The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the average of the following three general indices: Life Expectancy Index = Education Index = Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = Gross Enrolment Index (GEI) = GDP Index = LE: Life expectancy at birth ALR: Adult literacy rate (ages 15 and older) CGER: Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools GDPpc: GDP per capita at PPP in USD
The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the average of the following three general indices:
LE: Life expectancy at birth ALR: Adult literacy rate (ages 15 and older) CGER: Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools GDPpc: GDP per capita at PPP in USD
It's possible that the EU is just trying to come up with a measure that makes it look better than the US, but I think the problem is that the EU has gotten itself into a pinch with its Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs, especially on the "Growth" bit, because "growth" is not sustainable as currently configured (for a data point, see my diary Spain is unsustainable on November 11th, 2007). It has been suggested to make non-renewable resource extraction (which is not "production"!) contribute a negative amount to GDP as a way to measure "sustainable" growth.
On the "jobs" part of the Lisbon strategy, when one thinks that filling a call centre with telemarketers counts as "jobs", one realizes that there's more to a sensible employment policy than to get people to spend 8 hours a day doing no matter what to earn a living. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
The use of non-renewable resources is already captured in future GDP. We could put it in the current figure, but I think we'd really just be talking about one means of accounting vs another.
The problem with GDP -- and here I'm speaking only to the economics of it -- is that it doesn't give our populations a full story on how the typical person is doing. Median real income growth/contraction is a much better measure, but that, too, isn't perfect. GDP is fine for central bankers who need a picture of the economy as a whole, but it's of little use beyond those sorts of macroeconomic issues.
The HDI is a good start as a measure that the public can use to judge how things are going, but I agree with everyone here about needing more numbers. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
"make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world".
With this, they of course implicitly claimed that the EU was in 2000 not the most competitive blah-blah of the world. Since then, little has been done and nothing has been achieved. European growth figures haven't changed much and US GDP and productivity growth have been comparable or higher than those of the EU countries most of the time. Most projects announced. like the European Institute of Technology, have been ditched because no one was interested.
So,there is reason to suspect that the European Committee would very much like to have a different index on which the EU is doing better than the US, is growing faster than the US, etcetera.
If you believe that the EU was OK in 2000, than it still is doing fine. If you think the EU had a problem in 2000, then the problem hasn't gone away. But the Committee will soon have claim that the EU was doing bad in 2000 and a great job now, so they are in definite need for creative accounting.
But I still think the Lisbon Declaration was a 'good thing', and that the failed promise to implement its aims is regrettable. You can't be me, I'm taken
(These kinds of conferences don't get that much media attention, really)
Schumpeter and democratic theory In the same book, Schumpeter expounded a theory of democracy which sought to challenge what he called the 'classical doctrine'. He disputed the idea that democracy was a process by which the electorate identified the common good, and politicians carried this out for them. He argued this was unrealistic, and that people's ignorance and superficiality meant that in fact they were largely manipulated by politicians, who set the agenda. This made a 'rule by the people' concept both unlikely and undesirable. Instead he advocated a minimalist model, much influenced by Max Weber, whereby democracy is the mechanism for competition between leaders, much like a market structure. Although periodical votes from the general public legitimize governments and keep them accountable, the policy program is very much seen as their own and not that of the people, and the participatory role for individuals is severely limited.
In the same book, Schumpeter expounded a theory of democracy which sought to challenge what he called the 'classical doctrine'. He disputed the idea that democracy was a process by which the electorate identified the common good, and politicians carried this out for them. He argued this was unrealistic, and that people's ignorance and superficiality meant that in fact they were largely manipulated by politicians, who set the agenda. This made a 'rule by the people' concept both unlikely and undesirable. Instead he advocated a minimalist model, much influenced by Max Weber, whereby democracy is the mechanism for competition between leaders, much like a market structure. Although periodical votes from the general public legitimize governments and keep them accountable, the policy program is very much seen as their own and not that of the people, and the participatory role for individuals is severely limited.
