We just told that in order to represent the basic needs better be to prepare a “Composite Index”. The well-known endeavor in this respect has been made by Morris D. Morris who developed ‘Physical Quality of Life Index(PQLI) where he included just three indicators like life expectancy, in fact mortality rate (IMR) and literacy rate. For each indicator he divided a scale which includes the numbers ranging from 1 t 100 where 1 represents the worst performance y any country and 100 is the best performance.
For life expectancy, the upper limit of 100 was assigned to 77 years which was achieved by Sweden in 1973, and the lower limit of 1 was assigned to 28 years which was the life expectancy of Guinea-Bissau in 1950. Within these limits each country’s life expectancy figure is ranked from 1 to 100. As the midway between the upper and lower limits of 77 and 28 years is 52 years will be assigned a rating of 50. Similarly, for infant mortality, the upper limit was set at 9 per thousand was achieved by Sweden in 1973 and the lower limit at 229 per thousand which was achieved by Gabon in 1950. The minimum rate regarding IMR was rated 100, while the highest IMR was given the scale of 1. Whereas the literacy costs, measured as possibilities from 1 to one hundred, provide their very own direct scale. Once a country’s overall performance in life expectancy, infant mortality and literacy has been rated on the scale of one to one hundred, the composite index for the united states of America is calculated by using averaging the three ratings, giving equal weight to each.
It was observed in 1981 that the countries which had low per capita GNP also had low PQLI. “Whereas” the countries had higher per capita GNP also had higher PQLI. But in certain cases, the reverse was observed-as the case of Saudi-Arabia and Qatar which had higher GNP per capita but lower PQLI as per capita incomes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar were $12720 and $27790, while their PQLIs were 40 and 56, The PQLI and per capita GNP of Pakistan were 40 and 349 respectively, whereas it was 42 and 253 in case of India. Cost Rica which was in the middle income group had a higher PQLI of 89. There were so many countries like Angola, Zimbabwe, China, India, Taiwan and Iraq etc. Which were having at least similar incomes but they differed heavily in respect of PQLI.
The PQLI technique is superior because it’s far devoid of those flaws which exist in according to capita GNP measure. The PQLI measure maintains in view the welfare concerns, and it attaches the culmination of economic boom with human betterment. The GNP measure is criticized that it does not throw light on the distribution of income, whereas the PQLI also analyses the nature of distribution of income as the more life expectancy, decreased in IMR and increase in literacy rates can become possible due to better distribution of income. The PQLI also can be used like GNP approach to make comparisons among nations.
But PQLI is objected on the ground that it is a limited measure, it has not included so many social and psychological properties which have been identified by the measure of quality of life- as the case of security, justice and human rights. This is the reason that “population crisis committee” prepared ‘The International Human Suffering Index’ in 1987. This index has been employed to measure’ the difference in living’. In such index of suffering 10 following indicators have been included:
- Chances of new job
- Pressure of population in urban areas,
- The infant mortality rates,
- Nutritional level,
- Clean water,
- Use of energy,
- Personal freedom.
On the basis of this measure the highest ‘Sufferings’ was observed in case of Angola and Afghanistan, while the best living conditions were observed in case of the countries like Switzerland, Germany and Luxembourg.
The PQLI is also objected that it gives equal weight age to the indicators like IMR and life expectancy.
THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (HDI)
The latest and most ambitious effort to analyze the comparative situation of socioeconomic development in both UDCs and DCs has been undertaken by United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in its annual series of ‘Human Development Reports. These reports were initiated in 1990 and they aim at construction and refinement of a Human Development Index (HDI). Like PQLI, the HDI attempts to rank all international locations on scale of O (the lowest HD) to 1 (the highest HD) based totally on three dreams or stop merchandise of improvement:
- Longevity is measured by life expectancy at birth,
- Knowledge as measured via a weighted average of person literacy (two-thirds) and mean years of training (one-1/3 weight), and
Income as measured by means of using adjusted actual in keeping with capita income(I.E., adjusted for the differing shopping energy of every us of a’s currency and for the assumption of rapidly diminishing marginal utility of income). Using those three measures of development and applying components to 1990 records for a hundred and sixty nations, the HDI ranks all nations into 3 agencies: low HD (0.0 to 0.50), medium HD (0.51 to 0.79) and high HD (0.80 to 1). It is advised that HDI measures household, not absolute stages of HD, and its pressure is at the ‘Ends of improvement’ like sturdiness, expertise and cloth desire, instead at the ‘Means’ what has been the case of GNP according to capita.
Again Tanzania’s HDI was five times higher than Guinea, while Guinea’s real per capita GDP was almost 10% higher than Tanzania’s. Similarly, Sri Lanka’s real income was 75% less than that of Algeria, but its HDI was 29% higher. While Brazil, with 10% higher GDP than Cost Rica had a 13% lower HDI. Again, US which had a higher income, but a lower HDI than Canada.