The method for determining the Human Development Index (HDI) involves combining normalized indices for health, education, and standard of living. A geometric mean of these three dimensions provides the composite HDI value. Each dimension is individually assessed and scaled between zero and one, representing the range from minimum to maximum observed values across countries.
This metric offers a valuable summary of human development achievements, allowing for comparisons across nations and over time. Tracking HDI trends enables the monitoring of progress and informs policy decisions aimed at improving citizens’ well-being. Its development represents a shift in focus from purely economic indicators to a more holistic measure of societal advancement.
To understand the nuances involved in its derivation, a detailed examination of the component indices, their calculations, and the aggregation process is required. The following sections will elaborate on the specifics of assessing each dimension and combining them to arrive at the final value.
1. Life Expectancy Index
The Life Expectancy Index constitutes a crucial component in determining the Human Development Index (HDI). It serves as a proxy for population health, reflecting the average number of years a newborn is expected to live, assuming current mortality patterns remain constant. A higher life expectancy generally indicates better access to healthcare, improved sanitation, and adequate nutrition, all contributing to a higher HDI score. The index is calculated by normalizing the observed life expectancy at birth between a minimum and maximum value established by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). For example, countries with significantly higher life expectancies, such as Japan or Switzerland, will have a Life Expectancy Index closer to 1, contributing substantially to their overall HDI. A nation grappling with disease outbreaks or famine would exhibit a lower life expectancy, consequently reducing its index score and its overall HDI.
Variations in life expectancy directly impact the resultant HDI, offering a comparative tool for evaluating countries’ success in promoting longevity. Public health initiatives, healthcare access expansions, and investments in disease prevention contribute to increased life expectancy. Conversely, conflict, poverty, and inadequate healthcare systems often lead to decreased life spans. This is exemplified in countries affected by HIV/AIDS or those experiencing prolonged periods of civil unrest, where life expectancy is demonstrably lower, depressing the HDI. Therefore, monitoring the Life Expectancy Index provides insight into the effectiveness of a nation’s policies and resource allocation concerning public health.
In summary, the Life Expectancy Index plays a pivotal role in assessing human development, serving as a significant indicator of population health and well-being. Its inclusion in the HDI underscores the importance of longevity as a fundamental aspect of societal progress. Understanding the calculation and implications of the Life Expectancy Index is therefore essential for interpreting the HDI and evaluating the development status of nations worldwide. The limitations of this index should also be acknowledged, as it represents an average and may mask disparities within a country.
2. Education Index
The Education Index, a key constituent in determining the Human Development Index (HDI), reflects a nation’s achievements in education. It is calculated using two principal indicators: mean years of schooling for adults and expected years of schooling for children. Mean years of schooling represents the average number of years of education received by people aged 25 and older. Expected years of schooling indicates the total number of years of schooling a child of school entering age can expect to receive if prevailing patterns of age-specific enrollment rates persist throughout the child’s life. These indicators are normalized and combined to create the Education Index, directly influencing the overall HDI value. A higher Education Index suggests a more educated population, often correlating with improved health outcomes, higher income levels, and greater societal well-being. Conversely, a low Education Index can signify limited access to education, inadequate educational infrastructure, and lower levels of human capital development, ultimately hindering a nation’s progress.
The impact of the Education Index on the HDI is evident in comparing nations with varying levels of educational attainment. Countries such as Norway or Australia, which invest heavily in education and boast high literacy rates and school enrollment, generally exhibit high Education Index scores and consequently, higher HDI values. Conversely, nations facing challenges such as poverty, conflict, or inadequate governance often struggle to provide quality education, resulting in lower Education Index scores and reduced HDI values. For example, sub-Saharan African countries frequently face significant obstacles in improving educational outcomes, reflected in their lower Education Index scores and overall HDI rankings. Government policies aimed at increasing school enrollment, improving teacher training, and expanding access to higher education can positively impact the Education Index and contribute to enhanced human development.
In summary, the Education Index is a critical determinant of the Human Development Index, providing a comprehensive assessment of a nation’s educational achievements. Its calculation considers both the educational attainment of the current adult population and the expected educational attainment of future generations. Understanding the connection between the Education Index and the HDI allows for a more nuanced evaluation of a nation’s development progress and highlights the importance of investing in education as a means of promoting human well-being. Improving educational outcomes remains a significant challenge for many countries, requiring sustained efforts to address systemic barriers and ensure equitable access to quality education for all.
3. Mean Years of Schooling
Mean Years of Schooling directly influences the Education Index, a component of the Human Development Index (HDI). It quantifies the average number of completed years of education for individuals aged 25 and older. Higher mean years of schooling generally indicate a more educated populace, potentially leading to increased productivity, better health outcomes, and greater civic engagement. Therefore, it contributes positively to a nation’s HDI score. A country with low mean years of schooling may demonstrate weaknesses in its educational system, affecting its overall human development profile. For example, a nation emerging from conflict may exhibit lower mean years of schooling due to disruptions in educational access, thereby depressing its HDI value. Conversely, a nation with a history of robust investment in education is likely to have higher mean years of schooling and a correspondingly enhanced HDI score.
The impact of mean years of schooling is not isolated. It interacts with other HDI components, such as life expectancy and GNI per capita. An educated populace is more likely to adopt healthier lifestyles, contributing to increased life expectancy. Similarly, higher levels of education often correlate with increased earning potential and economic growth, positively affecting GNI per capita. Government policies, such as universal primary education initiatives and adult literacy programs, play a crucial role in increasing mean years of schooling. Assessing the effectiveness of these policies necessitates tracking changes in mean years of schooling over time and comparing them across different demographic groups. Such analysis can reveal disparities in educational access and inform targeted interventions.
In summary, mean years of schooling serves as a vital indicator of a nation’s investment in human capital and its commitment to educational attainment. It is a crucial factor when determining the HDI, reflecting the average educational attainment of the adult population. Understanding its significance allows for a more nuanced assessment of development progress, highlighting the importance of policies aimed at improving educational access and quality for all citizens. Challenges remain in accurately measuring and interpreting mean years of schooling, particularly in regions with limited data or informal educational systems. However, its inclusion in the HDI underscores its importance as a key dimension of human development.
4. Expected Years Schooling
Expected Years of Schooling represents a critical forward-looking dimension within the framework of calculating the Human Development Index (HDI). It provides an estimate of the total number of years of education a child of school-entering age can anticipate receiving, given current enrollment rates. This projection offers valuable insight into a nation’s potential for future human capital development and contributes significantly to the overall HDI score.
-
Definition and Calculation
Expected Years of Schooling is derived from enrollment rates at various levels of education (primary, secondary, and tertiary). The calculation involves summing the age-specific enrollment rates for each level, adjusted for the length of each educational cycle. A higher value indicates a greater likelihood of children remaining in the education system for a longer duration. For example, if a country has near-universal primary and secondary enrollment and a substantial proportion of students continuing into tertiary education, the Expected Years of Schooling will be high.
-
Influence on the Education Index
Expected Years of Schooling forms half of the Education Index, which itself is a key component of the HDI. This index combines Expected Years of Schooling with Mean Years of Schooling (the average years of education attained by the adult population). By including a forward-looking measure alongside a measure of current attainment, the Education Index offers a more comprehensive assessment of a nation’s educational landscape. A high Expected Years of Schooling can compensate for a lower Mean Years of Schooling, indicating an improving educational trajectory.
-
Policy Implications and Investment Strategies
Governments and policymakers utilize Expected Years of Schooling as an indicator of the effectiveness of their education policies. A low value may prompt increased investment in educational infrastructure, teacher training, or initiatives aimed at improving enrollment rates, particularly among marginalized populations. For instance, conditional cash transfer programs that incentivize school attendance can significantly increase Expected Years of Schooling. Monitoring this metric allows for tracking the impact of educational reforms and resource allocation.
-
Limitations and Contextual Considerations
While a valuable indicator, Expected Years of Schooling has limitations. It does not reflect the quality of education received, nor does it account for factors such as repetition rates or dropout rates. A country may have a high Expected Years of Schooling, but if the quality of instruction is poor or a significant proportion of students do not complete their intended years of schooling, the actual impact on human development may be less substantial. Therefore, it is essential to interpret this metric in conjunction with other indicators of educational quality and outcomes. Furthermore, the index relies on current enrollment rates, which may not accurately predict future trends.
In conclusion, Expected Years of Schooling provides a valuable forward-looking perspective on educational potential, playing a significant role in determining the Education Index and, consequently, the Human Development Index. Its inclusion underscores the importance of investing in future generations and highlights the link between education and broader human development outcomes. However, it is crucial to consider its limitations and interpret it within the broader context of educational quality, access, and societal factors when assessing a nation’s development progress.
5. Income Index
The Income Index plays a crucial role in the process. It represents the standard of living dimension within the composite index, reflecting a nation’s economic well-being and its capacity to provide its citizens with a decent quality of life. The metric is derived from the Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) to account for differences in price levels between countries. This adjustment ensures a more accurate comparison of living standards across nations. A logarithmic transformation is applied to the GNI per capita values to reflect the diminishing importance of income as it increases, recognizing that the impact of an additional dollar on human development is greater at lower income levels than at higher ones. The resulting index is scaled between 0 and 1, with higher values indicating a better standard of living.
The connection between the Income Index and overall value lies in its contribution to a balanced assessment of human development. While health and education are undeniably vital, economic resources enable access to these services and influence overall well-being. For example, countries with high GNI per capita, such as Norway or Switzerland, tend to have high Income Index values, contributing positively to their HDI scores. Conversely, nations with low GNI per capita, often found in sub-Saharan Africa, typically exhibit lower Income Index values, hindering their HDI performance. Policy interventions aimed at fostering economic growth, reducing income inequality, and improving access to employment opportunities can positively impact the Income Index and contribute to overall human development. The limitations of relying solely on income should also be acknowledged, as income does not fully capture all aspects of well-being. Factors such as environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and political freedom are not directly reflected in the Income Index, but they are nonetheless important dimensions of human development.
In summary, the Income Index is an indispensable component of the HDI, reflecting a nation’s standard of living and its ability to provide for its citizens’ economic needs. Its inclusion ensures a more holistic assessment of human development, complementing indicators of health and education. Understanding the calculation and implications of the Income Index is therefore essential for interpreting the HDI and evaluating the development status of nations worldwide. Challenges persist in accurately measuring and interpreting GNI per capita, particularly in countries with large informal sectors or significant income inequality. However, its contribution to the HDI underscores its importance as a key dimension of human progress.
6. GNI per Capita
Gross National Income (GNI) per capita is a critical input when determining the Human Development Index (HDI). It serves as the primary measure of a country’s economic productivity and the average income available to its citizens, forming the basis of the Income Index, a key dimension within the HDI framework.
-
Role in the Income Index Calculation
GNI per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), is logarithmically transformed and scaled to create the Income Index. This transformation accounts for the diminishing returns of income on human development, recognizing that the impact of an additional dollar on well-being is greater at lower income levels. For instance, a substantial increase in GNI per capita in a low-income country will have a more significant impact on its Income Index, and consequently its overall HDI, than a similar increase in a high-income nation.
-
Influence on HDI Ranking and Classification
A country’s GNI per capita directly influences its HDI value and subsequent ranking among nations. Countries with high GNI per capita generally exhibit higher HDI values, reflecting their capacity to invest in health, education, and other essential services. Conversely, low GNI per capita often correlates with lower HDI values, indicating challenges in meeting the basic needs of the population. This is evident in comparing the HDI of nations like Norway (high GNI per capita, high HDI) with that of countries in sub-Saharan Africa (low GNI per capita, low HDI).
-
Relationship with Other HDI Dimensions
GNI per capita is intertwined with the other dimensions of the HDI, namely health (measured by life expectancy) and education. Higher income levels often enable better access to healthcare, improved nutrition, and enhanced educational opportunities, thereby indirectly contributing to higher life expectancy and educational attainment. For example, countries with strong economic growth and increasing GNI per capita often experience improvements in health and education outcomes, leading to a more holistic improvement in human development.
-
Limitations and Alternative Measures
While GNI per capita is a valuable indicator of economic well-being, it has limitations. It does not capture income inequality within a country, nor does it account for non-monetary aspects of well-being, such as environmental quality or social cohesion. Alternative measures, such as the Gini coefficient (measuring income inequality) and indicators of environmental sustainability, can provide a more comprehensive picture of human development. However, GNI per capita remains a central and readily available measure for assessing the economic dimension of the HDI.
In conclusion, GNI per capita is a fundamental component of the Human Development Index, serving as the primary measure of a nation’s economic capacity to support human development. Its influence extends beyond the Income Index, impacting health and education outcomes and contributing to a country’s overall HDI ranking. While limitations exist, GNI per capita remains a crucial indicator for assessing and comparing human development progress across nations.
7. Dimension Indices
Dimension Indices represent the normalized values for each of the three key components of the Human Development Index (HDI): health, education, and income. The accurate calculation and aggregation of these indices are fundamental to determining the final HDI value for a nation. Without these normalized values, a meaningful comparison of human development levels across countries with varying scales of measurement would be impossible.
-
Health Index (Life Expectancy Index)
This index reflects the average lifespan at birth within a given country. It is calculated by normalizing the observed life expectancy at birth against established minimum and maximum values. For example, a country with a life expectancy close to the maximum benchmark set by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) will have a health index approaching 1, signifying a high level of health and well-being. Conversely, a country with a significantly lower life expectancy will have a reduced index, reflecting challenges in healthcare and living conditions. This normalized health index is a direct input into the overall HDI calculation.
-
Education Index
The Education Index comprises two sub-indices: Mean Years of Schooling and Expected Years of Schooling. Each sub-index is individually normalized, and then the two are combined to form the overall Education Index. Mean Years of Schooling represents the average years of education attained by the adult population, while Expected Years of Schooling indicates the total years of education a child can expect to receive. A country with high levels of both current and anticipated educational attainment will have an Education Index closer to 1. The impact of this index on the final HDI score is substantial, reflecting the importance of education in human development. Consider, for example, a nation with high enrollment rates and a well-educated adult population; its Education Index would significantly boost its HDI value.
-
Income Index
Based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), the Income Index represents the economic dimension of human development. The GNI per capita is logarithmically transformed to account for the diminishing returns of income on human well-being. This transformed value is then normalized between 0 and 1, with higher values indicating a greater standard of living. A nation with a high GNI per capita, reflecting a robust economy and relatively equitable distribution of wealth, will have an Income Index approaching 1. The inclusion of this index ensures that economic factors are appropriately weighted in the overall HDI calculation. A nation with high health and education indices but a low income index might still have a lower HDI than expected, highlighting the importance of economic well-being.
-
Normalization Process
The normalization process is central to the creation of each Dimension Index. It involves scaling the observed values for life expectancy, education, and income between a minimum and maximum threshold. This process allows for a standardized comparison across countries, regardless of the original units of measurement. The general formula for normalization is: (Observed Value – Minimum Value) / (Maximum Value – Minimum Value). The resulting value falls between 0 and 1, providing a consistent metric for each dimension. Without this normalization, the aggregation of health, education, and income into a single HDI value would be statistically unsound. The choice of minimum and maximum values is critical and is standardized by the UNDP to ensure consistency and comparability over time.
In summary, Dimension Indices are indispensable elements in the methodological process. They translate raw data on health, education, and income into standardized measures, facilitating the calculation of the overall HDI. The accurate calculation and interpretation of these indices are crucial for understanding a nation’s progress in human development and for comparing its performance against other countries worldwide. The composite nature of these indices provides a more nuanced assessment of human well-being than any single indicator could achieve alone, underscoring their importance in the HDI framework.
8. Geometric Mean
The geometric mean serves as the aggregation method for combining the normalized dimension indices within the Human Development Index (HDI) calculation. Its utilization reflects a methodological choice to ensure that lower achievement in any one dimension significantly impacts the overall HDI value.
-
Sensitivity to Low Achievement
The geometric mean penalizes uneven development across the three dimensionshealth, education, and incometo a greater extent than an arithmetic mean. If a country performs exceptionally well in two dimensions but lags significantly in the third, the geometric mean will yield a lower HDI value, accurately reflecting the constraints on human development imposed by the weakest dimension. This sensitivity is crucial because human development requires balanced progress across all three areas.
-
Calculation and Formula
The geometric mean is calculated by multiplying the three dimension indices (Health Index, Education Index, and Income Index) and then taking the cube root of the product. Expressed mathematically: HDI = (Health Index Education Index Income Index)^(1/3). This formula ensures that each dimension contributes equally to the overall HDI value. The cube root normalizes the combined value to a scale comparable to the individual dimension indices, which range from 0 to 1.
-
Contrast with Arithmetic Mean
Unlike the arithmetic mean, which simply averages the three dimension indices, the geometric mean does not allow for perfect substitutability between dimensions. Under an arithmetic mean, a high score in one dimension could fully compensate for a low score in another. However, the geometric mean acknowledges that a deficiency in any single dimension undermines overall human development, regardless of achievements in other areas. This distinction is fundamental to the HDI’s purpose of measuring holistic human progress.
-
Implications for Policy and Development
The application of the geometric mean incentivizes countries to pursue balanced development strategies that prioritize improvements across all three dimensions. A nation seeking to enhance its HDI ranking cannot solely focus on economic growth if its health and education systems remain underdeveloped. The geometric mean highlights the interconnectedness of these dimensions and encourages policies that address deficiencies across the board, fostering a more comprehensive approach to human development.
In conclusion, the geometric mean is integral to the computation, serving as more than just a mathematical tool. Its inherent sensitivity to low achievement and its balanced weighting of the key dimensions of human development ensure a robust and meaningful assessment of human progress. This method encourages a holistic approach to development and accurately reflects the complex interplay between health, education, and income in shaping human well-being.
9. Normalization
Normalization constitutes an essential pre-processing step when determining the Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI combines indicators measured in disparate unitslife expectancy in years, education in years of schooling, and income in US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity. These indicators cannot be directly aggregated without a common scale. Normalization transforms each indicator into an index ranging from 0 to 1, enabling meaningful comparison and aggregation. Without normalization, the HDI would be statistically unsound and lack interpretability. Consider a hypothetical scenario where normalization is omitted. The higher magnitude of income values might disproportionately influence the composite index, masking deficiencies in health or education. Real-world applications of the HDI rely on the comparability afforded by normalization to track development progress within and between countries.
The practical significance of normalization extends to policy formulation and evaluation. Normalized indices allow policymakers to identify specific areas of underperformance and target interventions accordingly. For instance, if a nation’s education index is significantly lower than its health and income indices, resources can be directed toward improving educational access and quality. Furthermore, tracking changes in normalized indices over time provides a clear indication of the effectiveness of development policies. The UNDP, in its annual Human Development Reports, consistently utilizes normalized indices to present comprehensive data on global development trends. This allows for objective assessment of progress and identification of regions requiring targeted support. Erroneous or absent normalization would invalidate these comparisons and undermine the utility of the HDI as a tool for development planning.
In summary, normalization is an indispensable component, enabling the valid and meaningful aggregation of diverse indicators into a composite measure of human development. Its importance lies in facilitating comparisons across countries and over time, informing policy decisions, and tracking development progress. Challenges in normalization may arise from the selection of minimum and maximum values, which can influence the resulting index values. However, the standardized methodology employed by the UNDP ensures consistency and comparability. Understanding the role of normalization is crucial for interpreting the HDI and for utilizing it effectively as a tool for promoting human development.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address common inquiries regarding the methodology for determining the Human Development Index (HDI). These answers aim to provide clarity and enhance understanding of its construction.
Question 1: Why is a geometric mean used instead of an arithmetic mean in the HDI calculation?
The geometric mean is employed to account for the imperfect substitutability between the dimensions of health, education, and standard of living. It penalizes disparities across these dimensions, ensuring that a low achievement in any single area significantly impacts the overall HDI value. This method more accurately reflects the interdependence of human development indicators compared to a simple average.
Question 2: What is the purpose of normalizing the indicators before calculating the HDI?
Normalization converts the diverse indicators into a common scale, ranging from 0 to 1. This step is essential because the indicators are measured in different units (e.g., years of schooling, life expectancy, US dollars). Without normalization, a meaningful comparison and aggregation of these indicators would not be possible, leading to a statistically unsound composite index.
Question 3: How does Gross National Income (GNI) per capita contribute to the HDI?
GNI per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), represents the standard of living dimension within the HDI. It reflects a nation’s economic productivity and the average income available to its citizens. This value is logarithmically transformed and normalized to create the Income Index, which then contributes to the overall HDI value.
Question 4: Why are minimum and maximum values established for each indicator in the HDI?
Minimum and maximum values are set to define the range within which each indicator is normalized. These values provide a consistent benchmark for comparing achievements across countries and over time. The selection of these values is standardized by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to ensure comparability and prevent arbitrary scaling.
Question 5: What are the primary limitations of the HDI as a measure of human development?
The HDI, while comprehensive, does not capture all aspects of human development. It does not account for income inequality, environmental sustainability, or political freedoms. Furthermore, the HDI relies on national averages, which can mask disparities within countries. Therefore, it is essential to interpret the HDI in conjunction with other indicators to obtain a more nuanced understanding of a nation’s development progress.
Question 6: How frequently is the HDI methodology updated, and why are these updates necessary?
The HDI methodology is periodically reviewed and updated to incorporate new data, refine the indicators used, and improve the accuracy of the index. These updates are necessary to ensure that the HDI remains a relevant and reliable measure of human development in a changing world. Updates often reflect advancements in statistical methods and a better understanding of the factors contributing to human well-being.
The Human Development Index calculation offers a valuable tool for assessing and comparing nations’ progress, it remains crucial to recognize its limitations and consider it alongside other indicators for a more comprehensive understanding of societal well-being.
The subsequent section will explore applications of the HDI in various contexts.
Guidance on Deriving the Human Development Index
Adhering to established methodologies is paramount for accurate calculation. Departures from these procedures can compromise the validity of results.
Tip 1: Utilize Recognized Data Sources. Employ data from reputable international organizations, such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) or the World Bank, to ensure consistency and comparability across countries. These sources follow standardized data collection protocols.
Tip 2: Accurately Apply the Normalization Formula. Ensure precise application of the normalization formula (Observed Value – Minimum Value) / (Maximum Value – Minimum Value) for each dimension. Incorrect normalization will skew the individual indices and, consequently, the overall HDI.
Tip 3: Employ Logarithmic Transformation for Income. Consistently apply the logarithmic transformation to Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, as this adjustment accounts for the diminishing marginal utility of income at higher levels. Neglecting this transformation will overemphasize the impact of income on the HDI.
Tip 4: Verify Minimum and Maximum Values. Confirm that the minimum and maximum values used in the normalization process align with the benchmarks established by the UNDP for the specific year of analysis. Deviations from these standardized values will compromise comparability.
Tip 5: Calculate the Geometric Mean Correctly. Employ the geometric mean formula accurately by taking the cube root of the product of the three dimension indices (Health Index, Education Index, Income Index). Errors in calculating the geometric mean will lead to an inaccurate HDI value.
Tip 6: Account for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Adjust GNI per capita for purchasing power parity (PPP) to account for differences in price levels across countries. Using nominal GNI figures will result in an inaccurate reflection of living standards and distort the Income Index.
Tip 7: Understand Data Limitations. Recognize that the HDI relies on national averages and may not capture inequalities within countries. Supplement HDI analysis with other indicators, such as the Gini coefficient or measures of environmental sustainability, for a more comprehensive assessment of human development.
Tip 8: Maintain Methodological Consistency. When comparing HDI values over time, ensure that the methodology remains consistent. Methodological changes can affect HDI values and make direct comparisons misleading. Consult the UNDP’s technical notes for details on any revisions to the HDI methodology.
Following these guidelines ensures a more reliable and valid calculation. The HDI is a valuable metric for assessing progress when calculated with precision.
The subsequent and final segment will offer concluding thoughts and future perspectives.
Conclusion
The preceding sections delineated the procedures involved. The assessment encompasses life expectancy, educational attainment, and economic productivity. Each component undergoes a normalization process to ensure comparability. The aggregation of these normalized indices, through the application of a geometric mean, culminates in a composite score representing a nation’s human development level. Adherence to the outlined methodology is crucial for accurate and meaningful comparisons.
Continued refinement and critical application remain essential. The understanding is paramount for evaluating societal progress. Further research and expanded data collection will contribute to a more comprehensive assessment. This metric serves as a valuable instrument for policy formulation and monitoring progress toward global human development goals.
