UNDP's Human Development Index has been based on Atkinson's multi-step utility function (until 1999). It has been pointed out that an adaptive approach could be superior to Atkinson's function and can take care of its conceptual and fundamental weaknesses for constructing the Human Development Index. The present article analytically establishes certain results and empirically examines variations in the ranks of the countries due to the adaptive multi-step formulation utility function when used in place of the approaches employed by UNDP in the Human Development Reports.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bhatnagar, Ravi Kant. (2001a), 'An Analysis of the Evolution of the Human Development Index with special reference to its Income Component', The Bangladesh Development Studies, XXVII(3): 35-65.
2.
—. (2001b), 'Human Development Reports and India', Political Economy Journal of India, 10(1): 79-90.
3.
Chaubey, P.K. (1998), 'Income Utility Curve: Flaws in UNDP Formulation' , The Indian Journal of Economics, LXXVIII(311): 515-23.
4.
Desai, Meghnad. (1991), 'Human Development-Concepts and measurements' , European Economic Review, 35, 350-57, North Holland.
5.
Kelley, Alan. (1991), 'The Human Development Index: Handle with Care' , Population and Development Review, 17, No. 2 (June): 315-24.
6.
Undp (1990-2001), Human Development Report, New York: Oxford University Press.
