Public Statements

The Real Value of the Human Development Report — July 11/01

A Numbers Game?
Although Canada's slip from first to third is what has made the news, the real value of the Human Development Report is found outside of the rankings.

By Steve Mason

The Human Development Report, published annually by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is best known for its ranking of the world’s countries. For the last six years Canada has topped that ranking, making us – in the words of our government – “the best place to live in the world.”

This year, as it has now been well reported, Canada has slipped. Not only are we no longer in the number one spot, but we didn’t even make number two. The report has ranked Canada as third, behind both Norway and Australia.

What does all this imply? In reality, not all that much. The rankings, while interesting and moderately instructive, reflect only three measurable statistics – life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income – leaving out potentially more interesting factors such as treatment of minorities, health care coverage, environmental quality and percentage of people living below the poverty line. Moreover, the differences between one country and its neighbours in the index are minute: life expectancy for an Australian at birth is 78.8 years; for a Canadian its 78.7. The real value of the rankings is that they bring out the stark contrast between those countries at the top of the heap and those at the bottom. Life expectancy in Canada is 26 years higher than in Haiti, and there are another twenty-eight countries that rank below Haiti.

In effect, the index is a clever public relations tool used by UNDP to draw attention to a worthwhile and informative report that might not otherwise receive attention, and it is worth all of our while to take a close look at what the report actually covers. The 2001 report, “Making New Technologies Work for Human Development,” focuses on the ability of technology to alleviate poverty around the globe. In doing so, it tackles controversial issues such as the potential of genetically modified organisms and the necessity of creating public-private partnerships in education.

The 2001 report also outlines several interesting trends. It shows, for example, that in almost all cases the amount of aid that has flowed from the rich countries to poorer ones has decreased dramatically during the last decade. Canada’s aid to developing countries was 0.44% of GDP in 1990; in 1999 it was only 0.28% of GDP – about $55 per person, and well below our internationally agreed-upon commitments. At the same time, the report also warns that most countries are not on track to meet the 2015 goals set out by the UN at last year’s Millennium Summit – crucial goals like reducing infant mortality by an acceptable percentage and ensuring access to safe drinking water.

It is a shame that given the rich discussion material contained within the report, the Canadian media has chosen to focus almost exclusively on the fall in Canada’s ranking. Rather than continuously bemoaning our near imperceptible slip, our time would be much better spent on determining how we can close the ever-widening gap between the relatively few at the top and the majority at the bottom.

Steve Mason is the Executive Director of the United Nations Association in Canada