Do you think additional information or data could be added to the HDI calculation to possibly improve it or make it a more accurate measurement of human development? If yes, what things? If no, why no? Keep in mind the conversation with Tyler Cowen. You have until 10:05.
I think there are easily more measurements that could be added to the HDI calculation because the human condition and development is a vastly complicated equation. The HDI definitely serves its function if that is to provide a general ranking system to create a global mapping, but for accuracy’s sake, there is much deeper evaluation possible. For example, the HDI calculation doesn’t weigh or look at gender equality at all. I would consider this to be a very strong sign of development because it means equal rights and a more positive standard of living for all. Similarly, racial equity could be considered and generally how minorities are in a certain country. Because of exclusions like this in the number, I would argue it could be more precise and honed in, as most multivariable scenarios can be. It also appears that the standard of living is viewed from a mostly economic standpoint and I don’t know whether that is the most effective way to consider the standard of living, because having more money doesn’t draw a direct correlation to living well even though it can help.
One interesting aspect that could be factored into the equation is innovation and change. This could be a useful measurement because countries quickly innovating and creating new technologies are probably likely to have a higher standard of living in the future. Climate change could be considered in a similar way because even though it affects the extreme climates more, a country with greater laws and regulations for climate change is a country leading to a more sustainable Earth. This idea that the index could represent the future too seems to be worth investigating. Are two countries with the same life span, education, and income still equally ranked if one of them is producing far more CO2. Potentially they are if we are only ranking immediate circumstances, but otherwise, they are harming other countries’ standards of living and ultimately their own.
The arguments for leaving the HDI calculation alone seem reasonable as well though. As long as it is not claiming to measure the most accurate level of development it can serve as a helpful indicating number without being overly analytical. To measure all the countries together is already oversimplifying hundreds of circumstances, so to find a semi-valid measurement in the first place is impressive. If the analysts behind the number were intending to formulate a baseline for comparing countries and looking at which ones are better off in a fundamental way this achieves the goal quite well. The argument that it is simplified for a reason holds decent ground towards HDI’s use in generality. However, if they were looking for a fully encompassing broad analysis of all the countries and their standings I do not think this methodology is an accurate depiction of that. Resources could be better spent finding and addressing problems in underdeveloped countries as opposed to developing a country rankings system. This leads to another perspective regarding how useful being able to rank countries really is and if it just feeds the “us and them” mentality more. Anything global like HDI measurements are going to naturally have a lot of complexity and constraints for that reason, for these cases I believe it makes the most sense to consider the intent and access from there.