Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programs (UNDP) have presented the Human Development Index (HDI) with different technical applications. Latest by 2010, it undertook comprehensive reviews of all critiques so far available and introduced several major changes. The revolutionary change, in our view, was to introduce the application of geometric mean (GM) in place of arithmetic mean (AM) as the aggregation technique of all dimension indices to form the composite HDI. This article is an attempt to raise some questions, both theoretical and empirical, regarding that particular change in aggregation technique. Following a theoretical discussion on the rationale of ‘Arithmetic Mean’ vis-à-vis ‘Geometric Mean’, this article suggests that, for the construction of HDI, application of GM is not that suitable because of not only the complex and varied nature of its (i.e., HDIs) underlying dimension indices but also those of their comprising individual indicators. On the basis of available UNDP data, an analysis is offered here for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020. Going through this analysis, we may conclude that, at least in the present context, application of AM as the aggregation technique may not be fully perfect, but the application of GM leads us to a situation of more imperfection.
AnandS., & SenA. (1994). Human Development Index: Methodology and measurement [Occasional Paper No. 12]. Human Development Report Office, UNDP (Reprinted in Fukuda-ParrS. and Shiv KumarA. K. (Eds), Readings in human development (2003). Oxford University Press).
2.
AnandS. (2018, April). Recasting human development measures [Working Paper 23, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, International Inequality Institute].
3.
BiswasB., & CaliendoF. (2002). A multivariate analysis of the human development index [Economic Research Institute Study Papers, paper 244, 1–17].
4.
BoncinelliF., & CasiniL. (2014). A comparison of the well-being of agricultural and non agricultural households using a multi-criterial approach. Social Indicators Research, 119(349), 183–195.
5.
CarrinoL. (2015, November). The weighting role of normalization in a multidimensional analysis of social inclusion [Working Paper 32/2015, Department of Economics, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, pp. 1–35].
6.
ChakravartyS. R. (2003). A generalized human development index. Review of Development Economics, 7(1), 99–114.
7.
Chakravarty. (2011a). A reconsideration of the tradeoffs in the new human development index. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 471–474.
8.
Chakravarty (2011b). On trade-offs in the human development indices. Indian Journal of Human Development, 5(2), 517–25.
9.
ChaurasiaA. R. (2022). Surface measure of human development: Alternative to HDI. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract-4228534 or https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4228534
10.
ChaurasiaA. R. (2023). Human development in districts of India, 2019–2021. Indian Journal of Human Development, Sage Publications (forthcoming).
11.
DecancqK., & LugoM. A. (2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing—An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32(1), 7–34.
12.
DesaiM. (1991). Human development: Concepts and measurement. European Economic Review, 35(2/3), 350–357.
13.
DholakiaR. (2003). Regional disparity in economic and human development in India. Economic & Political Weekly, 38(39), 4166–4172.
14.
GertnerJ. (2010). The rise and fall of the G.D.P. The New York Times, May13.
15.
GhislandiS., SandersonW. C., & ScherbovS. (2019). A simple measure of human development: The human life indicator. Population and Development Review, 45(1), 219–233
16.
HopkinsM. (1991). Human development revisited: A new UNDP Report. World Development, 19(10), 1469–1473.
17.
KlugmanJ., RodríguezF., & ChoiH.-J. (2011a). The HDI 2010—New controversies, old critiques. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(2), 249–288.
18.
KlugmanJ., RodríguezF., & ChoiH.-J. (2011b). Response to Martin Ravallion. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 497–499.
19.
KumarA. K. S. (1991). UNDP’s human development index: A computation for Indian states. Economic & Political Weekly, 26(41), 2343–2345.
20.
MauroV., BiggeriM., & MagginoF. (2016). Measuring and monitoring poverty and well-being: A new approach for the synthesis of multidimensionality,Social Indicators Research. 135(1), 75–89.
21.
MishraS., & NathanH. S. K. (2018). A MANUSH or HUMANS characterization of the human development index. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 19(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2017.1422703
22.
MondalD. (2005). Human development index—An essay on methodology and implication. FIRMA KLM Private Limited.
23.
MondalD., MookherjeeS., & PattanayekS. K. (2017). Does the analysis of principal components effectively help in determining actual weights for dimensions of an index? An appraisal in Indian context. International Journal of Management and Development Studies, 6(10), 28–36.
24.
MookherjeeS., PattanayekS. K., & MondalD. (2019). Assessment of urbanization in census-units through construction of a generalized urbanization index: A study for economically backward regions of West Bengal during 1991 to 2011. Vidyasagar University Journal of Commerce, 24, 1–27.
25.
NathanH. S. K., MishraS., & ReddyB. S. (2008). An alternative approach to measure HDI [IGIDR Working Paper, India: WP 2008-002].
26.
NoorbakhshF. (1998). The human development index: Some technical issues and alternative indices. Journal of International Development, 10(5), 589–605.
27.
PalazziP., & LauriA. (1998). The human development index: Suggested corrections. Banca Nazionaledel Lavoro Quarterly Review, 51(205), 193–221.
28.
PattanayekS. K., MookherjeeS., & MondalD. (2019). An analysis of standard of living index in West Bengal’s Paschim Medinipur District: An application of average correlation method,Indian Journal of Human Development, 13(2), 159–182.
29.
PrabhuK. S. (1998). Social sectors in economic development. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 1(2), 268–287.
30.
RavallionM. (1997). Good and bad growth: the human development reports. World Development, 25(5), 631–638.
31.
Ravallion. (2010, November). Troubling tradeoffs in the human development index [Policy Research Working Paper 5484, The World Bank].
32.
Ravallion. (2011). The human development index—A response to Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 475–478.
33.
Ravallion (2012). Mash-up indices of development. The World Bank Research Observer, 27(1), 1–32.
34.
ZambranoE.2014, An axiomatization of the human development index. Social Choice and Welfare, 42, 853–72.
35.
Zambrano. 2017, The ‘Troubling Tradeoffs’ paradox and a resolution. Review of Income and Wealth, 63(3), 520–543.
