The Human Development Pillar:
last revision - Dec 20, 2007

Go To Earthmodal Homeclick here to return to earthmodal home

A New Paradigm of Development
To address the growing challenge of human security, a new development paradigm is needed that puts people at the centre of development, regards economic growth as a means and not an end, protects the life opportunities of future generations as well as the present generations and respects the natural systems on which all life depends.
Such a paradigm of development enables all individuals to enlarge their human capabilities to the full and to put those capabilites to their best use in all fields -- economic, social, cultural and political. It also protects the options of unborn generations. It does not run down the natural resource base needed for sustaining development in the future. Nor does it destroy the richness of nature that adds so much to the richness of human life.

Overview, An Agenda for the Social Summit, Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Programme, 1994

Source
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs  (new window, website)

"One of the UN's central mandates is the promotion of higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development. As much as 70 per cent of the work of the UN system is devoted to accomplishing this mandate. Guiding the work is the belief that eradicating poverty and improving the well-being of people everywhere are necessary steps in creating conditions for lasting world peace."

Division for Social Policy and Development   (new window, website)

"The main objective of the Division for Social Policy and Development is to strengthen international cooperation for social development, in the context of the comprehensive and detailed framework of commitments and policies for action by Governments, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations provided by the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and Programme of Action of the World Summit for Social Development, with particular attention to the three core issues of poverty eradication, employment generation and social integration, in contributing to the creation of an international community that enables the building of secure, just, free and harmonious societies offering opportunities and higher standards of living for all."

Image from GEO-3 Chapter 2-1, State Of The Environment And Policy Retrospective: 1972–2002
see Environment at left this site.

Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations (new window, 645KB, pdf)
United Nations, New York, 2006

1.1 International justice: legal and developmental aspects

The Charter of the United Nations makes no explicit distinction between international justice, or justice among nations, and social justice, or justice among people.

"Within the context of the present analysis, economic justice is considered an element of social justice, a choice justified by the desire to convey the idea that all developments relating to justice occur in society, whether at the local, national, or global level, and by the related desire to restore the comprehensive, overarching concept of the term “social”, which in recent times has been relegated to the status of an appendix of the economic sphere.
. . . . .

"Advancements in social justice, except in extraordinary situations and circumstances such as the gaining of political independence, the aftermath of a long war or the depths of an economic depression, require pressure from organized political forces. Brief and sporadic protests against injustices, even if vehement, usually have a limited effect. The problem is that few political regimes have institutions or processes to promote the orderly and effective expression of grievances and demands by those who are not benefiting or are hurt by existing economic and social arrangements. Political parties are often reduced to administrative machines focused on winning elections.

. . . . .

"There may be a link between the rise in various types of inequality; the division of individuals, communities and countries into two distinct groups comprising those who succeed and win and those who do not; and the excessively simplistic and vulgar modern interpretation of utilitarianism as it applies to life and society in modern times, whereby each looks only to his own advantage.

. . . . .

"It is important to reflect more deeply on the nature and use of power within both the human and institutional contexts. Individuals who hold power must be willing to submit to certain laws and regulations that limit their freedom to use their authority as they see fit. Those who are privileged to hold political and administrative power must understand that their legitimacy derives entirely from their capacity to serve the community. Social justice is impossible unless it is fully understood that power comes with the obligation of service.

. . . . .

"The concept of justice as defined above will be referred to in the present text as international justice, with the principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention, and equal voting rights constituting the legal aspects of international justice. By the mid-1960s another dimension of international justice had taken shape with the decolonization of a number of countries. The United Nations assumed increasing responsibility for helping these newly independent Member States in their efforts to achieve economic and social progress. Gradually the concept of development was substituted for the early emphasis on progress and evolved into a core component of the Organization’s mandate. International cooperation for development was placed next to the maintenance of peace and security as a second pillar upon which the activities of the United Nations were based, the main objective being to narrow and ultimately close the gap between developed and developing countries. Efforts relating to this goal of bridging the distance separating poor and affluent nations are identified here as representing the developmental aspects of international justice.

1.2 Social justice: a recent and politically charged concept

"The concept of social justice and its relevance and application within the present context require a more detailed explanation. As mentioned previously, the notion of social justice is relatively new. None of history’s great philosophers—not Plato or Aristotle, or Confucius or Averroes, or even Rousseau or Kant—saw the need to consider justice or the redress of injustices from a social perspective. The concept first surfaced in Western thought and political language in the wake of the industrial revolution and the parallel development of the socialist doctrine. It emerged as an expression of protest against what was perceived as the capitalist exploitation of labour and as a focal point for the development of measures to improve the human condition. It was born as a revolutionary slogan embodying the ideals of progress and fraternity. Following the revolutions that shook Europe in the mid-1800s, social justice became a rallying cry for progressive thinkers and political activists.

The application of social justice requires a geographical, sociological, political and cultural framework within which relations between individuals and groups can be understood, assessed, and characterized as just or unjust. In modern times, this framework has been the nation-State. The country typically represents the context in which various aspects of social justice, such as the distribution of income in a population, are observed and measured; this benchmark is used not only by national Governments but also by international organizations and supranational entities such as the European Union. At the same time, there is clearly a universal dimension to social justice, with humanity as the common factor. Slaves, exploited workers and oppressed women are above all victimized human beings whose location matters less than their circumstances. This universality has taken on added depth and relevance as the physical and cultural distance between the world’s peoples has effectively shrunk. In their discussions regarding the situation of migrant workers, for example, Forum participants readily acknowledged the national and global dimensions of social justice."

1.6 Three critical domains of equality and equity

There are three areas of priority with regard to equality and equity highlighted in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenants on Human Rights, and in subsequent texts adopted by the General Assembly, notably the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action and the United Nations Millennium Declaration. They include the following:

• Equality of rights, primarily implying the elimination of all forms of discrimination and respect for the fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights of all individuals. This represents the most fundamental form of equality. . . .

• Equality of opportunities, which requires stable social, economic, cultural and political conditions that enable all individuals to fulfil their potential and contribute to the economy and to society. Interpreted restrictively, this form of equality is akin to equality of rights and means “simply” that societies and Governments refrain from discrimination and allow individuals to freely pursue their aspirations and develop and apply their talents within the moral and legal limits imposed by respect for the freedom of others. . . .

• Equity in living conditions for all individuals and households. This concept is understood to reflect a contextually determined “acceptable” range of inequalities in income, wealth and other aspects of life in society, with the presumption of general agreement with regard to what is just or fair (or “equitable”) at any given time in any particular community, or in the world as a whole if universal norms are applied. This shift in terms, from equality to equity, derives from the fact that equality in living conditions has never been achieved in practice (except on a very limited scale by small religious or secular communities), has never been seriously envisaged by political theorists or moralists (except in the context of describing attractive—or more often repulsive—utopias), and is today commonly perceived as incompatible with freedom.

1.7 Six important areas of inequality in the distribution of goods, opportunities and rights

Going a step further in endeavouring to define the more concrete elements requiring consideration in relation to the idea of social justice, the Forum identified six areas of distributive inequality corresponding to situations that, from the perspective of those directly concerned and of the “impartial observer”,9 require correction.


The relation between ecosystem services and well-being

Source
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment  (new window, website)
See Assessment page this site for the download of the documents

Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Summary (English)
Changes in factors that indirectly affect ecosystems, such as population, technology, and lifestyle (upper right corner of figure), can lead to changes in factors directly affecting ecosystems, such as the catch of fisheries or the application of fertilizers to increase food production (lower right corner). The resulting changes in the ecosystem (lower left corner) cause the ecosystem services to change and thereby affect human well-being. These interactions can take place at more than one scale and can cross scales. For example, a global market may lead to regional loss of forest cover, which increases flood magnitude along a local stretch of a river. Similarly, the interactions can take place across different time scales. Actions can be taken either to respond to negative changes or to enhance positive changes at almost all points in this framework (black cross bars).

Ecoservices and Well-being

 Large View

03. Ecosystems and Human Well-being

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ecoservices


United Nations Development Programme  (new window, website)

"UNDP is the UN's global development network, an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners."

Human Development Reports  (new window, webpage)


operations note: place these documents in subdirectory ../HDR

Human Development Report 2007/2008   (new window, 12.3 MB, pdf)
Quick glance at Table of Contents  (new window, html, this site)


Overview  Fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world   (new window, 893 KB, pdf)

Climate change is the defining human development issue of our generation. All development is ultimately about expanding human potential and enlarging human freedom. It is about people developing the capabilities that empower them to make choices and to lead lives that they value. Climate change threatens to erode human freedoms and limit choice. It calls into question the Enlightenment principle that human progress will make the future look better than the past.

The early warning signs are already visible. Today, we are witnessing at first hand what could be the onset of major human development reversal in our lifetime. Across developing countries, millions of the world’s poorest people are already being forced to cope with the impacts of climate change. These impacts do not register as apocalyptic events in the full glare of world media attention. They go unnoticed in financial markets and in the measurement of world gross domestic product (GDP). But increased exposure to drought, to more intense storms, to floods and environmental stress is holding back the efforts of the world’s poor to build a better life for themselves and their children.

Climate change will undermine international efforts to combat poverty. Seven years ago, political leaders around the world gathered to set targets for accelerated progress in human development. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) defined a new ambition for 2015. Much has been achieved, though many countries remain off track. Climate change is hampering efforts to deliver the MDG promise. Looking to the future, the danger is that it will stall and then reverse progress built-up over generations not just in cutting extreme poverty, but in health, nutrition, education and other areas.

Ecological interdependence

Climate change is different from other problems facing humanity—and it challenges us to think differently at many levels. Above all, it challenges us to think about what it means to live as part of an ecologically interdependent human community.

Ecological interdependence is not an abstract concept. We live today in a world that is divided at many levels. People are separated by vast gulfs in wealth and  opportunity. In many regions, rival nationalisms are a source of conflict. All too often, religious, cultural and ethnic identity are treated as a source of division and difference from others. In the face of all these differences, climate change provides a potent reminder of the one thing that we share in common. It is called planet Earth. All nations and all people share the same atmosphere. And we only have one.

The case for action

If the world acts now it will be possible—just possible—to keep 21st Century global temperature increases within a 2°C threshold above preindustrial levels. Achieving this future will require a high level of leadership and unparalleled international cooperation. Yet climate change is a threat that comes with an opportunity. Above all, it provides an opportunity for the world to come together in forging a collective response to a crisis that threatens to halt progress.

The values that inspired the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide a powerful point of reference. That document was a response to the political failure that gave rise to extreme nationalism, fascism and world war. It established a set of entitlements and rights—civil, political, cultural, social and economic—for “all members of the human family”. The values that inspired the Universal Declaration were seen as a code of conduct for human affairs that would prevent the “disregard and contempt for human rights that have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind”.

The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were looking back at a human tragedy, the second world war, that had already happened. Climate change is different. It is a human tragedy in the making. Allowing that tragedy to evolve would be a political failure that merits the description of an “outrage to the conscience of mankind”. It would represent a systematic violation of the human rights of the world’s poor and future generations and a step back from universal values. Conversely, preventing dangerous climate change would hold out the hope for the development of multilateral solutions to the wider problems facing the international community. Climate change confronts us with enormously complex questions that span science, economics and international relations. These questions have to be addressed through practical strategies. Yet it is important not to lose sight of the wider issues that are at stake. The real choice facing political leaders and people today is between universal human values, on the one side, and participating in the widespread and systematic violation of human rights on the other.

Seizing the moment—2012 and beyond

Confronted with a problem as daunting as climate change, resigned pessimism might seem a justified response. However, resigned pessimism is a luxury that the world’s poor and future generations cannot afford—and there is an alternative.

Our legacy

The post-2012 Kyoto framework will powerfully influence prospects for avoiding climate change—and for coping with the climate change that is now unavoidable. Negotiations on that framework will be shaped by governments with very different levels of negotiating leverage. Powerful vested interests in the corporate sector will also make their voices heard. As governments embark on the negotiations for a post-2012 Kyoto Protocol, it is important that they reflect on two constituencies with a limited voice but a powerful claim to social justice and respect for human rights: the world’s poor and future generations.

People engaged in a daily struggle to improve their lives in the face of grinding poverty and hunger ought to have first call on human solidarity. They certainly deserve something more than political leaders who gather at international summits, set high-sounding development targets and then undermine achievement of the very same targets by failing to act on climate change. And our children and their children’s grandchildren have the right to hold us to a high standard of accountability when their future—and maybe their survival—is hanging in the balance. They too deserve something more than a generation of political leaders who look at the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced and then sit on their hands. Put bluntly, the world’s poor and future generations cannot afford the complacency and prevarication that continues to characterize international negotiations on climate change. Nor can they afford the large gap between what leaders in the developed world say about climate change threats and what they do in their energy policies.

The 21st Century climate challenge

Global warming is already happening. World temperatures have increased by around 0.7°C since the advent of the industrial era—and the rate of increase is quickening. There is overwhelming scientific evidence linking the rise in temperature to increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. There is no hard-and-fast line separating ‘dangerous’ from ‘safe’ climate change. Many of the world’s poorest people and most fragile ecological systems are already being forced to adapt to dangerous climate change. However, beyond a threshold of 2°C the risk of large-scale human development setbacks and irreversible ecological catastrophes will increase sharply.

Business-as-usual trajectories will take the world well beyond that threshold. To have a 50:50 chance of limiting temperature increase to 2°C above preindustrial levels will require stabilization of greenhouse gases at concentrations of around 450ppm CO2e. Stabilization at 550ppm CO2e would raise the probability of breaching the threshold to 80 percent. In their personal lives, few people would knowingly undertake activities with a serious injury risk of this order of magnitude. Yet as a global community, we are taking far greater risks with planet Earth. Scenarios for the 21st Century point to potential stabilization points in excess of 750ppm CO2e, with possible temperature changes in excess of 5°C.

Climate shocks: risk and vulnerability in an unequal world

Climate shocks already figure prominently in the lives of the poor. Events such as droughts, floods and storms are often terrible experiences for those affected: they threaten lives and leave people feeling insecure. But climate shocks also erode long-term opportunities for human development, undermining productivity and eroding human capabilities. No single climate shock can be attributed to climate change. However, climate change is ratcheting up the risks and vulnerabilities facing the poor. It is placing further stress on already over-stretched coping mechanisms and trapping people in downward spirals of deprivation.

Avoiding dangerous climate change: strategies for mitigation

Avoiding the unprecedented threats posed by dangerous climate change will require an unparalleled collective exercise in international cooperation. Negotiations on emission limits for the post-2012 Kyoto Protocol commitment period can—and must—frame the global carbon budget. However, a sustainable global emissions pathway will only be meaningful if it is translated into practical national strategies—and national carbon budgets. Climate change mitigation is about transforming the way that we produce and use energy. And it is about living within the bounds of ecological sustainability.

Adapting to the inevitable: national action and international cooperation

Without urgent mitigation action the world cannot avoid dangerous climate change. But even the most stringent mitigation will be insufficient to avoid major human development setbacks. The world is already committed to further warming because of the inertia built into climate systems and the delay between mitigation and outcome. For the first half of the 21st Century there is no alternative to adaptation to climate change.

Conclusion and summary of recommendations

Climate change confronts humanity with stark choices. We can avoid 21st Century reversals in human development and catastrophic risks for future generations, but only by choosing to act with a sense of urgency. That sense of urgency is currently missing. Governments may use the rhetoric of a ‘global security crisis’ when describing the climate change problem, but their actions—and inactions—on energy policy reform tell a different story. The starting point for action and political leadership is recognition on the part of governments that they are confronted by what may be the gravest threat ever to have faced humanity.

Facing up to that threat will create challenges at many levels. Perhaps most fundamentally of all, it challenges the way that we think about progress. There could be no clearer demonstration than climate that economic wealth creation is not the same thing as human progress. Under the current energy policies, rising economic prosperity will go hand-in-hand with mounting threats to human development today and the well-being of future generations. But carbon-intensive economic growth is symptomatic of a deeper problem. One of the hardest lessons taught by climate change is that the economic model which drives growth, and the profligate consumption in rich nations that goes with it, is ecologically unsustainable. There could be no greater challenge to our assumptions about progress than that of realigning economic activities and consumption with ecological realities.

Combating climate change demands that we place ecological imperatives at the heart of economics. That process has to start in the developed world—and it has to start today. The uncertainties have to be acknowledged. In this report we have argued that, with the right reforms, it is not too late to cut greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels without sacrificing economic growth: that rising prosperity and climate security are not conflicting objectives.

Recommendations

1 Develop a multilateral framework for avoiding dangerous climate change under the post-2012 Kyoto Protocol
2 Put in place policies for sustainable carbon budgeting— the agenda for mitigation
3 Strengthen the framework for international cooperation
4 Put climate change adaptation at the centre of the post-2012 Kyoto framework and international partnerships for poverty reduction

Human Development Report 2006  (new window, 8.0 MB, pdf)
Published for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis
Quick glance at Table of Contents  (new window, html, this site)

Human development is first and foremost about allowing people to lead a life that they value and enabling them to realize their potential as human beings. The normative framework for human development is today reflected in the broad vision set out in the Millennium Development Goals, the internationally agreed set of timebound goals for reducing extreme poverty, extending gender equality and advancing opportunities for health and education. Progress towards these objectives provides a benchmark for assessing the international community’s resolve in translating commitments into action. More than that, it is a condition for building shared prosperity and collective security in our increasingly interdependent world.
    This year’s Human Development Report looks at an issue that profoundly influences human potential and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. Throughout history human progress has depended on access to clean water and on the ability of societies to harness the potential of water as a productive resource. Water for life in the household and water for livelihoods through production are two of the foundations for human development. Yet for a large section of humanity these foundations are not in place.
    The word crisis is sometimes overused in development. But when it comes to water, there is a growing recognition that the world faces a crisis that, left unchecked, will derail progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and hold back human development. For some, the global water crisis is about absolute shortages of physical supply. This Report rejects this view. It argues that the roots of the crisis in water can be traced to poverty, inequality and unequal power relationships, as well as flawed water management policies that exacerbate scarcity.
    Access to water for life is a basic human need and a fundamental human right. Yet in our increasingly prosperous world, more than 1 billion people are denied the right to clean water and 2.6 billion people lack access to adequate sanitation. These headline numbers capture only one dimension of the problem. Every year some 1.8 million children die as a result of diarrhoea and other diseases caused by unclean water and poor sanitation. At the start of the 21st century unclean water is the world’s second biggest killer of children. Every day millions of women and young girls collect water for their families—a ritual that reinforces gender inequalities in employment and education. Meanwhile, the ill health associated with deficits in water and sanitation undermines productivity and economic growth, reinforcing the deep inequalities that characterize current patterns of globalization and trapping vulnerable households in cycles of poverty.

operations note: save all the following to the subdirectory ../HDR in the earthmodal Bookshelf directory
operations note: in the event that the HDR site is not responding the reader may download the whole group in one package. The package is a zip file and is 14.7 MB (requires 5 min for DSL or 41 min at 56K). Unzip the package contents to the ../HDR directory.
alternate source: here

(all the following, new window, pdf)
2005 : International cooperation at a crossroads: aid, trade and security in an unequal world (189KB)
2004 Overview: Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world (95KB)
2003 Overview: Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty (102KB)
2002 Overview: Deepening democracy in a fragmented world (75KB)
2001 Making new technologies work for human development, Overview (753KB)
2000 Human rights and human development, Introductory Text (239K)
1999 Globalization with a Human Face, Overview (266KB)
1998 Consumption for Human Development, Overview (3.5MB)
1997 Human Development to Eradicate Poverty, Overview (2.7MB)
1996 Economic growth and human development, Overview (2.0MB)
1995 Gender and human development, Overview  (2.0MB)
1994 New dimensions of human security, Overview (2.9MB)
1993 People's Participation, Overview (1.5MB)
1992 Global Dimensions of Human Development, Overview (2.1MB)
1991 Financing Human Development, Overview (2.2MB)
1990  Concept and Measurement of human development, Overview (1.0MB)
2005 Overview: International cooperation at a crossroads: aid, trade and security in an unequal world

We focus on three pillars of cooperation, each in urgent need of renovation.

The first pillar is development assistance. International aid is a key investment in human development. Returns to that investment can be measured in the human potential unleashed by averting avoidable sickness and deaths, educating all children, overcoming gender inequalities and creating the conditions for sustained economic growth. Development assistance suffers from two problems: chronic underfinancing and poor quality. There have been improvements on both fronts. But much remains to be done to close the MDG financing gaps and improve value for money.

 The second pillar is international trade. Under the right conditions trade can be a powerful catalyst for human development. The Doha “Development Round” of World Trade Organization (WTO) talks, launched in 2001, provided rich country governments with an opportunity to create those conditions. Four years on, nothing of substance has been achieved. Rich country trade policies continue to deny poor countries and poor people a fair share of global prosperity—and they fly in the face of the Millennium Declaration. More than aid, trade has the potential to increase the share of the world’s poorest countries and people in global prosperity. Limiting that potential through unfair trade policies is inconsistent with a commitment to the MDGs. More than that, it is unjust and hypocritical.

The third pillar is security. Violent conflict blights the lives of hundreds of millions of people. It is a source of systematic violations of human rights and a barrier to progress towards the MDGs. The nature of conflict has changed, and new threats to collective security have emerged. In an increasingly interconnected world the threats posed by a failure to prevent conflict, or to seize opportunities for peace, inevitably cross national borders. More effective international cooperation could help to remove the barrier to MDG progress created by violent conflict, creating the conditions for accelerated human development and real security.

The renovation needs to take place simultaneously on each pillar of international cooperation. Failure in any one area will undermine the foundations for future progress. More effective rules in international trade will count for little in countries where violent conflict blocks opportunities to participate in trade. Increased aid without fairer trade rules will deliver suboptimal results. And peace without the prospects for improved human welfare and poverty reduction that can be provided through aid and trade will remain fragile.

2004 Overview: Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world

Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development because being able to choose one’s identity—who one is—without losing the respect of others or being excluded from other choices is important in leading a full life. People want the freedom to practice their religion openly, to speak their language, to celebrate their ethnic or religious heritage without fear of ridicule or punishment or diminished opportunity. People want the freedom to participate in society without having to slip off their chosen cultural moorings. It is a simple idea, but profoundly unsettling.
 
States face an urgent challenge in responding to these demands. If handled well, greater recognition of identities will bring greater cultural diversity in society, enriching people’s lives. But there is also a great risk. These struggles over cultural identity, if left unmanaged or managed poorly, can quickly become one of the greatest sources of instability within states and between them—and in so doing trigger conflict that takes development backwards. Identity politics that polarize people and groups are creating fault lines between “us” and “them”. Growing distrust and hatred threaten peace, development and human freedoms.

Just in the last year ethnic violence destroyed hundreds of homes and mosques in Kosovo and Serbia. Terrorist train bombings in Spain killed nearly 200. Sectarian violence killed thousands of Muslims and drove thousands more from their homes in Gujarat and elsewhere in India, a champion of cultural accommodation. A spate of hate crimes against immigrants shattered Norwegians’ belief in their unshakable commitment to tolerance.

Five myths debunked. Policies recognizing cultural identities and encouraging diversity to flourish do not result in fragmentation, conflict, weak development or authoritarian rule. Such policies are both viable, and necessary, for it is often the suppression of culturally identified groups that leads to tensions.

2003 Overview: Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty

The Goals will succeed only if they mean something to the billions of individuals for whom they are intended. The Goals must become a national reality, embraced by their main stakeholders— people and governments. They are a set of benchmarks for assessing progress—and for enabling poor people to hold political leaders accountable. They help people fight for the kinds of policies and actions that will create decent jobs, improve access to schools and root out corruption. They are also commitments by national leaders, who must be held accountable for their fulfilment by their electorates.

2002 Overview: Deepening democracy in a fragmented world
2001 Making new technologies work for human development
  1. The technology divide does not have to follow the income divide. Throughout history, technology has been a powerful tool for human development and poverty reduction.
  2. The market is a powerful engine of technological progress—but it is not powerful enough to create and diffuse the technologies needed to eradicate poverty.
  3. Developing countries may gain especially high rewards from new technologies, but they also face especially severe challenges in managing the risks.
  4. The technology revolution and globalization are creating a network age—and that is changing how technology is created and diffused.
  5. Even in the network age, domestic policy still matters. All countries, even the poorest, need to implement policies that encourage innovation, access and the development of advanced skills.
  6. National policies will not be sufficient to compensate for global market failures. New international initiatives and the fair use of global rules are needed to channel new technologies towards the most urgent needs of the world’s poor people.
Policy—not charity—to build technological capacity in developing countries
2000 Human rights and human development

Human rights and human development share a common vision and a common purpose—to secure the freedom, well-being and dignity of all people everywhere. To secure:
1999 Globalization

Globalization is not new, but the present era has distinctive features. Shrinking space, shrinking time and disappearing borders are linking people’s lives more deeply, more intensely, more immediately than ever before.
• New markets—foreign exchange and capital markets linked globally, operating 24 hours a day, with dealings at a distance in real time.
• New tools—Internet links, cellular phones, media networks.
• New actors—the World Trade Organization (WTO) with authority over national governments, the multinational corporations with more economic power than many states, the global networks of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other groups that transcend national boundaries.
• New rules—multilateral agreements on trade, services and intellectual property, backed by strong enforcement mechanisms and more binding for national governments, reducing the scope for national policy.

Globalization offers great opportunities for human advance—but only with stronger governance.

Globalization with:
• Ethics—less violation of human rights, not more.
• Equity—less disparity within and between nations, not more.
• Inclusion—less marginalization of people and countries, not more.
• Human security—less instability of societies and less vulnerability of people, not more.
• Sustainability—less environmental destruction, not more.
• Development—less poverty and deprivation, not more.

The opportunities and benefits of globalization need to be shared much more widely.

By the late 1990s the fifth of the world’s people living in the highest-income countries had:
• 86% of world GDP—the bottom fifth just 1%.
• 82% of world export markets—the bottom fifth just 1%.
• 68% of foreign direct investment—the bottom fifth just 1%.
• 74% of world telephone lines, today’s basic means of communication—the bottom fifth just 1.5%.

Some have predicted convergence. Yet the past decade has shown increasing concentration of income, resources and wealth among people, corporations and countries:
• OECD countries, with 19% of the global population, have 71% of global trade in goods and services, 58% of foreign direct investment and 91% of all Internet users.
• The world’s 200 richest people more than doubled their net worth in the four years to 1998, to more than $1 trillion. The assets of the top three billionaires are more than the combined GNP of all least developed countries and their 600 million people.
• The recent wave of mergers and acquisitions is concentrating industrial power in megacorporations— at the risk of eroding competition. By 1998 the top 10 companies in pesticides controlled 85% of a $31 billion global market—and the top 10 in telecommunications, 86% of a $262 billion market.
• In 1993 just 10 countries accounted for 84% of global research and development expenditures and controlled 95% of the US patents of the past two decades. Moreover, more than 80% of patents granted in developing countries belong to residents of industrial countries.

All these trends are not the inevitable consequences of global economic integration—but they have run ahead of global governance to share the benefits.

Globalization is creating new threats to human security—in rich countries and poor.
New information and communications technologies are driving globalization—but polarizing the world into the connected and the isolated.

Despite the potential for development, the Internet poses severe problems of access and exclusion. Who was in the loop in 1998?
• Geography divides. Thailand has more cellular phones than Africa. South Asia, home to 23% of the world’s people, has less than 1% of Internet users.
• Education is a ticket to the network high society. Globally, 30% of users had at least one university degree.
• Income buys access. To purchase a computer would cost the average Bangladeshi more than eight years’ income, the average American, just one month’s wage.
• Men and youth dominate. Women make up just 17% of the Internet users in Japan, only 7% in China. Most users in China and the United Kingdom are under 30.
• English talks. English prevails in almost 80% of all Websites, yet less than one in 10 people worldwide speaks it.

This risk of marginalization does not have to be a reason for despair. It should be a call to action for:
• More connectivity: setting up telecommunications and computer hardware.
• More community: focusing on group access, not just individual ownership.
• More capacity: building human skills for the knowledge society.
• More content: putting local views, news, culture and commerce on the Web.
• More creativity: adapting technology to local needs and opportunities.

Global technological breakthroughs offer great potential for human advance and for eradicating poverty—but not with today’s agendas.

Poor people and poor countries risk being pushed to the margin in this proprietary regime controlling the world’s knowledge:
• In defining research agendas, money talks, not need—cosmetic drugs and slow-ripening tomatoes come higher on the priority list than drought-resistant crops or a vaccine against malaria.
• From new drugs to better seeds, the best of the new technologies are priced for those who can pay. For poor people, they remain far out of reach.
• Tighter property rights raise the price of technology transfer, blocking developing countries from the dynamic knowledge sectors. The TRIPS agreement will enable multinationals to dominate the global market even more easily.
• New patent laws pay scant attention to the knowledge of indigenous people. These laws ignore cultural diversity in the way innovations are created and shared—and diversity in views on what can and should be owned, from plant varieties to human life. The result: a silent theft of centuries of knowledge from
some of the poorest communities in developing countries.
• Despite the risks of genetic engineering, the rush and push of commercial interests are putting profits before people

The relentless pressures of global competition are squeezing out care, the invisible heart of human development.

How can societies design new arrangements for care in the global economy? The traditional model of a patriarchal household is no solution—a new approach must build gender equity into sharing the burdens and responsibility for care. New institutional mechanisms, better public policy and a social consensus are needed to  provide incentives for rewarding care and increasing its supply and quality:
• Public support for care services—such as care for the elderly, day care for children and protection of social services during crises.
• Labour market policies and employer action to support the care needs of employees.
• More gender balance and equity in carrying the burden of household care services.

Each society needs to find its own arrangements based on its history and conditions. But all societies need to devise a better solution. And all need to make a strong commitment to preserving time and resources for care—and the human bonds that nourish human development.

National and global governance have to be reinvented—with human development and  equity at their core.

Reinventing governance for the 21st century must start with strong commitments:
• TO GLOBAL ETHICS, JUSTICE AND RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE. Global governance requires a common core of values, standards and attitudes, a widely felt sense of responsibility and obligations—not just by individuals, but by governments, corporations and civil society organizations. The core values of respect for life, liberty, justice, equality, tolerance, mutual respect and integrity underlie the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They now need to be the guiding objectives of globalization with a human face.
• TO HUMAN WELL-BEING AS THE END, WITH OPEN MARKETS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH AS MEANS. Human development and social protection have to be incorporated in the principles and practices of global governance. Recent advances in global governance have been built on concepts and principles of economic efficiency and competitive markets. These are important but not enough, just as they would be in national governance.
• TO RESPECT FOR THE DIVERSE CONDITIONS AND NEEDS OF EACH COUNTRY. Economic policy-making should be guided by pragmatism rather than ideology—and a recognition that what works in Chile does not necessarily work in Argentina, what is right for Mauritius may not work for Madagascar. Open markets require institutions to function, and policies to ensure equitable distribution of benefits and opportunities. And with the great diversity of institutions and traditions, countries around the world need flexibility in adapting economic policies and timing their implementation.
• TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF ALL ACTORS. Multilateral agreements and international human rights regimes hold only national governments accountable. National governance holds all actors accountable within national borders, but it is being overtaken by the rising importance of supranational global actors (multinational corporations) and international institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, Bank for International Settlements). Needed are standards and norms that set limits and define responsibilities for all actors.

The agenda for action to secure human development in this era of globalization should focus on seven key challenges, each requiring national and international action.
1. Strengthen policies and actions for human development, and adapt them to the new realities of the global economy.
2. Reduce the threats of financial volatility—of the boom and bust economy—and all their human costs.
3. Take stronger global action to tackle global threats to human security.
4. Enhance public action to develop technologies for human development and the eradication of poverty.
5. Reverse the marginalization of poor, small countries.
6. Remedy the imbalances in the structures of global governance with new efforts to create a more inclusive system.
7. Build a more coherent and more democratic architecture for global governance in the 21st century.

Some of the key institutions of global governance needed for the 21st century include:
• A stronger and more coherent United Nations to provide a forum for global leadership with equity and human concerns.
• A global central bank and lender of last resort.
• A World Trade Organization that ensures both free and fair international trade, with a mandate extending to global competition policy with antitrust provisions and a code of conduct for multinational corporations.
• A world environment agency.
• A world investment trust with redistributive functions.
• An international criminal court with a broader mandate for human rights.
• A broader UN system, including a two-chamber General Assembly to allow for civil society representation.

Even before these long-term changes are initiated or achieved, many actions could be taken in the next one to three years:
• Developing countries could take collective—especially regional—initiatives to strengthen their positions in global negotiations in trade, intellectual property rights and other areas.
• Individual countries could set up a high-level group to coordinate policy on globalization and manage their integration for a more positive impact on human development.
• Donor countries could accelerate action on debt relief and redirect aid in favour of poorer countries and human development priorities.
• An independent legal aid facility and ombudsman could be created to support the poor and weak countries in the WTO.
• All countries could cooperate more to fight global crime, relaxing restrictive bank secrecy laws.
• New sources of financing for the global technology revolution could be investigated, to ensure that it is truly global and that its potential for poverty eradication is mobilized. Two proposals: a bit tax to generate resources, and a public programme for development technology similar to CGIAR’s programme for food.
• A representative task force could be set up to review global economic governance, including some 20 or so countries—large and small, rich and poor—but also the private sector and the civil society. It could report jointly to ECOSOC, the IMF Interim Committee and the World Bank Development Committee.
Human Development Report 1998
Consumption for Human Development

The high levels of consumption and production in the world today, the power and potential of technology and information, present great opportunities. After a century of vast material expansion, will leaders and people have the vision to seek and achieve more equitable and more human advance in the 21st century?


Human Development Report 1997
Human Development to Eradicate Poverty

Eradicating poverty everywhere is more than a moral imperative - it is a practical possibility. That is the most important message of the Human Development Report 1997. The world has the resources and the know-how to create a poverty-free world in less than a generation.

The Report focuses not just on poverty of incomes but on poverty from a human development perspective - poverty as a denial of choices and opportunities for living a tolerable life. The strategies proposed in the Report go beyond income redistribution - encompassing action in the critical areas of gender equality, pro-poor growth, globalization and the democratic governance of development.

Human Development Report 1996
Economic growth and human development

The Report argues that economic growth, if not properly managed, can be jobless, voiceless, ruthless, rootless and futureless, and thus detrimental to human development. The quality of growth is therefore as important as its quantity¾ for poverty reduction, human development and sustainability.

The Report concludes that the links between economic growth and human development must be deliberately forged and regularly fortified by skillful and intelligent policy management. It identifies employment as critical for translating the benefits of economic growth into the lives of people. But for this to happen, new patterns of growth will need to be developed and sustained well into the 21st century-- and new mechanisms must be developed to integrate the weak and the vulnerable into the expanding global economy.

Human Development Report 1995
Gender and human development

Human Development, If not engendered, is endangered. That is the simple but far- reaching message of Human Development Report 1995.

The Report analyses the progress made in reducing gender disparities in the past few decades, highlights the wide and persistent gap between women's expanding capabilities and limited opportunities, introduces two new measures for ranking countries on a global scale by their performance in gender equality, analyses the under- valuation and non-recognition of women's work and offers a five-point strategy for equalising gender opportunities in the decade ahead.

Human Development Report 1994
New dimensions of human security

The Report introduces a new concept of human security, which equates security with people rather than territories, with development rather than arms. It examines both the national and the global concerns of human security.

The Report seeks to deal with these concerns through a new paradigm of sustainable human development, capturing the potential peace dividend, a new form of development co-operation and a restructured system of global institutions.

It proposes that the World Summit for Social Development approve a world social charter, endorse a sustainable human development paradigm, create a global human security fund by capturing the future peace dividend, approve a 20/20 compact for human priority concerns, recommend global taxes for resource mobilisation and establish an Economic Security Council.

Human Development Report 1993
People's Participation

The Report examines how and how much people participate in the events and processes that shape their lives.

It looks at three major means of peoples' participation: people-friendly markets, decentralised governance and community organisations, especially non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and suggests concrete policy measures to address the growing problems of jobless growth.

The Report concludes that five pillars of a people centered world order must be built: New concepts of human security, New strategies for sustainable human development, New partnerships between state and markets, New patterns of national and global governance and New forms of international cooperation.

Human Development Report 1992
Global Dimensions of Human Development

The richest 20% of the population now receives 150 times the income of the poorest 20%. The Report suggests a two-pronged strategy to get out of this dilemma. First, making massive investments in their people and strengthening national technological capacity can enable some developing countries to acquire a strong competitive edge in international markets (witness the East Asian industrialising tigers). Second there should be basic international reforms, including restructuring the Bretton Woods institutions, setting up setting up a Development Security council within the United Nations, and convening a World Summit on Social Development to consider a global compact for all nations and all people.

Human Development Report 1991
Financing Human Development

The lack of political commitment, not of financial resources, is often the real cause of human neglect. This is the main conclusion of Human Development Report 1991- the second in a series of annual reports on the subject. The Report points to an enormous potential for restructuring of both national budgets and international aid allocations in favour of human development. But the plea for greater allocative efficiency and more effective spending does not mean indifference to the need for economic growth, or for increased resource mobilisation. On the contrary. The Report's position is that a more efficient and effective public sector will help strengthen the private role in human development. And the best argument for additional resources is that the existing funds are well spent.

Human Development Report 1990
Concept and Measurement of human development

The Report addresses, as its main issue , the question of how economic growth translates - or fails to translate - into human development. The focus is on people and on how development enlarges their choices.
The Report discusses the meaning and measurement of human development, proposing a new composite index. But its overall orientation is practical and pragmatic.

It summarises the record of human development over the past three decades, and it analyses the experience of 14 countries in managing economic growth in the interest of the broadest possible number of people.

With this as its foundation, the Report then sets forth strategies for human development in the 1990s, emphasising the importance of restructuring budgetary expenditures, including military expenditures, and creating an international economic and financial environment conducive to human development.

Human development balance sheet
Global Progress
 Global Fragmentation
DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION
• Since 1980, 81 countries have taken significant steps towards democracy,1 with 33 military regimes replaced by civilian governments2
• 140 of the world’s nearly 200 countries now hold multiparty elections, more than at any time in history3
• In 2000 there were 37,000 registered international NGOs, one-fifth more than in 1990. More than 2,150 NGOs have consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, and 1,550 are associated with the UN Department of Public Information6
• 125 countries, with 62% of the world population, have a free or partly free press9
• Between 1970 and 1996 the number of daily newspapers in developing countries more than doubled, from 29 to 60 copies per 1,000 people, and the number of televisions increased 16-fold10
• The number of countries ratifying the six main human rights conventions and covenants has increased dramatically since 1990. Ratifications of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) grew from around 90 to nearly 15013
• In 10 countries more than 30% of parliamentarians are women16
• Only 6 vetoes were cast in the UN Security Council between 1996 and 2001—compared with 243 between 1946 and 1995, an average of 50 a decade18
 • Of the 81 new democracies, only 47 are fully democratic. Many others do not seem to be in transition to democracy or have lapsed back into authoritarianism or conflict4
• Only 82 countries, with 57% of the world’s people, are fully democratic5
• 51 countries have not ratified the International Labour Organization’s Convention on Freedom of Association, and 39 have not ratified its Convention on Collective Bargaining7
• NGOs still do not have consultative status with the UN Security Council or General Assembly. Only 251 of the 1,550 NGOs associated with the UN Department of Public Information are based in developing countries8
• 61 countries, with 38% of the world’s population, still do not have a free press11
• In 2001, 37 journalists died in the line of duty, 118 were imprisoned and more than 600 journalists or news organization were physically attacked or intimidated12
• 106 countries still restrict important civil and political freedoms14
• 38 countries have not ratified or signed the ICCPR, and 41 have not ratified or signed the ICESCR15
• Worldwide, only 14% of parliamentarians are women—and in 10 countries none are women17
• The World Trade Organization operates on a one-country, one-vote basis, but most key decisions are made by the leading economic powers in “green room” meetings
• The executive directors representing France, Germany, Japan, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States account for 46% of the voting rights in the World Bank and 48% in the International Monetary Fund19
ECONOMIC JUSTICE
• The proportion of the world’s people living in extreme poverty fell from 29% in 1990 to 23% in 199920
• During the 1990s extreme poverty was halved in East Asia and the Pacific and fell by 7 percentage points in South Asia21
• East Asia and the Pacific achieved 5.7% annual growth in per capita income in the 1990s; South Asia, 3.3%24
• The more than 500 million Internet users today are expected to grow to nearly 1 billion by 20052
 • The richest 5% of the world’s people have incomes 114 times those of the poorest 5%22
• During the 1990s the number of people in extreme poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa rose from 242 million to 300 million23
• In Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS per capita income shrank 2.4% a year in the 1990s; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 0.3%25
• 20 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, with more than half of the region’s people, are poorer now than in 1990—and 23 are poorer than in 197526
• 72% of Internet users live in high-income OECD countries, with 14% of the world’s population. 164 million reside in the United States28
HEALTH AND EDUCATION
• Since 1990, 800 million people have gained access to improved water supplies, and 750 million to improved sanitation29
• 57 countries, with half of the world’s people, have halved hunger or are on track to do so by 201530
• Some developing countries have made progress in tackling HIV/AIDS. Uganda reduced HIV prevalence from 14% in the early 1990s to around 8% by the end of the 1990s33
• Between 1970 and 2000 the under-five mortality rate worldwide fell from 96 to 56 per 1,000 live births35
• Worldwide, primary school enrolments rose from 80% in 1990 to 84% in 199839
• 51 countries, with 41% of the world’s people, have achieved or are on track to achieve universal primary enrolment40
• 90 countries, with more than 60% of the world’s people, have achieved or are on track to achieve gender equality in primary education by 2015—and more than 80 in secondary education43
 • Child immunization rates in Sub-Saharan Africa have fallen below 50%31
• At the current rate it would take more than 130 years to rid the world of hunger32
• By the end of 2000 almost 22 million people had died from AIDS, 13 million children had lost their mother or both parents to the disease and more than 40 million people were living with HIV. Of those, 90% were in developing countries and 75% were in Sub-Saharan Africa34
• Every day more than 30,000 children around the world die of preventable diseases36
• Around the world there are 100 million “missing” women who would be alive but for infanticide, neglect and sex-selective abortion37
• Every year more than 500,000 women die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth38
• 113 million school-age children are not in school—97% of them in developing countries41
• 93 countries, with 39% of the world’s people, do not have data on trends in primary enrolment42
• 60% of children not in primary school worldwide are girls44
• Of the world’s estimated 854 million illiterate adults, 544 million are women45
PEACE AND PERSONAL SECURITY
• 38 peacekeeping operations have been set up since 1990—compared with just 16 between 1946 and 198946
• The International Criminal Court’s 60th country ratification, in April 2002, established a permanent structure for adjudicating crimes against humanity
• The 1990s saw a large decline in deaths from interstate conflicts, to 220,000 people over the decade—down from nearly three times that in the 1980s49
• Reflecting pressure from some 1,400 civil society groups in 90 countries, the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty has been ratified by 123 states54
 • Genocide occurred in Europe and Africa, with 200,000 people killed in Bosnia in 1992–95 and 500,000 killed in Rwanda in 199447
• New forms of international terrorism have emerged, with 3,000 people from more than 80 countries killed in the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City48
• Nearly 3.6 million people were killed in wars within states in the 1990s50
• During the 1990s the number of refugees and internally displaced persons grew by 50%51
• Half of all civilian war casualties are children,52 and there are an estimated 300,000 child soldiers worldwide53
• Major countries such as China, the Russian Federation and the United States have not signed the Mine Ban Treaty
• 90 countries are still heavily affected by landmines and unexploded ordinance, with 15,000–20,000 mine victims a year55