jgarden said:
I find it interesting that both Germany and Japan were virtually destroyed during WW2 and yet they are challenging America for their quality of life. Other than Pearl Harbor, the US was never attacked and never received the damage or occupation by a foreign power.
Would America be content with a 7th rate military but ranking first in terms of quality of life?
During World War 2, the lower 48 states were firebombed by the Japanese.
In 1860's, several states we destroyed by a hostile power.
In the War of 1812, the U.S. capital was burned.
Is the HDI enough to measure a country's level of development?
Not at all. The concept of human development is much broader than what can be captured in the HDI, or any other of the composite indices in this Report (see gender-related development index, gender empowerment measure, and human poverty index). The HDI, for example, does not reflect political participation or gender inequalities. HDI and the other composite indices can only offer a broad proxy on the issues of human development, gender disparity, and human poverty. A fuller picture of a country's level of human development requires analysis of other human development indicators and information
Is the HDI comparable across editions of the HDR?
Due to revisions to the data series for some or all of the components of the HDI, changes in the HDI methodology, or variations in the country coverage, the HDI values and ranks presented in the 1990 through 2003 editions of the Report are often not comparable. The year-to-year changes in the index often reflect data improvement, instead of real increase or decrease in the level of human development. The Human Development Report Offices strongly advises against constructing HDI trend analysis based on the HDI published in different editions of the Report. For the most up-to-date HDI trend data based on consistent methodology and data, please refer to Table 2 (
Human Development Index Trends) in HDR 2003.
Those are from the FAQ's about this thing.
Are data comparable in different editions of the HDR?
As a result of periodical revisions to data by international agencies, statistics presented in different editions of the Report are often not comparable. For this reason the Human Development Report Office strongly advises against constructing trend analysis based on data from different editions of the Report.
Why does some national data differ from data in the HDR or else show that data is missing when data is available from national sources?
When compiling international data series, international data agencies often need to apply internationally adopted standards and harmonization procedures to improve comparability across countries.
Where the international data are based on national statistics, as they usually are, the national data may need to be adjusted. Where data for a country are missing, an international agency may produce an estimate if other relevant information can be used. And because of the difficulties in coordination between national and international data agencies, international data series may not incorporate the most recent national data. All these factors can lead to significant discrepancies between national and international estimates.
They may need to "adjust" national data. Hmm...
Golly, as the biggest single contributer to the United Nations, not to mention one of the 5 on the security council we still feel left out and unwanted? Is it prejudice, or just American frustration at something we can't force?
