METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN MEASURING HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
Dr. Venkatraja. B,
Assistant Professor-Economics
SDM Institute for Management Development, Mysore,India.
Prof. M. Indira,
Professor of Economics
DOS in Economics and Co-Operation University of Mysore, Mysore-6, India.
ABSTRACT
Over the period of time several frameworks such as income approach, basic needs approach,
commodities approach etc. were evolved to measure development.It can be reiterated that they
are inadequate and incomplete. Although Human Development Index has its own relative utility,
is at times incapable of capturing and representing complex and interwoven realities as it
consists of only three indicators. Hence, there is a necessity to develop a methodology which will
ascertain all the qualitative and non-economic aspects of life and integrate them with
quantitative aspects. At this backdrop in this paper an attempt is made to discuss the
methodological issues in measuring human developmentand suggest a methodology for
measuring human development within Amartya Sen’s capability framework. Borrowing heavily
from the UNDP methodology and based on this, new methodology i.e. Human Functioning Index
(HFI) is developed taking into consideration five dimensions and several related indicators of
development. Attempt is made to discuss and show why this approach could be useful to deal
with the complexity of a multi-dimensional assessment of human development. In order to test
this methodology, an empirical exercise has been conducted based on micro data collected
through sample survey carried in ten villages of Dakshina Kannada district, Karnataka. To a
certain extent the results are not too similar to those obtained from traditional income based
Key Words: human development, measuring development, methodology, functioning, capability
1. Introduction
Measuring human development depends on how it has been defined. The most comprehensive
definition of human development is provided by Amartya Sen. According to him human
development is a process of enlarging people‟s choices and enhancing human capabilities and
freedoms, enabling them to: live a long and healthy life, have access to knowledge, and a decent
standard of living, and participate in the life of their community and decisions affecting their
lives (Sen, 1985). Hence, human development is multi-dimensional in nature comprising
economic, political, legal, administrative, social, material, spiritual, environmental,
psychological, moral and cultural values (Bava, 1997).
Measuring human development, which comprises of qualitative and non-economic elements, is
difficult and challenging. There is no agreed methodology for measuring the intangible benefits
and for integrating them with tangible benefits. Further, there is no agreement on the indicators
to be included to measure human development. It can be reiterated that income and cost–benefit
approaches are useful in their own way but inadequate and incomplete. Significantly, the UNDP
has contributed enormously in this regard by evolving Human Development Index (HDI). This
framework, although has its own relative utility, is at times incapable of capturing and
representing complex and interwoven realities as it consists of only three indicators.
2. Objectives
The main objective of this paper is to understand the methodological issues in measuring human
development. The specific objectives are:
1. To analyze the methodological issues related to the multidimensional analysis of human
development.
2. To develop a comprehensive functioning index to measure human development.
3. To empirically test the methodology in the evaluative space of functionings with the data
collected through survey.
Though measuring human development is complex, it is not impossible. Several techniques have
been developed to measure well-being or development over the period of time. The major
techniques employed in the earlier studies to evaluate well-being are given below.
3.1. Income Approach
In the initial phase, development has been viewed as an increase in real per capita income to the
maximum possible extent. The income approach has a strong conviction that the growth of GDP
per capita will automatically lead to a proportionate improvement in human life. The income
approach was attacked on several grounds (Cobb et al, 1999). First, by counting only monetary
transactions as economic activity, the GDP per capita omits much of what people value them
astheir basic needs. Second, it counts all monetary transactions as additions to total well-being.
But in reality, many monetary expenses incurred by people are defensive in nature. That is, they
are incurred for preventing erosions from the existing level of welfare. Third, it ignores the
environmental costs of economic activities and takes no account of the depletion of natural
resources used in production. Fourth, the GDP value adjusted for population size being an
average, often conceals great distributional disparities. Further, the income approach is based on
an implicit assumption that all individuals have perfect ability to convert their incomes to the
corresponding level of human well-being and hence, higher income undoubtedly means higher
level of well-being. Nevertheless, this is far away from reality.
3.2. Rawls’ Primary Goods
Many researchers have, later, devoted their time and energy for the development of
supplementary measures to GDP per capita. John Rawls in his “Theory of Social Justice”
suggests an improved method to measure well-being. His theory concentrates on the holding of
“primary goods” of different people in making inter-personal comparisons. His list of primary
goods includes income and wealth, in addition to the basic liberties, powers and prerogatives of
offices and positions of responsibility, social bases of self-respect and so on (Rawls, 1971). The
entire list of primary goods is concerned with means rather than ends; they deal with things that
help to achieve what we want to achieve. Rawls is much concerned with the fact that different
freedom to pursue their respective ends. The problem with the Rawlsian accounting of
well-being lies in the fact that, even for the same ends, people‟s ability to convert primary goods into
achievements differs, so that an inter-personal comparison based on the holdings of primary
goods cannot reflect the ranking of their respective real freedoms to pursue any given ends.
3.3. Physical Quality of Life Index
The most significant contribution in regard of measuring development has been the introduction
of the Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) by Morris D Morris (1979). Morris, with his PQLI
computed from just three non-income indicators-life expectancy at age one, infant mortality and
adult literacy- has demonstrated that the quality of human life need not be in one-to-one
correspondence with the level of income. Although, the PQLI is an improvement over GDP per
capita and other approaches of the early period, it suffers from some serious limitations.
According to Leni (2006) other indicators used by Morris are relatively insensitive to
improvements in the quality of human life beyond certain moderate levels. Further, health and
knowledge are just two of the wide variety of choices that have to be opened to human beings for
maintaining high quality of life.
3.4. Basic Needs Approach
At this point, the Basic Needs Approach, pioneered by Streeten et al (1981) and Stewart (1985)
gathered momentum. This approach is well-rooted in the social justice principle and argues that
the primary objective of economic development is the provision of necessary commodities for
the satisfaction of the basic needs of the entire population. Failures in fulfilling their basic needs
must be viewed as a shortfall in development progress, to that extent. Although the argument is
logically and ethically sound, it would not be able to assess the development performance of a
country, beyond the point where she fulfills the pre-defined set of basic needs of her citizens
(Leni, 2006).
3.5. Human Development Index
It took AmartyaSen to revive the human centered approach to development with a succession of
under the leadership of Haq, to initiate a systematic and successful attempt to quantify and
measure it. It was decided in 1991 to construct a composite index with three suitable indicators,
and it has been named as the Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP, 1991). The advocates of
this human development paradigm have upheld three indicators–to lead a long and healthy life,
to acquire knowledge and to have access to resources needed for a decent standard of living- as
the most essential and fundamental ones. The HDI, as envisaged by the UNDP is an evolutionary
measure.
Within a very short span of time since its inception in 1990, the HDI have got wide popularity.
Yet, even to its very originators and admirers, it is not a perfect measure of human well-being. In
fact, the HDI as a measure of human development has several handicaps. A number of critics
(McGillivray, 1992; Haq, 1996, for instance) argue that new dimensions should be added to the
index in order to increase its discriminatory power among countries and to make a more
complete measure of human development. While the concept of human development is
inevitably broader than its measurement, new dimensions could possibly be added to the HDI
without significantly compromising its simplicity and transparency (Haq, 1996). Haq (1996)
suggests some additional dimensions such as political freedom, environmental dimension etc. to
include.
Need For an Alternative Method?
Income or basic needs and such other techniques to measure development are incapable to
capture the different dimensions of well-being of individuals.Even HDI is no better than income
approach as a measure of human well-being (McGillivray, 1992). This is because human
development is measured by considering only three indicators. One way to make the HDI more
reliable is to use more objective indicators to represent the achieved functionings. Therefore, in
the present study a methodological approach for measuring multi-dimensional human
development i.e. Human Functionings Index (HFI) is developed and applied.
HFI is an extended version of HDI. It is a composite index of five achieved functionings. They
are economic, social, political, organizational and environmental functionings. Each of these five
functionings constitutes several indicators of development.
4.1. Theoretical Framework to HFI: Capability Approach
HFI is developed to measure multi-dimensional human development is based on the theoretical
framework of Amartya Sen‟s capability approach. Capability approach is widely recognized as
one of the more complete and comprehensive approaches to development analysis, in which the
plurality of development dimensions are considered, the relationships among them are
investigated. This approach provides a new clear meaning to poverty, deprivation and inequality.
What mainly differentiates the capability approach with respect to other approaches of
well-being is its inclusiveness. It enlarges the evaluative space of well-well-being including variables other
than income. It is a radically different way to conceive the meaning of human development.
The capability approach evaluates policies according to their impact on people‟s capabilities. It
asks whether people are healthy and whether the means or resources necessary for this capability
are present, such as clean water, access to doctors, protection from infections and diseases and
basic knowledge on health issues. It asks whether people have access to nutritious food, to a
high quality educational system, to rural political participation, to community activities. This
approach, thus, covers all dimensions of human well-being i.e., economic, social, cultural and
political dimensions. This distinguishes the approach from both purely income basis approaches
and also of psychological approaches which argue that well-being can be reduced to people‟s
feelings of happiness(Robeyns, 2005).
The capability approach is not a theory that can explain poverty, inequality or well-being;
instead, it rather provides a tool and a framework within which to conceptualize and evaluate
these phenomena. The core characteristic feature of the capability approach is its focus on the
freedoms or valuable opportunities (capabilities) to lead the kind of lives they want to lead, to do
what they want to do and be they want to be. The approach also evaluates the functionings
concentrate on people‟s happiness or desire fulfillment, or on income, expenditure, or
consumption(Robeyns, 2005).
The capability approach has provided the theoretical foundation to the construction of the
Human Development Index (HDI). It is now widely used as an alternative and more people –
centered measure of development. However, according to critics, HDI cannot be the accurate
measure of human development. This is mainly because HDI considers only three variables such
as life expectancy, educational attainment and real GDP per capita as indicators of development.
Therefore, many other important functionings of quality life are excluded from the measurement.
Keeping Sen‟s approach as theoretical foundation, in the present study, effort has been made to
measure human development by including many functionings.
4.2. Indicators of Well-being: Functionings
Human development, in the present study, has been evaluated on the basis of achieved
functionings. Such functionings are confined to a set of five dimensions of human life-
economic, social, political, organizational and environmental. Appropriate indicators are
included to represent each of the five dimensions. The functionings selected under different
dimensions and the co-related indicators are the following. These indicators and other co-related
variables are identified from the OPHI survey(2008).
I. Economic Dimensionismeasured bysix main economic indicators:
i) Employment, defined by the nature of job of households
ii) Annual gross income of household from all sources
iii) Source of energy for cooking, lighting and pumping
iv) Transport facility, measured by all season road connectivity to home from the nearest main
road and the mode of transport used
v) Communication, measured by very often used mode to communicate important matters
vi) Ownership of assets, indicated by the number of household durables such as TV, fan, motor
bikeetc., area of land owned and the nature of the housing.
II. Social Dimensionis measured by twenty one variables divided into the following six groups
of indicators:
ii) Health-is measured by six variables related to health care services, food, sanitation and
water.
iii) Empowerment- is measured by four elementary variables that express subjective perception
on one‟s own ability to make decisions and their effectiveness.
iv) Safety and security- is measured by the presence/absence of violence as perceived by the
individuals.
v) Ability to go about without shame or external humiliation.
vi)Meaning and value- Individual perceptions about meaning and value in one‟s own life.
III. Political Dimensionof human development is measured by six variables relating to two sets
of indicators referring to political awareness and political participation which describe the
awareness and degree of interest in political issues.
IV. Organizational Dimensionindicates the dependence of people on organizations, both formal
and informal. This dimension measures five variables relating to two indicators viz. the
membership, and involvement in associations or other kinds of organizations.
V. Environmental Dimensionis measured by means of five variables related to: the weather,
rainfall, fertility of soil, and steps taken to protect from pollution.
4.3. Indexing of Functionings
Subsequent to the selection of a list of relevant functionings and their indicators, first step in the
assessment of human development requires us to assign the rank order score to each variable
ranging from 1 to 5, 1 signifying the least achievement of functionings, whereas 5 the most. In
the present study, as each indicator is assessed by assigning the rank order score ranging from
one to five, the minimum value is set at 1 and maximum at 5.
Later, the individual index for each of the indicators is computed. A general formula, as given
below, is derived from UNDP methodology for the computation of the individual index for each
of the indicators.
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 – 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Individual index for each indicator is expressed as the ratio of the „actual achievement‟ of the village in that indicator to the „maximum achievement possible‟. In other words, it is obtained by dividing the „actual achievement‟ by the „maximum achievement possible‟. The difference
between the actual value of the indicator and the minimum value set for that indicator is the
„actual achievement‟ with respect to that indicator. The difference between the maximum and
minimum values gives the „maximum achievement possible‟.
Through this operation, seventeen elementary indices are obtained with reference to the five
functionings included in the development assessment. By aggregating the elementary indices,
five composite sets have been derived and these sets refer to the five dimensions of human
development as discussed earlier. Methods employed to derive five composite indices through
aggregating seventeen elementary indices are shown below.
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝐸𝐹𝐼 =𝐸𝐼 + 𝑌𝐼 + 𝐸𝑦𝐼 + 𝑇𝐼 + 𝐶𝐼 + 𝐷𝐴𝐼
6
Here, EI =Employment Index,YI= Income Index,EyI=Energy Index,TI= Transport Index
CI=Communication Index, andDAI= Durable Assets Index.
𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝑆𝐹𝐼) =𝐸𝑑𝐼 + 𝐻𝐼 + 𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑡 + 𝑆𝑆𝐼 + 𝐸𝐻𝐼 + 𝑀𝑉𝐼
6
Here, EdI= Education Index,HI= Health Index,Empt= Empowerment Index,SSI= Safety and
Security Index,EHI= External Humiliation Index, and MVI= Meaning and Value Index.
𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝑃𝐹𝐼) =𝑃𝐴𝐼 + 𝑃𝑃𝐼
2
Here, PAI= Political Awareness Index, and PPI= Political Participation Index
𝑂𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝑂𝐹𝐼) =𝐵𝐻𝐼 + 𝑂𝑃𝐼
2
𝐸𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝐸𝑛𝐹𝐼) = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 – 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Finally, an overall index, Human Functioning Index (HFI), has been computed by calculating
the simple average of the five resultant indices, giving equal weightage to each.
𝐻𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝐻𝐹𝐼) =𝐸𝐹𝐼 + 𝑆𝐹𝐼 + 𝑃𝐹𝐼 + 𝑂𝐹𝐼 + 𝐸𝑛𝐹𝐼
5
Here, EFI= Economic Functioning Index, SFI= Social Functioning Index, PFI= Political
Functioning Index, OFI=Organisational Functioning Index, EnFI= Environmental Functioning
Index
4.5. Range
Each of the indicators and consequently obtained fivefunctioningsare measured at the range of
0-1. Even the resultant Human Functioning Index (HFI) is scaled at the range of 0-1, where
0shows the absolutely defined worst performance and 1 represents the absolutely defined best
performance of the indicator and the human functioning. Achievement of HFI closer to 1
indicates very high achievement of functionings showing better living of the individual
respondent. Whereas, HFI closer to 0 represents lower achievement of human functionings.
4.6. Classification of Respondents
In line with UNDP‟s classification of countries, on the basis of the human functioning achieved,
the individual respondents are classified into three groups such as:
i) Low Human Functioning group:It consists of individuals with index values ranging between 0
and 0.499.
ii) Medium Human Functioning group: This group includes respondents with HFI value between
0.5 and 0.799.
iii) High Human Functioning group: All individuals achieved HFI above 0.8 are classified in
5. Operationalising HFI: An Empirical Application
Inorder to test the reliability and suitability of the HFI, an empirical study is conducted in
Dakshina Kannada (D.K) district of Karnataka state in India. Multi-stage sampling technique
was adopted for the study. In this study, villages with NGO presence were selected and
compared with villages without NGO presence. This way, „Non-NGO villages‟ are considered as „control group‟ and „NGO villages‟ as „experiment group‟. The sample district i.e. Dakshina
Kannada was selected purposively as it is one of the districts in Karnataka with a strong NGO
presence. All the five taluks of the district viz Bantwal, Belthangady, Mangalore, Puttur and
Sullia, were covered and at the second stage of sampling, two villages from each taluk were
selected purposively based on NGO presence. While one village with NGO presence is
considered as NGO village and the other without any NGO presence is considered as Non-NGO
village. An attempt was made to select those villages which are identical with respects of
demographic, socio-economic, geographic and climatic conditions and other factors. A sample of
25 individuals from each village was selected randomly based on the household list collected
from the Gram Panchayat (local administrative body). This brings the sample size to 250
individuals and out of this 125 is for NGO villages and 125 for Non-NGO villages.
Primary data are collected through survey method with a pre-tested questionnaire, focused group
discussions and observations. The reference unit is the individual. This is because of the nature
of the functionings selected which mainly pertain to the personal situation. Information about the
socio-economic background of the individual and the environment in which he/she lives was
collected at the household level. Data are collected mainly on 17 achieved indicators which are
classified under five major functionings of quality of life such as economic, social, political,
organizational and environmental functionings.
Based on the collected data on 17 indicators, their individual index is calculated by adopting the
UNDP methodology of calculating HDI with modifications as stated earlier. Later, from these 17
index values 5 functioning indices are derived. Finally, through aggregation and averaging
methods the composite index called Human Functioning Index (HFI) is computed.
Human well-being, in this study, is measured in terms of functionings achieved by the
respondents. While measuring human development five functionings such economic, social,
political, organizational and environmental are considered. Each dimension of well-being needs
to be studied separately. Table-1 reveals the actual achievement of the various functionings of
[image:12.612.104.512.213.313.2]the individuals in NGO and Non-NGO villages.
Table -1. Index values of different dimensions of human development.
Dimensions
Village
EFI SFI PFI OFI EnFI HFI
NGO 0.584 0.667 0.549 0.617 0.787 0.641
Non-NGO 0.525 0.612 0.469 0.511 0.64 0.538
Note: EFI= Economic Functioning Index, SFI= Social Functioning Index, PFI= Political Functioning Index, OFI= Organisational Functioning Index, EnFI= Environmental Functioning Index, HFI= Human Functioning Index.
Table - 2. Distribution of respondents according to the levels of achieved functionings.
Indicator Village Low Medium High
Number % Number % Number %
Economic Functioning Index
NGO 31 24.8 87 69.6 7 5.6
Non-NGO 62 49.6 57 45.6 6 4.8
Social Functioning Index
NGO 12 9.6 100 80 13 10.4
Non-NGO 40 32 84 67.2 1 0.8
Political Functioning Index
NGO 43 34.4 67 53.6 15 12
Non-NGO 61 48.8 60 48 4 3.2
Organisational Functioning Index
NGO 6 4.8 108 86.4 11 8.8
Non-NGO 31 24.8 92 73.6 2 1.6
Environmental Functioning Index
NGO 13 10.4 20 16 92 73.6
Non-NGO 11 9.6 88 69.6 26 20.8
Human Functioning Index
NGO 11 8.8 112 89.6 2 1.6 Non-NGO 36 28.8 89 71.2 0 0
Source: Sample Survey.
1. Economic Functioning
The first dimension of HFI is economic functioning, which is measured by Economic
Functioning Index [EFI]. This functioning is indicated by the nature of employment, income,
[image:12.612.95.516.373.609.2]of EFI clearly shows that people of NGO villages have higher EFI than the people of Non-NGO
villages. EFI for NGO villages is 0.584, where as it is only 0.525 for Non-NGO villages. This is
the indication of greater achievement of economic functionings in NGO villages and larger
deprivation in Non-NGO villages.
Not only the aggregate EFI is more in NGO villages but also all its six indicators such as
employment, income, energy, transport, communication and possession of durable assets have
better achievement among the people of NGO villages than Non-NGO villages.
The data revealsmore deprivation of Economic Functioning among the respondents of Non-NGO
villages. As shown in Table-2, 24.8% of the respondents of NGO villages have achieved Low
EFI. But it is as high as 49.6% in Non-NGO villages. Further, more proportion of respondents
(69.6%) in NGO villages have attained EFI at the medium range. However, in Non-NGO
villages only 45.6% are able to achieve EFI at this range.
From the survey it is observed that many NGOs are carrying out various projects and they might
have positive influence on the respondents‟ employment chances, income level, possession of
durable assets etc.
2. Social Functioning
This dimension is measured by Social Functioning Index [SFI]. While calculating this index,
social indicators like educational attainment, health, empowerment, safety and security, external
humiliation and meaning and value in one‟s own life. Study shows that NGO villages have
attained higher SFI than Non-NGO villages. In NGO villages SFI is 0.667 and in Non-NGO
villages it is only 0.612. It appears that respondents of NGO villages have greater achievement of
social functioning.
Further, the study also reveals that the respondents of NGO villages have higher access to all six
indicators of social functioning like educational attainment, health, empowerment, safety and
The study also shows that 32% of the respondents from Non-NGO villages are deprived of with
social dimension of well-being. But their proportion in NGO villages is only 9.6%. More
achievement of social functioning in NGO villages is understood by the higher percentage of
respondents in the category of more than 0.8. While 10.4% of the respondents in NGO villages
have achieved SFI greater than 0.8, only 0.8% in Non-NGO villages are in this category.As
various NGOs took up the cause of literacy, health issues, empowering the weaker sections and
other social services in wide scale in experimental villages (NGO villages), apart from the
governments, might have led to social well-being of such villages.
3. Political Functioning
Achievement of Political Functioning is measured in terms of Political Functioning Index [PFI].
Higher attainment of PEI indicates that people have greater political awareness and participation.
Examination of field data shows that respondents of NGO villages have more PFI (0.549) than
the respondents of Non-NGO villages (0.469).
Political awareness and political participation, the two indicators of PFI, appear to be achieved
more by the people of NGO villages than Non-NGO villages. So, people of those villages which
are served by voluntary organizations are regularly informed with the latest political affairs and
also a large number of them do participate in political activities. Therefore, greater achievement
of political functioning in NGO villages can be attributed the active presence of the NGOs.
From the results one can arrive at the conclusion that in Non-NGO villages people‟s participation
in political activities and their awareness in political issues are very low. But these situations are
different in NGO villages. This is clear from the fact that 34.4% of the respondents of NGO
villages have Low achievement of PFI but their proportion is 48.8% in Non-NGO villages.
Attainment of medium PFI is concerned, in NGO villages 53.6% of the people are in this group.
But only 48% of the respondents in Non-NGO villages are able to realize medium PFI. In case of
High PFI, 12% of the respondents of NGO villages are able to attain PFI at high range. But a
meager proportion (3.2%) of respondents of Non-NGO villages has achieved High PFI. This
clearly indicates that deprivation of political functioning is more in Non-NGO villages and
4. Organisational Functioning
Attainment of this functioning is measured in terms of Organisational Functioning Index [OFI].
This index examines the banking habits of the people and their participation in organizational
activities. The respondents of NGO villages have achieved more OFI (0.617). But in Non-NGO
villages it is very low (0.511). Therefore, NGO villages are better off with higher attainment of
OFI and Non-NGO villages are worse off with higher deprivation of this functioning.
Organisational functioning constitutes two indicators i.e. baking habit and organizational
participation. People of NGO villages have achieved more of both the indicators than the people
of non-NGO villages. This can be viewed as- i) people of NGO villages have developed good
banking habit, and ii) larger participation of people in the activities of various organizations.
Further, very less proportion of the respondents of NGO villages (4.8%) are belonged to Low
OFI group. But in Non-NGO villages 24.8% have attained OFI at this range. More proportion of
people (86.4%) in NGO villages are able to achieve Medium OFI. Whereas, in Non-NGO
villages only 73.6% of people are able to achieve this at medium range. Again, 8.8% of the
respondents in NGO villages have attained OFI above 0.8. But in Non-NGO villages only 1.6%
of the sample respondents is able to achieve High OFI. Hence, we can understand that in all
villages where NGOs are active, very less proportion of people have achieved Low OFI and a
good number of people have secured High OFI.
5. Environmental Functioning
While measuring Environmental Functioning Index [EnFI], this dimension considers indicators
like weather of the area surrounded, rainfall, fertility of the soil, organizational efforts in making
area free from pollution, creating environmental awareness etc. Results of the study show higher
EnFI for NGO villages (0.787) than Non-NGO villages (0.640). This is because NGOs have
worked in this regard through campaigns, awareness programmes and other programmes and
Detailed examination of the field data shows that a large proportion of respondents in NGO
villages (73.6%) have achieved high EnFI. While in Non-NGO villages only 20.8% of the
sample respondents are successful in deriving high EnFI. This indicates that the people of NGO
villages have achieved environmental functioning in high scale, leading to sustainable
development. And people of Non-NGO villages have high deprivation of this functioning,
representing larger environmental degradation.
5.2. Aggregate Analysis of Human Development
Inorder to obtain the holistic status of the human development of the respondents individual
functionings are aggregated intoHFI. HFI is measured in the range of 0-1. 0 signifies the worst
achievement of the functionings, whereas 1 signifies the best achievement. Value of HFI
indicates how far the well-being of an individual/village has travelled from the minimum value
of 0 towards the maximum value of 1.
Table-3. Human Functioning Index in NGO and Non-NGO villages.
Taluk HFI
NGO village Non-NGO village
Bantwal 0.629 0.548
Belthangady 0.702 0.569
Mangalore 0.667 0.603
Puttur 0.672 0.502
Sullia 0.535 0.47
District 0.641 0.538
Source: Sample Survey.
The results of the study show that there is a difference in the achieved functionings of people
living in NGO and Non-NGO villages in D.K district. While the average HFI of NGO villages is
0.641, it is 0.538 in the case of Non-NGO villages. Human well-being, in NGO villages,
therefore, is higher by about 11% over Non-NGO villages.
Taluk-wise comparison shows that in each taluk the achievement of HFI in NGO village is more
The difference in Belthangady is 14% and in Puttur it is 17%. Part of the differences in the
achievement of HFI could be due to active NGO interventions in the villages. Kuvettu (NGO)
village of Belthangady taluk, for instance, has a strong NGO presence for several years.
Nagarika Seva Trust (NST), which is a large NGO in D.K district, has been implementing
several programmes in this village over the years. Creation of general awareness on
environmental issues, spreading sustainable agricultural practices, making the voice of women
beedi workers heard, bringing about social cohesion among and between minority and majority
communities, handling domestic violence cases and addressing other issues of women,
integration of dalith and tribal concerns, training rural youth for employment, influencing
electoral process through people centered advocacy and campaigns based on people‟s manifesto
are the major issues being addressed by Nagarika Seva Trust.
The results also indicate (Refer Table-2) that district as a whole, majority of the respondents
have achieved HFI in the medium range. However, there exist differences in the achievement of
human functionings between NGO and Non-NGO villages. In NGO villages 89.6% of the
respondents have achieved HFI in the medium range. But it is only 71.2% in Non-NGO villages.
Low HFI group comprises more proportion of respondents from Non-NGO villages (28.8%) than
from NGO villages (8.8%). Similarly, in the case of high HFI, NGO villages have a marginal
difference over Non-NGO villages. It is noteworthy that no respondent in Non-NGO villages
could achieve functionings in high range.
6. Superiority of HFI over Income Approach
According to the income approach, well-being of an individual depends solely on his money
income received. However, HFI has a wider evaluative space as development is measured in
terms of 17 indicators, of which income is one among them. Whether the well-being level of the
respondents is similar in terms of traditional income approach and in terms of functionings
approach? This is examined by ascertaining the strength of relationship between well-being
achieved in income and HFI approaches through correlation technique. Results of correlation
Taluk Village Income
Index (YI) HFI
Correlation Coefficient (r)
Bantwal NGO 0.22 0.629 0.045
Non-NGO 0.27 0.548 0.837
Belthangady NGO 0.32 0.702 0.262
Non-NGO 0.03 0.569 0.4
Mangalore NGO 0.21 0.667 0.252
Non-NGO 0.19 0.603 0.45
Puttur NGO 0.28 0.672 0.429
Non-NGO 0.14 0.502 0.548
Sullia NGO 0.36 0.535 0.853
Non-NGO 0.29 0.47 0.517
District
NGO 0.278 0.641 0.368
Non-NGO 0.184 0.538 0.55
Overall 0.231 0.59 0.406
Source: Sample Survey.
On the whole, from the results, it appears that there exists a weak association between Income
Index (YI) and Human Functioning Index (HFI) in D.K district. The coefficient of correlation is
only 0.406. In the case of NGO villages, the strength of relationship between income and
functionings/human development is much weaker (0.368). Even at the village level, except two
villages (Non-NGO village of Bantwal taluk and NGO village of Sullia taluk) there appears to be
weak association between income and functionings. It is noteworthy that the Income Index for
the district as a whole is just 0.231 indicating very low money income level. Interestingly, the
well-being level of the same household group appears far betterintermof HFI (0.59).Hence, from
the results it is understood that an „income poor‟ is not essentially „functionings poor‟ and an „income rich‟ is need not be „functionings rich‟. Hence, functionings approach having wider
evaluative space would assess the near reality well-being level.
7. Conclusion
In the present paper an attempt was made todiscuss the methodological issues related to
measuring human development and suggest a methodology for the same. The new methodology
is developed in line with HDI taking into consideration 5 dimensions and several indicators. An
multi-dimensional assessment of human development. With the aim of testing this methodology,
an empirical exercise has been conducted based on primary data collected in Dakshina Kannada
district, Karnataka. The following observations could be made from the present study.
Firstly, human development, measured in terms of HFI, appears to be more in NGO villages but
it is less in Non-NGO villages. It is also to be noted that the respondents of NGO villages have
higher achievement of not only the aggregate HFI but also all five dimensions of HFI.The results
indicate greater attainment of functionings in the context of environmental and social
dimensions of life compared to other dimensions. However, the attainment of functionings in the
political dimension is the least among all the dimensions in both NGO and non-NGO villages.
This is a disturbingphenomenon because political awareness and political participation are very
important in empowering self.
Secondly, even if deprivation and inequality in the functioning space always exist, they seem to
be relatively lower when compared with deprivation and inequality in the income space. Hence,
to a certain extent our results are not too similar to those obtained from more traditional – based
approaches to development analysis. It is observed that though income of the people is low they
have achieved more well-being in terms of functionings.
Finally, the individual assessment of human development permitted us to highlight deprivation
conditions (i.e. external humiliation, empowerment, meaning and value in life) otherwise
excluded in the income analysis, when the household is assumed as the unit of analysis.
To sum up, a preliminary attempt has been made to evolve a methodology by modifying HDI
with the application of Sen‟s approach to measure multi- dimensional human development at
individual level.
References
1. Bava, Noorjahan. 1997. “Towards an Integrated Theory of People‟s Participation
Governmental Organizations in Development, Edited by NoorjahanBava , 2, 255-272,
New Delhi:Kaniska Publishers.
2. Cobb, Clifford., Goodman, Gary Sue., and Wackernagel, Mathis. 1999.Why Bigger isn‟t
Better: The Genuine Progress Indicator, 1999 Update. San Francisco: Redefining
Progress.
3. Haq, Mahbubul. 1996.Reflections on Human Development,New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
4. Leni, V. 2006. “Regional Disparities in Human Development in Kerala” Ph.D.
desertation, Mahatma Gandhi UniversityKottayam.
5. McGillivray, Mark. 1992. “The Human development Index: Yet Another Redundant
Composite Development Indicator?,” World development,19, 1461-1468.
6. Morris, Morris D. 1979.Measuring the Conditions of the World‟s Poor: The Physical
Quality of Life Index,New York: Pergamon Press.
7. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI). 2008, Department of
International Development, University of Oxford.
8. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice,Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
9. Robeyns, Ingrid.2005. “The Capability Approach and Welfare Policies” Paper presented
at the conference on Gender Auditing and Gender Budgeting, Bologna, Italy, 28 Jan.
10.Sen, Amartya.1985. Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam, North Holland.
11.Stewart, Frances.1985. Basic Needs in Developing Countries, Maryland: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
12.Streeten, Paul.et. al. 1981. First Things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in
Developing Countries,London: Oxford University Press.
