For once I agree with the UN. Hot babes and long cold nights for the win.
Posted on 11/28/2007 1:25:35 PM PST by WesternCulture
The 2007 Human Development Report says Iceland now leads annual United Nations Index.
Iceland has narrowly passed Norway to take the top spot on the Human Development Index (HDI), according to the 2007/2008 Human Development Report (HDR) released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) today. Norway had held the number one ranking for the previous six years. This change in ranking is a result of new estimates of life expectancy and updated GDP per capita figures, stress the Report authors.
Introduced with the first HDR in 1990, the HDI assesses the state of human development through life expectancy, adult literacy and school enrolment at the primary, secondary and tertiary level, along with income, based on the most recent reliable data from UN partners and other official sources. Due to shifts in how countries report the statistics from which the rankings are calculated, the Index is subject to regular adjustment.
The Index analyses 2005 statistics from 175 UN member countries along with Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of China) and the occupied Palestinian territories. The HDI rankings this year do not include 17 UN member nations, among them Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, due to insufficient reliable data.
Twenty-two countries—all in sub-Saharan Africa—fall into the category of “low human development.” In ten of these countries, two children in five will not reach the age of 40; in the case of Zambia that figure rises to one child in two. By contrast, amongst the top 20 countries, only in Denmark and the United States will fewer than 9 children in ten reach the age of 60.
In most countries, including Brazil, China and India, human development has risen over the last 30 years, but some countries have shifted into reverse gear. In all, 16 countries have a lower HDI today than in 1990. Three of these countries—the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe—have lower rates of human development than they did in 1975.
HIGHER DEVELOPMENT, HIGHER EMISSIONS
This year’s HDR, entitled Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world, which focuses on the impact of climate change on the world’s poor and vulnerable, highlights that the role of energy in human development is reflected in the record of emissions of CO2.
According to the Report, the top 20 countries in the HDI emitted more CO2 in 2004 than all the medium and low human development countries combined, while China and India are the largest emitters of CO2 amongst developing countries, together they emitted less in 2004 than the top 32 countries in the HDI excluding the United States. By itself, the United States emitted almost as much as China and India combined in 2004.
Some people claim the HDI (Human Development Index) is a useless way of measuring things like standard of living and quality of life and that it basically is created to make the most PC countries on Earth, namely the Scandinavian ones, look good. One of the two ‘inventors’ of this index, 1990 Indian Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen, has furthermore actually described it as a “vulgar measure”, because of its obvious limitations.
However, it ought to noted that:
- The HDI does NOT tell a very different story from GDP per capita statistics.
- A ‘politically incorrect’ country like the US scores better than a ‘peaceful’, ‘environmentally concerned’ Scandinavian country like Denmark in the HDI department, even though Denmark boasts a higher GDP/Capita.
- The differences in score between the top 15 countries (USA places 12th) is subtle, to say the least. Iceland (1st) scores 0.968 out of a possible maximum score of 1 and Austria (15th) scores 0.948 (USA scores 0.951).
But how to achieve a maximum score?
All a country needs is:
1. A life expectancy of 85
2. A literacy rate of 100%
3. A ‘Combined gross enrolment ratio’ of 100%
4. A GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity) of 40 000 USD
Few, if any, experts would claim HDI is an apt instrument for measuring standard of living. All the HDI offers is a hint at how different nations perform in some areas that a lot of people feel are central to the notion of a ‘well functioning society’.
In fact, there are no really good answers to questions like what the richest/most successful/most developed country is or what country has the highest standard of living or the highest quality of life.
BUT, whatever measure you use nations like Switzerland, the US, Canada and the Scandinavian ones seems to take the lead AND they all have an exceptionally high GDP per capita and are furthermore countries that nourish a culture of competitiveness, work ethics, free market principles and Capitalism. Even though, for instance, the US has high corporate taxes and Scandinavia has a traditional culture of egalitarianism, countries like these constitute the prime evidence for the superiority of Capitalism over all other present economical systems.
Below, links to some related statistics
List of countries by nominal GDP per capita:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
List of countries by GDP at purchasing power parity per capita:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Present levels of real GDP growth around the world:
http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php
AIDS ‘LIKE ARMAGEDDON’ SAYS UN HEALTH AGENCY
Obviously Human Development does not include taking a bath every night................
This stat is the joker in the deck. It comes with the assumption that mere enrollment up to tertiary schools is a measure of civilization. There are many enrolled students who are not learning a thing (especially at University), and many "homeschooled" and "College of the Real World" learners who are educated far above the average.
“Photo finish...”
Then I want photos of the human development that we’re talking about, so I can judge for myself - examples of Icelandic and Norwegian human developoment.
Iceland has fully exploited its exceptional geothermal (clean) assets, which would raise its index.
- In one way, the HDI makes the impression of being an instrument designed to convince people that there’s more to high standards of living than material consumption, high national GDP/capita levels and successful corporations.
On the other hand, the HDI also indicates that capitalism is the way to go for a nation that really wants to develop.
The Scandinavian countries are often portrayed as PC and not seldom as Socialist (especially in the US), but if most Scandinavians are PC Socialists how come
- Norway has more dollar millionaires per capita than any other country (the vast majority of them have become millionaires by making capitalist investments in different free market contexts)
- The Scandinavian countries all have low corporate taxes compared to most other industrialized nations
- Sweden has produced more successful, capitalist multinationals in relation to its population than any other country
- The Scandinavian countries all belong to the nations with the most of economical freedom according to studies
Of course, one could argue that a capitalist nation in which a majority strives to develop their country in a Socialist direction houses a ‘Socialist’ population, but in that case Scandinavia is the opposite of ‘Socialist’ and has been so since, at least, around 1985-1990.
You could try finding pictures of some of the Viking ancestors mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Strongest_Man
Correction:
Naturally, I meant men of Viking ancestry not Viking ancestors!
For once I agree with the UN. Hot babes and long cold nights for the win.
All these Western countries except Iceland have high immigration rates which indicate that immigrants are not a liablity at all.
A little factoid not reported:
Iceland and Norway: Native caucasian population ~ 99%, minorities ~ 1%
Contrast: “Twenty-two countries—all in sub-Saharan Africa—fall into the category of “low human development.””
A ‘Combined gross enrollment ratio’ of 100%
This stat is the joker in the deck. It comes with the assumption that mere enrollment up to tertiary schools is a measure of civilization. There are many enrolled students who are not learning a thing (especially at University), and many “homeschooled” and “College of the Real World” learners who are educated far above the average.
- I agree, it is at least a potential joker, but few would deny that in the case of the, say 15 top scoring nations in terms of HDI, education is often of very high quality.
In the case of Scandinavia, students often score very high in international maths tests, literacy tests, IQ tests etc, etc. I believe this has got something to do with the quality of the Scandinavian educational systems.
Some people, especially Americans themselves, are concerned over the standard of American education, but I’d guess the US performs well in the domain of ‘Combined gross enrollment ratio’. My impression is that, in general, the education people get in the US is of a considerably higher quality than what ordinary people receive in most countries. As a Swede, I’m well aware of the fact that the US towers above all other nations in the area of Nobel Laureates. Even when the large population of the nation is considered, USA looks extremely impressive in this area.
Iceland, all the snow and ice of Canada without the beauty!
But literacy was already criterion #2. If 100% numerancy was a criterion, I could see it, but there are more paths to math and reading skills than formal schooling. I personally believe high IQ averages have more to do with early nutrition and nurture than with education.
Some people, especially Americans themselves, are concerned over the standard of American education, but I’d guess the US performs well in the domain of ‘Combined gross enrollment ratio’.
I'm sure it does, but, frankly, there are many kids in secondary and tertiary schools who would be better off out, because they are simply marking time. They are gaining little and slowing down the higher achievers.
As a Swede, I’m well aware of the fact that the US towers above all other nations in the area of Nobel Laureates.
Many factors in play on this. We have a long term classless egalitarianism, that also rewards excellence. In a way, we are more a Meritocracy than anything else. I think that environment encourages innovation and attracts talent. But that has little to do with 100% formal schooling, since these people (Nobel Laureates) are a very small percentage of the overall population. For every person who was of this quality that was given the impetus and opportunity by formal education, I would wager there is an equal or greater number whose intellect was stifled by the educational systems.
~~ AGW™ ping~~
Let’s see:
Why don’t we get some huge barge-movers, relocate Iceland next to Mexico, let Mexico force-migrate 10% of its population there, and see what the health and economic standings of Iceland remain as.
Isn’t it wonderful how the UN takes these tiny nations, predominately homogeneous in composition, blessed with natural resources beyond their miniscule size (great gobs of geo-thermal energy), minimal immigration, very little in global security responsibilities and then poses them as though their internal governmental systems, and not the net of all conditions and factors, have given rise to their “greatness”.
Makes me barf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.