0.805 | 32 | 36 | 37 | -5 | -1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 3. Malaysia | 0.726 | 0.739 | 0.744 | 55 | 58 | 57 | -2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 4. Thailand | 0.631 | 0.648 | 0.654 | 93 | 92 | 92 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 5. Philippines | 0.619 | 0.635 | 0.638 | 95 | 96 | 97 | -2 | -1 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 6. Indonesia | 0.561 | 0.593 | 0.600 | 110 | 110 | 108 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| 7. Viet Nam | 0.540 | 0.566 | 0.572 | 114 | 113 | 113 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| 8. Lao People's Democratic Republic | 0.460 | 0.490 | 0.497 | 126 | 123 | 122 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| 9. Cambodia | 0.466 | 0.489 | 0.494 | 123 | 124 | 124 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 9 |
| LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 10. Myanmar | 0.406 | 0.444 | 0.451 | 138 | 132 | 132 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Source: Human Development Report 2010, 20th Anniversary Edition, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Table 3. Trends in HDI and Component Indices of ASEAN Member Countries:
2007 and 2010
(using the old and new methodologies for reference years 2007 and 2010, respectively)
| 2007 1/ | 2010 2/ | 2007 1/ | 2010 2/ | 2007 1/ | 2010 2/ | 2007 1/ | 2010 2/ | ||||||||||||||||
| HDI | HDI Ranking out of | HDI | HDI Ranking out of | Life Expectancy Index (LI) | LI Ranking out of | Life Expectancy Index (LI) | LI Ranking out of | Education Index (EI) | EI ranking out of | Education Index (EI) | EI ranking out of | GDP Index (II) | II ranking out of | GNI Index (II) | II ranking out of | ||||||||
| 182 Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries | 169 Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank | Percentile Rank | Rank | Percentile Rank | 182 Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries | 182 Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries | 182 Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries | 10 ASEAN Member Countries 3/ | |||||||||||
| VERY HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Singapore | 0.944 | 23 | 87 | 1 | 0.846 | 27 | 84 | 1 | 0.920 | 14 | 1 | 0.961 | 1 | 0.913 | 53 | 1 | 0.718 | 1 | 1.000 | 1 | 1 | 0.878 | 2 |
| 2. Brunei Darussalam | 0.920 | 30 | 84 | 2 | 0.805 | 37 | 78 | 2 | 0.867 | 38 | 2 | 0.909 | 2 | 0.891 | 65 | 2 | 0.650 | 3 | 1.000 | 1 | 1 | 0.881 | 1 |
| HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Malaysia | 0.829 | 66 | 64 | 3 | 0.744 | 57 | 66 | 3 | 0.819 | 58 | 4 | 0.866 | 4 | 0.851 | 98 | 5 | 0.694 | 2 | 0.819 | 61 | 3 | 0.685 | 3 |
| MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. Thailand | 0.783 | 87 | 52 | 4 | 0.654 | 92 | 46 | 4 | 0.728 | 113 | 7 | 0.781 | 7 | 0.888 | 71 | 3 | 0.598 | 5 | 0.734 | 82 | 4 | 0.599 | 4 |
| 5. Philippines | 0.751 | 105 | 42 | 5 | 0.638 | 97 | 43 | 5 | 0.777 | 96 | 5 | 0.829 | 5 | 0.888 | 71 | 3 | 0.636 | 4 | 0.589 | 124 | 6 | 0.493 | 5 |
| 6. Indonesia | 0.734 | 111 | 39 | 6 | 0.600 | 108 | 36 | 6 | 0.758 | 105 | 6 | 0.815 | 6 | 0.840 | 104 | 6 | 0.539 | 6 | 0.603 | 121 | 5 | 0.491 | 6 |
| 7. Viet Nam | 0.725 | 116 | 36 | 7 | 0.572 | 113 | 33 | 7 | 0.821 | 57 | 3 | 0.869 | 3 | 0.810 | 115 | 7 | 0.480 | 7 | 0.544 | 129 | 7 | 0.448 | 7 |
| 8. Lao People's Democratic Republic | 0.619 | 133 | 27 | 8 | 0.497 | 122 | 28 | 8 | 0.659 | 133 | 8 | 0.726 | 8 | 0.683 | 139 | 10 | 0.413 | 9 | 0.513 | 136 | 8 | 0.409 | 8 |
| 9. Cambodia | 0.593 | 137 | 25 | 9 | 0.494 | 124 | 27 | 9 | 0.593 | 142 | 10 | 0.668 | 10 | 0.704 | 134 | 9 | 0.480 | 7 | 0.483 | 144 | 9 | 0.376 | 9 |
| LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10. Myanmar | 0.586 | 138 | 24 | 10 | 0.451 | 132 | 22 | 10 | 0.603 | 137 | 9 | 0.677 | 9 | 0.787 | 121 | 8 | 0.386 | 10 | 0.368 | 168 | 10 | 0.351 | 10 |
Source: Human Development Report 2009 and Human Development Report 2010, 20th Anniversary Edition, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Notes:
1/ - 2007 data sourced from the Human Development Report (HDR) 2009, which used the old methodology
2/ - 2010 data sourced from the Human Development Report (HDR) 2010, which used the new methodology.
3/ - Only the rankings within ASEAN member countries were provided as data for the other 159 countries are not readily available from the online database of the HDRO.
Table 4. Human Development Index (HDI) of Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), by component: 2007
(using the old methodology)
| Human Development Index (HDI) value | HDI Rank out of | Life expectancy at birth | Mean years of schooling | Expected years of schooling | Gross national income (GNI) per capita | ||||||
| 169 countries | 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in years) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in years) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in years) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | Value (in PPP 2008 $) |
Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries | ||
| VERY HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 1. Singapore | 0.836 | 28 | 1 | 80.2 | 1 | 8.4 | 3 | 14.4 | 1 | 47,877 | 2 |
| 2. Brunei Darussalam | 0.804 | 36 | 2 | 77.0 | 2 | 7.4 | 4 | 14.0 | 2 | 51,915 | 1 |
| HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 3. Malaysia | 0.735 | 28 | 3 | 74.1 | 4 | 9.2 | 1 | 12.5 | 5 | 13,523 | 3 |
| MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 4. Thailand | 0.642 | 92 | 4 | 68.7 | 7 | 6.2 | 5 | 13.5 | 3 | 7,650 | 4 |
| 5. Philippines | 0.628 | 96 | 5 | 71.6 | 5 | 8.5 | 2 | 11.5 | 6 | 3,745 | 5 |
| 6. Indonesia | 0.58 | 111 | 6 | 70.5 | 6 | 5.3 | 7 | 12.7 | 4 | 3,355 | 6 |
| 7. Viet Nam | 0.554 | 114 | 7 | 74.3 | 3 | 5.2 | 8 | 10.4 | 7 | 2,578 | 7 |
| 8. Lao People's Democratic Republic | 0.475 | 125 | 9 | 64.6 | 8 | 4.4 | 9 | 9.0 | 10 | 1,936 | 8 |
| 9. Cambodia | 0.484 | 121 | 8 | 60.6 | 10 | 5.7 | 6 | 9.8 | 8 | 1,781 | 9 |
| LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT | |||||||||||
| 10. Myanmar | 0.432 | 132 | 10 | 61.2 | 9 | 3.7 | 10 | 9.2 | 9 | 1,424 | 10 |
Source: Human Development Report 2010, 20th Anniversary Edition, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Table 5. GDP per capita and GNI per capita (2008 PPP US$),
Indonesia and Philippines: 2007 and 2010
| (PPP US$) | PPP conversion factor 3/ | ||
| 2007 GDP per capita 1/ | 2010 GNI per capita 2/ | 2008 | |
| 1. Philippines | 3,406 | 4,002 | 23 |
| 2. Indonesia | 3,712 | 3,957 | 5,410 |
Sources:
1/ - Human Development Report 2009 aUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
2/ - Human Development Report 2010, 20th Anniversary Edition, UNDP
3/ - World Bank Database (www.worldbank.org)
Posted 14 March 2011.
 |
 |
|||||||
  E-mail the webmaster |
Terms of Use |
Home • Top of Page | ||||||
1997-2012,
National Statistical Coordination Board
|
||||||||