Institutional sustainability: at what price? UNDP and the new cost-sharing model in Brazil

By the turn of the twenty-first century, UNDP had embraced a new form of funding based on ‘cost-sharing’, with this source accounting for 51 per cent of the organisation’s total expenditure worldwide in 2000. Unlike the traditional donor - recipient relationship so common with development projects, the new cost-sharing modality has created a situation whereby UNDP local offices become ‘subcontractors’ and agencies of the recipient countries become ‘clients’. This paper explores this transition in the context of Brazil, focusing on how the new modality may have compromised UNDP’s ability to promote Sustainable Human Development, as established in its mandate. The great enthusiasm for this modality within the UN system and its potential application to other developing countries increase the importance of a systematic assessment of its impact and developmental consequences.

Greening the United Nations' Human Development Index?

The Human Development Index (HDI) introduced by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1990 has helped facilitate widespread debate amongst development researchers, practitioners and policy makers. The HDI is an aggregate index, calculated on an annual basis by the UNDP and published in its Human Development Reports, comprising measures of three components deemed by them to be central to development: W income (the gross domestic product per capita), (ii) education (adult literacy rate) and (iii) health (life expectancy at birth). The results of calculating the HDI are typically presented as country/regional league tables, and provide a quick means for policy makers and others to judge performance. Perhaps partly because of the relative simplicity of the index, the HDI has managed to achieve a level of acceptance and use amongst politicians and policy makers that has yet to emerge with any indicator of sustainability. Indeed, despite its existence for 11 years, including nine years after the Rio Earth Summit, the HDI has not even been modified to take on board wider issues of sustainability. This paper will critically examine the potential for 'greening' the HDI so as to include environmental and resource-consumption dimensions. Copyright (C) 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

For better or for worse, till the human development index do us part?

This paper describes the results of research intended to explore the volatility inherent in the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI is intended to be a simple and transparent device for comparing progress in human development, and is an aggregate of life expectancy, education and GDP per capita. Values of the HDI for each country are presented in the Human Development Reports (HDRs), the first being published in 1990. However, while the methodology is consistent for all countries in each year there are notable differences between years that make temporal comparisons of progress difficult. The paper presents the results of recalculating the HDI for a simplified sample of 114 countries using various methodologies employed by the UNDP. The results are a set of deviations of recalculated HDI ranks compared to the original ranks given in the HDRs. The volatility that can result from such recalculation is shown to be substantial (+/-10-15 ranks), yet reports in the popular press are frequently sensitive to movements of only a few ranks. Such movement can easily be accounted for by changes in the HDI methodology rather than genuine progress in human development. While the HDRs often carry warnings about the inadvisability of such year-on-year comparisons, it is argued that the existence of such a high-profile index and the overt presentation within league tables do encourage such comparison. Assuming that the HDI will be retained as a focal point within the HDRs, then it is suggested that greater focus be upon more meaningful and robust categories of human development (e.g. low, medium and high) rather than league tables where shifts of a few places, perhaps as a result of nothing more than a methodological or data artefact, may be highlighted in the press and by policy makers. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Putting the pieces back together again: an illustration of the problem of interpreting development indicators using an African case study

Indicators are commonly recommended as tools for assessing the attainment of development, and the current vogue is for aggregating a number of indicators together into a single index. It is claimed that such indices of development help facilitate maximum impact in policy terms by appealing to those who may not necessarily have technical expertise in data collection, analysis and interpretation. In order to help counter criticisms of over-simplification, those advocating such indices also suggest that the raw data be provided so as to allow disaggregation into component parts and hence facilitate a more subtle interpretation if a reader so desires. This paper examines the problems involved with interpreting indices of development by focusing on the United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) published each year in the Human Development Reports (HDRs). The HDI was intended to provide an alternative to the more economic based indices, such as GDP, commonly used within neo-liberal development agendas. The paper explores the use of the HDI as a gauge of human development by making comparisons between two major political and economic communities in Africa (ECOWAS and SADC). While the HDI did help highlight important changes in human development as expressed by the HDI over 10 years, it is concluded that the HDI and its components are difficult to interpret as methodologies have changed significantly and the 'averaging' nature of the HDI could hide information unless care is taken. The paper discusses the applicability of alternative models to the HDI such as the more neo-populist centred methods commonly advocated for indicators of sustainable development. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.