UN HDI report 2004
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] Next >
Posted on: 09-11-04 18:04:38
The UN HDI Report for 2004 is out.
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/
Of note:
Canada continues at no. 4
Amartya Sen acknowledged in the Foreword for providing the conceptual framework
Comments about India on page 49
Yeah, so what is your point? It has been known for a long time and has been an established fact that India is a third world(developing) country and is a much poorer and underdeveloped country compared to Canada. What's new?
What relation does Canada being on number 4 have anything to do with the status of desis here in Canada?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diogenes
====================
The Cynic
1. I’ve read comments on certain posts on this website that say Canada used to be the best country in the world to live in but is now going “so low”. The HDI indicators for 2004 clearly indicate that it is still number 4 and its indicators have increased as compared to previous years.
2. Amartya Sen – a person of Indian origin – who is acknowledged as having provided the conceptual framework for the indicators.
3. Page 49 makes an acknowledgement of the strength and achievements of India’s democratic institutions…….
First off, I would like to know how a high rank in the HDI makes Canada the best country in the world to live in. At least I have not been able to find this correlation explicitly stated in any of the UN reports. The UNDP report only ranks countries on different indices. How does that automatically translate into making countries “best” or “worst” to live in? Do you have a UN cite that supports this “best country to live in because of a high HDI score" concept?
How good a country actually is for someone to live in, and in context of this board especially for an immigrant who is changing countries, is in fact predominantly dependent on the expectations that the individual has from the country, how well those expectations are actualized and how well his needs are fulfilled. A high rank in the UNDP report does not automatically make that country a haven for immigrants. Here's why - There are some 78 indicators taken into consideration. Here are only a few examples:
Birthweight of infants,
Contraceptive prevalence,
Condom use rate,
Debt relief,
Fertility rate,
HIV prevalence,
Immunization of one-year-olds,
Malaria,
Oral rehydration therapy use rate,
Refugees,
Prevalence of smoking,
Tuberculosis cases,
Women’s political participation.
Undernourished people,
Under height for age,
Sanitation facilities,
Labour right conventions,
Immunization of one-year-olds, etc etc.
Why would an immigrant be concerned with indicators like these? How does the fact that a country has higher “Oral rehydration therapy use rate”, or higher “Contraceptive prevalence”, or fewer people who are “Under height for age” have any effect whatsoever on an immigrant’s prospects of success in that country?? 
It is quite obvious, as is also mentioned in the introduction of the report itself, that these reports and measures are more to help the governments of countries identify areas of weakness and help them improve.
These reports carry absolutely no relevance to the issue of immigration since most immigrants have better than average income levels, education and skills in their home country and are already positive contributors to the indices in question.
While any other reasons would possibly be justifiable, it would be wrong for a qualified successful engineer in his home country for example, to choose to immigrate to Canada because of its rank in the UNDP report.
It would be interesting to know where Canada ranks in those areas that are in some way relevant , and have something in common, to issues that affect immigrants. Of all the indicators in the UNDO report, I could find only three that could be said to have some relevance to immigrants and this is what I found:
On the indicator for “Estimated earned income” Canada with $36,299, ranks 9th of the 17 developed countries. Sweden is the last at rank 17. Does that make Sweden the worst country to live in based on this parameter?
On the indicator of “High technology Exports” Canada ranks 14 of the 17 developed nations.
On the indicator of “Unemployment rate” Canada ranks 6th of the 17 developed nations.
The point is, while it may have achieved a rank of 4th in the Human Development Index, that does not make Canada also the fourth best country to from the point of view of immigration!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diogenes
====================
The Cynic
The HDI indicators clearly talk about “human development” and indicate overall quality of life by drawing on a large number of factors. They have also been referred to as being "measures of well being".
Amongst others, the factors include factors economic factors like per capita income, government debt as a percentage of GDP, government spending on education, etc.
They also include things like access to technology for the general population (if you look at it very simplistically this could be as simple as the fact that you use hi-speed internet in Canada, while you’d be using dial-up in India).
Other indicators would include things like power consumption per capita (contributes towards a higher quality of life) access to water supply and sanitation........
As regards the argument that immigrants come from a higher income group and therefore would have access to the best resources in their home countries, one has to take into consideration the fact that we live in communities. Islanding yourself and cornering a good share of the resources, doesn’t necessarily contribute to a great quality of life if 70% - 80% of the population is left behind.
BTW, you’re doing a good job of keeping this thread active, keep it up!
Quote:
Orginally posted by DiogenestheCynic
Yeah, so what is your point? It has been known for a long time and has been an established fact that India is a third world(developing) country and is a much poorer and underdeveloped country compared to Canada. What's new?
What relation does Canada being on number 4 have anything to do with the status of desis here in Canada?
Diogenes, What YOUR point? Aren't you the guy who wants only facts posted on the forum and not opinions?
In another thread, you're coming down upon someone asking about the US against the Cdn. dollar and telling him to google instead. So what's your point? Its a well known fact that pretty much everything on the site can be dug up on the net using google. Hey, why should anyone use google, you can probably use other search engines. But wait! Why do they even have other search engines when you can use google for everything? Maybe worth having a popup in Yahoo, MSN, Lycos et al. whenever someone does a search "Try google instead!".
If you don't think the UN employs the right techniques to rate countries, let's hear it. What's your alternative?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?
Quote:
Orginally posted by crenshaw
The HDI indicators clearly talk about “human development” and indicate overall quality of life by drawing on a large number of factors.
I didn't see that specifically mentioned anywhere in the report. Could you please give a cite?
Moreover, as I said earlier, on this board I guess we are more concerned about how suitable Canada is for immigrants in particular. It might well be a damn good place for a common person. The question is how good is Canada for qualified and skilled immigrants who had a reasonably good "overall quality of life" in their home country. Not all immigrants who come to Canada are from the professionally qualified group. Canada can, and is in fact, an exceptional haven for people who were not so well off back home. My point is that the HDI indicators are not equally applicable to immigrants. Those indicators and statistics are generated taking the entire population of countries. The type of immigrants in context form a miniscule(less than 2% ) part of the population. Those indicators therefore lose their relevance to this small sub section.
Quote:
Orginally posted by crenshaw
They have also been referred to as being "measures of well being".
Yes. But for the general average individual. Doesn’t necessarily apply to immigrants in equal measure.
Quote:
Orginally posted by crenshaw
Amongst others, the factors include factors economic factors like per capita income, government debt as a percentage of GDP, government spending on education, etc.
True, but let me explain by example.
The per capita income here is higher in Canada than in India. The major reason that the per capita income is lower in India is because of the huge population base, and the much larger ratio in it of those that have poor income. The average thus gets dragged down. However, the income of a typical immigrant from India is way above average. Therefore comparing the per capita income of Canada with that of India does not generate a correct picture for the immigrant class. To create a more balanced and accurate impression, the average per capita income of people in Canada that are EQUIVALENT to immigrants in terms of qualification and experience needs to be taken into account. And when that is done, the scale gets tilted highly unfavourably against the latter.
Quote:
Orginally posted by crenshaw
They also include things like access to technology for the general population (if you look at it very simplistically this could be as simple as the fact that you use hi-speed internet in Canada, while you’d be using dial-up in India).
Again, please remember that the context of discussion is not the “general population” but only the immigrant class.
Quote:
Orginally posted by crenshaw
As regards the argument that immigrants come from a higher income group and therefore would have access to the best resources in their home countries, one has to take into consideration the fact that we live in communities. Islanding yourself and cornering a good share of the resources, doesn’t necessarily contribute to a great quality of life if 70% - 80% of the population is left behind.
An immigrant does not really care if “70% - 80% of the population is left behind.”? A typical immigrant is a self seeking individual in search of purely selfish interests. He has a capitalistic outlook to life and is not someone who loses any sleep over the fact that “70% - 80% of the population is left behind.” The immigrant, like any other average citizen of his country, does not really do much more than preach about social progress and amelioration of the down-trodden. Let’s save that for some other discussion please!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diogenes
====================
The Cynic
