ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTRIES

Contents
1. Developed country
2. Developing country
3. Least Developed Countries
4. World Bank high-income economy
5. Newly industrialized country
6. Heavily indebted poor countries
7. Three-World Model
7.1. First World
7.2. Second World
7.3. Third World
7.4. Fourth World
8. Gross domestic product (GDP)
8.1. Nominal
8.2. Purchasing power parity (PPP)
9. Gross national income (GNI)
10.Wages
11.Wealth
12.Other national accounts
12.1. Gross National Happiness
12.2. Net material product
12.3. Research and development spending
13.Human development
13.1. Human Development Index
13.2. Human Poverty Index
13.3. Percentage living in poverty
13.4. Household income
13.5. Social Progress Index
14.Net international investment position (NIIP)
 1. Developed country
World map representing Human Development Index categories (based on 2017 data, published
in 2018).[1]
1.000–0.800 (very high) 0.350–0.554 (low)
0.700–0.799 (high) Data unavailable
0.555–0.699 (medium)

A developed country, industrialized country, more developed country, or more

economically developed country (MEDC), is a sovereign state that has a developed economy
and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less industrialized nations. Most
commonly, the criteria for evaluating the degree of economic development are gross domestic
product (GDP), gross national product (GNP), the per capita income, level of industrialization,
amount of widespread infrastructure and general standard of living.[2] Which criteria are to be
used and which countries can be classified as being developed are subjects of debate.

Developed countries have generally post-industrial economies, meaning the service sector
provides more wealth than the industrial sector. They are contrasted with developing countries,
which are in the process of industrialization or pre-industrial and almost entirely agrarian, some
of which might fall into the category of least developed countries. As of 2015, advanced
economies comprise 60.8% of global GDP based on nominal values and 42.9% of global GDP
based on purchasing-power parity (PPP) according to the International Monetary Fund.[3] In
2017, the ten largest advanced economies by GDP in both nominal and PPP terms were
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom, and
the United States.[4]

Similar terms
See also: North–South divide

Terms linked to the concept developed country include "advanced country", "industrialized
country", "'more developed country" (MDC), "more economically developed country" (MEDC),
"Global North country", "first world country", and "post-industrial country". The term
industrialized country may be somewhat ambiguous, as industrialization is an ongoing process
that is hard to define. The first industrialized country was the United Kingdom, followed by
Belgium. Later it spread further to Germany, United States, France and other Western European
countries. According to some economists such as Jeffrey Sachs, however, the current divide
between the developed and developing world is largely a phenomenon of the 20th century.[5]

Definition and criteria

Economic criteria have tended to dominate discussions. One such criterion is income per capita;
countries with high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita would thus be described as
developed countries. Another economic criterion is industrialization; countries in which the
tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry dominate would thus be described as developed. More
recently another measure, the Human Development Index (HDI), which combines an economic
measure, national income, with other measures, indices for life expectancy and education has
become prominent. This criterion would define developed countries as those with a very high
(HDI) rating. The index, however, does not take into account several factors, such as the net
wealth per capita or the relative quality of goods in a country. This situation tends to lower the
ranking for some of the most advanced countries, such as the G7 members and others.[6][7]

According to the United Nations Statistics Division:

There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing"

countries or areas in the United Nations system.[8]

And it notes that:

The designations "developed" and "developing" are intended for statistical convenience and do
not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the
development process.[9]

Human Development Index (HDI)

Main articles: Human Development Index and List of countries by Human Development Index

The UN HDI is a statistical measure that gauges a country's level of human development. While
there is a strong correlation between having a high HDI score and a prosperous economy, the UN
points out that the HDI accounts for more than income or productivity. Unlike GDP per capita or
per capita income, the HDI takes into account how income is turned "into education and health
opportunities and therefore into higher levels of human development."

Since 1990, Norway (2001–2006, 2009–2017), Japan (1990–1991 and 1993), Canada (1992 and
1994–2000) and Iceland (2007–2008) have had the highest HDI score.

Many countries listed by IMF or[Note 1] CIA as "advanced", possess an HDI over 0.800, the
threshold for "very high" human development. Many countries[Note 2] possessing an HDI of 0.800
and over are also listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced". Thus, many "advanced economies" are
characterized by an HDI score of 0.800 or higher. Since April 2016, the IMF classifies Macau as
an advanced economy.[10]

The 2018 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was
released on 14 September 2018, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2017.[citation
needed]
Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries:[11]

 = increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
 The number in parentheses represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or
down) relative to the ranking in the year of 2016.
 Rank HDI Rank HDI
Change Change
Change Change
2018 in rank Country/Territo 2018 from 2018 in rank 2018
ranking from ranking Country from
ry previou ranking from ranking
s previou s previou
s year s previou s
[1] s [1] [1] [1] s year
[1] s [1]
year[1] year[1]
1 Norway 0.953 0.002 31 (1) Greece 0.870 0.002
2 Switzerland 0.944 0.001 32 Cyprus 0.869 0.002
3 Australia 0.939 0.001 33 (1) Poland 0.865 0.005
4 Ireland 0.938 0.004 United
34 (1) 0.863 0.001
Arab Emirates
5 (1) Germany 0.936 0.002
35 Andorra 0.858 0.002
6 Iceland 0.935 0.002
35 (1) Lithuania 0.858 0.003
7 (1) Hong Kong 0.933 0.003
37 (1) Qatar 0.856 0.001
7 Sweden 0.933 0.001
38 (1) Slovakia 0.855 0.002
9 (1) Singapore 0.932 0.002
39 (1) Brunei 0.853 0.001
10 Netherlands 0.931 0.003 Saudi
39 (1) 0.853 0.001
Arabia
11 (1) Denmark 0.929 0.001
41 (2) Latvia 0.847 0.003
12 Canada 0.926 0.004
41 (1) Portugal 0.847 0.002
13 (1) United States 0.924 0.002
43 (2) Bahrain 0.846
United
14 0.922 0.002 44 Chile 0.843 0.001
Kingdom
15 Finland 0.920 0.002 45 Hungary 0.838 0.003

16 New Zealand 0.917 0.002 46 Croatia 0.831 0.003

17 (1) Belgium 0.916 0.001 47 Argentina 0.825 0.003

17 (1) Liechtenstein 0.916 0.001 48 (1) Oman 0.821 0.001

19 Japan 0.909 0.002 49 Russia 0.816 0.001

20 Austria 0.908 0.002 Monteneg

50 0.814 0.004
ro
21 Luxembourg 0.904 0.001
51 (1) Bulgaria 0.813 0.003
22 Israel 0.903 0.001 52 Romania 0.811
 22 (1) South Korea 0.903 0.003 0.004
53 (1) Belarus 0.808 0.003
24 France 0.901 0.002
54 (1) Bahamas 0.807 0.001
25 Slovenia 0.896 0.002
55 (1) Uruguay 0.804 0.002
26 Spain 0.891 0.002
Czech 56 (1) Kuwait 0.803 0.001
27 0.888 0.003
Republic
57 Malaysia 0.802 0.003
28 Italy 0.880 0.002
58 (1) Barbados 0.800 0.001
29 Malta 0.878 0.003
Kazakhsta
58 (2) 0.800 0.003
30 Estonia 0.871 0.003 n

As a non-UN member, the government of Taiwan calculates its own HDI, which had a value of
0.882 in 2011.[12] Additionally, while the HDI for the Chinese special administrative region of
Hong Kong is calculated by the UN, it is not for Macau. The Macanese government calculated
the territory's HDI to be 0.868 in 2011. These values place both Taiwan and Macau well within
the list of countries with "Very high human development".[13] Furthermore, in 2009 a United
Nations project calculated the HDI for all of its members, as well as Taiwan, Macau, and many
dependent territories. The HDI values for the countries of San Marino and Monaco, which have
not been included in official annual HDI reports, were found to be at 0.961 and 0.956
respectively. This places both countries firmly within the category of countries with "Very high
human development" as well. The dependent territories with HDI values equivalent to "Very
high human development" were: Jersey, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey, Gibraltar, Norfolk
Island, Faroe Islands, Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Falkland Islands, Aruba, Puerto Rico,
Martinique, Greenland, and Guam.[14] Of note, the HDI values in the 2009 report were calculated
using the old HDI formula, while HDI values after the year 2010 are calculated with a different
formula.

High-income economies
Some institutions have produced lists of developed countries: the UN (list shown above), the
CIA,[15] and some providers of stock market indices (the FTSE Group, MSCI, S&P, Dow Jones,
STOXX, etc.). The latter is not included here because its association of developed countries with
countries with both high incomes and developed markets is not deemed as directly
relevant.[why?][Note 3]

However many other institutions have created more general lists referred to when discussing
developed countries. For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identifies 39
"advanced economies".[10][16] The OECD's 36 members are known as the "developed countries
club"[17][18][19] The World Bank identifies 81 "high income countries".[20]

World Bank high-income economies

Main articles: World Bank high-income economy and List of countries by GNI (nominal, Atlas
method) per capita

World Bank high-income economies in 2016

According to the World Bank the following 81 countries (including territories) are classified as
"high-income economies".[20] As of 2018, High-income economies are those that had a GNI per
capita of $12,056 or more - in 2017.

36 countries and territories wholly or partly in Europe:

 Andorra
 Austria
 Belgium
 Channel Islands
 Croatia
 Czech Republic
 Denmark
 Estonia
 Faroe Islands
 Finland
 France
 Germany
 Gibraltar
 Greece
 Hungary
 Iceland
 Ireland
 Isle of Man
 Italy
 Liechtenstein
 Latvia
 Lithuania
  Luxembourg
 Malta
 Monaco
 Netherlands
 Norway
 Poland
 Portugal
 San Marino
 Slovakia
 Slovenia
 Spain
 Sweden
 Switzerland
 United Kingdom

19 countries and territories wholly or partly in North America:

 Antigua and Barbuda

 Aruba
 Bahamas
 Barbados
 Bermuda
 British Virgin Islands
 Canada
 Cayman Islands
 Curaçao c
 Greenland
 Panama
 Puerto Rico
 Saint Martin
 Sint Maarten c
 Saint Kitts and Nevis
 Turks and Caicos Islands
 Trinidad and Tobago
 United States
 U.S. Virgin Islands

15 countries and territories wholly or partly in Asia:

 Bahrain
 Brunei
 Cyprus
 Hong Kong
 Israel
 Japan
  Kuwait
 Macau
 Oman
 Qatar
 Saudi Arabia
 Singapore
 South Korea
 Taiwan
 United Arab Emirates

7 countries and territories wholly or partly in Oceania:

 Australia
 French Polynesia
 Guam
 New Caledonia
 New Zealand
 Northern Mariana Islands
 Palau

3 countries wholly or partly in South America:

 Argentina
 Chile
 Uruguay

1 country wholly or partly in Africa:

 Seychelles

c
Between 1994 and 2009, as part of the Netherlands Antilles.

High-income OECD members

According to the World Bank, the following 34 members are classified as "OECD High-
Income": [21][22]

26 countries wholly or partly in Europe:

 Austria
 Belgium
 Czech Republic
 Denmark
 Estonia
 Finland
  France
 Germany
 Greece
 Hungary
 Iceland
 Ireland
 Italy
 Latvia
 Lithuania
 Luxembourg
 Netherlands
 Norway
 Poland
 Portugal
 Slovakia
 Slovenia
 Spain
 Sweden
 Switzerland
 United Kingdom

3 countries wholly or partly in Asia:

 Israel
 Japan
 South Korea

2 countries in North America:

 Canada
 United States

2 countries wholly or partly in Oceania:

 Australia
 New Zealand

1 country wholly or partly in South America:

 Chile

Development Assistance Committee members

Member nations of the Development Assistance Committee
See also: Development Assistance Committee

There are 29 OECD member countries and the European Union—in the Development Assistance
Committee (DAC),[23] a group of the world's major donor countries that discuss issues
surrounding development aid and poverty reduction in developing countries.[24] The following
OECD member countries are DAC members:

23 countries wholly or partly in Europe:

 Austria
 Belgium
 Czech Republic
 Denmark
 Finland
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Hungary
 Iceland
 Ireland
 Italy
 Luxembourg
 Netherlands
 Norway
 Poland
 Portugal
 Slovakia
 Slovenia
 Spain
 Sweden
 Switzerland
 United Kingdom

2 countries wholly or partly in Asia:

 Japan
  South Korea

2 countries wholly or partly in North America:

 Canada
 United States

2 countries wholly or partly in Oceania:

 Australia
 New Zealand

IMF advanced economies

Countries described as Advanced Economies by the IMF

According to the International Monetary Fund, the following 39 economies are classified as
"advanced economies":[10]

33 countries and territories wholly or partly in Europe:

 Andorra d
 Austria
 Belgium
 Czech Republic
 Denmark
 Estonia
 Faroe Islands d
 Finland
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Guernsey d
 Holy See d
  Iceland
 Ireland
 Italy
 Jersey d
 Latvia
 Liechtenstein d
 Lithuania
 Luxembourg
 Malta
 Monaco d
 Netherlands
 Norway
 Portugal
 San Marino
 Slovakia
 Slovenia
 Spain
 Sweden
 Switzerland
 United Kingdom

8 countries and territories in Asia:

 Cyprus
 Hong Kong
 Israel
 Japan
 Macau
 Singapore
 South Korea
 Taiwan

4 countries and territories in America:

 Bermuda d
 Canada
 Puerto Rico
 United States

2 countries in Oceania-Antarctica:

 Australia
 New Zealand
d
The CIA has modified an older version of the IMF's list of Advanced Economies, noting that
the IMF's Advanced Economies list "would presumably also cover the following nine smaller
countries of Andorra, Bermuda, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Holy See, Jersey, Liechtenstein,
Monaco, and San Marino[...]"[15]

Paris Club members

Permanent members of the Paris Club

There are 22 permanent members in the Paris Club (French: Club de Paris), a group of officials
from major creditor countries whose role is to find coordinated and sustainable solutions to the
payment difficulties experienced by debtor countries.

15 countries wholly or partly in Europe:

 Austria
 Belgium
 Denmark
 Finland
 France
 Germany
 Ireland
 Italy
 Netherlands
 Norway
 Russia
 Spain
 Sweden
 Switzerland
 United Kingdom

3 countries wholly or partly in Asia:

 Israel
 Japan
  South Korea

3 countries in the Americas:

 Canada
 United States
 Brazil

1 country in Oceania:

 Australia

2. Developing country
World map representing Human Development Index categories (based on 2017 data, published
in 2018).[1]
1.000–0.800 (very high) 0.350–0.554 (low)
0.700–0.799 (high) Data unavailable
0.555–0.699 (medium)

A developing country (or a low and middle income country (LMIC), less developed country,
less economically developed country (LEDC), or underdeveloped country) is a country with
a less developed industrial base and a low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other
countries.[2] However, this definition is not universally agreed upon. There is also no clear
agreement on which countries fit this category.[3] A nation's GDP per capita compared with other
nations can also be a reference point.

The term "developing" describes a currently observed situation and not a changing dynamic or
expected direction of progress. Since the late 1990s, developing countries tended to demonstrate
higher growth rates than developed countries.[4] Developing countries include, in decreasing
order of economic growth or size of the capital market: newly industrialized countries, emerging
markets, frontier markets, least developed countries. Therefore, the least developed countries are
the poorest of the developing countries.

Developing countries tend to have some characteristics in common. For example, with regards to
health risks, they commonly have: low levels of access to safe drinking water, sanitation and
hygiene; energy poverty; high levels of pollution (e.g. air pollution, indoor air pollution, water
pollution); high proportion of people with tropical and infectious diseases (neglected tropical
diseases); high number of road traffic accidents. Often, there is also widespread poverty, low
education levels, inadequate access to family planning services, corruption at all government
levels and a lack of so-called good governance. Effects of global warming (climate change) are
expected to impact developing countries more than wealthier countries, as most of them have a
high "climate vulnerability".[5]

The Sustainable Development Goals, by the United Nations, were set up to help overcome many
of these problems. Development aid or development cooperation is financial aid given by
governments and other agencies to support the economic, environmental, social and political
development of developing countries.
Definitions

Developing economies according to the IMF

Developing economies out of scope of the IMF
Graduated to developed economy
Newly industrialized countries
(As of 2014)[citation needed]

Least Developed Countries

Graduated to developing economies (as of 2008)[citation needed]

The UN acknowledges that it has "no established convention for the designation of "developed"
and "developing" countries or areas".[6][3] According to its so-called M49 standards, published in
1999:

The designations "developed" and "developing" are intended for statistical convenience and do
not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the
development process.[7][8]

The UN implies that developing countries are those not on a tightly defined list of developed
countries:

There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing"

countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and
the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are
considered "developed" regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African
Customs Union is also treated as a developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries
emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of
eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States [the former Soviet Union] in
Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions.[3]

However, under other criteria, some countries are at an intermediate stage of development, or, as
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) put it, following the fall of the Soviet Union, "countries
in transition": all those of Central and Eastern Europe (including Central European countries that
still belonged to the "Eastern Europe Group" in the UN institutions); the former Soviet Union
(USSR) countries in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan); and Mongolia. By 2009, the IMF's World Economic Outlook classified countries
as advanced, emerging, or developing, depending on "(1) per capita income level, (2) export
diversification—so oil exporters that have high per capita GDP would not make the advanced
classification because around 70% of its exports are oil, and (3) degree of integration into the
global financial system"[9]

Along with the current level of development, countries can also be classified by how much their
level of development has changed over a specific period of time.[10]

In the 2016 edition of its World Development Indicators, the World Bank made a decision to no
longer distinguish between “developed” and “developing” countries in the presentation of its
data, considering the two-category distinction outdated.[11] Instead, the World Bank classifies
countries into four groups, based on Gross National Income per capita, re-set each year on July
1. In 2016, the four categories in US dollars were:[11]

 Low income countries: $1,025 or less.

 Lower middle income countries: $1,026 to $4,035.
 Upper middle income countries: $4,036 to $12,236.
 High income countries: $12,237 and above

Measure and concept of development

Least developed economies according to ECOSOC

Least developed economies out of scope of the ECOSOC
Graduated to developing economy
[when?][citation needed]
Newly industrialized countries as of 2013.[citation needed]

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, defined a developed country as
"one that allows all its citizens to enjoy a free and healthy life in a safe environment".[12]

Development can be measured by economic or human factors. Developing countries are, in

general, countries that have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their
populations, and have, in most cases, a medium to low standard of living. There is an association
between low income and high population growth.[13] The development of a country is measured
with statistical indexes such as income per capita (per person), gross domestic product per capita,
life expectancy, the rate of literacy, freedom index and others. The UN has developed the Human
Development Index (HDI), a compound indicator of some of the above statistics, to gauge the
level of human development for countries where data is available. The UN had set Millennium
Development Goals from a blueprint developed by all of the world's countries and leading
development institutions, in order to evaluate growth.[14] These goals ended in 2015, to be
superseded by the Sustainable Development Goals.

The concept of the developing nation is found, under one term or another, in numerous
theoretical systems having diverse orientations — for example, theories of decolonization,
liberation theology, Marxism, anti-imperialism, modernization, social change and political
economy.

Another important indicator is the sectoral changes that have occurred since the stage of
development of the country. On an average, countries with a 50% contribution from the
secondary sector (manufacturing) have grown substantially. Similarly countries with a tertiary
sector stronghold also see a greater rate of economic development.

Terms used to classify levels of development

There are several terms used to classify countries into rough levels of development.
Classification of any given country differs across sources, and sometimes these classifications or
the specific terminology used is considered disparaging. Use of the term "market" instead of
"country" usually indicates specific focus on the characteristics of the countries' capital markets
as opposed to the overall economy.

 Developed countries and developed markets

  Developing countries include in decreasing order of economic growth or size of the
capital market:
o Newly industrialized countries[15][16][17][18]
o Emerging markets
o Frontier markets
o Least developed countries

Developing countries can also be categorized by geography:

 Small Island Developing States

 Landlocked Developing Countries

Other classifications include:

 Heavily indebted poor countries, a definition by a program of the IMF and World Bank
 Transition economy, moving from a centrally planned to market-driven economy
 Multi-dimensional clustering system: with the understanding that different countries have
different development priorities and levels of access to resources and institutional
capacities[19] and to offer a more nuanced understanding of developing countries and their
characteristics, scholars have categorised them into five distinct groups based on factors
such as levels of poverty and inequality, productivity and innovation, political constraints
and dependence on external flows.[20][21]

Criticisms and other terms

There is criticism for using the term "developing country". The term could imply inferiority of
this kind of country compared with a developed country. It could assume a desire to develop
along the traditional Western model of economic development which a few countries, such as
Cuba and Bhutan, choose not to follow.[22] Alternative measurements such as gross national
happiness have been suggested as important indicators.

The classification of countries as "developing" implies that other countries are developed. This
bipartite division is contentious.[citation needed]

To moderate the euphemistic aspect of the word "developing", international organizations have
started to use the term less economically developed country for the poorest nations—which can,
in no sense, be regarded as developing. This highlights that the standard of living across the
entire developing world varies greatly. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries,
underdeveloped nations, and non-industrialized nations. Conversely, developed countries, most
economically developed countries, industrialized nations are the opposite end of the spectrum.

Third World

Main article: Third World

Over the past few decades since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the
term Third World has been used interchangeably with developing countries, but the concept has
become outdated in recent years as it no longer represents the current political or economic state
of the world. The three-world model arose during the Cold War to define countries aligned with
NATO (the First World), the Communist Bloc (the Second World, although this term was less
used), or neither (the Third World). Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than
an economic, grouping.

Global South

Main article: Global South

The term "Global South" began to be used more widely since about 2004.[23][24] It can also
include poorer "southern" regions of wealthy "northern" countries.[25] The Global South refers to
these countries' "interconnected histories of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and differential
economic and social change through which large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy,
and access to resources are maintained".[26]

Common challenges
Most developing countries have these criteria in common:[27][28]

 High levels of poverty – measured based on GNI per capita averaged over three years.
For example, if the GNI per capita is less than US $1,025 (as of 2018) the country is
regarded as a least developed country.[28]
 Human resource weakness (based on indicators of nutrition, health, education and adult
literacy; for example low literacy levels).
 Economic vulnerability (based on instability of agricultural production, instability of
exports of goods and services, economic importance of non-traditional activities,
merchandise export concentration, handicap of economic smallness, and the percentage
of population displaced by natural disasters).

Urban slums

Main article: Slum

According to UN-Habitat, around 33% of the urban population in the developing world in 2012,
or about 863 million people, lived in slums.[29] In 2012, the proportion of urban population living
in slums was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (62%), followed by South Asia (35%), Southeast
Asia (31%) and East Asia (28%).[29]:127

The UN-Habitat reports that 43% of urban population in developing countries and 78% of those
in the least developed countries are slum dwellers.[30]

Slums form and grow in different parts of the world for many different reasons. Causes include
rapid rural-to-urban migration, economic stagnation and depression, high unemployment,
poverty, informal economy, forced or manipulated ghettoization, poor planning, politics, natural
disasters and social conflicts.[31][32][33] For example, as populations expand in poorer countries,
rural people are moving to cities in an extensive urban migration that is resulting in the creation
of slums.[34]

In some cities, especially in countries in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan, slums are not just
marginalized neighborhoods holding a small population; slums are widespread, and are home to
a large part of urban population. These are sometimes called "slum cities".[35]

Violence against women

Main article: Violence against women

Several forms of violence against women are more prevalent in developing countries than in
other parts of the world. For example, dowry violence and bride burning is associated with India,
Bangladesh and Nepal. Acid throwing is also associated with these countries, as well as in
Southeast Asia, including Cambodia. Honor killing is associated with the Middle East and South
Asia. Marriage by abduction is found in Ethiopia, Central Asia and the Caucasus. Abuse related
to payment of bride price (such as violence, trafficking and forced marriage) is linked to parts of
Sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania.[36][37]

Female genital mutilation is another form of violence against women which is still occurring in
many developing countries. It is found mostly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in the Middle East
and some other parts of Asia. Developing countries with the highest rate of women who have
been cut are Somalia (with 98 per cent of women affected), Guinea (96 per cent), Djibouti (93
per cent), Egypt (91 per cent), Eritrea (89 per cent), Mali (89 per cent), Sierra Leone (88 per
cent), Sudan (88 per cent), Gambia (76 per cent), Burkina Faso (76 per cent), and Ethiopia (74
per cent).[38] Due to globalization and immigration, FGM is spreading beyond the borders of
Africa and Middle East, to countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, New Zealand,
the U.S., and UK.[39]

The Istanbul Convention prohibits female genital mutilation (Article 38).[40] As of 2016, FGM
has been legally banned in many African countries.[41]

Public health

People in developing countries usually have a lower life expectancy than people in developed
countries.

Undernutrition is more common in developing countries.[42] Certain groups have higher rates of
undernutrition, including women—in particular while pregnant or breastfeeding—children under
five years of age, and the elderly. Malnutrition in children and stunted growth of children is the
cause for more than 200 million children under five years of age in developing countries not
reaching their developmental potential.[43] About 165 million children were estimated to have
stunted growth from malnutrition in 2013.[44] In some developing countries, overnutrition in the
form of obesity is beginning to present within the same communities as undernutrition.[45]
The following list shows the further significant environmentally-related causes or conditions, as
well as certain diseases with a strong environmental component:[46]

 Illness/disease (malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS, etc.): Illness imposes high and regressive
cost burdens on families in developing countries.[47]
 Tropical and infectious diseases (neglected tropical diseases)
 Unsafe drinking water, poor sanitation and hygiene
 Indoor air pollution in developing nations
 Pollution (e.g. air pollution, water pollution)
 Motor vehicle collisions
 Unintentional poisoning
 Non communicable diseases and weak healthcare systems

Water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH)

Main article: WASH

Further information: Water issues in developing countries and Water supply and women in
developing countries

Access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services is at very low levels in many
developing countries. In 2015 the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that "1 in 3
people, or 2.4 billion, are still without sanitation facilities" while 663 million people still lack
access to safe and clean drinking water.[48][49] The estimate in 2017 by JMP states that 4.5 billion
people currently do not have safely managed sanitation.[50] The majority of these people live in
developing countries.

About 892 million people, or 12 per cent of the global population, practiced open defecation
instead of using toilets in 2016.[50] Seventy-six per cent (678 million) of the 892 million people
practicing open defecation in the world live in just seven countries. India is the country with the
highest number of people practicing open defecation.[50] Further countries with a high number of
people openly defecating are Nigeria (47 million), followed by Indonesia (31 million), Ethiopia
(27 million), Pakistan (23 million),[51] Niger (14 million) and Sudan (11 million).[50][52]

Sustainable Development Goal 6 is one of 17 Sustainable Development Goals established by the

UN in 2015. It calls for clean water and sanitation for all people. This is particularly relevant for
people in developing countries.

Energy

Main articles: Energy poverty and Renewable energy in developing countries

In 2009, about 1.4 billion of people in the world lived without electricity, and 2.7 billion relied
on wood, charcoal, and dung (dry animal dung fuel) for home energy requirements. This lack of
access to modern energy technology limits income generation, blunts efforts to escape poverty,
affects people's health, and contributes to global deforestation and climate change. Small-scale
renewable energy technologies and distributed energy options, such as onsite solar power and
improved cookstoves, offer rural households modern energy services.[53]

Renewable energy can be particularly suitable for developing countries. In rural and remote
areas, transmission and distribution of energy generated from fossil fuels can be difficult and
expensive. Producing renewable energy locally can offer a viable alternative.[54]

Renewable energy can directly contribute to poverty alleviation by providing the energy needed
for creating businesses and employment. Renewable energy technologies can also make indirect
contributions to alleviating poverty by providing energy for cooking, space heating, and
lighting.[55]

Kenya is the world leader in the number of solar power systems installed per capita.[56]

Pollution

Indoor air pollution

Indoor air pollution in developing nations is a major health hazard.[57] A major source of indoor
air pollution in developing countries is the burning of biomass. Three billion people in
developing countries across the globe rely on biomass in the form of wood, charcoal, dung, and
crop residue, as their domestic cooking fuel.[58] Because much of the cooking is carried out
indoors in environments that lack proper ventilation, millions of people, primarily poor women
and children face serious health risks.

Globally, 4.3 million deaths were attributed to exposure to IAP in developing countries in 2012,
almost all in low and middle income countries. The South East Asian and Western Pacific
regions bear most of the burden with 1.69 and 1.62 million deaths, respectively. Almost 600,000
deaths occur in Africa.[59] An earlier estimate from 2000 but the death toll between 1.5 million
and 2 million deaths.[60]

Finding an affordable solution to address the many effects of indoor air pollution is complex.
Strategies include improving combustion, reducing smoke exposure, improving safety and
reducing labor, reducing fuel costs, and addressing sustainability.[61]

Water pollution

Water pollution is a major problem in many developing countries. It requires ongoing evaluation
and revision of water resource policy at all levels (international down to individual aquifers and
wells). It has been suggested that water pollution is the leading worldwide cause of death and
diseases,[62][63] and that it accounts for the deaths of more than 14,000 people daily.[63]

India and China are two countries with high levels of water pollution: An estimated 580 people
in India die of water pollution related illness (including waterborne diseases) every day.[64] About
90 per cent of the water in the cities of China is polluted.[65] As of 2007, half a billion Chinese
had no access to safe drinking water.[66]
Further details of water pollution in several countries, including many developing countries:

Water pollution by country

Global warming

Further information: Regional effects of global warming and Climate change adaptation

The effects of global warming such as extreme weather events, droughts, floods, biodiversity
loss, disease and sea level rise are dangerous for humans and the environment.[67] Developing
countries are the least able to adapt to climate change (and are therefore called "highly climate
vulnerable") due to their relatively low levels of wealth, technology, education, infrastructure
and access to resources. This applies to many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa or Small Island
Developing States. Some of those island states are likely to face total inundation.[68] Fragile
states or failed states like Afghanistan, Haiti, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, and Somalia are among
the worst affected.

Climate vulnerability has been quantified in the Climate Vulnerability Monitor reports of 2010
and 2012. Climate vulnerability in developing countries occurs in four impact areas: health,
extreme weather, habitat loss, and economic stress.[67][5] A report by the Climate Vulnerability
Monitor in 2012 estimated that climate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year,
mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases in developing countries.[69]:17 These effects are
most severe for the world’s poorest countries.

A changing climate also results in economic burdens. The economies in Least Developed
Countries have lost an average of 7% of their gross domestic product for the year 2010, mainly
due to reduced labor productivity.[69]:14 Rising sea levels cost 1% of GDP to the least developed
countries in 2010 – 4% in the Pacific – with 65 billion dollars annually lost from the world
economy.[67] Another example is the impact on fisheries: approximately 40 countries are acutely
vulnerable to the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on fisheries. Developing countries with
large fisheries sectors are particularly affected.[69]:279

In many cases, developing countries produce only small quantities of greenhouse gas emissions
per capita but are very vulnerable to the negative effects of global warming.[68] Such countries
include Comoros, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Solomon Islands and
Vanuatu - they have been called "forced riders" as opposed to the "free riders".[5] Internationally
there is recognition of this issue, which is known under the term "climate justice". It has been a
key topic at the United Nations Climate Change Conferences (COP).

During the Cancún COP16 in 2010, donor countries promised an annual $100 billion by 2020
through the Green Climate Fund for developing countries to adapt to climate change. However,
concrete pledges by developed countries have not been forthcoming.[70][71] Emmanuel Macron
(President of France) said at the 2017 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bonn (COP
23): "Climate change adds further injustice to an already unfair world".[72]
Climate stress is likely to add to existing migration patterns in developing countries and beyond
but is not expected to generate entirely new flows of people.[73]:110 A report by World Bank in
2018 estimated that around 143 million people in three regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia,
and Latin America) could be forced to move within their own countries to escape the slow-onset
impacts of climate change. They will migrate from less viable areas with lower water availability
and crop productivity and from areas affected by rising sea level and storm surges.[74]

Economic development and climate are inextricably linked, particularly around poverty, gender
equality, and energy.[75] Tackling climate change will only be possible if the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) are met (goal number 13 is on climate action).[75]

Population growth

Over the last few decades, global population growth has largely been driven by developing
countries, which often have higher birth rates (higher fertility rate) than developed countries.
According to the United Nations, family planning can help to slow population growth and
decrease poverty in these countries.[76]

Country lists
Developing countries according to International Monetary Fund

The following are considered developing economies according to the International Monetary
Fund's World Economic Outlook Database, October 2018.[81][82]

 Afghanistan
 Argentina
 Bahamas
 Bahrain
 Bangladesh
 Bosnia and Herzegovina
 Brazil
 Brunei
 Bulgaria
 Cambodia
 Cameroon
 Chile
 China
 Colombia
 Croatia
 Ecuador
 Egypt
 Ghana
 Greece
 Honduras
 Hungary
 India
 Indonesia
 Iran
 Iraq
 Jamaica
 Jordan
 Kazakhstan
 Kenya
 Kuwait
 Kyrgyzstan
 Laos
 Malaysia
 Maldives
 Mexico
 Myanmar
 Namibia
 Nauru
 Nepal
 Nicaragua
 Niger
 Nigeria
 Oman
 Pakistan
 Palau
 Panama
 Papua New Guinea
 Paraguay
 Peru
 Philippines
 Poland
 Qatar
 Romania
 Russia
 Saudi Arabia
 South Africa
 South Sudan
 Sri Lanka
 Sudan
 Suriname
 Syria
 Thailand
 Tunisia
 Turkey
 Ukraine
  United Arab Emirates
 Uruguay
 Uzbekistan
 Vietnam
 Yemen

Countries not listed by IMF

 Cuba
 North Korea

Countries and regions that are graduated developed economies

The following, including the Four Asian Tigers and new Eurozone European countries, were
considered developing countries and regions until the '90s, and are now listed as advanced
economies (developed countries and regions) by the IMF. Time in brackets is the time to be
listed as advanced economies.

 Hong Kong (since 1997)[83]

 Israel (since 1997)[83]
 Singapore (since 1997)[83]
 South Korea (since 1997)[83]
 Taiwan (since 1997)[83]
 Cyprus (since 2001)[84]
 Slovenia (since 2007)[85]
 Malta (since 2008)[86]
 Czech Republic (since 2009,[87] since 2006 by World Bank)[88]
 Slovakia (since 2009)[87]
 Estonia (since 2011)[89]
 Latvia (since 2014)[90]
 Lithuania (since 2015)[91]

Three economies lack data before being listed as advanced economies. Because of the lack of
data, it is difficult to judge whether they were advanced economies or developing economies
before being listed as advanced economies.

 San Marino (since 2012)[92]

 Macau (since 2016)[93]
 Puerto Rico (Since 2016) [93]

BRICS countries

Five countries belong to the "emerging markets" groups and are together called the BRICS
countries:
  Brazil (since 2006)
 Russia (since 2006)
 India (since 2006)
 China (since 2006)
 South Africa (since 2010)

3. Least Developed Countries

Least Developed Countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Least Developed Countries

Former LDCs

The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is a list of developing countries that, according to the
United Nations, exhibit the lowest indicators of socioeconomic development, with the lowest
Human Development Index ratings of all countries in the world. The concept of LDCs originated
in the late 1960s and the first group of LDCs was listed by the UN in its resolution 2768 (XXVI)
of 18 November 1971.[1]

A country is classified among the Least Developed Countries if it meets three criteria:[2][3]

 Poverty – adjustable criterion based on GNI per capita averaged over three years. As of
2018 a country must have GNI per capita less than US$1,025 to be included on the list,
and over $1,230 to graduate from it.
 Human resource weakness (based on indicators of nutrition, health, education and adult
literacy).
  Economic vulnerability (based on instability of agricultural production, instability of
exports of goods and services, economic importance of non-traditional activities,
merchandise export concentration, handicap of economic smallness, and the percentage
of population displaced by natural disasters).

Contents
 1 Overview
 2 Usage and abbreviations
 3 UN conferences on the least developed countries
 4 Role of civil society
 5 Trade and LDCs
 6 Current LDCs
o 6.1 Africa
o 6.2 Asia
o 6.3 Oceania
o 6.4 Americas
 7 Former LDCs
 8 See also
 9 Notes
 10 Further reading
 11 External links

Overview
LDC criteria are reviewed every three years by the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) of
the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Countries may "graduate" out of the LDC
classification when indicators exceed these criteria in two consecutive triennial reviews.[4] The
United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,
Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)
coordinates UN support and provides advocacy services for Least Developed Countries. The
classification (as of June 2017) applies to 47 countries.[5]

Since the LDC category was initiated, only four countries have graduated to developing country
status. The first country to graduate from LDC status was Botswana in 1994. The second country
was Cape Verde in 2007.[6] Maldives graduated to developing country status on 1 January 2011,
while Samoa graduated in 2014.[7][8] At the UN's fourth conference on LDCs, which was held in
May 2011, delegates endorsed a goal targeting the promotion of at least half the current LDC
countries within the next ten years.[9]

There are three countries which presently meet the criteria for LDC status, but have declined to
be included in the index, questioning the validity or accuracy of the CDP's data: Ghana, Papua
New Guinea, and Zimbabwe.[10]
Usage and abbreviations
Least developed countries can be distinguished from developing countries, "less developed
countries", "lesser developed countries", or other terms for countries in the so-called Third
World. Although many contemporary scholars argue that "Third World" is outdated, irrelevant or
inaccurate, others may use the term "Fourth World" in reference to least developed countries
(although Fourth World is also used to refer to stateless ethnic groups). The term "less
economically developed country" (LEDC) is also used today.

However, in order to avoid confusion between "least developed country" and or LEDC "less
economically developed country" (which may both be abbreviated as LDC), and to avoid
confusion with landlocked developing country (which can be abbreviated as LLDC),
"developing country" is generally used in preference to "less-developed country".

During a United Nations review in 2018, the UN defined LDCs as countries meeting three
criteria, one of which was a three-year average estimate of gross national income (GNI) per
capita of less than US $1,025. Countries with populations over 75 million are excluded.[11]

UN conferences on the least developed countries

There have been four United Nations conferences on LDCs, held every ten years. The first two
were in Paris, in 1981 and 1991; the third was in Brussels in 2001.

The Fourth UN Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDC-IV) was held in Istanbul,
Turkey, 9–13 May 2011. It was attended by Ban Ki-Moon, the head of the UN, and close to 50
prime ministers and heads of state. The conference endorsed the goal of raising half the existing
Least developed countries out of the LDC category by 2022. As with the Seoul Development
Consensus drawn up in 2010, there was a strong emphasis on boosting productive capability and
physical infrastructure, with several NGOs not pleased with the emphases placed on the private
sector.[9][12]

Role of civil society

In the process of increasing awareness towards the needs of the LDCs, the importance of the
inputs and contributions of the members of the Civil Society were first acknowledged during the
NGO Forum held in parallel to the third UN Conference on Least Developed Countries in
Brussels in 2001. The importance of civil society and its contributions has also been recognised
in the UNGA Resolution 63/227. Post LDC III, civil society actors have been actively engaged
and involved in the UN Decision making processes concerning LDCs. They have also been
involved in the implementation and follow-up, monitoring and review of the progress made by
LDCs and the success of the implementation of the BPoA. For LDC IV, the UN-OHRLLS has
entrusted LDC Watch, a global network of LDC Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), with taking
the lead in coordinating the civil society track.
LDC Watch has organised civil society consultations at various levels. At the regional level, in
partnership with the UN-OHRLLS and relevant UN agencies, the following three consultations
have been organised:

1. Africa LDC Civil Society Assembly on 5–6 March 2010, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) in the
lead-up to the official regional review in Africa
2. Pacific LDC Civil Society Assembly on 3–6 August 2010, Port Vila (Vanuatu) in parallel
to the forty-first official Pacific Islands Forum
3. Asia LDC Civil Society Assembly on 22–23 November 2010, Bangkok (Thailand)

These consultations were organised to critically assess the progress made by LDCs in the ten
years since the adoption of the Brussels Programme of Action and with the intention of
influencing the outcome of LDC IV.

As the LDC Governments and their development partners prepare to gather together for UNLDC
IV, members of Civil Society are also preparing to meet during the Civil Society Forum, [1]
which is going to be held in parallel to the official conference. UN-OHRLLS has mandated LDC
Watch as the lead Civil Society Organization to coordinate the Civil Society track towards the
LDC-IV conference. The Forum will open two days before the official conference begins and
will continue till the end of the conference. It will bring together NGOs from all the LDCs, as
well as representatives from the civil society at all levels including women’s movements, youth
movements, trade unions, peasant federations, media personnel and human rights defenders.

Trade and LDCs

Issues surrounding global trade regulations and LDCs have gained a lot of media and policy
attention thanks to the recently collapsed Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO)
negotiations being termed a development round. During the WTO's Hong Kong Ministerial, it
was agreed that LDCs could see 100 percent duty-free, quota-free access to U.S. markets if the
round were completed. But analysis of the deal by NGOs found that the text of the proposed
LDC deal had substantial loopholes that might make the offer less than the full 100 percent
access, and could even erase some current duty-free access of LDCs to rich country
markets.[13][14] Dissatisfaction with these loopholes led some economists to call for a reworking
of the Hong Kong deal.[citation needed]

Dr. Chiedu Osakwe, as of 2001 the Director, Technical Cooperation Division at the Secretariat
of the WTO, and adviser to the Director-General on developing country matters, was appointed
as the WTO Special Coordinator for the Least Developed Countries beginning in 1999.[15] He
worked closely with the five other agencies that together with the WTO constitute the Integrated
Framework of action for the Least Developed Countries. They addressed issues of market access,
special and differential treatment provisions for developing countries, participation of developing
countries in the multilateral trading system, and development questions, especially the interests
of developing countries in competition policy.[16] At the 28th G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta,
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien proposed and carried the Market Access Initiative, so
that the then 48 LDCs could profit from "trade-not-aid".[17]
Current LDCs
The list of "least developed countries" according to the United Nations with some that are
categorised into the landlocked developing countries and the Small Island Developing States:[18]

Africa

In Africa there are 33 countries that are classified as least developed countries.

 Angola  Gambia  Rwanda[19]

 Benin
 Burkina Faso[19]
 Burundi[19]
 Central African
Republic[19]
 Chad[19]
 Comoros[20]
 Democratic
Republic of the Congo
 Djibouti
 Eritrea
 Ethiopia[19]
 Guinea  São Tomé and
 Guinea-Bissau Príncipe[20]
 Lesotho[19]  Senegal
 Liberia  Sierra Leone
 Madagascar  Somalia
 Malawi[19]  South Sudan[19]
 Mali[19]  Sudan
 Mauritania  Tanzania
 Mozambique  Togo
 Niger[19]  Uganda[19]
 Zambia[19]

Asia

In Asia there are 9 countries that are classified as least developed countries.

 Afghanistan[19]
 Bangladesh
 Bhutan[19]
 Cambodia
 East Timor[20]
 Laos[19]
 Myanmar
 Nepal[19]
 Yemen

Oceania

In Oceania there are 4 countries that are classified as least developed countries.

 Kiribati[20]
 Solomon Islands[20]
  Tuvalu[20]
 Vanuatu[20][21]

Americas

In the Americas there is one country that is classified as a least developed country.

 Haiti

Former LDCs
 Sikkim (became a state within the Republic of India in 1975)[22][23]
 Botswana (graduated from LDC status in 1994)[24]
 Cape Verde (graduated in 2007)[24]
 Maldives (graduated in 2011)[24]
 Samoa (graduated in 2014)[25]
 Equatorial Guinea (graduated in 2017)[26]

4. World Bank high-income economy

A high-income economy is defined by the World Bank as a country with a gross national
income per capita US$12,056 or more in 2017, calculated using the Atlas method.[1] While the
term "high-income" is often used interchangeably with "First World" and "developed country",
the technical definitions of these terms differ. The term "first world" commonly refers to
countries that aligned themselves with the U.S. and NATO during the Cold War. Several
institutions, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or International Monetary Fund
(IMF), take factors other than high per capita income into account when classifying countries as
"developed" or "advanced economies". According to the United Nations, for example, some
high-income countries may also be developing countries. The GCC countries, for example, are
classified as developing high-income countries. Thus, a high-income country may be classified
as either developed or developing.[2] Although the Holy See is a sovereign state, it is not
classified by the World Bank under this definition.

Contents
 1 List of high-income economies (as of 2019 fiscal year)
 o 1.1 High income UN members
o 1.2 High income non-UN members
o 1.3 Former high-income economies
 2 Historical thresholds
 3 See also
 4 References

List of high-income economies (as of 2019 fiscal year)

According to the World Bank the following 81 countries (including territories) are classified as
"high-income economies".[1] In brackets the year(s) during which they held such classification.
As of the 2019 fiscal year, high-income economies are those that had a GNI per capita of
$12,056 or more—in 2017.

High income UN members

 Andorra (1990–  Greece (1996–  Panama (2017–

present) present) present)
 Antigua and  Hungary (2007–11,  Poland (2009–
Barbuda (2002, 2005– 2014–present) present)
08, 2012–present)  Iceland (1987–  Portugal (1994–
 Argentina (2014, present) present)
2017–present)  Ireland (1987–  Qatar (1987–
 Australia (1987– present) present)
present)  Israel (1987–present)  Saint Kitts and
 Austria (1987–  Italy (1987–present) Nevis (2012–present)
present)  Japan (1987–present)  San Marino (1991–
 The Bahamas  South Korea (1993– 93, 2000–present)
(1987–present) 97, 1999–present)  Saudi Arabia
 Bahrain (1987–89,  Kuwait (1987– (1987–89, 2004–
2001–present) present) present)
 Barbados (1989,  Latvia (2009, 2012–  Seychelles (2014–
2000, 2002, 2006– present) present)
present)  Liechtenstein (1994–  Singapore (1987–
 Belgium (1987– present) present)
present)  Lithuania (2012–  Slovakia (2007–
 Brunei (1987, 1990– present) present)
present)  Luxembourg (1987–  Slovenia (1997–
 Canada (1987– present) present)
present)  Malta (1989, 1998,  Spain (1987–
 Chile (2012– 2000, 2002–present) present)
present)  Monaco (1994–  Sweden (1987–
 Croatia (2008–2015, present) present)
2017–present)  Netherlands (1987–  Switzerland (1987–
 Cyprus (1988– present) present)
 present)
 Czech Republic
(2006–present)
 Denmark (1987–
present)
 Estonia (2006–
present)
 Finland (1987–
present)
 France (1987–
present)
 Germany (1987–
present)
High income non-UN members
 Aruba (1987–
present)
 Bermuda (1987–
present)
 British Virgin
Islands (2015–present)
 Cayman Islands
(1993–present)
 Channel Islands
(1987–present)
 Curaçao (1994–
present)a
 Faroe Islands
(1987–present)
 French Polynesia
(1990–present)
Former high-income economies
In parenthesis the year(s) during which they held such classification.[3]
 American Samoa (1987–89)
 Equatorial Guinea (2007–14)
 Nauru (2015)
a
Between 1994 and 2009, as part of the
 New Zealand (1987–  Trinidad and
present) Tobago (2006–present)
 Norway (1987–  United Arab
present) Emirates ([year missing])
 Oman (2007–  United Kingdom
present) (1987–present)
 Palau (2016–present)  United States
(1987–present)
 Uruguay (2012–
present)
 Gibraltar (2009–10,  Northern Mariana
2015–present) Islands (1995–2001,
 Greenland (1987– 2007–present)
present)  Puerto Rico (1989,
 Guam (1987–89, 2002–present)
1995–present)  Saint Martin (2010–
 Hong Kong (1987– present)
present)  Sint Maarten (1994–
 Isle of Man (1987– present)a
89, 2002–present)  Taiwan (1987–
 Macao (1994– present)
present)  Turks and Caicos
 New Caledonia Islands (2009–present)
(1995–present)  U.S. Virgin Islands
(1987–present)
 Netherlands Antilles (1994–2009)b
 Russia (2012–14)
 Venezuela (2014)
Netherlands Antilles.
b
Dissolved on 10 October 2010. Succeeded by Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

Historical thresholds
The high-income threshold was originally set in 1989 at US$6,000 in 1987 prices. Thresholds for
subsequent years were adjusted taking into account the average inflation in the G-5 countries (the
United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and France), and from 2001, that of Japan,
the United Kingdom, the United States and the eurozone.[4] Thus, the thresholds remain constant
in real terms over time.[3] To ensure no country falls right on the threshold, country data are
rounded to the nearest 10 and income thresholds are rounded to the nearest 5.[5]

The following table shows the high-income threshold from 1987 onwards. Countries with a GNI
per capita (calculated using the Atlas method) above this threshold are classified by the World
Bank as "high-income economies".[3]

Date of
Year GNI per capita (US$)
classification
1987 6,000 October 2, 1988
1988 6,000 September 13, 1989
1989 6,000 August 29, 1990
1990 7,620 September 11, 1991
1991 7,910 August 24, 1992
1992 8,355 September 9, 1993
1993 8,625 September 2, 1994
1994 8,955 June 8, 1995
1995 9,385 June 3, 1996
1996 9,645 July 1, 1997
1997 9,655 July 1, 1998
1998 9,360 July 1, 1999
1999 9,265 July 1, 2000
2000 9,265 July 1, 2001
2001 9,205 July 1, 2002
2002 9,075 July 1, 2003
2003 9,385 July 1, 2004
2004 10,065 July 1, 2005
2005 10,725 July 1, 2006
2006 11,115 July 1, 2007
2007 11,455 July 1, 2008
2008 11,905 July 1, 2009
2009 12,195 July 1, 2010
 Date of
Year GNI per capita (US$)
classification
2010 12,275 July 1, 2011
2011 12,475 July 1, 2012
2012 12,615 July 1, 2013
2013 12,745 July 1, 2014
2014 12,735 July 1, 2015
2015 12,475 July 1, 2016
2016 12,236 July 1, 2017
2017 12,056 July 1, 2018

5. Newly industrialized country

The category of newly-industrialized country (NIC) is a socioeconomic classification applied
to several countries around the world by political scientists and economists.

Contents
 1 Definition
 2 Characteristics of newly industrialized countries
 3 Historical context
 4 Current
o 4.1 Other
 5 Criticism
 6 Problems
 7 See also
 8 References

Definition
NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached a developed country's status but have,
in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Such countries are still
considered developing nations and only differ from other developing nations in the rate at which
an NIC's grows is much higher over a shorter allotted time period compared to other developing
nations.[1][2] Another characterization of NICs is that of countries undergoing rapid economic
growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator
of an NIC. In many NICs, social upheaval can occur as primarily rural, or agricultural,
populations migrate to the cities, where the growth of manufacturing concerns and factories can
draw many thousands of laborers. NIC's introduce many new immigrants looking to improve
their social and or political status thorough newly formed democracy's and increase in wages that
most individuals who partake in such changes would obtain.[3]

Characteristics of newly industrialized countries

Newly industrialized countries can bring about an increase of stabilization in a country's social
and economic status, allowing the people living in these nations to begin to experience better
living conditions and better lifestyles. Another characteristic that appears in newly industrialized
countries is the further development in government structures, such as democracy, the rule of
law, and less corruption. Other such examples of a better lifestyle people living in such countries
can experience are better transportation, electricity, and better access to water, compared to other
developing countries.

Historical context
The term came into use around 1970, when the Four Asian Tigers[4] of Hong Kong, Singapore,
South Korea, and Taiwan rose to global prominence as NICs in the 1970s and 1980s, with
exceptionally fast industrial growth since the 1960s; all four economies have since graduated
into advanced economies and high-income economies. There is a clear distinction between these
countries and the countries now considered NICs. In particular, the combination of an open
political process, high GNI per capita, and a thriving, export-oriented economic policy has
shown that these countries have now not only reached but surpassed the ranks of many
developed countries.

All four economies are classified as high-income economies by the World Bank and Advanced
economies by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA). All of them, like Western European countries, have a Human Development Index
considered "very high" by the UN.

Current
The table below presents the list of countries consistently considered NICs by different authors
and experts.[5][6][7][8] Turkey and South Africa are classified as developed countries by the CIA.[9]
Turkey was a founding member of the OECD in 1961 and Mexico joined in 1994. The G8+5
group is composed of the original G8 members in addition to China, India, Mexico, South Africa
and Brazil.

Note: Green-colored cells indicate higher value or best performance in index, while yellow-colored cells indicate the
opposite.

GDP (PPP) GDP per Income

(international capita (PPP) inequality Human Real GDP
Region Country billions of (international (GINI) Development growth rate as Sources
dollars, 2017 dollars, 2008– Index (HDI, 2018)[14] of 2017[15]
IMF)[10] 2017IMF)[11] 17[12][13]
[6][7][8]
Africa South 762 13,403 63.4 0.699 0.695
 GDP (PPP) GDP per Income
(international capita (PPP) inequality Human Real GDP
Region Country billions of (international (GINI) Development growth rate as Sources
dollars, 2017 dollars, 2008– Index (HDI, 2018)[14] of 2017[15]
IMF)[10] 2017IMF)[11] 17[12][13]
Africa (medium)
North [5][6][7]
Mexico 2,406.2 19,480 48.3 0.774 (high) 2.145
America
South [5][6][7]
Brazil 3,219.1 15,500 51.3 0.759 (high) 0.748
America
[6][7]
China 23,122 16,624 42.2 0.752 (high) 6.5
0.640 [6][7][8]
India 9,446 7,174 37 7.5
(medium)
0.694 [6][7][8]
Indonesia 3,243 12,378 39.5 5.151
(medium)
Asia
0.802 (very [6][7][8]
Malaysia 923 28,871 46.3 5.43
high)
0.699 [5][6][7][8]
Philippines 879 8,229 40.1 6.6
(medium)
[5][6][7][8]
Thailand 1,229 16,917 37.8 0.755 (high) 3.708
[6][7][8]
Europe Turkey 1,988.3 24,912 39 0.791 (high) 6.120

For China and India, the immense population of these two countries (each with over 1.2 billion
people as of September 2015) means that per capita income will remain low even if either
economy surpasses that of the United States in overall GDP. When GDP per capita is calculated
according to purchasing power parity (PPP), this takes into account the lower costs of living in
each newly industrialized country. GDP per capita typically is an indicator for living standards in
a given country as well.[16]

Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa meet annually with the G8 countries to discuss
financial topics and climate change, due to their economic importance in today's global market
and environmental impact, in a group known as G8+5.[17] This group is expected to expand to
G14 by adding Egypt alongside the five forementioned countries.[18]

Other

Authors set lists of countries accordingly to different methods of economic analysis. Sometimes
a work ascribes NIC status to a country that other authors don't consider a NIC. This is the case
of countries such as Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Sri Lanka[19] and Russia.[5]

Criticism
NICs usually benefit from comparatively low wage costs, which translates into lower input
prices for suppliers. As a result, it is often easier for producers in NICs to outperform and
outproduce factories in developed countries, where the cost of living is higher, and trade unions
and other organizations have more political sway. This comparative advantage is often criticized
by advocates of the fair trade movement.

Critics of NICs argue economic freedom is not always associated with political freedom in
countries such as China, pointing out that Internet censorship and human rights violations are
common.[20] The case is diametrically opposite for India; While being a liberal democracy
throughout after its independence[citation needed], India has been widely criticized for its inefficient,
bureaucratic governance and slow process of structural reform. Thus, while political freedom in
China remains limited, the average Chinese citizen enjoys a higher standard of living than his or
her counterpart in India.[21]

Problems
South Africa faces an influx of immigrants from countries such as Zimbabwe, although many
also come from Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Eritrea, Ethiopia and
Somalia.[22] While South Africa is considered wealthy on a wealth-per-capita basis, economic
inequality is persistent and extreme poverty remains high in the region.[23]

Mexico's economic growth is hampered in some areas by an ongoing drug war in the north of the
country.[24]

Other NICs face common problems such as widespread corruption and/or political instability as
well as other circumstances that cause them to face the "middle income trap".

6. Heavily indebted poor countries

The heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) are a group of 37 developing countries with high
levels of poverty and debt overhang which are eligible for special assistance from the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

Contents
 1 HIPC Initiative
o 1.1 Funding
o 1.2 Criticism
o 1.3 Response to the criticism
 2 See also
  3 References
 4 External links

HIPC Initiative
The HIPC Initiative was initiated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in
1996, following extensive lobbying by NGOs and other bodies. It provides debt relief and low-
interest loans to cancel or reduce external debt repayments to sustainable levels, meaning they
can repay debts in a timely fashion in the future.[1] To be considered for the initiative, countries
must face an unsustainable debt burden which cannot be managed with traditional means.[2]
Assistance is conditional on the national governments of these countries meeting a range of
economic management and performance targets and undertaking economic and social
reforms.[1][which?]

As of January 2012, the HIPC Initiative had identified 39 countries (33 of which are in Sub-
Saharan Africa) as being potentially eligible to receive debt relief.[3] The 36 countries that have
so far received full or partial debt relief are:[2] Tanzania Is now[when?] not part of the HIPC.

 Afghanistan  Ethiopia  Malawi

 Benin  Gambia  Mozambique
 Bolivia  Ghana  Nicaragua
 Burkina Faso  Guinea  Niger
 Burundi  Guinea-Bissau  Rwanda
 Cameroon  Guyana  São Tomé and
 Central African  Haiti Príncipe
Republic  Honduras  Senegal
 Chad  Liberia  Sierra Leone
 Republic of the  Madagascar  Togo
Congo  Mali  Uganda
 Democratic  Mauritania  Zambia
Republic of the Congo
 Comoros
 Ivory Coast

36 countries have completed the program and had their external debt cancelled in full, after Chad
passed the Completion Point in 2015.[2][4]

An additional three countries (Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan) are being considered for entry into
the program.[when?]

To receive debt relief under HIPC, a country must first meet HIPC's threshold requirements. At
HIPC's inception in 1996, the primary threshold requirement was that the country's debt remains
at unsustainable levels despite full application of traditional, bilateral debt relief. At the time,
HIPC considered debt unsustainable when the ratio of debt-to-exports exceeded 200-250% or
when the ratio of debt-to-government revenues exceeded 280%.[5]

Funding

The IMF estimates that the total cost of providing debt relief to the 40 countries currently eligible
for the HIPC program would be around $71 billion (in 2007 dollars).[2] Half of the funding is
provided by the IMF, World Bank, and other multilateral organizations, while the other half is
provided by the creditor countries. The IMF's share of the cost is currently being funded by the
proceeds of gold sales by the organization in 1999, but it estimated that this will not be enough to
cover the full cost, and further funding will need to be raised if additional countries such as
Sudan and Somalia meet the qualification requirements for entry into the program.[2]

Criticism

Critics soon began to attack HIPC's scope and its structure. First, they criticized HIPC's
definition of debt sustainability, arguing that the debt-to-export and debt-to-government-
revenues criteria were arbitrary and too restrictive. As evidence, critics highlighted that, by 1999,
only four countries had received any debt relief under HIPC. Second, the six-year program was
too long and too inflexible to meet the individual needs of debtor nations. Third, the IMF and the
World Bank did not cancel any debt until the completion point, leaving countries under the
burden of their debt payments while they struggled to institute structural reforms. Fourth, the
ESAF conditions often undermined poverty-reduction efforts. For example, privatization of
utilities tended to raise the cost of services beyond the citizens' ability to pay. Finally, critics
attacked HIPC as a program designed by creditors to protect creditor interests, leaving countries
with unsustainable debt burdens even upon reaching the decision point.[5]

Inadequate debt relief for such countries means that they will need to spend more on servicing
debts, rather than on actively investing in programs that can reduce poverty.[citation needed]

Response to the criticism

HIPC addressed its shortcomings by expanding its definition of unsustainable debts, making
greater relief available to more countries, and by making relief available sooner.[5]

Since 1996, the IMF has modified HIPC in several ways, often in response to the shortcomings
its critics have highlighted. The IMF first restructured HIPC in 1999. These revisions modified
HIPC's threshold requirements. Today, HIPC defines three minimum requirements for
participation in the program. First, as before, a country must show its debt is unsustainable;
however, the targets for determining sustainability decreased to a debt-to-export ratio of 150%
and a debt-to-government-revenues ratio of 250%. Second, the country must be sufficiently poor
to qualify for loans from the World Bank's International Development Association or the IMF's
Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF, the successor to ESAF), which provide long-
term, interest-free loans to the world's poorest nations. Lastly, the country must establish a track
record of reforms to help prevent future debt crises.[5]
In addition to the modified threshold requirements, the 1999 revisions introduced several other
changes. First, the six-year structure was abandoned and replaced by a "floating completion
point" that allows countries to progress towards completion in less than six years. Second, the
revised HIPC allows for interim debt relief so that countries begin to see partial relief before
reaching the completion point. Third, the PRGF heavily modified ESAF by curtailing the
number and detail of IMF conditions and by encouraging greater input from the local community
into the program's design.[5]

One of PRGF's goals is to ensure that impoverished nations re-channel the government funds
freed from debt repayment into poverty-reduction programs. To that end, each country's PRGF
program is modeled around a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). PRSPs describe the
macroeconomic, structural, and social programs that a country will follow to promote economic
growth and reduce poverty. A broad range of government, NGO, and civil-society groups must
participate in the development of the PRSP to ensure the plan has local support. Under the
revised HIPC, a country reaches the decision point once it has demonstrated progress in
following its PRSP. The country then reaches its completion point once it has implemented and
followed its PRSP for at least one year and has demonstrated macroeconomic stability.[5]

In 2001, the IMF introduced another tool to increase HIPC's effectiveness. Under the new
practice of "topping up," countries that unexpectedly suffer economic setbacks after the decision
point due to external factors, such as rising interest rates or falling commodity prices, are eligible
for increased debt forgiveness above the decision-point level.[5]

Further progress towards debt relief was announced on December 21, 2005, when the IMF
granted preliminary approval to an initial debt relief measure of US $3.3 billion for 19 of the
world's poorest countries, with the World Bank expected to write off the larger debts owed to it
by 17 HIPCs in mid-2006."[6]

As of December 2006, twenty-one countries have reached the HIPC completion point. Nine
additional countries have passed the decision point and are working toward completion. Ten
other countries carry unsustainable debts according to HIPC standards, but they have yet to reach
the decision point. So far, the IMF and World Bank have approved $35 billion of HIPC debt
relief. Five countries have received an additional $1.6 billion in "topping up" assistance since
2001.[

7. Three-World Model

Three-world model
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Three-World Model)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is about the Western political concept. For the Maoist political concept, see Three
worlds theory.

The "three worlds" of the Cold War era, between April — August 1975.
1st World: Western Bloc led by the USA and its allies.
2nd World: Eastern Bloc led by the USSR, China, and their allies.
3rd World: Non-Aligned and neutral countries.

The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were originally used to divide the
world's nations into three categories. The model did not emerge to its end state all at once. The
complete overthrow of the post–World War II status quo, known as the Cold War, left two
superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) vying for ultimate global supremacy. They
created two camps, known as blocs. These blocs formed the basis of the concepts of the First and
Second Worlds.[1]

Contents
 1 History
o 1.1 Cold War
o 1.2 Post Cold War
 2 See also
 3 References

History
Cold War

Early in the Cold War era, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were created by the United States and
The Soviet Union, respectively. They were also referred to as the Western Bloc and the Eastern
Bloc. The circumstances of these two blocks were so different that they were essentially two
worlds, however, they were not numbered first and second.[2][3][4] The onset of the Cold War is
marked by Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech.[5] In this speech, Churchill
describes the division of the West and East to be so solid that it could be called an iron curtain.[5]

In 1952, the French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term Third World in reference to the
three estates in pre-revolutionary France.[6] The first two estates being the nobility and clergy and
everybody else comprising the third estate.[6] He compared the capitalist world (i.e., First World)
to the nobility and the communist world (i.e., Second World) to the clergy. Just as the third estate
comprised everybody else, Sauvy called the Third World all the countries that were not in this
Cold War division, i.e., the unaligned and uninvolved states in the "East–West Conflict."[6][4]
With the coining of the term Third World directly, the first two groups came to be known as the
"First World" and "Second World," respectively. Here the three-world system emerged.[4]

However, Shuswap Chief George Manuel believed the Three Worlds Model to be outdated. In
his 1974 book The Fourth World: An Indian Reality, he describes the emergence of the Fourth
World while coining the term. The fourth world refers to "nations," e.g., cultural entities and
ethnic groups, of indigenous people who do not compose states in the traditional sense.[7] Rather,
they live within or across state boundaries (see First Nations). One example is the Native
Americans of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean.[7]

Post Cold War

With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Eastern Bloc ceased to exist; with it, so did all
applicability of the term Second World.[8]

7.1. First World

First World
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is about the western political concept. For the Maoist political concept, see Three
Worlds Theory.

The "three worlds" of the Cold War era, between April — August 1975.
1st World: Western Bloc led by the USA and its allies.
2nd World: Eastern Bloc led by the USSR, China, and their allies.
3rd World: Non-Aligned and neutral countries.

The concept of First World originated during the Cold War and included countries that were
generally aligned with NATO and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has instead largely shifted to any country
with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy,
economic stability and high standard of living. Various ways in which modern First World
countries are often determined include GDP, GNP, literacy rates, life expectancy, and the Human
Development Index.[1] In common usage, as per Merriam-Webster, "first world" now typically
refers to "the highly developed industrialized nations often considered the westernized countries
of the world".[2]

Contents
 1 History
o 1.1 Shifting in definitions
o 1.2 Other indicators
 2 Three World Model
o 2.1 Post Cold War
 3 Relationships with the other worlds
o 3.1 Historic
o 3.2 Present
o 3.3 Environmental impact
o 3.4 International relations
o 3.5 Development theory
 4 Globalization
o 4.1 European Union
o 4.2 Multinational corporations
o 4.3 Outsourcing
 5 See also
 6 References

History
After World War II, the world split into two large geopolitical blocs, separating into spheres of
communism and capitalism. This led to the Cold War, during which the term First World was
often used because of its political, social, and economic relevance. The term itself was first
introduced in the late 1940s by the United Nations.[3] Today, the First World is slightly outdated
and has no official definition, however, it is generally thought of as the capitalist, industrial,
wealthy and developed countries. This definition includes Australia & New Zealand, the
developed countries of Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore) and the wealthy countries
of North America and Europe, particularly Western Europe.[4] In contemporary society, the First
World is viewed as countries that have the most advanced economies, the greatest influence, the
highest standards of living, and the greatest technology.[4] After the Cold War, these countries of
the First World included member states of NATO, U.S.-aligned states, neutral countries that
were developed and industrialized, and the former British Colonies that were considered
developed. It can be defined succinctly as Europe, plus the richer countries of the former British
Empire (USA, Canada, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand), Israel, Japan, South Korea, and
Taiwan. According to Nations Online, the member countries of NATO after the Cold War
included:[4]

 Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United
States.

The Western-aligned countries included:

 Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan

The neutral countries included:

 Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia[5][6]

Shifting in definitions

Since the end of the Cold War, the original definition of the term First World is no longer
necessarily applicable. There are varying definitions of the First World, however, they follow the
same idea. John D. Daniels, past president of the Academy of International Business, defines the
First World to be consisting of "high-income industrial countries".[7] Scholar and Professor
George J. Bryjak defines the First World to be the "modern, industrial, capitalist countries of
North America and Europe".[8] L. Robert Kohls, former director of training for the U.S.
Information Agency and the Meridian International Center in Washington, D.C. uses First World
and "fully developed" as synonyms.[9]

Other indicators

Varying definitions of the term First World and the uncertainty of the term in today's world leads
to different indicators of First World status. In 1945, the United Nations used the terms first,
second, third, and fourth worlds to define the relative wealth of nations (although popular use of
the term fourth world did not come about until later).[10][11] There are some references towards
culture in the definition. They were defined in terms of Gross National Product (GNP), measured
in U.S. dollars, along with other socio-political factors.[10] The first world included the large
industrialized, democratic (free elections, etc.) nations.[10] The second world included modern,
wealthy, industrialized nations, but they were all under communist control.[10] Most of the rest of
the world was deemed part of the third world, while the fourth world was considered to be those
nations whose people were living on less than US$100 annually.[10] If we use the term to mean
high-income industrialized economies, then the World Bank classifies countries according to
their GNI or gross national income per capita. The World Bank separates countries into four
categories: high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income
economies. The First World is considered to be countries with high-income economies. The
high-income economies are equated to mean developed and industrialized countries.

Three World Model

NATO member countries as of 2017

The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were originally used to divide the
world's nations into three categories. The model did not emerge to its end state all at once. The
complete overthrow of the pre–World War II status quo, known as the Cold War, left two
superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) vying for ultimate global supremacy. They
created two camps, known as blocs. These blocs formed the basis of the concepts of the First and
Second Worlds.[12]

Early in the Cold War era, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were created by the United States and
The Soviet Union, respectively. They were also referred to as the Western Bloc and the Eastern
Bloc. The circumstances of these two blocs were so different that they were essentially two
worlds, however, they were not numbered first and second.[13][14][15] The onset of the Cold War is
marked by Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech.[16] In this speech, Churchill
describes the division of the West and East to be so solid that it could be called an iron
curtain.[16]

In 1952, the French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term Third World in reference to the
three estates in pre-revolutionary France.[17] The first two estates being the nobility and clergy
and everybody else comprising the third estate.[17] He compared the capitalist world (i.e., First
World) to the nobility and the communist world (i.e., Second World) to the clergy. Just as the
third estate comprised everybody else, Sauvy called the Third World all the countries that were
not in this Cold War division, i.e., the unaligned and uninvolved states in the "East-West
Conflict".[17][18] With the coining of the term Third World directly, the first two groups came to
be known as the "First World" and "Second World" respectively. Here the three-world system
emerged.[15]

However, Shuswap Chief George Manuel believes the Three World Model to be outdated. In
his 1974 book The Fourth World: An Indian Reality, he describes the emergence of the Fourth
World while coining the term. The fourth world refers to "nations", e.g., cultural entities and
ethnic groups, of indigenous people who do not compose states in the traditional sense.[11]
Rather, they live within or across state boundaries (see First Nations). One example is the Native
Americans of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean.[11]

Post Cold War

With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Eastern Bloc ceased to exist and with it, the perfect
applicability of the term Second World.[19] The definitions of the First World, Second World, and
Third World changed slightly, yet generally describe the same concepts.
Relationships with the other worlds
Historic

During the Cold War Era, the relationships between the First World, Second World and the
Third World were very rigid. The First World and Second World were at constant odds with one
another via the tensions between their two cores, the United States and the Soviet Union,
respectively. The Cold War, by virtue of its name, was a primarily ideological struggle between
the First and Second Worlds, or more specifically, the U.S. and the Soviet Union.[20] Multiple
doctrines and plans dominated Cold War dynamics including the Truman Doctrine, Marshall
Plan (from the U.S) and the Molotov Plan (from the Soviet Union).[20][21][22] The extent of the
odds between the two worlds is evident in Berlin—which was then split into East and West. To
stop citizens in East Berlin from having too much exposure to the capitalist West, the Soviet
Union put up the Berlin Wall within the actual city.[23]

The relationship between the First World and the Third World is characterized by the very
definition of the Third World. Because countries of the Third World were noncommittal and
non-aligned with both the First World and the Second World, they were targets for recruitment.
In the quest for expanding their sphere of influence, the United States (core of the First World)
tried to establish pro US regimes in the Third World. In addition, because the Soviet Union (core
of the Second World) also wanted to expand, the Third World often became a site for conflict.

The Domino Theory

Some examples include Vietnam and Korea. Success lay with the First World if at the end of the
war, the country became capitalistic and democratic, and with the Second World, if the country
became communist. While Vietnam as a whole was eventually communized, only the northern
half of Korea remained communist.[24][25] The Domino Theory largely governed United States
policy regarding the Third World and their rivalry with the Second World.[26] In light of the
Domino Theory, the U.S. saw winning the proxy wars in the Third World as a measure of the
"credibility of U.S. commitments all over the world".[27]

Present

The movement of people and information largely characterizes the inter-world relationships in
the present day.[28] A majority of breakthroughs and innovation originate in Western Europe and
the U.S. and later their effects permeate globally. As judged by the Wharton School of Business
at the University of Pennsylvania, most of the Top 30 Innovations of the Last 30 Years were
from former First World countries (e.g., the U.S. and countries in Western Europe).[29]

The disparity between knowledge in the First World as compared to the Third World is evident
in healthcare and medical advancements. Deaths from water-related illnesses have largely been
eliminated in "wealthier nations", while they are still a "major concern in the developing
world".[30] Widely treatable diseases in the developed countries of the First World, malaria and
tuberculosis needlessly claim many lives in the developing countries of the Third World.
900,000 people die from malaria each year and combating malaria accounts for 40% of health
spending in many African countries.[31]

The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced that the
first Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) would be available at the summer of 2010. These
include non-Latin domains such as Chinese, Arabic, and Russian. This is one way that the flow
of information between the First and Third Worlds may become more even.[32]

The movement of information and technology from the First World to various Third World
countries has created a general "aspir(ation) to First World living standards".[28] The Third World
has lower living standards as compared to the First World.[15] Information about the
comparatively higher living standards of the First World comes through television, commercial
advertisements and foreign visitors to their countries.[28] This exposure causes two changes: a)
living standards in some Third World countries rise and b) this exposure creates hopes and many
from Third World countries immigrate – both legally and illegally – to these First World
countries in hopes of attaining that living standard and prosperity.[28] In fact, this immigration is
the "main contributor to the increasing populations of U.S. and Europe".[28] While these
immigrations have greatly contributed to globalization, they have also precipitated trends like
brain drain and problems with repatriation. They have also created immigration and
governmental burden problems for the countries (i.e., First World) that people immigrate to.[28]

Environmental impact

Some have argued that the most important human population problem for the world is not the
high rate of population increase in certain Third World countries, but rather the "increase in total
human impact".[28] The per-capita impact – the resources consumed and the wastes created by
each person – is varied globally; the highest in the First World and the lowest in the Third
World: inhabitants of the U.S., Western Europe and Japan consume 32 times as many resources
and put out 32 times as much waste as those in the Third World.[28] However, China leads the
world in total emissions, but its large population skews its per-capita statistic lower than those of
more developed nations.[33]

As large consumers of fossil fuels, First World countries drew attention to environmental
pollution.[34] The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty that is based on the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which was finalized in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio.[35] It
proposed to place the burden of protecting the climate on the United States and other First World
countries.[35] Countries that were considered to be developing, such as China and India, were not
required to approve the treaty because they were more concerned that restricting emissions
would further restrain their development.

International relations
Until the recent past, little attention was paid to the interests of Third World countries.[36] This is
because most international relations scholars have come from the industrialized, First World
nations.[37] As more countries have continued to become more developed, the interests of the
world have slowly started to shift.[36] However, First World nations still have many more
universities, professors, journals, and conferences, which has made it very difficult for Third
World countries to gain legitimacy and respect with their new ideas and methods of looking at
the world.[36]

Development theory

During the Cold War, the modernization theory and development theory developed in Europe as
a result of their economic, political, social, and cultural response to the management of former
colonial territories.[38] European scholars and practitioners of international politics hoped to
theorize ideas and then create policies based on those ideas that would cause newly independent
colonies to change into politically developed sovereign nation-states.[38] However, most of the
theorists were from the United States, and they were not interested in Third World countries
achieving development by any model.[38] They wanted those countries to develop through liberal
processes of politics, economics, and socialization; that is to say, they wanted them to follow the
liberal capitalist example of a so-called "First World state".[38] Therefore, the modernization and
development tradition consciously originated as a (mostly U.S.) alternative to the Marxist and
neo-Marxist strategies promoted by the "Second World states" like the Soviet Union.[38] It was
used to explain how developing Third World states would naturally evolve into developed First
World States, and it was partially grounded in liberal economic theory and a form of Talcott
Parsons' sociological theory.[38]

Globalization
The United Nations's ESCWA has written that globalization "is a widely-used term that can be
defined in a number of different ways". Joyce Osland from San Jose State University wrote:
"Globalization has become an increasingly controversial topic, and the growing number of
protests around the world has focused more attention on the basic assumptions of globalization
and its effects."[39] "Globalization is not new, though. For thousands of years, people—and, later,
corporations—have been buying from and selling to each other in lands at great distances, such
as through the famed Silk Road across Central Asia that connected China and Europe during the
Middle Ages. Likewise, for centuries, people and corporations have invested in enterprises in
other countries. In fact, many of the features of the current wave of globalization are similar to
those prevailing before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914."[40]

European Union

The most prominent example of globalization in the first world is the European Union (EU).[41]
The European Union is an agreement in which countries voluntarily decide to build common
governmental institutions to which they delegate some individual national sovereignty so that
decisions can be made democratically on a higher level of common interest for Europe as a
whole.[42] The result is a union of 28 Member States covering 4,324,782 square kilometres
(1,669,808 sq mi) with roughly half a billion people. In total, the European Union produces
almost a third of the world’s gross national product and the member states speak more than 23
languages. All of the European Union countries are joined together by a hope to promote and
extend peace, democracy, cooperativeness, stability, prosperity, and the rule of law.[42] In a 2007
speech, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner for External Relations, said, "The
future of the EU is linked to globalization...the EU has a crucial role to play in making
globalization work properly...".[43] In a 2014 speech at the European Parliament, the Italian PM
Matteo Renzi stated, "We are the ones who can bring civilization to globalization".[44] With the
"Brexit" (British Exit) of the EU in 2016, the fundamental economic and motivational
powerhouse of globalization in Europe was placed, once again, in the hands of Germany.

Just as the concept of the First World came about as a result of World War II, so did the
European Union.[42] In 1951 the beginnings of the EU were founded with the creation of
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). From the beginning of its inception, countries in
the EU were judged by many standards, including economic ones. This is where the relation
between globalization, the EU, and First World countries arises.[41] Especially during the 1990s
when the EU focused on economic policies such as the creation and circulation of the Euro, the
creation of the European Monetary Institute, and the opening of the European Central Bank.[42]

In 1993, at the Copenhagen European Council, the European Union took a decisive step towards
expanding the EU, what they called the Fifth Enlargement, agreeing that "the associated
countries in Central and Eastern Europe that so desire shall become members of the European
Union". Thus, enlargement was no longer a question of if, but when and how. The European
Council stated that accession could occur when the prospective country is able to assume the
obligations of membership, that is that all the economic and political conditions required are
attained. Furthermore, it defined the membership criteria, which are regarded as the Copenhagen
criteria, as follows:[45]

 stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect
for and protection of minorities
 the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with
competitive pressure and market forces within the Union
 the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of
political, economic and monetary union

It is clear that all these criteria are characteristics of developed countries. Therefore, there is a
direct link between globalization, developed nations, and the European Union.[41]

Multinational corporations

A majority of multinational corporations find their origins in First World countries. After the
collapse of the Soviet Union, multinational corporations proliferated as more countries focused
on global trade.[46] The series of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the
World Trade Organization (WTO) essentially ended the protectionist measures that were
dissuading global trade.[46] The eradication of these protectionist measures, while creating
avenues for economic interconnection, mostly benefited developed countries, who by using their
power at GATT summits, forced developing and underdeveloped countries to open their
economies to Western goods.[47]

As the world starts to globalize, it is accompanied by criticism of the current forms of

globalization, which are feared to be overly corporate-led. As corporations become larger and
multinational, their influence and interests go further accordingly. Being able to influence and
own most media companies, it is hard to be able to publicly debate the notions and ideals that
corporations pursue. Some choices that corporations take to make profits can affect people all
over the world. Sometimes fatally.[48]

The third industrial revolution is spreading from the developed world to some, but not all, parts
of the developing world. To participate in this new global economy, developing countries must
be seen as attractive offshore production bases for multinational corporations. To be such bases,
developing countries must provide relatively well-educated workforces, good infrastructure
(electricity, telecommunications, transportation), political stability, and a willingness to play by
market rules.[49]

If these conditions are in place, multinational corporations will transfer via their offshore
subsidiaries or to their offshore suppliers, the specific production technologies and market
linkages necessary to participate in the global economy. By themselves, developing countries,
even if well-educated, cannot produce at the quality levels demanded in high-value-added
industries and cannot market what they produce even in low-value-added industries such as
textiles or shoes. Put bluntly, multinational companies possess a variety of factors that
developing countries must have if they are to participate in the global economy.[49]

Outsourcing

Outsourcing, according to Grossman and Helpman, refers to the process of "subcontracting an

ever expanding set of activities, ranging from product design to assembly, from research and
development to marketing, distribution and after-sales service".[50] Many companies have moved
to outsourcing services in which they no longer specifically need or have the capability of
handling themselves.[51] This is due to considerations of what the companies can have more
control over.[51] Whatever companies tend to not have much control over or need to have control
over will outsource activities to firms that they consider "less competing".[51] According to
SourcingMag.com, the process of outsourcing can take the following four phases.[52]

1. strategic thinking
2. evaluation and selection
3. contract development
4. outsourcing management.

Outsourcing is among some of the many reasons for increased competition within developing
countries.[53] Aside from being a reason for competition, many First World countries see
outsourcing, in particular offshore outsourcing, as an opportunity for increased income.[54] As a
consequence, the skill level of production in foreign countries handling the outsourced services
increases within the economy; and the skill level within the domestic developing countries can
decrease.[55] It is because of competition (including outsourcing) that Robert Feenstra and
Gordon Hanson predict that there will be a rise of 15–33 percent in inequality amongst these
countrie

7.2. Second World

Second World
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article is about the western political concept. For the Maoist political concept, see Three Worlds
Theory. For the online virtual world, see Second Life.

"Communist world" redirects here. For a worldwide communist society, see World communism.

The "three worlds" of the Cold War era, between April — August 1975.

1st World: Western Bloc led by the USA and its allies.

2nd World: Eastern Bloc led by the USSR, China, and their allies.

3rd World: Non-Aligned and neutral countries.

The Second World is a term that was used during the Cold War to refer to the industrial socialist
states that were under the influence of the Soviet Union. In the first two decades following
World War II, 19 communist states emerged; all of these were at least originally within the
Soviet orbit, though some (notably, Yugoslavia and the Peoples Republic of China) broke with
Moscow and developed their own foreign policy, while retaining Communist governments. But
most communist states remained part of this bloc until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991;
afterwards, only five Communist states remained: China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and
Vietnam. Along with "First World" and "Third World", the term was used to divide the states of
Earth into three broad categories.
The concept of "Second World" was a construct of the Cold War and the term is still largely used
to describe former communist countries that are between poverty and prosperity, many of which
are now capitalist states. Subsequently the actual meaning of the terms "First World", "Second
World" and "Third World" changed from being based on political ideology to an economic
definition.[1] The three-world theory has been criticized as crude and relatively outdated for its
nominal ordering (1; 2; 3) and sociologists have instead used the words "developed",
"developing", and "underdeveloped" as replacement terms for global stratification (which in turn
have been criticized as displaying a colonialist mindset) [2] —nevertheless, the three-world
theory is still popular in contemporary literature and media. This might also cause semantic
variation of the term between describing a region's political entities and its people.[3]

7.3. Third World

Third World
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For other uses, see Third World (disambiguation).

The "three worlds" of the Cold War era, between April — August 1975.
1st World: Western Bloc led by the USA and its allies.
2nd World: Eastern Bloc led by the USSR, China, and their allies.
3rd World: Non-Aligned and neutral countries.

During the Cold War, the Third World referred to the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and
Latin America, the nations not aligned with either the First World or the Second World.[1][2] This
usage has become relatively rare due to the ending of the Cold War.

In the decade following the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the
term Third World was used interchangeably with developing countries, but the concept has
become outdated as it no longer represents the current political or economic state of the world.
The three-world model arose during the Cold War to define countries aligned with NATO (the
First World), the Communist Bloc (the Second World, although this term was less used), or
neither (the Third World). Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than an
economic, grouping.

Since about the 2000s the term Third World has been used less and less. It is being replaced with
terms such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South.

Contents
 1 Etymology
 2 Origin and shift of meaning
 3 Third World vs. Three Worlds
 4 Third Worldism
 5 History
 6 Development aid
 7 Great Divergence and Great Convergence
 8 See also
 9 References
 10 Further reading

Etymology
French demographer, anthropologist and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the
French magazine L'Observateur, August 14, 1952, coined the term Third World (French: Tiers
Monde), referring to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the
Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War.[3] His usage was a reference to the Third Estate, the
commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed the clergy and
nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively. Sauvy wrote, "This third
world ignored, exploited, despised like the third estate also wants to be something."[4] He
conveyed the concept of political non-alignment with either the capitalist or communist bloc.[5]

Origin and shift of meaning

The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-
aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South
Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet
Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a
way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and
economic divisions. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term
Third World has been used less and less. It is being replaced with terms such as developing
countries, least developed countries or the Global South. The concept itself has become outdated
as it no longer represents the current political or economic state of the world.
The Third World was normally seen to include many countries with colonial pasts in Africa,
Latin America, Oceania and Asia. It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in
the Non-Aligned Movement. In the dependency theory of thinkers like Raúl Prebisch, Walter
Rodney, Theotonio dos Santos, and Andre Gunder Frank, the Third World has also been
connected to the world-systemic economic division as "periphery" countries dominated by the
countries comprising the economic "core".[6]

Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon
definition of the Third World.[6] Some countries in the Communist Bloc, such as Cuba, were
often regarded as "third world". Because many Third World countries were economically poor
and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to poor countries as "third world
countries", yet the "Third World" term is also often taken to include newly industrialized
countries like Brazil, India, and China; they are now more commonly referred to as part of
BRIC. Historically, some European countries were non-aligned and a few of these were and are
very prosperous, including Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia.

Third World vs. Three Worlds

See also: Three World Model and Three Worlds Theory

The "Three Worlds Theory" developed by Mao Zedong is different from the Western theory of
the Three Worlds or Third World. For example, in the Western theory, India and China belong
respectively to the Second and Third Worlds, but in Mao's theory both China and India are part
of the Third World which he defined as consisting of exploited nations.

Third Worldism
Main article: Third-Worldism

Third Worldism is a political movement that argues for the unity of third-world nations against
first-world and probably second-world influence and the principle of non-interference in other
countries' domestic affairs. Groups most notable for expressing and exercising this idea are the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 which provide a base for relations and
diplomacy between not just the third-world countries, but between the third-world and the first
and second worlds. The notion has been criticized as providing a fig leaf for human-rights
violations and political repression by dictatorships.[7]

History
Most Third World countries are former colonies. Having gained independence, many of these
countries, especially smaller ones, were faced with the challenges of nation- and institution-
building on their own for the first time. Due to this common background, many of these nations
were "developing" in economic terms for most of the 20th century, and many still are. This term,
used today, generally denotes countries that have not developed to the same levels as OECD
countries, and are thus in the process of developing.
In the 1980s, economist Peter Bauer offered a competing definition for the term "Third World".
He claimed that the attachment of Third World status to a particular country was not based on
any stable economic or political criteria, and was a mostly arbitrary process. The large diversity
of countries considered part of the Third World — from Indonesia to Afghanistan — ranged
widely from economically primitive to economically advanced and from politically non-aligned
to Soviet- or Western-leaning. An argument could also be made for how parts of the U.S. are
more like the Third World.[8]

The only characteristic that Bauer found common in all Third World countries was that their
governments "demand and receive Western aid," the giving of which he strongly opposed. Thus,
the aggregate term "Third World" was challenged as misleading even during the Cold War
period, because it had no consistent or collective identity among the countries it supposedly
encompassed.

Development aid
Main article: Development aid

Least Developed Countries in blue, as designated by the United Nations. Countries formerly
considered Least Developed in green.

During the Cold War, unaligned countries of the Third World[6] were seen as potential allies by
both the First and Second World. Therefore, the United States and the Soviet Union went to great
lengths to establish connections in these countries by offering economic and military support to
gain strategically located alliances (e.g. the United States in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in
Cuba).[6] By the end of the Cold War, many Third World countries had adopted capitalist or
communist economic models and continued to receive support from the side they had chosen.
Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the countries of the Third World have been the priority
recipients of Western foreign aid and the focus of economic development through mainstream
theories such as modernization theory and dependency theory.[6]

By the end of the 1960s, the idea of the Third World came to represent countries in Africa, Asia
and Latin America that were considered underdeveloped by the West based on a variety of
characteristics (low economic development, low life expectancy, high rates of poverty and
disease, etc.).[3] These countries became the targets for aid and support from governments, NGOs
and individuals from wealthier nations. One popular model, known as Rostow's stages of growth,
argued that development took place in 5 stages (Traditional Society; Pre-conditions for Take-off;
Take-off; Drive to Maturity; Age of High Mass Consumption).[9] W. W. Rostow argued that
Take-off was the critical stage that the Third World was missing or struggling with. Thus, foreign
aid was needed to help kick-start industrialization and economic growth in these countries.[9]

Great Divergence and Great Convergence

Density function of the world's income distribution in 1970 by continent, logarithmic scale: The
division of the world into "rich" and "poor" is striking, and the world's poverty is concentrated in
Asia. Density function of the world's income distribution in 2015 by continent, logarithmic scale:
The division of the world into "rich" and "poor" was vanished, and the world's poverty can be
found mainly in Africa.
Asia and Oceania
Africa
America
Europe

Many times there is a clear distinction between First and Third Worlds. When talking about the
Global North and the Global South, the majority of the time the two go hand in hand. People
refer to the two as "Third World/South" and "First World/North" because the Global North is
more affluent and developed, whereas the Global South is less developed and often poorer.[10]

To counter this mode of thought, some scholars began proposing the idea of a change in world
dynamics that began in the late 1980s, and termed it the Great Convergence.[11] As Jack A.
Goldstone and his colleagues put it, "in the twentieth century, the Great Divergence peaked
before the First World War and continued until the early 1970s, then, after two decades of
indeterminate fluctuations, in the late 1980s it was replaced by the Great Convergence as the
majority of Third World countries reached economic growth rates significantly higher than those
in most First World countries".[12]

Others have observed a return to Cold War-era alignments (MacKinnon, 2007; Lucas, 2008), this
time with substantial changes between 1990–2015 in geography, the world economy and
relationship dynamics between current and emerging world powers; not necessarily redefining
the classic meaning of First, Second, and Third World terms, but rather which countries belong
to them by way of association to which world power or coalition of countries — such as the G7,
the European Union, OECD; G20, OPEC, BRICS, ASEAN, the African Union, and the Eurasian
Union

7.4. Fourth World

Fourth World
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For other uses, see Fourth World (disambiguation).

The Fourth World is an extension of the three-world model, used variably to refer to

1. Sub-populations socially excluded from global society;

2. Hunter-gatherer, nomadic, pastoral, and some subsistence farming peoples living beyond
the modern industrial norm.[1]
3. Sub-populations existing in a First World country, but with the living standards of those
of a Third World, or developing country.

The term is not commonly accepted. "Fourth World" has also been used to refer to other parts of
the world in relation to the three-world model.

Contents
 1 Etymology
 2 Coinage
 3 See also
 4 References
 5 Further reading
 6 External links

Etymology
Fourth World follows the First World, Second World, and Third World classification of nation-
state status; however, unlike the former categories, Fourth World is not spatially bounded, and is
usually used to refer to size and shape which does not map onto citizenship in a specific nation-
state. It can denote nations without a sovereign state, emphasizing the perceived non-recognition
and exclusion of ethnically- and religiously-defined peoples from the politico-economic world
system, such as the First Nations groups throughout North, Central and South America. Spanish
sociologist Manuel Castells of the University of Southern California Annenberg School for
Communication has made extensive use of the term fourth world.

Coinage
The term originated in Georgia with a remark by Mbuto Milando, first secretary of the Tanzanian
High Commission, in conversation with George Manuel, Chief of the National Indian
Brotherhood (now the Assembly of First Nations). Milando stated that "When Native peoples
come into their own, on the basis of their own cultures and traditions, that will be the Fourth
World."[2][3]

Since publication of Manuel's The Fourth World: An Indian Reality (1974), the term Fourth
World became synonymous with stateless, poor, and marginal nations.[4] Since 1979, think tanks
such as the Center for World Indigenous Studies have used the term in defining the relationships
between ancient, tribal, and non-industrial nations and modern industrialised nation-states.[5]
With the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, communications and
organizing amongst Fourth World peoples have accelerated in the form of international treaties
between aboriginal nations for the purposes of trade, travel, and security.[6] In the Indian left
movement, Dr. M. P. Parameswaran's ideas on the fourth world[7] caused widespread debates,
which eventually led to his expulsion from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in 2004

8. Gross domestic product (GDP)

Gross domestic product

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"GDP" redirects here. For other uses, see GDP (disambiguation).
A map of world economies by size of GDP (nominal) in USD, World Bank[1][2], 2014[3]

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final
goods and services produced in a period of time, often annually or quarterly. Nominal GDP
estimates are commonly used to determine the economic performance of a whole country or
region, and to make international comparisons.

GDP (nominal) per capita does not, however, reflect differences in the cost of living and the
inflation rates of the countries; therefore using a basis of GDP per capita at purchasing power
parity (PPP) is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards between
nations.

Contents
 1 Definition
 2 History
 3 Determining gross domestic product (GDP)
o 3.1 Production approach
o 3.2 Income approach
o 3.3 Expenditure approach
 3.3.1 Components of GDP by expenditure
 4 GDP vs GNI
o 4.1 International standards
 5 National measurement
 6 Nominal GDP and adjustments to GDP
 7 Cross-border comparison and purchasing power parity
 8 Standard of living and GDP: Wealth distribution and externalities
 9 Limitations and criticisms
o 9.1 Limitations at introduction
o 9.2 Further criticisms
o 9.3 Proposals to overcome GDP limitations
 10 Lists of countries by their GDP
 11 See also
 12 Notes and references
 13 Further reading
 14 External links
o 14.1 Global
o 14.2 Data
o 14.3 Articles and books

Definition
The OECD defines GDP as "an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross
values added of all resident and institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and
minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs).”[4] An IMF
publication states that "GDP measures the monetary value of final goods and services—that are
bought by the final user—produced in a country in a given period of time (say a quarter or a
year)."[5]

Total GDP can also be broken down into the contribution of each industry or sector of the
economy.[6] The ratio of GDP to the total population of the region is the per capita GDP and the
same is called Mean Standard of Living. GDP is considered the "world's most powerful
statistical indicator of national development and progress".[7]

History
William Petty came up with a basic concept of GDP to attack landlords against unfair taxations
during warfare between the Dutch and the English between 1652 and 1674.[8] Charles Davenant
developed the method further in 1695.[9] The modern concept of GDP was first developed by
Simon Kuznets for a US Congress report in 1934.[10] In this report, Kuznets warned against its
use as a measure of welfare[3] (see below under limitations and criticisms). After the Bretton
Woods conference in 1944, GDP became the main tool for measuring a country's economy.[11]
At that time gross national product (GNP) was the preferred estimate, which differed from GDP
in that it measured production by a country's citizens at home and abroad rather than its 'resident
institutional units' (see OECD definition above). The switch from "GNP" to "GDP" in the US
was in 1991, trailing behind most other nations. The role that measurements of GDP played in
World War II was crucial to the subsequent political acceptance of GDP values as indicators of
national development and progress.[12] A crucial role was played here by the US Department of
Commerce under Milton Gilbert where ideas from Kuznets were embedded into governmental
institutions.

The history of the concept of GDP should be distinguished from the history of changes in ways
of estimating it. The value added by firms is relatively easy to calculate from their accounts, but
the value added by the public sector, by financial industries, and by intangible asset creation is
more complex. These activities are increasingly important in developed economies, and the
international conventions governing their estimation and their inclusion or exclusion in GDP
regularly change in an attempt to keep up with industrial advances. In the words of one academic
economist "The actual number for GDP is therefore the product of a vast patchwork of statistics
and a complicated set of processes carried out on the raw data to fit them to the conceptual
framework."[13]

Determining gross domestic product (GDP)

Part of a series on
 Economics

 Index
 Outline
 Category

 History
 Branches
 Classification

[show]

 Concepts
 Theory
 Techniques

[show]

By application[show]

Notable economists[show]

Lists[show]

Glossary[show]

 Business and economics portal

 v
 t
 e

GDP can be determined in three ways, all which should, in principle, give the same result. They
are the production (or output or value added) approach, the income approach, or the speculated
expenditure approach.

The most direct of the three is the production approach, which sums the outputs of every class of
enterprise to arrive at the total. The expenditure approach works on the principle that all of the
product must be bought by somebody, therefore the value of the total product must be equal to
people's total expenditures in buying things. The income approach works on the principle that the
incomes of the productive factors ("producers," colloquially) must be equal to the value of their
product, and determines GDP by finding the sum of all producers' incomes.[14]
Production approach

This approach mirrors the OECD definition given above.

1. Estimate the gross value of domestic output out of the many various economic activities;
2. Determine the [intermediate consumption], i.e., the cost of material, supplies and services
used to produce final goods or services.
3. Deduct intermediate consumption from gross value to obtain the gross value added.

Gross value added = gross value of output – value of intermediate consumption.

Value of output = value of the total sales of goods and services plus value of changes in the
inventory.

The sum of the gross value added in the various economic activities is known as "GDP at factor
cost".

GDP at factor cost plus indirect taxes less subsidies on products = "GDP at producer price".

For measuring output of domestic product, economic activities (i.e. industries) are classified into
various sectors. After classifying economic activities, the output of each sector is calculated by
any of the following two methods:

1. By multiplying the output of each sector by their respective market price and adding them
together
2. By collecting data on gross sales and inventories from the records of companies and
adding them together

The gross value of all sectors is then added to get the gross value added (GVA) at factor cost.
Subtracting each sector's intermediate consumption from gross output gives the GVA at factor
cost. Adding indirect tax minus subsidies in GVA at factor cost gives the "GVA at producer
prices".

Income approach

The second way of estimating GDP is to use "the sum of primary incomes distributed by resident
producer units".[4]

If GDP is calculated this way it is sometimes called gross domestic income (GDI), or GDP (I).
GDI should provide the same amount as the expenditure method described later. By definition,
GDI is equal to GDP. In practice, however, measurement errors will make the two figures
slightly off when reported by national statistical agencies.

This method measures GDP by adding incomes that firms pay households for factors of
production they hire - wages for labour, interest for capital, rent for land and profits for
entrepreneurship.
The US "National Income and Expenditure Accounts" divide incomes into five categories:

1. Wages, salaries, and supplementary labour income

2. Corporate profits
3. Interest and miscellaneous investment income
4. Farmers' incomes
5. Income from non-farm unincorporated businesses

These five income components sum to net domestic income at factor cost.

Two adjustments must be made to get GDP:

1. Indirect taxes minus subsidies are added to get from factor cost to market prices.
2. Depreciation (or capital consumption allowance) is added to get from net domestic
product to gross domestic product.

Total income can be subdivided according to various schemes, leading to various formulae for
GDP measured by the income approach. A common one is:

GDP = compensation of employees + gross operating surplus + gross mixed income +

taxes less subsidies on production and imports
GDP = COE + GOS + GMI + TP & M – SP & M

 Compensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for

work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to social
security and other such programs.
 Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses.
Often called profits, although only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output
to calculate GOS.
 Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated
businesses. This often includes most small businesses.

The sum of COE, GOS and GMI is called total factor income; it is the income of all of the
factors of production in society. It measures the value of GDP at factor (basic) prices. The
difference between basic prices and final prices (those used in the expenditure calculation) is the
total taxes and subsidies that the government has levied or paid on that production. So adding
taxes less subsidies on production and imports converts GDP at factor cost to GDP(I).

Total factor income is also sometimes expressed as:

Total factor income = employee compensation + corporate profits + proprietor's income

+ rental income + net interest[15]

Expenditure approach
The third way to estimate GDP is to calculate the sum of the final uses of goods and services (all
uses except intermediate consumption) measured in purchasers' prices.[4]

Market goods which are produced are purchased by someone. In the case where a good is
produced and unsold, the standard accounting convention is that the producer has bought the
good from themselves. Therefore, measuring the total expenditure used to buy things is a way of
measuring production. This is known as the expenditure method of calculating GDP.

Components of GDP by expenditure

U.S. GDP computed on the expenditure basis.

GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net
exports (X – M).

Y = C + I + G + (X − M)

Here is a description of each GDP component:

 C (consumption) is normally the largest GDP component in the economy, consisting of

private expenditures in the economy (household final consumption expenditure). These
personal expenditures fall under one of the following categories: durable goods,
nondurable goods, and services. Examples include food, rent, jewelry, gasoline, and
medical expenses, but not the purchase of new housing.
 I (investment) includes, for instance, business investment in equipment, but does not
include exchanges of existing assets. Examples include construction of a new mine,
purchase of software, or purchase of machinery and equipment for a factory. Spending by
households (not government) on new houses is also included in investment. In contrast to
its colloquial meaning, "investment" in GDP does not mean purchases of financial
products. Buying financial products is classed as 'saving', as opposed to investment. This
avoids double-counting: if one buys shares in a company, and the company uses the
money received to buy plant, equipment, etc., the amount will be counted toward GDP
when the company spends the money on those things; to also count it when one gives it
to the company would be to count two times an amount that only corresponds to one
group of products. Buying bonds or stocks is a swapping of deeds, a transfer of claims on
future production, not directly an expenditure on products.
  G (government spending) is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and
services. It includes salaries of public servants, purchases of weapons for the military and
any investment expenditure by a government. It does not include any transfer payments,
such as social security or unemployment benefits.
 X (exports) represents gross exports. GDP captures the amount a country produces,
including goods and services produced for other nations' consumption, therefore exports
are added.
 M (imports) represents gross imports. Imports are subtracted since imported goods will
be included in the terms G, I, or C, and must be deducted to avoid counting foreign
supply as domestic.

Note that C, G, and I are expenditures on final goods and services; expenditures on intermediate
goods and services do not count. (Intermediate goods and services are those used by businesses
to produce other goods and services within the accounting year.[16])

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is responsible for calculating the
national accounts in the United States, "In general, the source data for the expenditures
components are considered more reliable than those for the income components [see income
method, below]."[17]

GDP vs GNI
GDP can be contrasted with gross national product (GNP) or, as it is now known, gross national
income (GNI). The difference is that GDP defines its scope according to location, while GNI
defines its scope according to ownership. In a global context, world GDP and world GNI are,
therefore, equivalent terms.

GDP is product produced within a country's borders; GNI is product produced by enterprises
owned by a country's citizens. The two would be the same if all of the productive enterprises in a
country were owned by its own citizens, and those citizens did not own productive enterprises in
any other countries. In practice, however, foreign ownership makes GDP and GNI non-identical.
Production within a country's borders, but by an enterprise owned by somebody outside the
country, counts as part of its GDP but not its GNI; on the other hand, production by an enterprise
located outside the country, but owned by one of its citizens, counts as part of its GNI but not its
GDP.

For example, the GNI of the USA is the value of output produced by American-owned firms,
regardless of where the firms are located. Similarly, if a country becomes increasingly in debt,
and spends large amounts of income servicing this debt this will be reflected in a decreased GNI
but not a decreased GDP. Similarly, if a country sells off its resources to entities outside their
country this will also be reflected over time in decreased GNI, but not decreased GDP. This
would make the use of GDP more attractive for politicians in countries with increasing national
debt and decreasing assets.

Gross national income (GNI) equals GDP plus income receipts from the rest of the world minus
income payments to the rest of the world.[18]
In 1991, the United States switched from using GNP to using GDP as its primary measure of
production.[19] The relationship between United States GDP and GNP is shown in table 1.7.5 of
the National Income and Product Accounts.[20]

International standards

The international standard for measuring GDP is contained in the book System of National
Accounts (1993), which was prepared by representatives of the International Monetary Fund,
European Union, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations
and World Bank. The publication is normally referred to as SNA93 to distinguish it from the
previous edition published in 1968 (called SNA68) [21]

SNA93 provides a set of rules and procedures for the measurement of national accounts. The
standards are designed to be flexible, to allow for differences in local statistical needs and
conditions.

National measurement
Main article: National agencies responsible for GDP measurement

Countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (Int$) in 2017 according to the IMF
> 50,000 5,000–10,000
35,000–50,000 2,000–5,000
20,000–35,000 < 2,000
10,000–20,000 No data

Countries by 2015 GDP (nominal) per capita.[22]

 > $64,000 $2,000 – 4,000
$32,000 – 64,000 $1,000 – 2,000
$16,000 – 32,000 $500 – 1,000
$8,000 – 16,000 < $500
$4,000 – 8,000 No data

U.S GDP computed on the income basis

Within each country GDP is normally measured by a national government statistical agency, as
private sector organizations normally do not have access to the information required (especially
information on expenditure and production by governments).

Nominal GDP and adjustments to GDP

The raw GDP figure as given by the equations above is called the nominal, historical, or current,
GDP. When one compares GDP figures from one year to another, it is desirable to compensate
for changes in the value of money – i.e., for the effects of inflation or deflation. To make it more
meaningful for year-to-year comparisons, it may be multiplied by the ratio between the value of
money in the year the GDP was measured and the value of money in a base year.

For example, suppose a country's GDP in 1990 was $100 million and its GDP in 2000 was $300
million. Suppose also that inflation had halved the value of its currency over that period. To
meaningfully compare its GDP in 2000 to its GDP in 1990, we could multiply the GDP in 2000
by one-half, to make it relative to 1990 as a base year. The result would be that the GDP in 2000
equals $300 million × one-half = $150 million, in 1990 monetary terms. We would see that the
country's GDP had realistically increased 50 percent over that period, not 200 percent, as it might
appear from the raw GDP data. The GDP adjusted for changes in money value in this way is
called the real, or constant, GDP.

The factor used to convert GDP from current to constant values in this way is called the GDP
deflator. Unlike consumer price index, which measures inflation or deflation in the price of
household consumer goods, the GDP deflator measures changes in the prices of all domestically
produced goods and services in an economy including investment goods and government
services, as well as household consumption goods.[23]

Constant-GDP figures allow us to calculate a GDP growth rate, which indicates how much a
country's production has increased (or decreased, if the growth rate is negative) compared to the
previous year.
 Real GDP growth rate for year n = [(Real GDP in year n) − (Real GDP in year n − 1)] /
(Real GDP in year n − 1)

Another thing that it may be desirable to account for is population growth. If a country's GDP
doubled over a certain period, but its population tripled, the increase in GDP may not mean that
the standard of living increased for the country's residents; the average person in the country is
producing less than they were before. Per-capita GDP is a measure to account for population
growth.

Cross-border comparison and purchasing power parity

The level of GDP in countries may be compared by converting their value in national currency
according to either the current currency exchange rate, or the purchasing power parity exchange
rate.

 Current currency exchange rate is the exchange rate in the international foreign
exchange market.
 Purchasing power parity exchange rate is the exchange rate based on the purchasing
power parity (PPP) of a currency relative to a selected standard (usually the United States
dollar). This is a comparative (and theoretical) exchange rate, the only way to directly
realize this rate is to sell an entire CPI basket in one country, convert the cash at the
currency market rate & then rebuy that same basket of goods in the other country (with
the converted cash). Going from country to country, the distribution of prices within the
basket will vary; typically, non-tradable purchases will consume a greater proportion of
the basket's total cost in the higher GDP country, per the Balassa-Samuelson effect.

The ranking of countries may differ significantly based on which method is used.

 The current exchange rate method converts the value of goods and services using global
currency exchange rates. The method can offer better indications of a country's
international purchasing power. For instance, if 10% of GDP is being spent on buying hi-
tech foreign arms, the number of weapons purchased is entirely governed by current
exchange rates, since arms are a traded product bought on the international market. There
is no meaningful 'local' price distinct from the international price for high technology
goods. The PPP method of GDP conversion is more relevant to non-traded goods and
services. In the above example if hi-tech weapons are to be produced internally their
amount will be governed by GDP (PPP) rather than nominal GDP.

There is a clear pattern of the purchasing power parity method decreasing the disparity in GDP
between high and low income (GDP) countries, as compared to the current exchange rate
method. This finding is called the Penn effect.

For more information, see Measures of national income and output.

Standard of living and GDP: Wealth distribution and
externalities
GDP per capita is often used as an indicator of living standards.[24]

The major advantage of GDP per capita as an indicator of standard of living is that it is measured
frequently, widely, and consistently. It is measured frequently in that most countries provide
information on GDP on a quarterly basis, allowing trends to be seen quickly. It is measured
widely in that some measure of GDP is available for almost every country in the world, allowing
inter-country comparisons. It is measured consistently in that the technical definition of GDP is
relatively consistent among countries.

GDP does not include several factors that influence the standard of living. In particular, it fails to
account for:

 Externalities – Economic growth may entail an increase in negative externalities that are
not directly measured in GDP.[25][26] Increased industrial output might grow GDP, but any
pollution is not counted.[27]
 Non-market transactions– GDP excludes activities that are not provided through the
market, such as household production, bartering of goods and services, and volunteer or
unpaid services.
 Non-monetary economy– GDP omits economies where no money comes into play at all,
resulting in inaccurate or abnormally low GDP figures. For example, in countries with
major business transactions occurring informally, portions of local economy are not
easily registered. Bartering may be more prominent than the use of money, even
extending to services.[26]
 Quality improvements and inclusion of new products– by not fully adjusting for
quality improvements and new products, GDP understates true economic growth. For
instance, although computers today are less expensive and more powerful than computers
from the past, GDP treats them as the same products by only accounting for the monetary
value. The introduction of new products is also difficult to measure accurately and is not
reflected in GDP despite the fact that it may increase the standard of living. For example,
even the richest person in 1900 could not purchase standard products, such as antibiotics
and cell phones, that an average consumer can buy today, since such modern
conveniences did not exist then.
 Sustainability of growth– GDP is a measurement of economic historic activity and is
not necessarily a projection.
 Wealth distribution – GDP does not account for variances in incomes of various
demographic groups. See income inequality metrics for discussion of a variety of
inequality-based economic measures.[26]

It can be argued that GDP per capita as an indicator standard of living is correlated with these
factors, capturing them indirectly.[24][28] As a result, GDP per capita as a standard of living is a
continued usage because most people have a fairly accurate idea of what it is and know it is
tough to come up with quantitative measures for such constructs as happiness, quality of life, and
well-being.[24]

Limitations and criticisms

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (February 2012)

Limitations at introduction

Simon Kuznets, the economist who developed the first comprehensive set of measures of
national income, stated in his first report to the US Congress in 1934, in a section titled "Uses
and Abuses of National Income Measurements":[10]

The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact
characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria.
With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often
misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of
national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal
with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of
an argument is often contingent upon oversimplification. [...]

All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just as
important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic
welfare. But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to
penetrate below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be
adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income
measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and
unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore,
scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.

In 1962, Kuznets stated:[29]

Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and
returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth
of what and for what.

Further criticisms

Ever since the development of GDP, multiple observers have pointed out limitations of using
GDP as the overarching measure of economic and social progress.

Many environmentalists argue that GDP is a poor measure of social progress because it does not
take into account harm to the environment.[30][31]
Although a high or rising level of GDP is often associated with increased economic and social
progress within a country, a number of scholars have pointed out that this does not necessarily
play out in many instances. For example, Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen have pointed out that an
increase in GDP or in GDP growth does not necessarily lead to a higher standard of living,
particularly in areas such as healthcare and education.[32] Another important area that does not
necessarily improve along with GDP is political liberty, which is most notable in China, where
GDP growth is strong yet political liberties are heavily restricted.[33]

GDP does not account for the distribution of income among the residents of a country, because
GDP is merely an aggregate measure. An economy may be highly developed or growing rapidly,
but also contain a wide gap between the rich and the poor in a society. These inequalities often
occur on the lines of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or other minority status within countries.
This can lead to misleading characterizations of economic well-being if the income distribution
is heavily skewed toward the high end, as the poorer residents will not directly benefit from the
overall level of wealth and income generated in their country. Even GDP per capita measures
may have the same downside if inequality is high. For example, South Africa during apartheid
ranked high in terms of GDP per capita, but the benefits of this immense wealth and income
were not shared equally among the country.[citation needed]

GDP does not take into account the value of household and other unpaid work. Some, including
Martha Nussbaum, argue that this value should be included in measuring GDP, as household
labor is largely a substitute for goods and services that would otherwise be purchased for
value.[34] Even under conservative estimates, the value of unpaid labor in Australia has been
calculated to be over 50% of the country's GDP.[35] A later study analyzed this value in other
countries, with results ranging from a low of about 15% in Canada (using conservative
estimates) to high of nearly 70% in the United Kingdom (using more liberal estimates). For the
United States, the value was estimated to be between about 20% on the low end to nearly 50%
on the high end, depending on the methodology being used.[36] Because many public policies are
shaped by GDP calculations and by the related field of national accounts,[37] the non-inclusion of
unpaid work in calculating GDP can create distortions in public policy, and some economists
have advocated for changes in the way public policies are formed and implemented.[38]

The UK's Natural Capital Committee highlighted the shortcomings of GDP in its advice to the
UK Government in 2013, pointing out that GDP "focuses on flows, not stocks. As a result, an
economy can run down its assets yet, at the same time, record high levels of GDP growth, until a
point is reached where the depleted assets act as a check on future growth". They then went on to
say that "it is apparent that the recorded GDP growth rate overstates the sustainable growth rate.
Broader measures of wellbeing and wealth are needed for this and there is a danger that short-
term decisions based solely on what is currently measured by national accounts may prove to be
costly in the long-term".

It has been suggested that countries that have authoritarian governments, such as the People's
Republic of China, and Russia, inflate their GDP figures.[39]

Proposals to overcome GDP limitations

In response to these and other limitations of using GDP, alternative approaches have emerged.

 In the 1980s, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum developed the capability approach,
which focuses on the functional capabilities enjoyed by people within a country, rather
than the aggregate wealth held within a country. These capabilities consist of the
functions that a person is able to achieve.[40]
 In 1990 Mahbub ul Haq, a Pakistani Economist at the United Nations, introduced the
Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI is a composite index of life expectancy at
birth, adult literacy rate and standard of living measured as a logarithmic function of
GDP, adjusted to purchasing power parity.
 In 1989, John B. Cobb and Herman Daly introduced Index of Sustainable Economic
Welfare (ISEW) by taking into account various other factors such as consumption of
nonrenewable resources and degradation of the environment. The new formula deducted
from GDP (personal consumption + public non-defensive expenditures - private
defensive expenditures + capital formation + services from domestic labour - costs of
environmental degradation - depreciation of natural capital)
 In 2005, Med Jones, an American Economist, at the International Institute of
Management, introduced the first secular Gross National Happiness Index a.k.a. Gross
National Well-being framework and Index to complement GDP economics with
additional seven dimensions, including environment, education, and government, work,
social and health (mental and physical) indicators. The proposal was inspired by the King
of Bhutan's GNH philosophy.[41][42][43]
 In 2009 the European Union released a communication titled GDP and beyond:
Measuring progress in a changing world[44] that identified five actions to improve the
indicators of progress in ways that make it more responsive to the concerns of its citizens:
Introduced a proposal to complementing GDP with environmental and social indicators
 In 2009 Professors Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi at the
Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress
(CMEPSP), formed by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy published a proposal to
overcome the limitation of GDP economics to expand the focus to well-being economics
with wellbeing framework consisting of health, environment, work, physical safety,
economic safety, political freedom.
 In 2012, the Karma Ura of the Center for Bhutan Studies published Bhutan Local GNH
Index contributors to happiness—physical, mental and spiritual health; time-balance;
social and community vitality; cultural vitality; education; living standards; good
governance; and ecological vitality. The Bhutan GNH Index.[45]
 In 2013 OECD Better Life Index was published by the OECD. The dimensions of the
index included health, economic, workplace, income, jobs, housing, civic engagement,
life satisfaction
 In 2013 professors John Helliwell, Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs published World
Happiness Report and proposed to measure other wellbeing indicators in addition to
GDP. the evaluation framework included GDP per capita, Gini (income inequality), life
satisfaction, health, freedom of life choices, trust and absence of corruption
 9. Gross national income (GNI)

Gross national income

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Not to be confused with Gross domestic product.
Not to be confused with Modified gross national income or GNI*.

The gross national income (GNI), previously known as gross national product (GNP), is the
total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country, consisting of gross domestic
product (GDP), plus factor incomes earned by foreign residents, minus income earned in the
domestic economy by nonresidents (Todaro & Smith, 2011: 44) (all figures in millions of US
dollars). Comparing GNI to GDP shows the degree to which a nation's GDP represents domestic
or international activity. GNI has gradually replaced GNP in international statistics.[1][2] While
being conceptually identical, it is calculated differently.[3] GNI is the basis of calculation of the
largest part of contributions to the budget of the European Union.[4] In February 2017, Ireland's
GDP became so distorted from the base erosion and profit shifting ("BEPS") tax planning tools
of U.S. multinationals, that the Central Bank of Ireland replaced Irish GDP with a new metric,
Irish Modified GNI*. In 2017, Irish GDP was 162% of Irish Modified GNI*.

Contents
 1 Comparison of GNI and GDP
 2 GNI (Atlas method) nominal
 3 GNI (Atlas method) PPP
 4 Gross national product
o 4.1 Use of GNP
 5 See also
 6 References

Comparison of GNI and GDP

Comparison of GNI (Atlas method), GNI and GDP

2016 World Bank (millions of current US$)
 GNI (Atlas method)[5] GNI[6]
No. Country GDP[7]
value (a) a - GDP value (b) b - GDP
1 United States 18,357,322 -267,153 18,968,714 344,239 18,624,475
2 China 11,374,227 175,082 11,154,194 -44,951 11,199,145
3 Japan 4,816,892 -123,267 5,096,371 156,212 4,940,159
4 Germany 3,624,638 146,841 3,536,579 58,783 3,477,796
5 United Kingdom 2,778,488 130,590 2,587,657 -60,242 2,647,899
6 France 2,590,030 124,576 2,504,684 39,230 2,465,454
7 India 2,212,306 -51,486 2,235,524 -28,268 2,263,792
8 Italy 1,923,095 64,182 1,863,085 4,172 1,858,913
9 Brazil 1,835,993 39,806 1,758,527 -37,660 1,796,187
10 Canada 1,584,177 54,417 1,508,495 -21,265 1,529,760

GNI (Atlas method) nominal

Nominal, Atlas method – millions of current US$ (top 15)[1]

R
a
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
n
k
17, 17, 16, 15, 15, 14, 15, 14, 14,
Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
611 001 501 727 143 740 002 Unite 651 Unite 345
1 ed ed ed ed ed ed ed
,49 ,29 ,01 ,29 ,13 ,58 ,42 d ,21 d ,56
Stat Stat Stat Stat Stat Stat Stat
1 0 6 1 7 0 8 States 1 States 5
es es es es es es es
10,
9,1 7,9 6,7 5,7 4,8 4,8 4,8 4,9
096 J J
2 Chin Chin 10, Chin 34, Chin 26, Chin 52, Chin 56, Japa 35, 12, 31,
,96 apan apan
a a 333 a 721 a 270 a 320 a 999 n 553 119 413
6
5,3 5,8 6,1 5,7 5,3 4,7 4,0 3,3 3,1
3 Japa 39, Japa 99, Japa 01, Japa 75, Japa 76, Japa 97, Chin 70, Germ 48, Germ 60,
n 076 n 905 n 579 n 633 n 601 n 984 a 860 any 291 any 529

3,8 3,8 3,7 3,8 3,6 3,5 3,6 3,2 2,6

Ger Ger Ger Ger Ger Ger Ger C C
4 53, 09, 54, 01, 62, 88, 01, 83, 85,
man man man man man man man hina hina
623 927 154 607 524 452 765 519 206
y y y y y y y
2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,9 2,8 2,6
Unit Unite Unite
5 Fran 44, Fran 69, Fran 24, Fran 89, Fran 47, Fran 31, 04, 35, 45,
ed d d
ce 284 ce 883 ce 713 ce 304 ce 703 ce 553 224 805 489
Kin King King
R
a
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
n
k
gdo dom dom
m

Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit

2,8 2,6 2,6 2,5 2,5 2,6 2,8 2,5 2,4
ed ed ed ed ed ed F F
6 01, 95, 12, 42, 40, 66, Fran 00, 76, 14,
Kin Kin Kin Kin Kin Kin rance rance
499 974 525 593 957 939 ce 864 642 820
gdo gdo gdo gdo gdo gdo
m m m m m m
2,4 2,4 2,4 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,0 2,2 1,9
It It
7 Braz 29, Braz 86, Braz 32, 37, 34, 27, 93, 22, 89,
Italy Italy Italy Italy aly aly
il 720 il 874 il 061 958 508 358 640 143 288
2,1 2,1 2,1 2,2 1,9 1,5 1,3 1,4 1,2
S C
8 47, 30, 43, Braz 07, Braz 16, Braz 72, Spai
56, 90, 41,
Italy Italy Italy pain anada
247 760 583 il 921 il 260 il 431 n 017 975 641
2,0 1,9 1,8 1,7 1,5 1,5 1,3 1,4 1,2
C S
9 Indi 27, Russ 81, Indi 92, Indi 55, Indi 55, Spai 19, Can
53, 84, 24,
anada pain
a 964 ia 791 a 548 a 712 a 615 n 339 ada
031 345 994
S
1,9 1,9 1,8 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,1 966
1 B outh
Russ 30, Indi 52, Russ 23, Can 17, Can 11, Can 47, Braz 27, 52, ,58
0 razil Kore
ia 634 a 847 ia 299 ada 083 ada 465 ada 937 il 429 772 5
a
1,7 1,8 1,7 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,1 941
1 I I
Can 85, Can 48, Can 73, Russ 47, Spai 96, Indi 92, Russ 68, 17, ,32
1 ndia ndia
ada 099 ada 274 ada 264 ia 010 n 363 a 779 ia 593 463 6
S
1,4 1,5 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,0 921
1 outh
Aust 44, Aust 14, Spai 96, Spai 55, Russ 25, Russ 18, Indi 29, 91, Mexi ,87
2 Kore
ralia 201 ralia 269 n 221 n 758 ia 123 ia 495 a 139 726 co 9
a

1,3 1,3 1,3 Sout 1,1 Sout 1,0 Sout 1,0 Sout 1,1 1,0 898
1 R B
Spai 66, Spai 76, Aust 59, h 25, h 53, h 37, h 18, 79, ,06
3 ussia razil
n 027 n 929 ralia 417 Kor 787 Kor 302 Kor 381 Kor 647 991 3
ea ea ea ea

Sout 1,3 Sout 1,2 Sout 1,2 1,1 1,0 988 1,0 1,0 830
1 R
h 65, h 98, h 32, Aust 19, Mex 26, Mex ,66 Mex 74, Mexi 00, ,14
4 ussia
Kor 797 Kor 958 Kor 164 ralia 902 ico 316 ico 3 ico 555 co 700 6
ea ea ea
1 1,2 1,2 1,1 1,0 1,0 954 900 809 753
R
a
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
n
k
5 Mex 37, Mex 02, Mex 67, Mex 68, Aust 25, Aust ,75 Aust ,06 Nethe ,10 Nethe ,20
ico 533 ico 800 ico 292 ico 140 ralia 186 ralia 4 ralia 2 rland 6 rland 5
s s

GNI (Atlas method) PPP

PPP – millions of international dollars (top 15)[2]

R
a
2016 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
n
k
21, 17, 17, 16, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14, 14,
Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit
36 96 09 59 80 12 49 79 58 14
1 Chi Chi ed ed ed ed ed ed ed ed
6,0 6,8 1,1 6,0 2,8 1,1 4,4 1,1 5,7 0,7
na na Stat Stat Stat Stat Stat Stat Stat Stat
57 93 62 84 98 33 60 94 23 70
es es es es es es es es
18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 12, 11, 10, 8,9 7,6
Unit Unit
74 82 41 11 68 30 01 09 91, 37,
2 ed ed Chi Chi Chi Chi Chi Chi Chi Chi
9,6 3,2 8,9 2,2 0,5 5,3 7,6 0,0 46 79
Stat Stat na na na na na na na na
88 00 59 56 36 78 54 52 2 0
es es
8,5 7,2 6,6 6,1 5,7 5,3 4,7 4,4 4,4 4,1
94, 92, 99, 79, 94, 14, 83, 33, 08, 80,
3 Indi Indi Indi Indi Indi Indi Indi Japa Japa Japa
22 77 99 56 51 15 85 21 33 59
a a a a a a a n n n
6 8 6 7 7 8 6 2 3 5
5,4 4,8 4,8 4,7 4,5 4,4 4,1 4,3 4,1 3,6
43, 46, 44, 00, 22, 37, 92, 76, 38, 58,
4 Japa Japa Japa Japa Japa Japa Japa Indi Indi Indi
84 68 84 74 72 37 47 74 98 43
n n n n n n n a a a
2 8 1 0 3 1 1 3 7 5
4,0 3,8 3,7 3,5 3,5 3,3 3,1 3,1 3,0 2,9
Ger 94, Ger 43, Ger 07, Ger 90, Ger 34, Ger 05, Ger 07, Ger 86, Ger 70, Ger 06,
5
man 78 man 16 man 77 man 00 man 15 man 46 man 92 man 64 man 07 man 89
y 6y 3y 5y 9y 1y 0y 2y 4y 7y 1

3,3 3,2 3,1 3,2 3,1 2,8 2,6 2,7 Unit 2,3 Unit 2,2
05, 37, 08, 54, 24, 37, 78, 97, ed 25, ed 70,
6 Rus Rus Rus Rus Rus Rus Rus Rus
72 38 50 18 40 67 15 64 Kin 25 Kin 76
sia sia sia sia sia sia sia sia
5 8 6 4 0 2 0 8 gdo 8 gdo 6
m m
R
a
2016 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
n
k
3,0 3,2 3,0 2,9 2,9 2,7 2,4 2,4 2,3 2,1
75, 09, 81, 84, 23, 57, 53, 36, 24, 03,
7 Bra Bra Bra Bra Bra Bra Bra Bra Rus Bra
46 39 26 01 55 52 73 48 76 69
zil zil zil zil zil zil zil zil sia zil
9 0 6 5 9 2 3 6 9 4

2,9 2,6 2,6 2,4 2,4 2,3 2,2 Unit 2,3 2,2 2,0
Indo 29, 55, 25, 94, 95, 81, 91, ed 43, 88, 94,
8 Fran Fran Fran Fran Fran Fran Bra Fran
nesi 42 51 34 65 10 56 85 Kin 01 65 16
ce ce ce ce ce ce zil ce
a 4 7 6 5 0 3 5 gdo 2 7 0
m

2,8 2,5 Unit 2,4 Unit 2,3 Unit 2,3 Unit 2,2 Unit 2,2 2,3 2,2 2,0
35, Indo 92, ed 83, ed 94, ed 43, ed 81, ed 72, 10, 24, 71,
9 Fran Fran Fran Rus
24 nesi 31 Kin 80 Kin 75 Kin 93 Kin 28 Kin 66 55 09 66
ce ce ce sia
2a 5 gdo 2 gdo 8 gdo 4 gdo 0 gdo 7 5 7 9
m m m m m

Unit 2,7 Unit 2,5 2,4 2,2 2,1 2,0 2,0 2,0 1,9 1,8
1 ed 63, ed 50, Indo 36, Indo 75, 24, 54, 16, 50, 71, 65,
0 Kin 38 Kin 07 nesi 81 nesi 80 Italy 75 Italy 01 Italy 50 Italy 60 Italy 90 Italy 14
gdo 2 gdo 8a 0a 2 5 9 1 7 9 4
m m
2,3 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 1,9 1,7 1,7 1,5 1,4
1 16, 55, 48, 34, Indo 06, Indo 49, Indo 98, Indo 05, Indo 68, Indo 34,
1 Italy 52 Italy 15 Italy 50 Italy 83 nesi 96 nesi 02 nesi 54 nesi 06 nesi 26 nesi 24
9 3 2 9a 1a 1a 1a 6a 3a 8
2,2 2,1 1,9 1,9 1,8 1,7 1,5 1,6 1,5 1,4
1 62, 11, 39, 41, 59, 10, 97, 11, 16, 32,
Mex Mex Mex Mex Mex Mex Mex Mex Mex Mex
2 91 20 75 68 26 13 65 37 23 29
ico ico ico ico ico ico ico ico ico ico
9 6 3 2 4 2 6 2 6 5

1,9 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1,4 1,3
Sout Sout Sout Sout Sout
1 07, 96, 52, 27, 68, 06, 92, 08, 47, 46,
Tur h h h h h Spai Spai Spai Spai
3 48 95 08 81 63 81 65 41 71 27
key Kor Kor Kor Kor Kor n n n n
6 5 1 2 1 2 8 2 8 7
ea ea ea ea ea

1,8 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,4 1,3 1,2
Sout Sau Sout Sout Sout Sout
1 33, 76, 49, 97, 94, 86, 93, 05, 50, 46,
h Can di Spai Spai Spai h h h h
4 91 49 82 16 18 68 10 61 40 38
Kor ada Ara n n n Kor Kor Kor Kor
4 5 2 7 1 7 8 2 7 2
ea bia ea ea ea ea
R
a
2016 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
n
k
1,7 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,3 1,2 1,2
Sau Sau
1 99, 56, 35, 88, 01, 36, 79, 13, 71, 12,
di Spai Can di Can Can Can Can Can Can
5 74 60 44 10 44 64 70 13 02 20
Ara n ada Ara ada ada ada ada ada ada
0 0 0 0 7 6 2 4 7 0
bia bia

Gross national product

Gross national product (GNP) is the market value of all the goods and services produced in
one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens of a country. Unlike gross domestic
product (GDP), which defines production based on the geographical location of production, GNP
indicates allocated production based on location of ownership. In fact it calculates income by the
location of ownership and residence, and so its name is also the less ambiguous gross national
income.

GNP is an economic statistic that is equal to GDP plus any income earned by residents from
overseas investments minus income earned within the domestic economy by overseas residents.

GNP does not distinguish between qualitative improvements in the state of the technical arts
(e.g., increasing computer processing speeds), and quantitative increases in goods (e.g., number
of computers produced), and considers both to be forms of "economic growth".[8]

When a country's capital or labour resources are employed outside its borders, or when a foreign
firm is operating in its territory, GDP and GNP can produce different measures of total output. In
2009 for instance, the United States estimated its GDP at $14.119 trillion, and its GNP at
$14.265 trillion.[9]

The term gross national income (GNI) has gradually replaced the Gross national product (GNP)
in international statistics.[1][2] While being conceptually identical, the precise calculation method
has evolved at the same time as the name change.[10]

Use of GNP

The United States used GNP as its primary measure of total economic activity until 1991, when
it began to use GDP.[11] In making the switch, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) noted
both that GDP provided an easier comparison of other measures of economic activity in the
United States and that "virtually all other countries have already adopted GDP as their primary
measure of production".[12] Many economists have questioned how meaningful GNP or GDP is a
measure of a nation's economic well-being, as it does not count most unpaid work and counts
much economic activity that is unproductive or actually destructive.[13]
 10. Wages

Wage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For other uses, see Wage (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article
by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (October 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Part of a series on

Economics

 Index
 Outline
 Category

 History
 Branches
 Classification

[show]

 Concepts
 Theory
 Techniques

[show]

By application[show]

Notable economists[show]

Lists[show]
Glossary[show]

 Business and economics portal

 v
 t
 e

Personal finance

Credit · Debt

 Mortgage
 Car loan
 Credit card
 Unsecured personal loan
 Rent-to-own
 Student loan
 Pawn
 Title loan
 Payday loan
 Refund anticipation loan
 Refinancing
 Debt consolidation
 Bankruptcy

Employment contract

 Salary
 Wage
 Salary packaging
  Employee stock option
 Employee benefits

Retirement

 Pension

 Defined benefit
 Defined contribution
 Social security
 Business plan
 Corporate action

Personal budget

 Financial planner
 Financial adviser
 Stockbroker
 Financial independence
 Estate planning

See also

 Bank
 Cooperative
 Credit union

 v
 t
 e

A wage is monetary compensation (or remuneration, personnel expenses, labor) paid by an

employer to an employee in exchange for work done. Payment may be calculated as a fixed
amount for each task completed (a task wage or piece rate), or at an hourly or daily rate (wage
labour), or based on an easily measured quantity of work done.

Wages are part of the expenses that are involved in running a business.
Payment by wage contrasts with salaried work, in which the employer pays an arranged amount
at steady intervals (such as a week or month) regardless of hours worked, with commission
which conditions pay on individual performance, and with compensation based on the
performance of the company as a whole. Waged employees may also receive tips or gratuity paid
directly by clients and employee benefits which are non-monetary forms of compensation. Since
wage labour is the predominant form of work, the term "wage" sometimes refers to all forms (or
all monetary forms) of employee compensation.

Contents
 1 Origins and necessary components
 2 Determinants of wage rates
o 2.1 Wage differences
 3 Wages in the United States
 4 Definitions
 5 See also
 6 References
 7 Further reading
 8 External links

Origins and necessary components

Wage labour involves the exchange of money for time spent at work (the latter quantity is termed
labor power by Marx and subsequent economists). As Moses I. Finley lays out the issue in The
Ancient Economy:

The very idea of wage-labour requires two difficult conceptual steps. First it requires the
abstraction of a man's labour from both his person and the product of his work. When one
purchases an object from an independent craftsman ... one has not bought his labour but
the object, which he had produced in his own time and under his own conditions of work.
But when one hires labour, one purchases an abstraction, labour-power, which the
purchaser then uses at a time and under conditions which he, the purchaser, not the
"owner" of the labour-power, determines (and for which he normally pays after he has
consumed it). Second, the wage labour system requires the establishment of a method of
measuring the labour one has purchased, for purposes of payment, commonly by
introducing a second abstraction, namely labour-time.[1]

The wage is the monetary measure corresponding to the standard units of working time (or to a
standard amount of accomplished work, defined as a piece rate). The earliest such unit of time,
still frequently used, is the day of work. The invention of clocks coincided with the elaborating
of subdivisions of time for work, of which the hour became the most common, underlying the
concept of an hourly wage.[2][3]
Wages were paid in the Middle Kingdom of ancient Egypt,[4] ancient Greece,[5] and ancient
Rome.[5]

Determinants of wage rates

Depending on the structure and traditions of different economies around the world, wage rates
will be influenced by market forces (supply and demand), legislation, and tradition. Market
forces are perhaps more dominant in the United States, while tradition, social structure and
seniority, perhaps play a greater role in Japan.[6][citation needed]

See also: Efficiency wage

Wage differences

See also: Gender pay gap and Wage theft

Even in countries where market forces primarily set wage rates, studies show that there are still
differences in remuneration for work based on sex and race. For example, according to the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2007 women of all races made approximately 80% of the median
wage of their male counterparts. This is likely due to the supply and demand for women in the
market because of family obligations.[7] Similarly, white men made about 84% the wage of Asian
men, and black men 64%.[8] These are overall averages and are not adjusted for the type, amount,
and quality of work done.

Wages in the United States

Historical graph of real wages in the US from 1964 to 2005.

Real GDP, Real Wages and Trade Policy in the U.S. (1947–2014)
See also: Minimum wage and Minimum wage in the United States

Seventy-five million workers earned hourly wages in the United States in 2012, making up 59%
of employees.[9] In the United States, wages for most workers are set by market forces, or else by
collective bargaining, where a labor union negotiates on the workers' behalf. The Fair Labor
Standards Act establishes a minimum wage at the federal level that all states must abide by,
among other provisions. Fourteen states and a number of cities have set their own minimum
wage rates that are higher than the federal level. For certain federal or state government contacts,
employers must pay the so-called prevailing wage as determined according to the Davis-Bacon
Act or its state equivalent. Activists have undertaken to promote the idea of a living wage rate
which account for living expenses and other basic necessities, setting the living wage rate much
higher than current minimum wage laws require. The minimum wage rate is there to protect the
well being of the working class.[10]

Definitions
For purposes of federal income tax withholding, 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) defines the term "wages"
specifically for chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code:

"For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a
public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value
of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;" In addition to
requiring that the remuneration must be for "services performed by an employee for his
employer," the definition goes on to list 23 exclusions that must also be applied.[11]

11. Wealth

List of countries by total wealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from National wealth)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Countries by total wealth(billions USD), Credit Suisse 2018

National net wealth, also known as national net worth, is the total sum of the value of a
nation's assets minus its liabilities. It refers to the total value of net wealth possessed by the
citizens of a nation at a set point in time.[1] This figure is an important indicator of a nation's
ability to take on debt and sustain spending and is influenced not only by real estate prices,
equity market prices, exchange rates, liabilities and incidence in a country of the adult
population, but also human resources, natural resources and capital and technological
advancements, which may create new assets or render others worthless in the future. The most
significant component by far among most developed nations is commonly reported as household
net wealth or worth and reflects infrastructure investment. National wealth can fluctuate, as
evidenced in the United States data following the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent economic
recovery. During periods when equity markets experienced strong growth, the relative national
and per capita wealth of the countries where people are more exposed on those markets, such as
the United States and United Kingdom, tend to rise. On the other hand, when equity markets are
depressed, the relative wealth the countries where people invest more in real estate or bonds,
such as France and Italy, tend to rise instead.[2]

Contents
 1 List of countries by total wealth
 2 Differences by country
 3 List of continents, Asia-Pacific, China and India by total wealth
 4 See also
 5 References

List of countries by total wealth

See also: List of countries by wealth per adult
 List by Credit Suisse (2018)[3]
Total wealth
Rank Country/geographic region
(billions USD)
— World 317,084
— North America 106,513
— Asia 105,946
1 United States 98,154
— Europe 85,402
2 China 51,874
3 Japan 23,884
4 Germany 14,499
5 United Kingdom 14,209
6 France 13,883
7 Italy 10,569
— Oceania 8,615
8 Canada 8,319
— Latin America 8,055
9 Australia 7,577
10 Spain 7,152
11 South Korea 7,107
12 India 5,972
13 Taiwan[4] 4,065
14 Switzerland 3,611
15 Netherlands 3,357
16 Belgium 2,776
— Africa 2,553
17 Brazil 2,464
18 Russia 2,240
19 Sweden 1,920
20 Mexico 1,729
21 Austria 1,637
[5]
22 Hong Kong 1,523
23 Indonesia 1,518
24 Singapore 1,289
25 Denmark 1,276
26 Norway 1,181
27 New Zealand 1,010
 List by Credit Suisse (2018)[3]
Total wealth
Rank Country/geographic region
(billions USD)
28 Turkey 1,010
29 Saudi Arabia 977
30 Greece 975
31 Poland 974
32 Israel 941
33 Portugal 916
34 Chile 819
35 Ireland 806
36 South Africa 786
37 Finland 697
38 United Arab Emirates 684
39 Colombia 616
40 Malaysia 598
41 Thailand 525
42 Czech Republic 524
43 Philippines 518
44 Peru 467
45 Pakistan 422
46 Argentina 345
47 Romania 317
48 Vietnam 307
49 Hungary 294
50 Kuwait 278
51 Iran 272
52 Iraq 272
53 Qatar 265
54 Bangladesh 240
55 Morocco 216
56 Libya 252
57 Algeria 241
58 Egypt 212
59 Luxembourg 188
60 Slovakia 151
61 Oman 144
 List by Credit Suisse (2018)[3]
Total wealth
Rank Country/geographic region
(billions USD)
62 Lebanon 140
63 Nigeria 139
64 Iceland 138
65 Bulgaria 138
66 Slovenia 133
67 Croatia 120
68 Tunisia 120
69 Ecuador 116
70 Costa Rica 111
71 Angola 102
72 Uruguay 97
73 Cyprus 91
74 Sri Lanka 82
75 Panama 77
76 Serbia 73
77 Jordan 72
78 Kazakhstan 62
79 El Salvador 61
80 Estonia 60
81 Honduras 58
82 Kenya 57
83 Lithuania 57
84 Ukraine 55
85 Latvia 53
86 Myanmar 52
87 Azerbaijan 52
88 Georgia 49
89 Malta 49
90 Bolivia 48
91 Bahamas 45
92 Bosnia and Herzegovina 40
93 Paraguay 38
94 Albania 37
95 Turkmenistan 37
 List by Credit Suisse (2018)[3]
Total wealth
Rank Country/geographic region
(billions USD)
96 Nepal 35
97 Mauritius 34
98 Ivory Coast 34
99 Cambodia 33
100 Papua New Guinea 28

Differences by country
In the following table are ranked the 30 countries by the largest national net wealth from 2000 to
2018 according to Credit Suisse S.A. (October 2018).

The 30 largest countries by net national wealth (in billions USD)

Pea Pe
Ra 200 200 201 201 201 k ak
Country Country Country Country Country Country
nk 0 5 0 5 8 valu ye
e ar
116, 178, 234, 275, 317, 317, 20
— World World World World World World
824 955 642 531 084 084 18
Unit 42,3 Unit 59,9 Unit 60,2 Unit 83,5 Unit 98,1 Unit 98,1 20
1
ed States 20 ed States 21 ed States 30 ed States 86 ed States 54 ed States 54 18
Japa 19,4 Japa 19,4 Japa 24,8 Chin 46,5 Chin 51,8 Chin 51,8 20
2
n 04 n 76 n 00 a 46 a 74 a 74 18
Unit Unit
ed 6,56 ed 10,9 Chin 24,7 Japa 21,5 Japa 23,8 Japa 29,7 20
3
Kingdo 5 Kingdo 49 a 35 n 55 n 84 n 18 11
m m
Unit Unit
Ger 6,16 Fran 9,67 Fran 13,4 ed 13,8 Ger 14,4 ed 14,5 20
4
many 0 ce 9 ce 79 Kingdo 71 many 99 Kingdo 24 07
m m
Unit
5,52 9,45 Ger 11,8 Ger 11,9 ed 14,2 Ger 14,4 20
5 Italy Italy
2 7 many 92 many 90 Kingdo 09 many 99 18
m
Fran 4,70 Ger 9,07 11,5 Fran 11,5 Fran 13,8 Fran 14,2 20
6 Italy
ce 4 many 3 04 ce 75 ce 83 ce 81 07
Chin 3,70 Chin 8,52 Unit 10,9 8,65 10,5 12,8 20
7 Italy Italy Italy
a 4a 3 ed 65 5 69 20 07
 The 30 largest countries by net national wealth (in billions USD)
Pea Pe
Ra 200 200 201 201 201 k ak
Country Country Country Country Country Country
nk 0 5 0 5 8 valu ye
e ar
Kingdo
m
Can 2,61 Spai 6,90 Spai 8,67 Can 6,90 Can 8,31 Spai 10,2 20
8
ada 2n 5n 0 ada 0 ada 9n 96 07
Spai 2,49 Can 4,35 Can 6,71 Aust 6,41 Aust 7,57 Can 8,31 20
9
n 7 ada 7 ada 7 ralia 8 ralia 7 ada 9 18
Tai 1,86 Sout 3,51 Aust 6,09 Spai 6,16 Spai 7,15 Aust 7,65 20
10
wan 8 h Korea 2 ralia 7 n 7 n 2 ralia 6 17
Sout 1,71 Aust 3,48 Sout 4,84 Sout 6,12 Sout 7,10 Sout 7,10 20
11
h Korea 5 ralia 0 h Korea 4 h Korea 5 h Korea 7 h Korea 7 18
Neth 1,59 Neth 2,52 Indi 4,24 Indi 5,00 Indi 5,97 Indi 5,97 20
12
erlands 1 erlands 4a 1a 4a 2a 2 18
Aust 1,50 Tai 2,32 Neth 3,31 Swit 3,40 Tai 4,06 Tai 4,06 20
13
ralia 0 wan 2 erlands 1 zerland 1 wan 5 wan 5 18
Swit 1,27 Indi 2,14 Braz 3,19 Tai 3,36 Swit 3,61 Swit 3,72 20
14
zerland 3a 1 il 8 wan 5 zerland 1 zerland 5 17
Belg 1,08 Belg 1,76 Tai 3,02 Neth 2,78 Neth 3,35 Braz 3,48 20
15
ium 7 ium 2 wan 4 erlands 3 erlands 7 il 1 11
Indi 1,05 Swit 1,73 Swit 2,52 Belg 2,26 Belg 2,77 Neth 3,45 20
16
a 6 zerland 7 zerland 2 ium 9 ium 6 erlands 7 09
Mex Mex 1,44 Belg 2,28 Braz 2,15 Braz 2,46 Russ 2,83 20
17 987
ico ico 5 ium 1 il 1 il 4 ia 3 13
Braz Braz 1,22 Russ 2,19 Mex 1,87 Russ 2,24 Belg 2,77 20
18 839
il il 4 ia 3 ico 6 ia 0 ium 6 18
Gree Russ 1,22 Mex 1,58 Swe 1,78 Swe 1,92 Swe 2,02 20
19 618
ce ia 1 ico 5 den 6 den 0 den 0 17
Hon Turk 1,07 Swe 1,51 Russ 1,45 Mex 1,72 Mex 1,98 20
20 599
g Kong ey 8 den 1 ia 3 ico 9 ico 8 09
Aust Gree 1,02 Turk 1,48 Indo 1,39 Aust 1,63 Turk 1,67 20
21 587
ria ce 0 ey 6 nesia 2 ria 7 ey 5 07
Arge Aust 1,00 Indo 1,45 Hon 1,34 Hon 1,52 Aust 1,63 20
22 585
ntina ria 7 nesia 9 g Kong 2 g Kong 3 ria 7 18
Swe Swe Aust 1,28 Aust 1,27 Indo 1,51 Indo 1,58 20
23 522 966
den den ria 4 ria 6 nesia 8 nesia 6 12
Turk Den Gree 1,24 Turk 1,15 Sing 1,28 Gree 1,58 20
24 484 799
ey mark ce 8 ey 1 apore 9 ce 4 07
 The 30 largest countries by net national wealth (in billions USD)
Pea Pe
Ra 200 200 201 201 201 k ak
Country Country Country Country Country Country
nk 0 5 0 5 8 valu ye
e ar
Den Nor Nor 1,06 Sing 1,07 Den 1,27 Hon 1,52 20
25 451 761
mark way way 7 apore 0 mark 6 g Kong 3 18
Nor Indo Den 1,02 Den 1,04 Nor 1,18 Sing 1,28 20
26 382 715
way nesia mark 2 mark 8 way 1 apore 9 18
Israe Hon Pola Nor Turk 1,01 Den 1,27 20
27 355 684 921 935
l g Kong nd way ey 0 mark 6 18
Port Sout Hon New New 1,01 Nor 1,22 20
28 329 589 895 873
ugal h Africa g Kong Zealand Zealand 0 way 7 13
Sing Port Sing Saud Saud Pola 1,05 20
29 324 584 871 857 977
apore ugal apore i Arabia i Arabia nd 4 13
Russ New Sout Pola Gree New 1,03 20
30 316 512 812 847 975
ia Zealand h Africa nd ce Zealand 7 17

The following table indicates the share of global wealth of the ten largest countries by net
national wealth at given years. The share of global wealth of a country that is 5% or greater at a
given year is emboldened.

Share of global wealth of the ten largest countries by net national wealth at given years (%)
Aggr
S U egate
U
Ye Au Ca C Fr Ger I J outh S Ta nited share
nited
ar stralia nada hina ance many taly apan Kore pain iwan Kingd of the
States
a om top
10
20 16.5 36.2
— 2.1% 4.0% 3.9% 5.0% 4.7% - 1.7% 1.6% 6.1% 81.8%
00 % %
20 14.2 37.5
— 2.1% 4.4% 4.0% 5.0% 4.7% 1.7% 1.8% — 6.0% 81.4%
01 % %
20 5.5 14.1 33.8
— 2.0% 5.1% 4.8% 5.6% 1.7% 2.0% — 6.5% 81.1%
02 % % %
20 5.8 13.3 32.1
1.7% 2.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.9% — 2.3% — 6.6% 80.4%
03 % % %
20 5.9 12.0 32.0
— 2.2% 5.0% 5.9% 5.9% 1.8% 2.4% — 6.9% 80.0%
04 % % %
20 5.3 10.5 34.7
— 2.5% 5.0% 5.5% 5.2% 2.0% 2.3% — 6.4% 79.4%
05 % % %
20 5.6 31.5
2.1% 2.4% 5.1% 5.9% 5.1% 9.7% — 4.3% — 6.5% 78.2%
06 % %
 Share of global wealth of the ten largest countries by net national wealth at given years (%)
Aggr
S U egate
U
Ye Au Ca C Fr Ger I J outh S Ta nited share
nited
ar stralia nada hina ance many taly apan Kore pain iwan Kingd of the
States
a om top
10
20 5.6 28.0
2.3% 2.7% 6.1% 6.3% 5.4% 8.8% — 4.5% — 6.4% 76.1%
07 % %
20 5.8 11.7 26.1
1.8% 2.3% 8.6% 6.2% 5.6% — 4.6% — 4.6% 77.3%
08 % % %
20 5.7 10.7 25.3
2.5% 2.7% 9.0% 6.0% 5.6% — 4.3% — 5.0% 76.8%
09 % % %
20 10.5 10.6 25.7
2.6% 2.9% 5.7% 5.1% 4.9% — 3.7% — 4.7% 76.4%
10 % % %
20 12.4 11.9 24.6
2.6% 2.8% 5.4% 4.8% 4.5% — 3.5% — 4.7% 77.2%
11 % % %
20 13.2 10.4 25.4
2.7% 3.0% 5.1% 4.8% 4.4% — 3.1% — 4.6% 76.7%
12 % % %
20 14.7 27.3
2.4% 2.8% 5.0% 4.9% 4.3% 8.3% — 2.8% — 4.8% 77.3%
13 % %
20 15.9 29.1
2.4% 2.8% 4.4% 4.6% 3.4% 7.6% — 2.3% — 5.0% 77.5%
14 % %
20 16.9 30.3
2.3% 2.5% 4.2% 4.4% 3.1% 7.8% — 2.2% — 5.0% 78.7%
15 % %
20 16.3 31.1
2.4% 2.7% 4.1% 4.3% 3.2% 8.0% — 2.2% — 4.4% 78.7%
16 % %
20 16.4 30.3
2.5% 2.7% 4.3% 4.5% 3.3% 7.7% — 2.3% — 4.4% 78.4%
17 % %
20 16.4 31.0
2.4% 2.6% 4.4% 4.6% 3.3% 7.5% — 2.3% — 4.5% 79.0%
18 % %

List of continents, Asia-Pacific, China and India by total

wealth
Worlds regions by total wealth(in trillions USD), 2018
List by Credit Suisse (2018)[6]
Total wealth
Rank Continent/region/country Share
(trillions USD)
World 317.1 100%
1 North America 106.5 33.6%
2 Europe 85.4 26.9%
3 Asia-Pacific (excluding China and India) 56.7 17.9%
4 China 51.9 16.4%
5 Latin America 8.1 2.5%
6 India 6.0 1.9%
7 Africa 2.6 0.8%

12. National accounts

National accounts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series on
 Economics

 Index
 Outline
 Category

 History
 Branches
 Classification

[show]

 Concepts
 Theory
 Techniques

[show]

By application[show]

Notable economists[show]

Lists[show]

Glossary[show]

 Business and economics portal

 v
 t
 e

National accounts is included in the JEL

classification codes as JEL: C82 and JEL:E01

National accounts or national account systems (NAS) are the implementation of complete and
consistent accounting techniques for measuring the economic activity of a nation. These include
detailed underlying measures that rely on double-entry accounting. By design, such accounting
makes the totals on both sides of an account equal even though they each measure different
characteristics, for example production and the income from it. As a method, the subject is
termed national accounting or, more generally, social accounting.[1] Stated otherwise, national
accounts as systems may be distinguished from the economic data associated with those
systems.[2] While sharing many common principles with business accounting, national accounts
are based on economic concepts.[3] One conceptual construct for representing flows of all
economic transactions that take place in an economy is a social accounting matrix with accounts
in each respective row-column entry.[4]

National accounting has developed in tandem with macroeconomics from the 1930s with its
relation of aggregate demand to total output through interaction of such broad expenditure
categories as consumption and investment.[5] Economic data from national accounts are also used
for empirical analysis of economic growth and development.[1][6]

Contents
 1 Scope
 2 Main components
 3 History
 4 See also
 5 References

Scope
National accounts broadly present output, expenditure, and income activities of the economic
actors (households, corporations, government) in an economy, including their relations with
other countries' economies, and their wealth (net worth). They present both flows (measured over
a period) and stocks (measured at the end of a period), ensuring that the flows are reconciled with
the stocks. As to flows, the national income and product accounts (in U.S. terminology) provide
estimates for the money value of income and output per year or quarter, including GDP. As to
stocks, the 'capital accounts' are a balance-sheet approach that has assets on one side (including
values of land, the capital stock, and financial assets) and liabilities and net worth on the other,
measured as of the end of the accounting period. National accounts also include measures of the
changes in assets, liabilities, and net worth per accounting period. These may refer to flow of
funds accounts or, again, capital accounts.[1]

There are a number of aggregate measures in the national accounts, notably including gross
domestic product or GDP, perhaps the most widely cited measure of aggregate economic
activity. Ways of breaking down GDP include as types of income (wages, profits, etc.) or
expenditure (consumption, investment/saving, etc.). Measures of these are examples of macro-
economic data.[7][8][9][10] Such aggregate measures and their change over time are generally of
strongest interest to economic policymakers, although the detailed national accounts contain a
source of information for economic analysis, for example in the input-output tables which show
how industries interact with each other in the production process.

National accounts can be presented in nominal or real amounts, with real amounts adjusted to
remove the effects of price changes over time.[11] A corresponding price index can also be
derived from national output. Rates of change of the price level and output may also be of
interest. An inflation rate (growth rate of the price level) may be calculated for national output or
its expenditure components. Economic growth rates (most commonly the growth rate of GDP)
are generally measured in real (constant-price) terms. One use of economic-growth data from the
national accounts is in growth accounting across longer periods of time for a country or across to
estimate different sources of growth, whether from growth of factor inputs or technological
change.[12]

The accounts are derived from a wide variety of statistical source data including surveys,
administrative and census data, and regulatory data, which are integrated and harmonized in the
conceptual framework. They are usually compiled by national statistical offices and/or central
banks in each country, though this is not always the case, and may be released on both an annual
and (less detailed) quarterly frequency. Practical issues include inaccuracies from differences
between economic and accounting methodologies, lack of controlled experiments on quality of
data from diverse sources, and measurement of intangibles and services of the banking and
financial sectors.[13]

Two developments relevant to the national accounts since the 1980s include the following.
Generational accounting is a method for measuring redistribution of lifetime tax burdens across
generations from social insurance, including social security and social health insurance. It has
been proposed as a better guide to the sustainability of a fiscal policy than budget deficits, which
reflect only taxes minus spending in the current year.[14] Environmental or green national
accounting is the method of valuing environmental assets, which are usually not counted in
measuring national wealth, in part due to the difficulty of valuing them. The method has been
proposed as an alternative to an implied zero valuation of environmental assets and as a way of
measuring the sustainability of welfare levels in the presence of environmental degradation.[15]

Macroeconomic data not derived from the national accounts are also of wide interest, for
example some cost-of-living indexes, the unemployment rate, and the labor force participation
rate.[16] In some cases, a national-accounts counterpart of these may be estimated, such as a price
index computed from the personal consumption expenditures and the GDP gap (the difference
between observed GDP and potential GDP).[17]

Main components
The presentation of national accounts data may vary by country (commonly, aggregate measures
are given greatest prominence), however the main national accounts include the following
accounts for the economy as a whole and its main economic actors.

 Current accounts:

production accounts which record the value of domestic output and the goods and
services used up in producing that output. The balancing item of the accounts is value
added, which is equal to GDP when expressed for the whole economy at market prices
and in gross terms;
 income accounts, which show primary and secondary income flows - both the income
generated in production (e.g. wages and salaries) and distributive income flows
(predominantly the redistributive effects of government taxes and social benefit
payments). The balancing item of the accounts is disposable income ("National Income"
when measured for the whole economy);
expenditure accounts, which show how disposable income is either consumed or saved.
The balancing item of these accounts is saving.

 Capital accounts, which record the net accumulation, as the result of transactions, of non-
financial assets; and the financing, by way of saving and capital transfers, of the
accumulation. Net lending/borrowing is the balancing item for these accounts
 Financial accounts, which show the net acquisition of financial assets and the net
incurrence of liabilities. The balance on these accounts is the net change in financial
position.
 Balance sheets, which record the stock of assets, both financial and non-financial, and
liabilities at a particular point in time. Net worth is the balance from the balance sheets
(United Nations, 1993).

The accounts may be measured as gross or net of consumption of fixed capital (a concept in
national accounts similar to depreciation in business accounts).

Notably absent from these components, however, is unpaid work, because its value is not
included in any of the aforementioned categories of accounts, just as it is not included in
calculating gross domestic product (GDP). An Australian study has shown the value of this
uncounted work to be approximately 50% of GDP, making its exclusion rather significant.[18] As
GDP is tied closely to the national accounts system,[19] this may lead to a distorted view of
national accounts. Because national accounts are widely used by governmental policy-makers in
implementing controllable economic agendas,[20] some analysts have advocated for either a
change in the makeup of national accounts or adjustments in the formulation of public policy.[21]

History
The original motivation for the development of national accounts and the systematic
measurement of employment was the need for accurate measures of aggregate economic activity.
This was made more pressing by the Great Depression and as a basis for Keynesian
macroeconomic stabilisation policy and wartime economic planning. The first efforts to develop
such measures were undertaken in the late 1920s and 1930s, notably by Colin Clark and Simon
Kuznets. Richard Stone of the U.K. led later contributions during World War II and thereafter.
The first formal national accounts were published by the United States in 1947. Many European
countries followed shortly thereafter, and the United Nations published A System of National
Accounts and Supporting Tables in 1952.[1][22] International standards for national accounting are
defined by the United Nations System of National Accounts, with the most recent version
released for 2008.[23]
Even before that in early 1920s there were national economic accounts tables. One of such
systems was called Balance of national economy and was used in USSR and other socialistic
countries to measure the efficiency of socialistic production.Economic theory.[24]

In Europe, the worldwide System of National Accounts has been adapted in the European
System of Accounts (ESA), which is applied by members of the European Union and many other
European countries. Research on the subject continues from its beginnings through today.

12.1. Gross National Happiness

Gross National Happiness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Play media
"What is Gross National Happiness", an info-graphical video.

Slogan about Gross National Happiness in Thimphu's School of Traditional Arts.

Gross National Happiness (also known by the acronym: GNH) is a philosophy that guides the
government of Bhutan. It includes an index which is used to measure the collective happiness
and well-being of a population. Gross National Happiness is instituted as the goal of the
government of Bhutan in the Constitution of Bhutan, enacted on 18 July 2008.[1]
The term Gross National Happiness was coined in 1972 during an interview by a British
journalist for the Financial Times at Bombay airport when the then king of Bhutan, Jigme Singye
Wangchuck, said "Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National
Product."[2][3][4]

In 2011, The UN General Assembly passed Resolution "Happiness: towards a holistic approach
to development" urging member nations to follow the example of Bhutan and measure happiness
and well-being and calling happiness a "fundamental human goal."[5]

In 2012, Bhutan's Prime Minister Jigme Thinley and the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon of the
United Nations convened the High Level Meeting: Well-being and Happiness: Defining a New
Economic Paradigm to encourage the spread of Bhutan's GNH philosophy.[6] At the High Level
meeting, the first World Happiness Report was issued. Shortly after the High Level meeting, 20
March was declared to be International Day of Happiness by the UN in 2012 with resolution
66/28.[7]

Bhutan's Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay proclaimed a preference for focus on more concrete
goals instead of promoting GNH when he took office,[8] but subsequently has protected the GNH
of his country and promoted the concept internationally.[9] Other Bhutanese officials also
promote the spread of GNH at the UN and internationally.[10][11]

Contents
 1 GNH Defined
 2 Implementation of GNH in Bhutan
 3 Spread of GNH Outside of Bhutan
 4 Criticism
 5 See also
 6 References
o 6.1 Footnotes
o 6.2 References
 7 External links

GNH Defined
GNH is distinguishable from Gross Domestic Product by valuing collective happiness as the goal
of governance, by emphasizing harmony with nature and traditional values as expressed in the 9
domains of happiness and 4 pillars of GNH.[12] The four pillars of GNH's are 1) sustainable and
equitable socio-economic development; 2) environmental conservation; 3) preservation and
promotion of culture; and 4) good governance.[13] The nine domains of GNH are psychological
well-being, health, time use, education, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance,
community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards.[14][15] Each domain
is composed of subjective (survey-based) and objective indicators. The domains weigh equally
but the indicators within each domain differ by weight.[16]

Implementation of GNH in Bhutan

The Gross National Happiness Commission is charged with implementing GNH in Bhutan.[17]
The GNH Commission is composed of the Secretaries each of the ministries of the government,
the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of the GNH Commission.[18] The GNH Commission's tasks
include conceiving and implementing the nation's 5-year plan and promulgating policies. The
GNH Index is used to measure the happiness and well-being of Bhutan's population. A GNH
Policy Screening Tool[19] and a GNH Project Screening Tool is used by the GNH commission to
determine whether to pass policies or implement projects.[20] The GNH Screening tools used by
the Bhutanese GNH Commission for anticipating the impact of policy initiatives upon the levels
of GNH in Bhutan.[21]

In 2008, the first GNH survey was conducted.[22][23] It was followed by a second one in 2010.[24]
The third nationwide survey was conducted in 2015.[25] The GNH survey covers all twenty
districts (Dzonkhag) and results are reported for varying demographic factors such as gender,
age, abode, and occupation. The first GNH surveys consisted of long questionnaires that polled
the citizens about living conditions and religious behavior, including questions about the times a
person prayed in a day and other Karma indicators. It took several hours to complete one
questionnaire. Later rounds of the GNH Index were shortened, but the survey retained the
religious behavioral indicators.[26]

The Bhutan GNH Index was developed by the Centre for Bhutan Studies with the help of the
researchers from Oxford University researchers to help measure the progress of Bhutanese
society. The Index function was based on Alkire & Foster method of 2011.[26][27] After the
creation of the national GNH Index, the government used the metric to measure national
progress and inform policy.[28][29]

The Bhutan GNH Index is considered to measure societal progress similarly to other models
such as the Gross National Well-being of 2005, the OECD Better Life Index of 2011, and SPI
Social Progress Index of 2013. One distinguishing feature of Bhutan GNH Index from the other
models is that the other models are designed for secular governments and do not include
religious behavior measurement components.

The data is used to compare the happiness between different groups of citizens,[30] and changes
over time.[31]

Spread of GNH Outside of Bhutan

In Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, a shortened version of Bhutan's GNH survey was used by
the local government, local foundations and governmental agencies under the leadership of
Martha and Michael Pennock to assess the population of Victoria.[32][33]
In the state of São Paulo, Brazil, Susan Andrews,[34] through her organization Future Vision
Ecological Park, used a version of Bhutan's GNH at a community level in some cities.[35]

In Seattle, Washington, United States, a version of the GNH Index was used by the Seattle City
Council and Sustainable Seattle to assess the happiness and well-being of the Seattle Area
population.[36][37][38] Other cities and areas in North America, including Eau Claire, Wisconsin,
Creston, British Columbia and the U.S. state of Vermont, also used a version of the GNH
Index.[39]

At the University of Oregon, United States, a behavioral model of GNH based on the use of
positive and negative words in social network status updates was developed by Adam Kramer.[40]

In 2016, Thailand launched its own GNH center.[41] The former king of Thailand, Bhumibol
Adulyadej, was a close friend of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, and conceived the similar
philosophy of Sufficiency Economy.

In the Philippines, the concept of GNH has been lauded by various personalities, notably
Philippine senator and UN Global Champion for Resilience Loren Legarda, and former
environment minister Gina Lopez. Bills have been filed in the Philippine Senate and House of
Representatives in support of Gross National Happiness in the Philippines. Additionally,
Executive Director of Bhutan’s GNH Center, Dr. Saamdu Chetri, has been invited by high-level
officials in the Philippines for a GNH Forum.[42][43][44]

Many other cities and governments have undertaken efforts to measure happiness and well-being
(also termed "Beyond GDP"[45]) since the High Level Meeting in 2012, but have not used
versions of Bhutan's GNH index. Among these include the national governments of the United
Kingdom's Office of National Statistics[46] and the United Arab Emirates,[47] and cities including
Somerville, Massachusetts, United States,[48] and Bristol, United Kingdom.[49] Also a number of
companies which are implementing sustainability practices in business have been inspired by
GNH.[50]

Gross National Happiness is also promoted in the United States by a nonprofit organization,
Gross National Happiness USA. Headquartered in Vermont, GNHUSA is a 501c(3) tax-exempt
non-profit organization with a mission to increase personal happiness and the collective
wellbeing by changing how the United States measure their progress and success. GNHUSA was
founded after Linda Wheatley of Montpelier, Vermont, attended the 2008 Annual Gross National
Happiness Research Conference in Thimphu, Bhutan. Wheatley returned to Vermont determined
to introduce the little-known GNH concepts to the general public in the U.S. After establishing
the nonprofit in the spring of 2009, representatives of the group attended the fifth international
GNH research conference in Brazil in November 2009 and, in June 2010, hosted the first US-
based conference on Gross National Happiness and other alternative indicators, at Champlain
College in Burlington, Vermont. In May of 2012, GNHUSA with co-sponsors organized
Measure What Matters, a conference building a collaborative of data experts in Vermont. The
state of Vermont's Governor declared April 13th (President Jefferson’s birthday) “Pursuit of
Happiness Day,” and became the first state to pass legislation enabling development of
alternative indicators and to assist in making policy. GNHUSA collaborates with the Vermont
Data Center to perform a periodic study of well-being in the state, as a pilot for other states and
municipalities. The organization also collaborates closely with the Happiness Alliance in
collecting online GNH data, based on the domain of happiness developed by Bhutan. In 2017,
GNHUSA initiated the process of establishing chapters in all 50 states to work with local
governments and institutions on well-being initiatives, beginning with Wisconsin and North
Carolina. The organization also promotes the U.N.-designated International Happiness Day
(March 20) as an opportunity to discuss the concepts of well-being with others at Happiness
Dinners across the country.

From August 25, 2012 to the present, GNHUSA has been carrying out a nationwide action
research project, The Happiness Walk, carried out by GNHUSA board members and supporters.
On the first leg, two GNHUSA board members walked 594 miles, from Vermont to Washington
DC; the Walk most recently completed a leg from Santa Monica, CA to the Bay Area, with a
side trip to Hawaii, and resumed March 1, 2018, walking from Petaluma CA to Seattle,
Washington, on the 13th leg of the journey. Along the way, Walkers perform audio and video
interviews and collect survey responses, introducing the concept of GNH and amassing data that
will assist them in tailoring the GNH domains and indicators to American culture. GNHUSA
also posts and promotes a Charter for Happiness which, as of May 7, 2018, has 469 signatories.

Criticism
GNH has been described by critics as a propaganda tool used by the Bhutanese government to
distract from ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses it has committed.[51][52]

Bhutanese democratic government began in 2008. Before that time the ethnic cleansing in
Bhutan of non-Buddhist population of ethnic Nepalese of Hindu faith as a result of the GNH
cultural preservation.[53][54] The NGO Human Rights Watch documented the events.[55]
According to Human Rights Watch, "Over 100,000 or 1/6 of the population of Bhutan of
Nepalese origin and Hindu faith were expelled from the country because they would not
integrate with Bhutan’s Buddhist culture."[56] The Refugee Council of Australia stated that "it is
extraordinary and shocking that a nation can get away with expelling one sixth of its people and
somehow keep its international reputation largely intact. The Government of Bhutan should be
known not for Gross National Happiness but for Gross National Hypocrisy."[57]

Some researchers state that Bhutan's GNH philosophy “has evolved over the last decade through
the contribution of western and local scholars to a version that is more democratic and open.
Therefore, probably, the more accurate historical reference is to mention the coining of the GNH
phrase as a key event, but not the Bhutan GNH philosophy, because the philosophy as
understood by western scholars is different from the philosophy used by the King at the time.”[58]
Other viewpoints are that GNH is a process of development and learning, rather than an
objective norm or absolute end point. Bhutan aspires to enhance the happiness of its people and
GNH serves as a measurement tool for realizing that aspiration.[59]

Other criticism focuses on the standard of living in Bhutan. In an article written in 2004 in the
Economist magazine, “The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is not in fact an idyll in a fairy tale. It
is home to perhaps 900,000 people most of whom live in grinding poverty."[60] Other criticism of
GNH cites "increasing levels of political corruption, the rapid spread of diseases such as aids and
tuberculosis, gang violence, abuses against women and ethnic minorities, shortages in
food/medicine, and economic woes

12.2. Net material product

Net material product

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series on

Soviet economics

Organizations[show]

Planning methods[show]

Statistics[show]

Related topics[show]

 Business and economics portal

 v
 t
 e

Net Material Product (NMP) was the main macroeconomic indicator used for monitoring
growth in national accounts of socialist countries during the Soviet era. These countries included
the USSR and all the Comecon members. NMP is the conceptual equivalent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) in the United Nations System of National Accounts, although numerically the
two measures are calculated differently.

NMP is calculated for the material production sectors only, and excludes most of the service
sectors, which are part of GDP. The material production sectors include manufacturing
industries, agriculture and forestry, construction, wholesale and retail trade, supply of material
inputs, road maintenance, freight transport (but not passenger transport), communication and
information services supporting material production, and other material production activities. It
is calculated by subtracting the value of all production costs (including the cost of material
inputs, depreciation, and labor in production) from the value of output produced in the material
production sectors.

For comparison with GDP, it is necessary to add back to NMP the value of fixed asset
depreciation (which is not subtracted in GDP calculations) and the total value of all services
classified as "non-productive" in the socialist system of national accounts (which are part of
GDP). These "non-productive" services include health care, education, housing, public utilities,
consumer services, communication in the non-productive sector, passenger transport, financial
services (banking, credit, insurance), government services, the defense establishment, and social
organizations. The tax components subtracted in the calculation of GDP should also be added
back to obtain NMP.

The economic term that corresponds to Net Material Product in Russian is Национальный
доход (literally: national income). None of the accepted meanings of national income in English
matches the meaning in Russian, and Net Material Product was introduced into English usage as
the best alternative.

Contents
 1 GDP and NMP for USSR 1980–1990
 2 NMP growth for Comecon countries
 3 See also
 4 References

GDP and NMP for USSR 1980–1990

GDP began to be calculated in the USSR in 1988, based essentially on the United Nations
System of National Accounts. The table compares the new GDP estimates with the traditional
NMP numbers (in billions of current rubles). GDP is seen to be 25%–30% higher than NMP due
to depreciation and the "non-productive" service sectors included in GDP but not in NMP.

Indicator 1980 1985 1990

GDP 619 777 1000
NMP 462.2 578.5 700.6
NMP in % of GDP 75 74 70
Source: Narodnoye khoziaystvo SSSR 1990, statistical yearbook of the USSR, p. 5.

NMP growth for Comecon countries

Change in NMP (in constant prices) 1980–1990 (in percent of 1980)

Czecho
East
Bulgari Cub - Hungar Mongoli Polan Romani Vietna USS
Indicator German
a a Slovaki y a d a m R
y
a
NMP in
1990
141 143 117 139 112 156 108 144 153 127
(1980=10
0)
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Comecon Countries 1989, Table 21, p. 59.

13. Human development

Human development (economics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Human development (humanity))
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality
standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (August 2018)

Human development is the science that seeks to understand how and why the people of all ages
and circumstances change or remain the same over time. It involves studies of the human
condition with its core being the capability approach. The inequality adjusted Human
Development Index is used as a way of measuring actual progress in human development by the
United Nations. It is an alternative approach to a single focus on economic growth, and focused
more on social justice, as a way of understanding progress.

The term human development may be defined as an expansion of human capabilities, a

widening of choices, 'an enhancement of freedom, and a fulfilment of human rights.[1] This also
simply means developing mentally, socially through growing and experiencing things in your
life and learning new things.

The United Nations Development Programme defines human development as "the process of
enlarging people's choices," said choices allowing them to "lead a long and healthy life, to be
educated, to enjoy a decent standard of living," as well as "political freedom, other guaranteed
human rights and various ingredients of self-respect."[2]
Development concerns expanding the choices people have, to lead lives that they value, and
improving the human condition so that people have the chance to lead full lives.[3] Thus, human
development is about much more than economic growth, which is only a means of enlarging
people's choices.[4] Fundamental to enlarging these choices is building human capabilities—the
range of things that people can do or be in life. Capabilities are "the substantive freedoms [a
person] enjoys to lead the kind of life [they have] reason to value".[5] Human development
disperses the concentration of the distribution of goods and services underprivileged people need
and center its ideas on human decisions.[6] By investing in people, we enable growth and
empower people to pursue many different life paths, thus developing human capabilities.[7] The
most basic capabilities for human development are to lead long and healthy lives, be
knowledgeable (i.e., educated), have access to resources and social services needed for a decent
standard of living, and be able to participate in the life of the community. Without these, many
choices are not available, and many opportunities in life remain inaccessible.[4]

An abstract illustration of human capability is a bicycle. A bicycle itself is a resource—a mode

of transportation. If the person who owns a bicycle is unable to ride it (due to a lack of balance or
knowledge), the bicycle is useless to her or him as transportation and loses its functioning. If a
person owns a bicycle and has the ability to ride a bicycle, they have the capability of riding to a
friend's house, a local store, or a great number of other places. This capability would
(presumably) increase their value of life and expand their choices. A person, therefore, needs
both resources and the ability to use them to pursue their capabilities. This is one example of
how different resources or skills can contribute to human capability. This way of looking at
development, often forgotten in the immediate concern with accumulating commodities and
financial wealth, is not new. Philosophers, economists, and political leaders emphasized human
well being as the purpose, or the end, of development. As Aristotle said in ancient Greece,
"Wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking, for it is merely useful for the sake of
something else."[4]

Contents
 1 History
 2 Measurement
 3 Pillars
 4 Human rights
 5 Health
 6 Human Development Report
 7 Human Development Index
 8 Human Poverty Index
 9 Social Progress Index
 10 The Earth Summits, Agenda21, the Millennium Development Goals and the
17#GlobalGoals
 11 See also
 12 References
History
Human Development Theory has roots in ancient philosophy and early economic theory.
Aristotle noted that "Wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking, for it is merely useful for
something else", and Adam Smith and Karl Marx were concerned with human capabilities. The
theory grew in importance in the 1980s with the work of Amartya Sen and his Human
Capabilities perspective, which played a role in his receiving the 1998 Nobel Prize in
Economics. Notable early economists active who formulated the modern concept of human
development theory were Mahbub ul Haq, Üner Kirdar, and Amartya Sen. The Human
Development Index developed for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) stems
from this early research.[8] In 2000, Sen and Sudhir Anand published a notable development of
the theory to address issues in sustainability.[9][10]

Martha Nussbaum's publications in the late 1990s and 2000s pushed theorists to pay more
attention to the human in the theory, and particularly to human emotion.[11] A separate approach
stems in part from needs theories of psychology which in part started with Abraham Maslow
(1968). Representative of these are the Human-Scale Development approach developed by
Manfred Max-Neef in the mid-to-late 1980s which addresses human needs and satisfiers which
are more or less static across time and context.[12]

Anthropologists and sociologists have also challenged perspectives on Human Development

Theory that stem from neoclassical economics. Examples of scholars include, Diane Elson,
Raymond Apthorpe, Irene van Staveren, and Ananta Giri. Elson (1997) proposes that human
development should move towards a more diverse approach to individual incentives. This will
involve a shift from seeing people as agents in control of their choices selecting from a set of
possibilities utilizing human capital as one of many assets. Instead, theorists should see people as
having more mutable choices influenced by social structures and changeable capacities and using
a humanistic approach to theory including factors relating to an individual's culture, age, gender,
and family roles. These extensions express a dynamic approach to the theory, a dynamism that
has been advocated by Ul Haq and Sen, in spite of the implicit criticism of those two
figures.[13][14]

Measurement
One measure of human development is the Human Development Index (HDI), formulated by the
United Nations Development Programme.[4] The index encompasses statistics such as life
expectancy at birth, an education index (calculated using mean years of schooling and expected
years of schooling), and gross national income per capital. Though this index does not capture
every aspect that contributes to human capability, it is a standardized way of quantifying human
capability across nations and communities. Aspects that could be left out of the calculations
include incomes that are unable to be quantified, such as staying home to raise children or
bartering goods/services, as well as individuals' perceptions of their own well being. Other
measures of human development include the Human Poverty Index (HPI) and the Gender
Empowerment Measure. It measures many aspects of development.
Pillars
There are six basic pillars of human development: equity, sustainability, productivity,
empowerment, cooperation and security.[15]

 Equity is the idea of fairness for every person, between men and women; we each have
the right to education and health care.
 Sustainability is the view that we all have the right to earn a living that can sustain our
lives and have access to a more even distribution of goods.
 Productivity states the full participation of people in the process of income generation.
This also means that the government needs more efficient social programs for its people.
 Empowerment is the freedom of the people to influence development and decisions that
affect their lives.
 Cooperation stipulates participation and belonging to communities and groups as a means
of mutual enrichment and a source of social meaning.
 Security offers people development opportunities freely and safely with confidence that
they will not disappear suddenly in the future.[16]

Human rights
In seeking that something else, human development shares a common vision with human rights.
The goal is human freedom. Therefore, human development is interconnected with human rights
and human freedom, because in well-managed prisons life expectancy and literacy as measured
by the Human Development Index could be quite high.[3] And in pursuing capabilities and
realizing rights, this freedom is vital. People must be free to exercise their choices and to
participate in decision-making that affects their lives. Human development and human rights are
mutually reinforcing, helping to secure the well-being and dignity of all people, building self-
respect and the respect of others.[4] In the days of fast globalization, human rights issues surface
in relation to multilateral corporations and poverty issues. The idea of human development
stipulates the need for education, better conditions for work and more choices for individuals.
The idea goes with human rights. The two concepts are simultaneously promoted first by good
governance, implementation of human rights policy and a formation of participation of
community in decision making processes, second by the promotion of civil and political rights
and economic and social rights, which are components of the level of development. For instance,
the right for education relates to intellectual development, and political rights relates to the level
of the political development of that society.[17]

Health
The axis of Development is that it may harm or benefit human health, and eventually human
development, as it proceeds. In concern of health, we divided it into disease and poverty issues.
On 16 June 2006 the World Health Organization (WHO) presented the report Preventing disease
through healthy environments.[18] No one in the world is without the environmental health issues
and wealth problems. Development had been first approached as the future for more cure and
hope. However, the criticism argues of the side effects such as environmental pollution and the
gap between increasing wealth and poor. The Ineffectiveness of many public health policies in
terms of health inequality issues and social problems should be held by global community.[19]
Therefore, the ultimate goal is to achieve environmental sustainability. Some critics say
development is undermined by health concerns as it both directly and indirectly influences
growth to be lower. HIV/AIDS, in addition to malaria, has negatively influenced development
and increased poverty in many places, especially in Africa. Achieving adequate health standards
is important for the success of development and the abolition of poverty.[20]

Human Development Report

The Global Human Development Reports (HDR) is an annual publication released by the
UNDP's Human Development Report Office and contains the Human Development Index. There
is not only a global Human Development Report but there are regional and national reports as
well that specifically show certain areas. Within global HDR there are four main indexes:
Human Development Index, Gender-related Development Index, Gender Empowerment
Measure and the Human Poverty Index.[4] The Regional, National and subnational (for portions
of countries) HDRs take various approaches, according to the strategic thinking of the individual
authorship groups that craft the individual reports. In the United States, for example, Measure of
America has been publishing human development reports since 2008 with a modified index, the
human development index American Human Development Index, which measures the same
three basic dimensions but uses slightly different indicators to better reflect the U.S. context and
to maximize use of available data.[21]

The Human Development Index is a way for people and nations to see the policy flaws of
regions and countries. Although the releasing of this information is believed to encourage
countries to alter their policies, there is no evidence demonstrating changes nor is there any
motivation for countries to do so.[6]

Human Development Index

Main article: Human Development Index
HDI trends
OECD Arab States
Central and eastern Europe, and the CIS South Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean Sub-Saharan Africa
East Asia

The Human Development Index (HDI) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, education
and per capita income for countries worldwide. It is an improved standard means of measuring
well-being, especially child welfare and thus human development.[20] Although this index makes
an effort to simplify human development, it is much more complex than any index or set of
indicators.[3]

The 2007 report showed a small increase in world HDI in comparison with the previous year's
report. This rise was fueled by a general improvement in the developing world, especially of the
least developed countries group. This marked improvement at the bottom was offset with a
decrease in HDI of high income countries.

Human Poverty Index

To reflect gaps in the Human Development Index, the United Nations came out with the Human
Poverty Index (HPI) in 1997citation needed. The HPI measures the deficiencies in the three indexes
of the human development index: long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of
living. The HPI is meant to provide a broader view of human development and is adapted to
developed countries to reveal social exclusion.[20]

Social Progress Index

Main article: List of countries by Social Progress Index

The Social Progress Index is published by Social Progress Imperative. It combines indicators
related to social welfare, equality, personal freedom and sustainability.

The Earth Summits, Agenda21, the Millennium

Development Goals and the 17#GlobalGoals
In an attempt to promote human development, the United Nations supports decennial Earth
Summits where the members to the UN bring together the best of humanity. In several rounds
they discuss what are humanities biggest problems, quantify them and develop a plan of action
on how to solve these problems. This plan of action is called Agenda 21 - an agenda to make
sure humanity will still be around after the year 2100. Thousands of cities now have a local
Agenda 21 and more and more companies and organisations also align their strategic plan with
the strategic plan of Agenda21. With the approaching of the year 2000, UN Secretary General
Kofi ANNAN was compelled to develop something that existed in the private sector: setting out
a long term plan, a mid term plan and a short term planning. This endeavour supports on
Agenda21 and was named the Millennium Development Goals which ran from 2000 - 2015. The
United Nations made a commitment to accomplish these goals by 2015 and thus make an attempt
to promote human development.[22]

As the experience of this exercise was perceived successful, a follow-up program was developed
which got the name the 17 Sustainable Development Goals - in 2016 - after an evaluation -
rebranded to the 17#GlobalGoals or Global Goals.

13.1. Human Development Index

Human Development Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

World map of countries by Human Development Index categories in increments of 0.050 (based
on 2017 data, published on 14 September 2018).
≥ 0.900 0.650–0.699 0.400–0.449
0.850–0.899 0.600–0.649 ≤ 0.399
0.800–0.849 0.550–0.599 Data unavailable
0.750–0.799 0.500–0.549
0.700–0.749 0.450–0.499
World map representing Human Development Index categories (based on 2017 data, published
in 2018).[1]
0.800–1.000 (very high) 0.350–0.554 (low)
0.700–0.799 (high) Data unavailable
0.555–0.699 (medium)

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistic composite index of life expectancy,
education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of
human development. A country scores a higher HDI when the lifespan is higher, the education
level is higher, and the GDP per capita is higher. It was developed by Indian Nobel prize winner
Amartya Sen and Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, with help from Gustav Ranis of Yale
University and Lord Meghnad Desai of the London School of Economics, and was further used
to measure the country's development by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).[2][3]

The 2010 Human Development Report introduced an Inequality-adjusted Human

Development Index (IHDI). While the simple HDI remains useful, it stated that "the IHDI is the
actual level of human development (accounting for inequality)", and "the HDI can be viewed as
an index of 'potential' human development (or the maximum IHDI that could be achieved if there
were no inequality)". The index does not take into account several factors, such as the net wealth
per capita or the relative quality of goods in a country. This situation tends to lower the ranking
for some of the most advanced countries, such as the G7 members and others.[4]

The index is based on the human development approach, developed by Ul Haq, often framed in
terms of whether people are able to "be" and "do" desirable things in life. Examples include—
Being: well fed, sheltered, healthy; Doings: work, education, voting, participating in community
life. The freedom of choice is central—someone choosing to be hungry (as during a religious
fast) is quite different to someone who is hungry because they cannot afford to buy food.[5]

Contents
 1 Origins
 2 Dimensions and calculation
o 2.1 New method (2010 Index onwards)
o 2.2 Old method (before 2010 Index)
  3 2018 Human Development Index
o 3.1 Inequality-adjusted HDI
 4 2016 Human Development Index
o 4.1 Inequality-adjusted HDI
 5 2015 Human Development Index
o 5.1 Inequality-adjusted HDI
 6 2014 Human Development Index
o 6.1 Countries not included
o 6.2 Inequality-adjusted HDI
 7 Past top countries
o 7.1 In each original HDI
 8 Geographical coverage
 9 Country/region specific HDI lists
 10 Criticism
o 10.1 Sources of data error
 11 See also
o 11.1 Indices
o 11.2 Other
 12 References
 13 External links

Origins

Amartya Sen

Mahbub ul Haq

The origins of the HDI are found in the annual Human Development Reports produced by the
Human Development Reports Office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
These were devised and launched by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq in 1990, and had the
explicit purpose "to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting
to people-centered policies". To produce the Human Development Reports, Mahbub ul Haq
formed a group of development economists including Paul Streeten, Frances Stewart, Gustav
Ranis, Keith Griffin, Farhan C.M, Sudhir Anand, and Meghnad Desai. Nobel laureate Amartya
Sen utilized Haq's work in his own work on human capabilities.[3] Haq believed that a simple
composite measure of human development was needed to convince the public, academics, and
politicians that they can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but
also improvements in human well-being.

The underlying principle behind the Human Development Index.[5]

Dimensions and calculation

New method (2010 Index onwards)

Published on 4 November 2010 (and updated on 10 June 2011), the 2010 Human Development
Index (HDI) combines three dimensions:[6][7]

 A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth

 Education index: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
 A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP US$)

In its 2010 Human Development Report, the UNDP began using a new method of calculating the
HDI. The following three indices are used:

1. Life Expectancy Index (LEI)

LEI is 1 when Life expectancy at birth is 85 and 0 when Life expectancy at birth is 20.

[8]
2. Education Index (EI)

[9]
2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI)
Fifteen is the projected maximum of this indicator for 2025.
[10]
2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI)
Eighteen is equivalent to achieving a master's degree in most countries.
3. Income Index (II)

II is 1 when GNI per capita is $75,000 and 0 when GNI per capita is $100.

Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalized indices:

LE: Life expectancy at birth

MYS: Mean years of schooling (i.e. years that a person aged 25 or older has spent in formal education)
EYS: Expected years of schooling (i.e. total expected years of schooling for children under 18 years of age)
GNIpc: Gross national income at purchasing power parity per capita

Old method (before 2010 Index)

The HDI combined three dimensions last used in its 2009 Report:

 Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity to HDI

 Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds
weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio
(with one-third weighting).
 Standard of living, as indicated by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per
capita at purchasing power parity.

HDI trends between 1975 and 2004

OECD Arab League
Europe not in the OECD and CIS South Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean Sub-Saharan Africa
East Asia
This methodology was used by the UNDP until their 2011 report.

The formula defining the HDI is promulgated by the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP).[11] In general, to transform a raw variable, say , into a unit-free index between 0
and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together), the following formula is used:

where and are the lowest and highest values the variable can attain, respectively.

The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the uniformly weighted sum with 1⁄3
contributed by each of the following factor indices:

 Life Expectancy Index =

 Education Index =

o Adult Literacy Index (ALI) =

o Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) =

 GDP =

Other organizations/companies may include other factors, such as infant mortality, which
produces a different HDI.

2018 Human Development Index

Main article: List of countries by Human Development Index

The 2018 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was
released on 14 September 2018, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2017.[12]
Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries:[12]

 = increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
 The number in parentheses represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or
down) relative to the ranking in the year of 2016.

Rank HDI Rank HDI

Country/Territor
2018 Change 2018 Change 2018 Change Country 2018 Change
y
ranking in rank HDI from ranking in rank ranking from
s from [1] previou s from s previou
[1] previou s year [1] previou [1] s year
s year[1] [1] s year[1] [1]

0.95 31 (1) Greece 0.870 0.002

1 Norway 0.002
3
0.94 32 Cyprus 0.869 0.002
2 Switzerland 0.001
4
33 (1) Poland 0.865 0.005
0.93
3 Australia 0.001
9 United
34 (1) 0.863 0.001
0.93 Arab Emirates
4 Ireland 0.004
8 35 Andorra 0.858 0.002
0.93
5 (1) Germany 0.002 35 (1) Lithuania 0.858 0.003
6
0.93
6 Iceland 0.002 37 (1) Qatar 0.856 0.001
5
0.93 38 (1) Slovakia 0.855 0.002
7 (1) Hong Kong 0.003
3
0.93 39 (1) Brunei 0.853 0.001
7 Sweden 0.001
3 Saudi
39 (1) 0.853 0.001
0.93 Arabia
9 (1) Singapore 0.002
2
41 (2) Latvia 0.847 0.003
0.93
10 Netherlands 0.003
1 42 (1) Portugal 0.847 0.002
0.92
11 (1) Denmark 0.001 43 (2) Bahrain 0.846
9
0.92 44 Chile 0.843 0.001
12 Canada 0.004
6
45 Hungary 0.838 0.003
0.92
13 (1) United States 0.002
4 46 Croatia 0.831 0.003
United 0.92
14 0.002 47 Argentina 0.825 0.003
Kingdom 2
0.92 48 (1) Oman 0.821 0.001
15 Finland 0.002
0
0.91 49 Russia 0.816 0.001
16 New Zealand 0.002
7 Montenegr
0.91 50 0.814 0.004
17 (1) Belgium o
6 0.001
51 (1) Bulgaria 0.813 0.003
0.91
17 (1) Liechtenstein 0.001
6 52 Romania 0.811 0.004
0.90
19 Japan 0.002 53 (1) Belarus 0.808 0.003
9
20 Austria 0.90 0.002 54 (1) Bahamas 0.807
 8 0.001
0.90 55 (1) Uruguay 0.804 0.002
21 Luxembourg 0.001
4
0.90 56 (1) Kuwait 0.803 0.001
22 Israel 0.001
3
57 Malaysia 0.802 0.003
0.90
22 (1) South Korea 0.003
3 58 (1) Barbados 0.800 0.001
0.90
24 France 0.002 Kazakhsta
1 58 (2) 0.800 0.003
n
0.89
25 Slovenia 0.002
6
0.89
26 Spain 0.002
1
Czech 0.88
27 0.003
Republic 8
0.88
28 Italy 0.002
0
0.87
29 Malta 0.003
8
0.87
30 Estonia 0.003
1

Inequality-adjusted HDI

Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[13] is a "measure of the average level
of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data
(p. 30).

1. Iceland 0.878
2. Japan 0.876
3. Norway 0.876
4. Switzerland 0.871
5. Finland 0.868
6. Sweden 0.864
7. Germany 0.861
8. Australia 0.861
9. Denmark 0.860
10. Netherlands 0.857
11. Ireland 0.854
12. Canada 0.852
13. New Zealand 0.846
14. Slovenia 0.846
15. Czech Republic 0.840
16. Belgium 0.836
17. United Kingdom 0.835
18. Austria 0.835
19. Singapore 0.816
20. Luxembourg 0.811
21. Hong Kong 0.809
22. France 0.808
23. Malta 0.805
24. Slovakia 0.797
25. United States 0.797
26. Estonia 0.794
27. Israel 0.787
28. Poland 0.787
29. South Korea 0.773
30. Hungary 0.773
31. Italy 0.771
32. Cyprus 0.769
33. Latvia 0.759
34. Lithuania 0.757
35. Croatia 0.756
36. Belarus 0.755
37. Spain 0.754
38. Greece 0.753
39. Montenegro 0.741
40. Russia 0.738
41. Kazakhstan 0.737
42. Portugal 0.732
43. Romania 0.717
44. Bulgaria 0.710
45. Chile 0.710
46. Argentina 0.707
47. Iran 0.707
48. Albania 0.706
49. Ukraine 0.701
50. Uruguay 0.689
51. Mauritius 0.683
52. Georgia 0.682
53. Azerbaijan 0.681
54. Armenia 0.680
55. Barbados 0.669
Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing
IHDI: Taiwan, Liechtenstein, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Andorra, Qatar, Brunei,
Bahrain, Oman, Bahamas, Kuwait and Malaysia.

2016 Human Development Index

Main article: List of countries by Human Development Index

The 2016 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was
released on 21 March 2017, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2015. Below is the
list of the "very high human development" countries:[14]

 = increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
 The number in parentheses represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or
down) relative to the ranking in the 2015 report.

Rank Score
Change
2016 Change in 2016
Country or region from
estimates for rank from estimates for
previous
2015 previous 2015
[15] year
year[15] [15]
[15]

1 Norway 0.949 0.001

2 Australia 0.939 0.002
2 Switzerland 0.939 0.001
4 (2) Germany 0.926 0.002
5 (1) Denmark 0.925 0.002
5 (6) Singapore 0.925 0.013
7 (1) Netherlands 0.924 0.001
8 Ireland 0.923 0.003
9 (7) Iceland 0.921 0.002
10 (1) Canada 0.920 0.001
10 (2) United States 0.920 0.002
12 Hong Kong 0.917 0.001
13 (4) New Zealand 0.915 0.002
14 (1) Sweden 0.913 0.004
15 (1) Liechtenstein 0.912 0.001
16 (4) United Kingdom 0.909 0.003
17 (3) Japan 0.903 0.001
18 South Korea 0.901 0.002
 19 Israel 0.899 0.001
20 Luxembourg 0.898 0.002
21 (1) France 0.897 0.003
22 (1) Belgium 0.896 0.001
23 Finland 0.895 0.002
24 Austria 0.893 0.001
25 (2) Spain 0.892 0.005
26 Slovenia 0.890 0.002
27 (1) Italy 0.887 0.006
28 Czech Republic 0.878 0.003
29 Greece 0.866 0.001
30 (10) Slovakia 0.865 0.020
31 (1) Estonia 0.865 0.002
32 Andorra 0.858 0.001
33 (1) Cyprus 0.856 0.002
33 (2) Malta 0.856 0.003
33 Qatar 0.856 0.001
36 Poland 0.855 0.003
37 Lithuania 0.848 0.002
38 (4) Chile 0.847 0.002
38 Saudi Arabia 0.847 0.002
41 Portugal 0.843 0.002
42 United Arab Emirates 0.840 0.004
43 Hungary 0.836 0.002
44 Latvia 0.830 0.002
45 (5) Argentina 0.827 0.001
45 (1) Croatia 0.827 0.004
47 (1) Bahrain 0.824 0.001
48 (1) Montenegro 0.807 0.003
49 (1) Russia 0.804 0.001
50 (1) Romania 0.802 0.004
51 (1) Kuwait 0.800 0.001

Inequality-adjusted HDI

Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[16] is a "measure of the average level
of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data
(p. 206).

1. Norway 0.898
2. Iceland 0.868
3. Australia 0.861
4. Netherlands 0.861
5. Germany 0.859
6. Switzerland 0.859
7. Denmark 0.858
8. Sweden 0.851
9. Ireland 0.850
10. Finland 0.843
11. Canada 0.839
12. Slovenia 0.838
13. United Kingdom 0.836
14. Czech Republic 0.830
15. Luxembourg 0.827
16. Belgium 0.821
17. Austria 0.815
18. France 0.813
19. United States 0.796
20. Slovakia 0.793
21. Japan 0.791
22. Spain 0.791
23. Estonia 0.788
24. Malta 0.786
25. Italy 0.784
26. Israel 0.778
27. Poland 0.774
28. Hungary 0.771
29. Cyprus 0.762
30. Lithuania 0.759
31. Greece 0.758
32. Portugal 0.755
33. South Korea 0.753
34. Croatia 0.752
35. Latvia 0.742
36. Montenegro 0.736
37. Russia 0.725
38. Romania 0.714
39. Argentina 0.698
 40. Chile 0.691

Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing
IHDI: Taiwan, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Andorra, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

2015 Human Development Index

Main article: List of countries by Human Development Index

The 2015 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was
released on 14 December 2015, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2014. Below is
the list of the "very high human development" countries:[17][18][19]

 = increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
 The number in brackets represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or
down) relative to the ranking in the 2014 report.

Rank Score
Change
2015 Change in 2015
Country from
estimates for rank from estimates for
previous
2014 previous 2014
[20] year
year[20] [20]
[20]

1 Norway 0.944 0.002

2 Australia 0.935 0.002
3 Switzerland 0.930 0.002
4 Denmark 0.923
5 Netherlands 0.922 0.002
6 Germany 0.916 0.001
6 (2) Ireland 0.916 0.004
8 (1) United States 0.915 0.002
9 (1) Canada 0.913 0.001
9 (1) New Zealand 0.913 0.002
11 (2) Singapore 0.912 0.003
12 Hong Kong 0.910 0.002
13 Liechtenstein 0.908 0.001
14 Sweden 0.907 0.002
14 (1) United Kingdom 0.907 0.005
16 Iceland 0.899
 17 South Korea 0.898 0.003
18 Israel 0.894 0.001
[21]
18 Macau 0.894
19 Luxembourg 0.892 0.002
20 (1) Japan 0.891 0.001
21 Belgium 0.890 0.002
22 France 0.888 0.001
23 Austria 0.885 0.001
24 Finland 0.883 0.001
[22]
25 Taiwan 0.882
26 Slovenia 0.880 0.001
27 Spain 0.876 0.002
28 Italy 0.873
29 Czech Republic 0.870 0.002
30 Greece 0.865 0.002
31 Estonia 0.861 0.002
32 Brunei 0.856 0.004
33 Cyprus 0.850
33 (1) Qatar 0.850 0.001
34 Andorra 0.845 0.001
35 (1) Slovakia 0.844 0.005
36 (1) Poland 0.843 0.003
37 Lithuania 0.839 0.002
37 Malta 0.839 0.002
39 Saudi Arabia 0.837 0.001
40 Argentina 0.836 0.003
41 (1) United Arab Emirates 0.835 0.002
42 Chile 0.832 0.002
43 Portugal 0.830 0.002
44 Hungary 0.828 0.003
45 Bahrain 0.824 0.003
46 (1) Latvia 0.819 0.003
47 (1) Croatia 0.818 0.001
48 (1) Kuwait 0.816
49 Montenegro 0.802 0.001

Inequality-adjusted HDI
Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[17] is a "measure of the average level
of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

Note: The green arrows ( ), red arrows ( ), and blue dashes ( ) represent changes in rank. The rankings are not
relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 216).

1. Norway 0.893 ( )
2. Netherlands 0.861 ( 1)
3. Switzerland 0.861 ( 1)
4. Australia 0.858 ( 2)
5. Denmark 0.856 ( 3)
6. Germany 0.853 ( 1)
7. Iceland 0.846 ( 1)
8. Sweden 0.846 ( 1)
9. Ireland 0.836 ( 1)
10. Finland 0.834 ( 1)
11. Canada 0.832 ( 2)
12. Slovenia 0.829 ( )
13. United Kingdom 0.829 ( 3)
14. Czech Republic 0.823 ( 1)
15. Luxembourg 0.822 ( 1)
16. Belgium 0.820 ( 1)
17. Austria 0.816 ( 4)
18. France 0.811 ( )
19. Slovakia 0.791 ( 2)
20. Estonia 0.782 ( 4)
21. Japan 0.780 ( 1)
22. Israel 0.775 ( 3)
23. Spain 0.775 ( 1)
24. Italy 0.773 ( 1)
25. Hungary 0.769 ( 2)
26. Malta 0.767 ( )
27. Poland 0.760 ( 2)
28. United States 0.760 ( )
29. Cyprus 0.758 ( 1)
30. Greece 0.758 ( 5)
31. Lithuania 0.754 ( )
32. South Korea 0.751 ( 1)
33. Portugal 0.744 ( 1)
34. Croatia 0.743 ( 1)
35. Belarus 0.741
36. Latvia 0.730
Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing
IHDI: Taiwan, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Andorra, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Cuba, and Kuwait.

2014 Human Development Index

The 2014 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was
released on 24 July 2014 and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2013. Below is the
list of the "very high human development" countries or regions:[23][18][19]

 = increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
 The number in brackets represents the number of ranks the country or region has climbed
(up or down) relative to the ranking in the 2013 report.

Rank HDI
Change
Change in
compared
New 2014 rank New 2014
Country or Region between
estimates for between estimates for
2014 report
2013 2014 report 2013
[24] [24] and 2013
and 2013
report
report[24] [24]

1 Norway 0.944 0.011

2 Australia 0.933 0.002
3 Switzerland 0.917 0.001
4 Netherlands 0.915
5 United States 0.914 0.002
6 Germany 0.911
7 New Zealand 0.910 0.002
8 Canada 0.902 0.001
9 (3) Singapore 0.901 0.002
10 Denmark 0.900
11 (3) Ireland 0.899 0.017
12 (1) Sweden 0.898 0.001
13 Iceland 0.895 0.002
14 United Kingdom 0.892 0.002
[21]
14 Macau 0.892
15 Hong Kong 0.891 0.002
15 (1) South Korea 0.891 0.003
17 (1) Japan 0.890 0.002
 18 (2) Liechtenstein 0.889 0.001
19 Israel 0.888 0.002
20 France 0.884
[22]
21 Taiwan 0.882
22 Austria 0.881 0.001
22 Belgium 0.881 0.001
22 Luxembourg 0.881 0.001
23 Finland 0.879
24 Slovenia 0.874
25 Italy 0.872
26 Spain 0.869
27 Czech Republic 0.861
28 Greece 0.853 0.001
29 Brunei 0.852
30 Qatar 0.851 0.001
31 Cyprus 0.845 0.003
32 Estonia 0.840 0.001
33 Saudi Arabia 0.836 0.003
34 (1) Lithuania 0.834 0.003
34 (1) Poland 0.834 0.001
35 Andorra 0.830
35 (1) Slovakia 0.830 0.001
36 Malta 0.829 0.002
37 United Arab Emirates 0.827 0.002
38 (1) Chile 0.822 0.003
38 Portugal 0.822
39 Hungary 0.818 0.001
40 Bahrain 0.815 0.002
40 Cuba 0.815 0.002
41 (2) Kuwait 0.814 0.001
42 Croatia 0.812
43 Latvia 0.810 0.002
44 Argentina 0.808 0.002

Countries not included

Some countries were not included for various reasons, primarily due to the lack of necessary
data. The following United Nations Member States were not included in the 2014 report:[23]
North Korea, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and
Tuvalu.

Inequality-adjusted HDI

Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[23] is a "measure of the average level
of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

Note: The green arrows ( ), red arrows ( ), and blue dashes ( ) represent changes in rank. The rankings are not
relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 168).

1. Norway 0.891 ( )
2. Australia 0.860 ( )
3. Netherlands 0.854 ( 1)
4. Switzerland 0.847 ( 3)
5. Germany 0.846 ( )
6. Iceland 0.843 ( 2)
7. Sweden 0.840 ( 4)
8. Denmark 0.838 ( 1)
9. Canada 0.833 ( 4)
10. Ireland 0.832 ( 4)
11. Finland 0.830 ( )
12. Slovenia 0.824 ( 2)
13. Austria 0.818 ( 1)
14. Luxembourg 0.814 ( 3)
15. Czech Republic 0.813 ( 1)
16. United Kingdom 0.812 ( 3)
17. Belgium 0.806 ( 2)
18. France 0.804 ( )
19. Israel 0.793 ( 1)
20. Japan 0.779 (New)
21. Slovakia 0.778 ( 1)
22. Spain 0.775 ( 2)
23. Italy 0.768 ( 1)
24. Estonia 0.767 ( 1)
25. Greece 0.762 ( 2)
26. Malta 0.760 ( 3)
27. Hungary 0.757 ( 1)
28. United States 0.755 ( 12)
29. Poland 0.751 ( 1)
30. Cyprus 0.752 ( 1)
31. Lithuania 0.746 ( 2)
32. Portugal 0.739 ( )
 33. South Korea 0.736 ( 5)
34. Latvia 0.725 ( 1)
35. Croatia 0.721 ( 4)
36. Argentina 0.680 ( 7)
37. Chile 0.661 ( 4)

Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing
IHDI: Taiwan, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Andorra, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Cuba, and Kuwait.

Past top countries

The list below displays the top-ranked country from each year of the Human Development
Index. Norway has been ranked the highest fourteen times, Canada eight times, and Japan three
times. Iceland has been ranked highest twice.

In each original HDI

The year represents when the report was published. In parentheses is the year for which the index
was calculated.

 2018 (2017): Norway

 2016 (2015): Norway
 2015 (2014): Norway
 2014 (2013): Norway
 2013 (2012): Norway
 2011 (2011): Norway
 2010 (2010): Norway
 2009 (2007): Norway
 2008 (2006): Iceland
 2007 (2005): Iceland
 2006 (2004): Norway
 2005 (2003): Norway
 2004 (2002): Norway
 2003 (2001): Norway
 2002 (2000): Norway
 2001 (1999): Norway
 2000 (1998): Canada
 1999 (1997): Canada
 1998 (1995): Canada
 1997 (1994): Canada
 1996 (1993): Canada
 1995 (1992): Canada
 1994 (????): Canada
 1993 (????): Japan
  1992 (1990): Canada
 1991 (1990): Japan
 1990 (????): Japan

Geographical coverage
The HDI has extended its geographical coverage: David Hastings, of the United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, published a report geographically
extending the HDI to 230+ economies, whereas the UNDP HDI for 2009 enumerates 182
economies and coverage for the 2010 HDI dropped to 169 countries.[25][26]

Country/region specific HDI lists

 African countries
 Argentine provinces
 Australian states
 Brazilian states
 Canadian provinces and territories
 Chilean regions
 Chinese administrative divisions
 Ethiopian regions
 European countries
 German states
 Indian states
 Indonesian provinces
 Iranian provinces
 Italian regions
 Japanese prefectures
 Latin American countries
 Mexican states
 Pakistani districts
 Philippine provinces
 Russian federal subjects
 South African provinces
 Spanish communities
 U.S. states (American Human Development Report (AHDR))
 Venezuelan states
 World, regional (Sub-national HDI by GDL)

Criticism
HDI vs. ecological footprint

The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of grounds, including alleged
lack of consideration of technological development or contributions to the human civilization,
focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, lack of attention to development from
a global perspective, measurement error of the underlying statistics, and on the UNDP's changes
in formula which can lead to severe misclassification in the categorisation of 'low', 'medium',
'high' or 'very high' human development countries.[27]

Sources of data error

Economists Hendrik Wolff, Howard Chong and Maximilian Auffhammer discuss the HDI from
the perspective of data error in the underlying health, education and income statistics used to
construct the HDI. They identified three sources of data error which are due to (i) data updating,
(ii) formula revisions and (iii) thresholds to classify a country's development status and conclude
that 11%, 21% and 34% of all countries can be interpreted as currently misclassified in the
development bins due to the three sources of data error, respectively. The authors suggest that
the United Nations should discontinue the practice of classifying countries into development bins
because: the cut-off values seem arbitrary, can provide incentives for strategic behavior in
reporting official statistics, and have the potential to misguide politicians, investors, charity
donors and the public who use the HDI at large.[27]

In 2010, the UNDP reacted to the criticism and updated the thresholds to classify nations as low,
medium, and high human development countries. In a comment to The Economist in early
January 2011, the Human Development Report Office responded[28] to a 6 January 2011 article
in the magazine[29] which discusses the Wolff et al. paper. The Human Development Report
Office states that they undertook a systematic revision of the methods used for the calculation of
the HDI, and that the new methodology directly addresses the critique by Wolff et al. in that it
generates a system for continuously updating the human-development categories whenever
formula or data revisions take place.

In 2013, Salvatore Monni and Alessandro Spaventa emphasized that in the debate of GDP versus
HDI, it is often forgotten that these are both external indicators that prioritize different
benchmarks upon which the quantification of societal welfare can be predicated. The larger
question is whether it is possible to shift the focus of policy from a battle between competing
paradigms to a mechanism for eliciting information on well-being directly from the population
 13.2. Human Poverty Index

Human Poverty Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has
insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more
precise citations. (July 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Human Poverty Index (HPI) was an indication of the standard of living in a country,
developed by the United Nations (UN) to complement the Human Development Index (HDI) and
was first reported as part of the Human Development Report in 1997. It was considered to better
reflect the extent of deprivation in developed countries compared to the HDI.[1] In 2010 it was
supplanted by the UN's Multidimensional Poverty Index.

The HPI concentrates on the deprivation in the three essential elements of human life already
reflected in the HDI: longevity, knowledge and a decent standard of living. The HPI is derived
separately for developing countries (HPI-1) and a group of select high-income OECD countries
(HPI-2) to better reflect socio-economic differences and also the widely different measures of
deprivation in the two groups

Contents
 1 For developing countries (HPI-1)
 2 For selected high-income OECD countries (HPI-2)
 3 See also
 4 References
 5 External links

For developing countries (HPI-1)

The Human Development Reports website summarizes this as "A composite index measuring
deprivations in the three basic dimensions captured in the human development index — a long
and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living." The formula for calculating it is:

 HPI-1 =
 : Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40 (times 100)

: Adult illiteracy rate

: Unweighted average of population without sustainable access to an improved water source and children
under weight for age

:3

For selected high-income OECD countries (HPI-2)

The Human Development Reports website summarizes this as "A composite index measuring
deprivations in the four basic dimensions captured in the human development index — a long
and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living — and also capturing social
exclusion." The formula for calculating it is:

 HPI-2 =

: Probability at birth of not surviving to age 60 (times 100)

: Adults lacking functional literacy skills

: Population below income poverty line (50% of median adjusted household disposable income)

: Rate of long-term unemployment (lasting 12 months or more)

:3

The last report, 2007–2008, only has a ranking for 19 of the 22 countries with the highest Human
Development Index. The ranking is as follows (with the country with the lowest amount of
poverty at the top):

People
Probability at Population
lacking Long-term
HPI- birth of not below 50% of
Ranking Country functional unemployment
2 surviving to median
literacy (%)
age 60 (%) income (%)
skills (%)
1 Sweden 6.3 6.7 7.5 1.1 6.5
2 Norway 6.8 7.9 7.9 0.5 6.4
3 Netherlands 8.1 8.3 10.5 1.8 7.3
4 Finland 8.1 9.4 10.4 1.8 5.4
5 Denmark 8.2 10.3 9.6 0.8 5.6
 People
Probability at Population
lacking Long-term
HPI- birth of not below 50% of
Ranking Country functional unemployment
2 surviving to median
literacy (%)
age 60 (%) income (%)
skills (%)
6 Germany 10.3 8.6 14.4 5.8 8.4
7 Switzerland 10.7 7.2 15.9 1.5 7.6
8 Canada 10.9 8.1 14.6 0.5 11.4
9 Luxembourg 11.1 9.2 — 1.2 6.0
10 Austria 11.1 8.8 — 1.3 7.7
11 France 11.2 8.9 — 4.1 7.3
12 Japan 11.7 6.9 — 1.3 11.8
13 Australia 12.1 7.3 17.0 0.9 12.2
14 Belgium 12.4 9.3 18.4 4.6 8.0
15 Spain 12.5 7.7 — 2.2 14.2
United
16 14.8 8.7 21.8 1.2 12.5
Kingdom
United
17 15.4 11.6 20.0 0.4 17.0
States
18 Ireland 16.0 8.7 22.6 1.5 16.2
19 Italy 29.8 7.7 47.0 3.4 12.7

The countries ranked in the top 22 by HDI that are not on this list are Iceland, New Zealand and
Liechtenstein.

Not all countries are included in this ranking because data are not always available. The ranks of
many countries, especially those at the bottom, could drop considerably if the list included more
countries. For information about the component values for countries other than the ones on the
list, see source links below.

Indicators used are:

 Probability at birth of not surviving to age 60 (% of cohort), 2000–2005. Varies from

7.1% for Japan to 11.8 for the USA. This is the indicator that is best known for all
countries (including the ones not on the list). The US has specific values associated with
disease characteristics of poverty. Worse values start only at position 35 of the HDI,
indicating that many countries could climb on an extended list based on this, knocking
down lower ranked countries on the above list.
 People lacking functional literacy skills (% of people scoring in the range called
“Level 1” in the International Adult Literacy Survey, age 16–65, 1994–2003). Varies
from 7.5% for Sweden to 47.0% for Italy. These figures are higher than most commonly
cited illiteracy rates due to the choice of the literacy test.
  Long-term unemployment (12 months or more, % of labour force), 2005. Varies from
0.4% for the United States to 5.0% for Germany. This indicator has by far the greatest
variation, with a value as high as 9.3% at HDI position 37.
 Population below 50% of median adjusted household disposable income (%), 1994–2002.
Varies from 5.4% for Finland to 17% for the US

13.3. Percentage living in poverty

List of countries by percentage of population

living in poverty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Countries by percent of population living below $1.90 in 2011 PPP dollars. Based on World
Bank 2018 API which ranges from 1995 to 2017

Countries by percentage of population living in poverty, as recorded by World bank and other
sources.

Contents
 1 Methodology
 2 Countries
 o 2.1 Percent of population (including non-citizens) living under $1.90, $3.20 and
$5.50 a day
o 2.2 Population living below national poverty line
 3 See also
 4 References
 5 External links

Methodology
"Poverty" is defined as an economic condition by the lack of both money and basic necessities
needed to successfull live, such as food, water, utilities, and housing. There are many working
definitions of "poverty", with considerable debate on how to best define the term.

Lack of income security, economic stability and the predictability of one's continued means to
meet basic needs all serve as absolute indicators of poverty. Poverty may therefore also be
defined as the economic condition of lacking predictable and stable means of meeting basic life
needs.

The first table lists countries by the percentage of their population with an income of less than
$1.90 and less than $3.10 US dollars per day in 2011 dollars at Purchasing power parity. The
data is from the most recent year available from the World Bank API.

The second table lists countries by the percentage of the population living below the national
poverty line — the poverty line deemed appropriate for a country by its authorities. National
estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys.

Definitions of the poverty line vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations
generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations. Even among rich
nations, the standards differ greatly. Thus, the numbers are not comparable among countries.
Even when nations do use the same method, some issues may remain.[1]

Only countries for which sourced data is available are listed. Data of countries, including Libya,
Saudi Arabia remains unavailable. It is usually accepted, that over one third (33.3%) of the
population in Libya and Saudi Arabia live below the poverty line.[2][3]

Countries
Percent of population (including non-citizens) living under $1.90, $3.20 and $5.50
a day

Percent of population living under 1.90, 3.20, and 5.50 a day, 2011 dollars (purchasing power
parity)

< <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
 < <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
Afghanistan N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Albania 0.9% 4.5% 28.8% 2015 Europe
Algeria 0.5% 3.9% 29.2% 2011 Africa
Andorra N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
Angola 30.1% 55.7% 79.4% 2008 Africa
North
Antigua and Barbuda N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
South
Argentina 0.6% 2.4% 7.8% 2016
America
Armenia 1.8% 14.1% 43.5% 2016 Asia
Australia 0.3% 0.7% 0.7% 2010 Oceania
Austria 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 2015 Europe
Azerbaijan 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 2005 Asia, Europe
North
Bahamas, The N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
Bahrain N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Bangladesh 14.8% 52.9% 84.5% 2016 Asia
North
Barbados N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
Belarus 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 2016 Europe
Belgium 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 2015 Europe
North
Belize 14.9% 28.4% 53.2% 1999
America
Benin 49.6% 76.2% 90.6% 2015 Africa
2012(2017 for
Bhutan 1.5% 14.5% 43.9% Asia
1.9)
South
Bolivia 7.1% 12.6% 25.0% 2016
America
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.2% 0.8% 3.8% 2015 Europe
Botswana 18.2% 37.1% 57.5% 2009 Africa
South
Brazil 3.4% 8.0% 19.4% 2015
America
Brunei N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Bulgaria 1.5% 3.7% 8.7% 2014 Europe
Burkina Faso 43.7% 76.4% 92.3% 2014 Africa
Burundi 71.7% 89.2% 96.8% 2013 Africa
Cambodia N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
 < <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
Cameroon 23.8% 44.8% 69.0% 2014 Africa
North
Canada 0.3% 0.7% 1.0% 2013
America
Cape Verde 8.1% 26.5% 53.1% 2007 Africa
Central African Republic 66.3% 83.1% 92.8% 2008 Africa
Chad 38.4% 66.5% 86.2% 2011 Africa
South
Chile 1.3% 3.1% 10.1% 2015
America
China 0.7% 7% 27.2% 2015 Asia
South
Colombia 4.5% 11.8% 28.5% 2016
America
Comoros 18.1% 38.1% 63.5% 2013 Africa
Congo, Democratic
77.1% 91.3% 97.8% 2012 Africa
Republic of the
Congo, Republic of the 37.0% 61.3% 82.4% 2011 Africa
North
Costa Rica 1.3% 3.8% 10.7% 2016
America
Croatia 0.7% 1.5% 5.8% 2015 Europe
North
Cuba N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
Cyprus 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2015 Asia
Czech Republic 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 2015 Europe
Denmark 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 2015 Europe
Djibouti 22.5% 44.6% 74.8% 2013 Africa
North
Dominica N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
North
Dominican Republic 1.6% 6.2% 21.0% 2016
America
East Timor 30.3% 73.2% 94.0% 2014 Asia
South
Ecuador 3.6% 9.4% 23.9% 2016
America
Egypt 1.3% 16.1% 61.9% 2015 Africa
North
El Salvador 2.2% 10.3% 30.7% 2016
America
Equatorial Guinea N/A N/A N/A N/A Africa
Eritrea N/A N/A N/A N/A Africa
Estonia 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2015 Europe
 < <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
Ethiopia 26.7% 61.4% 84.7% 2015 Africa
Fiji 1.4% 14.3% 49.5% 2013 Oceania
Finland 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2015 Europe
France 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 2015 Europe
2005(2017 for
Gabon 3.4% 25.8% 56.1% Africa
$1.9)
Gambia, The 10.1% 37.8% 72.5% 2015 Africa
Georgia 4.2% 17.1% 45.5% 2016 Asia, Europe
Germany 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 2015 Europe
Ghana 12.0% 32.5% 60.5% 2012 Africa
Greece 1.5% 2.7% 6.7% 2015 Europe
North
Grenada N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
North
Guatemala 8.7% 24.2% 48.8% 2014
America
Guinea 35.3% 70.3% 92.3% 2012 Africa
Guinea-Bissau 67.1% 84.5% 93.4% 2010 Africa
South
Guyana 14.0% 29.5% 56.4% 1998
America
North
Haiti 23.5% 48.3% 77.6% 2012
America
North
Honduras 16.0% 30.0% 50.4% 2016
America
Hungary 0.5% 1.0% 2.7% 2015 Europe
Iceland 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2014 Europe
5.3% (2018)
India 40.4% 67.8% 2011 Asia
[2]
2016(2017 for
Indonesia 5.7% 30.9% 62.3% Asia
$1.9)
Iran 0.2% 2.5% 10.5% 2014 Asia
Iraq 2.5% 17.9% 57.3% 2012 Asia
Ireland 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 2014 Europe
Israel 0.7% 1.3% 4.7% 2012 Asia
Italy 1.2% 1.7% 2.7% 2014 Europe
Ivory Coast 28.2% 57.4% 82.2% 2015 Africa
North
Jamaica 1.7% 9.0% 29.5% 2004
America
 < <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
Japan 0.3% 0.7% 1.0% 2008 Asia
Jordan 0.1% 2.1% 18.1% 2010 Asia
Kazakhstan 0.0% 0.3% 7.7% 2015 Asia, Europe
Kenya 42.8% 68.2% 86.6% 2005 Africa
Kiribati 12.9% 34.6% 69.4% 2006 Oceania
Korea, North N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Korea, South 0.3% 0.7% 1.3% 2012 Asia
Kosovo 0.4% 2.9% 21.5% 2015 Europe
Kuwait N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Kyrgyzstan 1.4% 19.1% 67.1% 2016 Asia
Laos 22.7% 58.7% 85.0% 2012 Asia
Latvia 0.7% 1.5% 4.0% 2015 Europe
Lebanon 0.0% 0.1% 2.0% 2011 Asia
Lesotho 59.6% 78.1% 89.9% 2010 Africa
Liberia 38.6% 73.8% 93.0% 2014 Africa
Libya N/A N/A N/A N/A Africa
Liechtenstein N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
Lithuania 0.7% 1.5% 4.2% 2015 Europe
Luxembourg 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 2014 Europe
Macedonia 5.0% 10.0% 25.1% 2014 Europe
Madagascar 77.6% 91.0% 97.3% 2012 Africa
Malawi 71.4% 88.8% 96.1% 2010 Africa
Malaysia 0.3% 3.1% 13.6% 2009 Asia
Maldives 7.3% 24.4% 54.3% 2009 Asia
Mali 49.7% 79.4% 94.9% 2009 Africa
Malta 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2014 Europe
Marshall Islands N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Mauritania 6.0% 24.1% 58.8% 2014 Africa
Mauritius 0.5% 3.2% 18.1% 2012 Africa
North
Mexico 2.5% 11.2% 34.8% 2016
America
Micronesia 16.0% 39.5% 69.6% 2013 Oceania
Moldova 0.2% 1.3% 16.5% 2016 Europe
Monaco N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
Mongolia 0.5% 6.5% 30.6% 2016 Asia
Montenegro 0.0% 0.8% 4.8% 2014 Europe
 < <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
Morocco 3.1% 17.0% 48.1% 2006 Africa
Mozambique 62.9% 81.9% 92.0% 2014 Africa
Myanmar 6.4% 29.8% 67.6% 2015 Asia
Namibia 22.6% 47.0% 67.3% 2009 Africa
Nauru N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Nepal 15.0% 50.8% 83.0% 2010 Asia
Netherlands 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 2015 Europe
New Zealand N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
North
Nicaragua 3.2% 12.8% 34.8% 2014
America
Niger 44.5% 76.9% 93.4% 2014 Africa
Nigeria 53.5% 77.6% 92.1% 2009 Africa
Norway 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 2015 Europe
Oman N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Pakistan 3.1% 29.7% 89.5% 2015 Asia
Palau N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Palestine 0.2% 3.4% 20.7% 2011 Asia
North
Panama 2.2% 7.0% 14.6% 2016
America
Papua New Guinea 38.0% 65.6% 86.9% 2009 Oceania
South
Paraguay 1.7% 7.0% 20.1% 2016
America
South
Peru 3.5% 10.0% 24.3% 2016
America
Philippines 8.3% 33.7% 64.2% 2015 Asia
Poland 0.0% 0.2% 3.6% 2015 Europe
Portugal 0.5% 1.2% 3.0% 2015 Europe
Qatar N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Romania 0.0% 3.3% 18.5% 2016 Europe
Russia 0.0% 0.3% 2.7% 2015 Asia, Europe
Rwanda 59.5% 81.1% 91.3% 2013 Africa
North
Saint Kitts and Nevis N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
North
Saint Lucia 35.8% 63.5% 86.0% 1995
America
Saint Vincent and the North
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grenadines America
 < <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
Samoa 0.6% 9.7% 35.9% 2008 Oceania
San Marino N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
São Tomé and Príncipe 32.3% 70.1% 92.3% 2010 Africa
Saudi Arabia N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Senegal 38.0% 67.5% 88.1% 2011 Africa
Serbia 0.1% 1.1% 7.4% 2015 Europe
Seychelles 1.1% 2.5% 6.6% 2013 Africa
Sierra Leone 52.2% 81.3% 94.7% 2011 Africa
Singapore N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Slovakia 0.7% 1.0% 3.0% 2015 Europe
Slovenia 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2015 Europe
Solomon Islands 25.1% 58.8% 84.7% 2013 Oceania
Somalia N/A N/A N/A N/A Africa
South Africa 18.9% 37.6% 57.1% 2014 Africa
South Sudan 42.7% 64.8% 100% 2009 Africa
Spain 1.0% 1.5% 3.2% 2015 Europe
Sri Lanka 0.7% 9.5% 39.0% 2016 Asia
Sudan 14.9% 40.5% 73.2% 2009 Africa
South
Suriname 23.4% 42.8% 55.7% 1999
America
Swaziland 42.0% 64.4% 82.0% 2009 Africa
Sweden 0.5% 0.7% 1.0% 2015 Europe
Switzerland 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2014 Europe
Syria 1.7% 15.3% 50.4% 2004 Asia
Tajikistan 4.8% 20.3% 54.2% 2015 Asia
Tanzania 49.1% 79.0% 93.1% 2011 Africa
Thailand 0.0% 1.1% 11.6% 2013 Asia
Togo 49.2% 73.2% 90.1% 2015 Africa
Tonga 1.1% 8.9% 31.9% 2009 Asia
South
Trinidad and Tobago 3.4% 13.1% 32.9% 1992
America
Tunisia 2.0% 9.1% 30.3% 2010 Africa
Turkey 0.2% 1.8% 9.9% 2016 Asia, Europe
Turkmenistan 51.4% 77.8% 92.5% 1998 Asia
Tuvalu 3.3% 17.6% 46.7% 2010 Oceania
Uganda 35.9% 67.4% 87.1% 2012 Africa
 < <
Country < $1.90[4] Year Continent
$3.20[5] $5.50[6]
Ukraine 0.1% 0.5% 6.4% 2016 Europe
United Arab Emirates N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
United Kingdom 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 2015 Europe
North
United States 1.3% 1.3% 2.0% 2016
America
South
Uruguay 0.1% 0.5% 3.7% 2016
America
Uzbekistan 62.1% 86.4% 96.4% 2003 Asia
Vanuatu 13.2% 39.5% 72.4% 2010 Oceania
Vatican City N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
South
Venezuela 9.2% 15.4% 31.3% 2006
America
Vietnam 2.6% 11.2% 35.4% 2014 Asia
Yemen 18.8% 52.2% 81.6% 2014 Asia
Zambia 57.5% 74.3% 87.2% 2015 Africa
Zimbabwe 21.4% 47.2% 74.0% 2011 Africa

Population living below national poverty line

Population living below national poverty line (%)

World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
Afghanistan 35.8% 2011 54.5% 2017 N/A N/A Asia
Albania 14.3% 2012 14.3% 2012 N/A N/A Europe
Algeria 5.5% 2011 23.0% 2006 N/A N/A Africa
Andorra N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
Angola 36.6% 2008 36.6% 2008 N/A N/A Africa
North
Anguilla N/A N/A 23.0% 2002 N/A N/A
America
North
Antigua and Barbuda N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
South
Argentina 30.3% 2016 25.7% 2017 32.2% 2016[9]
America
Armenia 29.4% 2016 32.0% 2013 N/A N/A Asia
Australia 13.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Austria N/A N/A 3.0% 2017 N/A N/A Europe
Azerbaijan 6.0% 2012 4.9% 2015 N/A N/A Asia, Europe
 World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
North
Bahamas, The N/A N/A 9.3% 2010 N/A N/A
America
Bahrain N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Bangladesh 24.3% 2016 24.3% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
North
Barbados N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
Belarus 5.7% 2016 5.7% 2016 N/A N/A Europe
Belgium N/A N/A 15.1% 2013 N/A N/A Europe
North
Belize N/A N/A 41.0% 2013 N/A N/A
America
Benin 40.1% 2015 36.2% 2011 N/A N/A Africa
North
Bermuda N/A N/A 11.0% 2008 N/A N/A
America
Bhutan 12.0% 2012 12.0% 2012 N/A N/A Asia
South
Bolivia 39.5% 2016 38.6% 2015 54.0% 2007[10]
America
Bosnia and Herzegovina 16.9% 2015 16.9% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Botswana 19.3% 2009 19.3% 2009 N/A N/A Africa
South
Brazil 8.7% 2015 4.2% 2016 12.1% 2011[10]
America
Brunei N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Bulgaria 22.9% 2016 23.4% 2016 N/A N/A Europe
Burkina Faso 40.1% 2014 40.1% 2009 N/A N/A Africa
Burundi 64.9% 2014 64.6% 2014 N/A N/A Africa
Cambodia 17.7% 2012 16.5% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
Cameroon 37.5% 2014 30.0% 2001 N/A N/A Africa
North
Canada N/A N/A 9.4% 2008 4.9% 2004[11]
America
Cape Verde 35.0% 2015 30.0% 2000 N/A N/A Africa
Central African Republic 62.0% 2008 N/A N/A N/A N/A Africa
Chad 46.7% 2011 46.7% 2011 N/A N/A Africa
South
Chile 11.7% 2015 14.4% 2013 10.4% 2011[12]
America
China 3.1% 2017 3.3% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
South
Colombia 28.0% 2016 28.0% 2017 45.5% 2012[10]
America
Comoros 42.0% 2014 44.8% 2004 N/A N/A Africa
 World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
Congo, Democratic Republic of
63.9% 2012 63.0% 2014 N/A N/A Africa
the
Congo, Republic of the 46.5% 2011 46.5% 2011 N/A N/A Africa
North
Costa Rica 20.0% 2017 21.7% 2014 18.9% 2009[10]
America
Croatia 19.5% 2015 19.5% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
North
Cuba N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
Cyprus N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
Czech Republic 9.7% 2013 9.7% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Denmark N/A N/A 13.4% 2011 N/A N/A Europe
Djibouti 23.0% 2013 23.0% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
North
Dominica N/A N/A 29.0% 2009 N/A N/A
America
North
Dominican Republic 30.5% 2016 30.5% 2016 41.1% 2009[10]
America
East Timor 41.8% 2014 41.8% 2014 N/A N/A Asia
South
Ecuador 21.5% 2017 21.5% 2017 40.2% 2009[10][13]
America
Egypt 27.8% 2015 27.8% 2016 N/A N/A Africa
South
El Salvador 38.2% 2016 32.7% 2016 47.9% 2009[10]
America
Equatorial Guinea 76.8% 2006 44.0% 2011 N/A N/A Africa
Eritrea 69.0% 1993 50.0% 2004 N/A N/A Africa
Estonia 21.8% 2013 21.1% 2016 N/A N/A Europe
Ethiopia 29.6% 2010 29.6% 2014 N/A N/A Africa
N/A 9.8% [14]
European Union N/A 2013 17.3% 2015 Europe
Faroe Islands N/A N/A 10.0% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Fiji 34.0% 2013 31.0% 2009 N/A N/A Oceania
[15]
Finland N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.7% 2013 Europe
France N/A N/A14.2% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
French Polynesia N/A N/A 19.7% 2009 N/A N/A Oceania
Gabon 32.7% 2005 34.3% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
Gambia, The 48.4% 2010 48.4% 2010 N/A N/A Africa
Gaza Strip N/A N/A 30.0% 2011 N/A N/A Asia
Georgia 21.3% 2016 9.2% 2010 N/A N/A Asia, Europe
Germany N/A N/A 16.7% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
 World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
Ghana 24.2% 2012 24.2% 2013 N/A N/A Africa
Greece N/A N/A 36.0% 2014 N/A N/A Europe
North
Greenland N/A N/A 16.2% 2015 N/A N/A
America
North
Grenada N/A N/A 38.0% 2008 N/A N/A
America
Guam N/A N/A 23.0% 2001 N/A N/A Oceania
North
Guatemala 59.3% 2014 59.3% 2014 54.8% 2006[10]
America
Guinea 55.2% 2012 47.0% 2006 N/A N/A Africa
Guinea-Bissau 69.3% 2010 67.0% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
South
Guyana N/A N/A 35.0% 2006 N/A N/A
America
North
Haiti 58.5% 2012 58.5% 2012 N/A N/A
America
North
Honduras 60.9% 2016 29.6% 2014 68.9% 2007[10]
America
Hong Kong N/A N/A19.9% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
Hungary 14.9% 2014 14.9% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Iceland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
India 21.9% 2011 21.9% 2011 N/A N/A Asia
Indonesia 10.6% 2017 10.9% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
Iran N/A N/A 18.7% 2007 N/A N/A Asia
Iraq 18.9% 2012 23.0% 2014 N/A N/A Asia
[16]
Ireland N/A N/A 8.2% 2013 6.8% 2004 Europe
Israel N/A N/A 22.0% 2014 N/A N/A Asia
N/A 29.9% [17]
Italy N/A 2012 10.3% 2014 Europe
Ivory Coast 46.3% 2015 46.3% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
North
Jamaica 19.9% 2012 17.1% 2016 N/A N/A
America
Japan N/A N/A 16.1% 2013 N/A N/A Asia
Jordan 14.4% 2010 14.2% 2002 N/A N/A Asia
Kazakhstan 2.7% 2015 2.6% 2016 N/A N/A Asia, Europe
Kenya 36.1% 2015 36.1% 2016 N/A N/A Africa
Kiribati 21.8% 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Korea, North N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Korea, South N/A N/A 14.4% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
 World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
Kosovo 17.6% 2015 17.6% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Kuwait N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Kyrgyzstan 25.4% 2016 32.1% 2015 N/A N/A Asia
Laos 23.4% 2012 22.0% 2013 N/A N/A Asia
Latvia 22.5% 2014 25.5% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Lebanon 27.4% 2012 28.6% 2004 N/A N/A Asia
Lesotho 57.1% 2010 57.0% 2016 N/A N/A Africa
Liberia 54.1% 2014 54.1% 2014 N/A N/A Africa
Libya N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Africa
Liechtenstein N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
Lithuania 22.2% 2014 22.2% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Luxembourg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
[18]
Macedonia 21.5% 2015 21.5% 2015 30.4% 2011 Europe
Madagascar 70.7% 2012 70.7% 2012 N/A N/A Africa
Malawi 50.7% 2010 50.7% 2010 N/A N/A Africa
Malaysia 0.6% 2014 3.8% 2009 N/A N/A Asia
Maldives 15.7% 2009 15.0% 2009 N/A N/A Asia
Mali 43.6% 2009 36.1% 2005 N/A N/A Africa
Malta N/A N/A 16.3% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Marshall Islands N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Mauritania 31.0% 2014 31.0% 2014 N/A N/A Africa
Mauritius 7.9% 2012 8.0% 2006 N/A N/A Africa
North
Mexico 43.6% 2016 46.2% 2014 48.0% 2013[10]
America
Micronesia 41.2% 2013 26.7% 2000 N/A N/A Oceania
Moldova 9.6% 2015 9.6% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Monaco N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
Mongolia 21.6% 2014 29.6% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
Montenegro 8.6% 2013 8.6% 2013 N/A N/A Europe
Morocco 8.9% 2007 15.0% 2007 N/A N/A Africa
Mozambique 46.1% 2014 46.1% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
Myanmar 32.1% 2015 25.6% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
Namibia 28.7% 2009 28.7% 2010 N/A N/A Africa
Nauru N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Nepal 25.2% 2010 25.2% 2011 N/A N/A Asia
 World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
Netherlands N/A N/A 8.8% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
New Caledonia N/A N/A 17.0% 2008 N/A N/A Oceania
New Zealand N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
North
Nicaragua 24.9% 2016 29.6% 2015 61.9% 2005[10]
America
Niger 44.5% 2014 45.4% 2014 N/A N/A Africa
Nigeria 46.0% 2009 70.0% 2010 N/A N/A Africa
N/A N/A N/A 4.3% [19]
Norway N/A 2007 Europe
Oman N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
[20]
Pakistan 21.5% 2015 29.5% 2013 21.0% 2013 Asia
Palau 24.9% 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Palestine 25.8% 2011 N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
North
Panama 22.1% 2016 23.0% 2015 26.4% 2009[10]
America
Papua New Guinea 39.9% 2009 37.0% 2002 N/A N/A Oceania
South
Paraguay 28.9% 2016 22.2% 2015 56.0% 2009[10]
America
South
Peru 20.7% 2016 22.7% 2014 34.8% 2009[10]
America
Philippines 21.6% 2015 21.6% 2017 N/A N/A Asia
Poland 17.3% 2015 17.6% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Portugal N/A N/A 19.0% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Qatar N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Romania 25.3% 2015 22.4% 2012 N/A N/A Europe
Russia 13.4% 2016 13.3% 2015 13.8% 2017[21] Asia, Europe
Rwanda 39.1% 2013 39.1% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
North
Saint Kitts and Nevis N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
North
Saint Lucia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
America
Saint Vincent and the North
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grenadines America
Samoa 26.9% 2008 N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
San Marino N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
São Tomé and Príncipe 66.2% 2010 66.2% 2009 N/A N/A Africa
N/A N/A N/A 12.7% [22]
Saudi Arabia N/A 2012 Asia
Senegal 46.7% 2011 46.7% 2011 N/A N/A Africa
 World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
Serbia 25.5% 2015 8.9% 2014 N/A N/A Europe
Seychelles 39.3% 2013 39.3% 2013 N/A N/A Africa
Sierra Leone 52.9% 2011 70.2% 2004 N/A N/A Africa
Singapore N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Asia
Slovakia 12.6% 2013 12.3% 2015 N/A N/A Europe
Slovenia 14.3% 2014 13.9% 2016 N/A N/A Europe
Solomon Islands 12.7% 2013 N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Somalia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Africa
South Africa 55.5% 2014 16.6% 2016 N/A N/A Africa
South Sudan 50.6% 2009 66.0% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
Spain N/A N/A 21.1% 2012 21.1% 2012[23] Europe
Sri Lanka 4.1% 2016 6.7% 2012 N/A N/A Asia
Sudan 46.5% 2009 46.5% 2009 N/A N/A Africa
South
Suriname N/A N/A 70.0% 2002 N/A N/A
America
Swaziland 63.0% 2009 63.0% 2010 N/A N/A Africa
Sweden N/A N/A 15.0% 2014 N/A N/A Europe
Switzerland N/A N/A 6.6% 2014 N/A N/A Europe
Syria 35.2% 2007 82.5% 2014 N/A N/A Asia
Taiwan N/A N/A 1.5% 2012 N/A N/A Asia
Tajikistan 31.3% 2015 31.5% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
Tanzania 28.2% 2011 22.8% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
Thailand 10.5% 2014 7.2% 2015 N/A N/A Asia
Togo 55.1% 2015 55.1% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
Tonga 22.5% 2009 22.5% 2010 N/A N/A Oceania
North
Trinidad and Tobago N/A N/A 20.0% 2014 N/A N/A
America
[24]
Tunisia 15.2% 2015 15.5% 2010 3.8% 2005 Africa
Turkey 1.6% 2015 21.9% 2015 20.5% 2005[25] Asia, Europe
Turkmenistan N/A N/A 0.2% 2012 N/A N/A Asia
Tuvalu 26.3% 2010 26.3% 2010 N/A N/A Oceania
Uganda 19.7% 2012 21.4% 2017 N/A N/A Africa
Ukraine 3.8% 2016 3.8% 2016 24.3% 2013[26] Europe
United Arab Emirates N/A N/A 19.5% 2003 0.0% 2011[27] Asia
United Kingdom N/A N/A 15.0% 2013 N/A N/A Europe
[28]
United States N/A N/A 12.3% 2017 14.5% 2013 North
 World
Country Year CIA[8] Year Other Year Continent
Bank[7]
America
South
Uruguay 9.4% 2016 9.7% 2015 6.7% 2012[29]
America
Uzbekistan 14.1% 2013 14.0% 2016 N/A N/A Asia
Vanuatu 12.7% 2010 N/A N/A N/A N/A Oceania
Vatican City N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Europe
South
Venezuela 33.1% 2015 19.7% 2015 27.6% 2008[10]
America
Vietnam 9.8% 2016 8.0% 2017 N/A N/A Asia
North
Virgin Islands, U.S. N/A N/A 28.9% 2002 N/A N/A
America
West Bank N/A 18.0%
N/A 2011 N/A N/A Asia
Yemen 48.6% 2014 54.0% 2014 N/A N/A Asia
Zambia 54.4% 2015 54.4% 2015 N/A N/A Africa
Zimbabwe 72.3% 2011 72.3% 2012 N/A N/A Africa

13.4. Household income

Disposable household and per capita income

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Household income)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or
newly available information. (April 2017)

Household income is a measure of the combined incomes of all people sharing a particular
household or place of residence. It includes every form of income, e.g., salaries and wages,
retirement income, near cash government transfers like food stamps, and investment gains.

Average household incomes need not map directly to measures of an individual's earnings such
as per capita income as numbers of people sharing households and numbers of income earners
per household can vary significantly between regions and over time.

Average household income can be used as an indicator for the monetary well-being of a
country's citizens. Mean or median net household income, after taxes and mandatory
contributions, are good indicators of standard of living, because they include only disposable
income and acknowledge people sharing accommodation benefit from pooling at least some of
their living costs.

It is important to note in the tables below the difference between median and mean income.
Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half
having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income
(average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the
number of units in that group.

Contents
 1 Disposable mean income per capita (OECD)
 2 Luxembourg Income Study
o 2.1 Mean equivalized disposable household income (PPP) $
o 2.2 Median equivalised disposable household income (PPP) $
 3 See also
 4 References
 5 External links

Disposable mean income per capita (OECD)

The list below represents a national accounts derived indicator based on adjusted gross income,
which is defined as "the balance of primary incomes of an institutional unit or sector by adding
all current transfers, except social transfers in kind, receivable by that unit or sector and
subtracting all current transfers, except social transfers in kind, payable by that unit or sector; it
is the balancing item in the Secondary Distribution of Income Account" [1] "plus transfers in
kind" received mainly from government, such as healthcare and education.[2] It is based on the
national accounts, which follows a standardized accounting (System of National Accounts) so to
allow for comparability. It is also not survey based, which avoids survey errors and
underreporting. The following is published by the OECD and is presented in purchasing power
parity (PPP) so to adjust for costs of living.

Rank Country/Territory 2015 Per Capita (PPP)[3]

1 United States 46,903
2 Switzerland 38,469
3 Norway 37,729
4 Australia 36,156
5 Germany 35,935
6 Austria 34,491
7 France 32,057
8 Belgium 31,971
9 Sweden 31,276
10 Canada 31,630
11 Finland 31,077
12 Japan 30,570
13 Netherlands 30,465
14 Denmark 30,429
15 United Kingdom 29,672
European Union 27,957
16 Italy 27,320
17 New Zealand 25,871
18 Ireland 25,095
19 Spain 24,652
20 South Korea 22,412
21 Portugal 21,991
22 Czech Republic 21,921
23 Slovenia 21,613
24 Lithuania 21,246
25 Slovak Republic 20,966
26 Estonia 19,525
27 Poland 19,294
28 Greece 19,235
29 Turkey 18,727
30 Hungary 17,226
31 Latvia 16,686
32 Chile 16,080
33 Mexico 15,436

Luxembourg Income Study

Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) has a publicly available database with comparable statistics on
household incomes for several countries, as has the OECD.[4] These are the sources used.

Below are presented the mean and median disposable household incomes, adjusted for
differences in household size.[5] Thus, the figures presented are per person (equivalized) and after
all income taxes and mandatory social contributions are paid. All figures were converted using
respective year purchasing power parity (PPP) for private consumption, which is recommended
when comparing incomes internationally.[6] The PPP conversion rates are taken directly from the
OECD database. All incomes are in the prices when income was earned, and refer to year 2004,
except for Australia (2003), UK (2004–2005), and Sweden (2005). The exact definition of
income can be seen in the LIS website (variable DPI). Generally, it includes all cash income
(e.g., earnings, pensions, interests, dividends, rental income, social transfers) and excludes most
non-cash income (e.g., employer contributions to social insurances, governmental health care,
education). Note that capital gains are excluded from the income definition.[clarification needed]

Caution should be made when comparing countries based on a strict ranking, since not all
datasets are capturing income equally. For instance, income spent on private health insurance,
which in 2004 was about $1300 per household in the US, is not subtracted.[7] In terms of
underreporting, the U.S. dataset (US Census) captured only 80% of the gross income aggregate
as of 2004.[8] By contrast, Finland, UK, and Norway registered much higher coverage with less
underreporting.[9]

Mean equivalized disposable household income (PPP) $

This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or
newly available information. (October 2016)
Currency in PPP rate Mean Income
Rank Country NCU[10]
2004[11] 2004[12] (PPP)
United States
1 United States 32,195 1 32,195
Dollar
2 Canada 33,785 Canadian Dollar 1.27 26,602
3 Switzerland 49,844 Swiss Franc 1.88 26,512
United
4 16,685 British Pound 0.64 26,070
Kingdom
5 Norway 254,243 Norwegian krone 9.8 25,943
6 Austria 22,527 Euro 0.89 25,311
7 Germany 20,901 Euro 0.91 22,968
8 Denmark 202,275 Danish Krone 9.0 22,475
9 Netherlands 20,607 Euro 0.92 22,398
10 Sweden 203,460 Swedish Krona 9.6 21,193
11 Belgium 19,563 Euro 0.924 21,173
12 South Korea 18,587,000 Won 886.2 20,937
13 France 19,547 Euro 0.952 20,532
14 Australia 29,417 Australian Dollar 1.44 20,428
15 Japan 2,986,594 Yen 150.8 19,805
16 Spain 14,003 Euro 0.788 17,770
17 Italy 15,835 Euro 0.91 17,401
18 Poland 14,844 Polish złoty 2.08 7,136

Median equivalised disposable household income (PPP) $

 See also the country lists in the median income article.

Median household income divides households in a country or region into two equal segments
with the first half of households earning less than the median household income and the other
half earning more. It is considered by many statisticians to be a better indicator than the mean
household income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values.[13]

Currency in PPP Median Income

Rank Country NCU[10]
2004[11] rate[12] (PPP)
1 United States 26,672 United States Dollar 1 26,672
2 Switzerland 45,050 Swiss Franc 1.88 23,962
3 Norway 233,186 Norwegian Krone 9.8 23,794
4 Canada 29,394 Canadian Dollar 1.27 23,144
5 Austria 20,134 Euro 0.89 22,622
6 Denmark 192,937 Danish krone 9.0 21,437
United
7 13,637 British Pound 0.637 21,408
Kingdom
8 Germany 18,507 Euro 0.91 20,337
9 Netherlands 18,507 Euro 0.91 20,116
10 Sweden 189,475 Swedish Krona 9.6 19,736
11 Belgium 17,818 Euro 0.924 19,284
12 South Korea 16,665,877 Won 886.2 18,806
13 France 17,120 Euro 0.952 17,984
14 Australia 25,581 Australian Dollar 1.44 17,764
15 Japan 2,644,730 Yen 150.8 17,538
16 Spain 12,319 Euro 0.788 15,633
17 Italy 13,367 Euro 0.91 14,689
18 Poland 12,697 Polish złoty 2.08 6,104

13.5. Social Progress Index

14. Net international investment position (NIIP)