Abstract
This article critically reviews Human Development Report (HDR) 2019 that calls for addressing inequalities that are beyond income, beyond averages and beyond today. Inequalities result from differential exposure to opportunities and constraints during a life cycle. One way in which power relations are exhibited is through gender norms. The article discusses the advancements made in the capability approach using the gender lens and the policy framework intended to address gender inequality. It stresses the need to acknowledge and understand varied forms of data collection that enhance our understanding of underlying social processes. Finally, it discusses the case of Kerala state to understand the complex nature of human development. The state made strides in education and health, but rising inequalities, gender violence and ecological changes remain major concerns.
Introduction
Inequality is not so much a cause of economic, political, and social processes as a consequence. […] Some of the processes that generate inequality are widely seen as fair. But others are deeply and obviously unfair, and have become a legitimate source of anger and disaffection. (Deaton, 2018 as cited in HDR, 2019)
Human Development Reports (HDRs) brought out by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have moved beyond simplified ways of measuring well-being through the Human Development Index (HDI) and have devised a plethora of indices to incorporate various kinds of inequalities. Since 2010, along with the HDI, HDRs have been publishing cross-country information on Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), Gender Development Index (GDI), Gender Inequality Index (GII) and Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) measures. For India, there seems to be slight improvement across these dimensions over the past few years (Figure 1). However, the larger questions are: what have we gained through these improved measures and how do we move ahead? These questions bear importance, especially when we observe significant malnutrition, women bearing highly disproportionate responsibilities of care, prevalence of domestic violence, falling female labour force participation and increasing incidence of mental illnesses/stress, while countries have been growing at decent rates. Some of these do not seem to have clear associations with material resources such as income or wealth. The report itself shows that MPI has no correlation with income inequality but was strongly associated with loss in HDI in terms of health and education (Kovacevic, 2019; UNDP & OPHI, 2019 as cited in HDR, 2019). The purpose of my discussion is to highlight that an analysis of human development should not be limited to appropriate metrics to capture development/well-being, but it needs a nuanced understanding of mechanisms and processes that lead to inequalities in human capabilities. HDR (2019) has made a limited attempt to bring in these complexities.
This article is divided into six sections. The following section discusses a few highlights of HDR (2019). The third section presents a discussion on gender inequality and the capability approach. The fourth section discusses the policy framework to address inequalities, followed by few thoughts on the need for better data highlighted in the report. I conclude this article by discussing the case of Kerala to understand human development: beyond incomes, beyond averages and beyond today.
A Few Highlights of the Report
HDR (2019) is titled ‘Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century’. The framework used in the report is as follows:
Beyond income: understanding differences in aspects of human development other than income and the processes that lead to them. Beyond average: going beyond summary measures of inequality that focus on a single dimension. Beyond today: recognising that inequalities in human development will shape the prospects of people that may live to see the twenty-second century.
The report calls for timely intervention to address inequalities and recognise newer forms of inequalities. Some aspects of these themes will be discussed in this article.
HDR (2019) has brought to notice significant complexities involved in measuring human development and capabilities. It claims to hold the following view:
It considers that the inequalities we care about may indeed be moving targets and thus aims to identify patterns and dynamics of inequality in a wider set of capabilities that may be increasingly relevant during the 21st century. (HDR, 2019, p. 31)
The report notes a convergence across populations in basic capabilities such as low infant mortality and access to primary education. However, we observe growing divergences in enhanced capabilities such as life expectancy at 70 years of age, attainment of tertiary education and access to modern technologies. HDR (2019) defines basic capabilities as follows:
Basic capabilities thus refer to the freedom to make choices necessary for survival and to avoid or escape poverty or other serious deprivations. (HDR, 2019)
Moreover, basic capabilities are evolving and specific to context. For instance, resilience to recurrent shocks is considered to be a basic capability; however, in the Indian context, water crisis has been a recurring problem, and hence we need to ponder if this could be seen as a basic capability in India. The report does not neglect the low achievement for certain populations, even in terms of basic capabilities. Convergence in basic capabilities is not absolute; advances in education and health continue to leave many behind. For instance,
Despite greater access to immunisations and affordable medical technologies, child mortality rates in the poorest households of the world’s poorest countries remain high. (HDR, 2019)
The report gives considerable attention to the experience of dignity, freedom from discrimination and perception of inequality. These experiences have also been identified to bear more importance than income inequalities.
More crucially, it has brought into the discussion that inequalities result from differential exposure to opportunities and constraints in terms of health and education during the life cycle of a human being (Figure 2). This exposure would determine the possibilities for inter-generational mobility (also discussed through the Great Gatsby Curve, which shows a positive correlation between income inequality and intergenerational mobility). A similar life-cycle approach has been used to bring forth the restricted choices faced by girls and women. They face disparities and power imbalances at the time of the birth and during childhood, adolescence and adulthood, which is exemplified within households and in economic, political and social spheres. Further, inequalities interact with other contextual determinants of human development: economy, society, political arena, peace and security. Hence, inequality dynamics depend not just on growth trajectories but also on the nature of policies and institutions. Inequalities may also result in lack of social cohesion and elite capture of institutions, leading to power imbalances.
The report uses GII to show slow progression towards gender equality. The discussion suggests that it has been easier to record progress in basic capabilities but harder in enhanced capabilities. Using Multidimensional Gender Social Norms Index (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2019 as cited in HDR, 2019), the report discussed that worldwide, the proportion of men and women with no gender bias fell between 2005–2009 and 2010–2014. These patterns suggest stagnation and irreversibility of social norms. Gender norms are also observed to be closely related to the life cycle starting from the pre-birth stage to old age. Norms can change through economic development, diffusion of communication technology, new laws and programmes and social and political activism. Moreover, children learn about practices from what they observe and the way they are socialised. HDR (2019) recognises that some norms are easier to evolve while other are not. Women are susceptible to backlash both in private and public spheres. More importantly, even well-intended programmes might fail and have unintended consequences if structural norms and practices are not taken into account.
HDR (2019) raises concerns about complexities related to inequalities emerging in the twenty-first century, one of them being the interaction of climate change with inequalities. It highlights that
countries with higher human development generally emit more carbon per person and have higher per capita ecological footprints. (HDR, 2019, p. 176)
Moreover, within countries, households at the top of the income distribution hierarchy have higher levels of emissions. The report notes that high levels of inequalities and power interests may hinder collective action, deliberations over emissions and diffusion of environment-friendly technology. The negative impact of climate change on economic growth has been easier to access; however, it has been difficult to move beyond such analysis. There are higher chances of catastrophic events, health vulnerabilities arising from heat stress and of diseases such as malaria, cardiovascular diseases. There might be negative implications for crop yields due to climate change, leading to food insecurity. Further, there might be ‘climate-induced’ inequalities. The poor and vulnerable will have to suffer more due to their higher dependence on the climate and weather for irrigation and daily necessities. The report notes the following:
For water, wealth inequalities generally exceed urban-rural ones within the same country. (HDR, 2019, p. 191)
Gender Inequality and the Capability Approach
HDR (2019) focuses on horizontal inequalities and illustrates that inequalities accumulate over life, which reflects ‘deep power imbalances’. To analyse and address gender inequalities, some feminist scholars have engaged with the capability approach proposed by Amartya Sen. This subsection discusses the developments in this strand of literature.
In the 1990s, Sen’s capability approach made important strides in enhancing our understanding of the development process and well-being beyond income- or resource-based measures. Unlike the income-based or utility-based approach, the capability approach has specified ‘a space within which “comparisons of life quality” (how well people are doing) are most revealingly made among nations’ (Nussbaum, 2000). Following its tradition, HDR (2019) invokes the concept of capabilities, ‘broadly defined as people’s freedom to choose what to be and do’, reiterating that these cannot be reduced to income and wealth, as these resources are merely instrumental in achieving human capabilities (HDR, 2019). Moreover, the resource-based approach does not take into account the differential potential of individuals in converting resources into capabilities. In this regard, the capability approach incorporates both market and non-market factors that define capabilities and analyses individuals who are part of the social and political system.
Sen advocated that assessment of gender inequality has to be beyond material resources and has to be in terms of functioning and capabilities. The concept has also made an important contribution in highlighting intra-household inequalities in capabilities. Although Sen’s framework has been immensely appreciated, it has also been criticised due to the absence of a definite list of capabilities. These advancements have been made from the perspective of ensuring gender equality, especially because several aspects of gender inequality, such as poor reproductive health, domestic violence and burden of housework and care, are irreducible to income or wealth (Robeyns, 2003). According to Nussbaum (2000), Sen’s approach has provided a useful space for comparing quality of life; however, this approach would lose its essence without a normative conception of what to make out from such comparisons. She advocated for a list of capabilities that could be universally applied. This list was constructed at an abstract level but could be more specific according to the context (Nussbaum, 2000, as cited in Robeyns, 2003). Citizens could make political claims around these capabilities. Robeyns (2003) adopts a middle approach. Instead of an imposed list of capabilities, Robeyns (2003) argues for a list that can be organically arrived at. She says,
…capability approach, postulates that when making normative evaluations, the focus should be on what people are able to be and to do, and not on what they can consume, or on their incomes. The latter are only the means of well-being, whereas evaluations and judgments should focus on those things that matter intrinsically, that is, on a person’s capabilities. (Robeyns, 2003, p. 62)
According to her, the process of arriving shall be more important, even if the list democratically arrived at is the same as the one given by Nussbaum. Without defending a priori list of capabilities sought by any society, we should not arrive at conclusions about underlying capabilities, by using available data which are mostly about achieved functionings (such as indicators about health, education, consumption, employment etc.). To bridge the gap between conceptual framework and empirical exercise, Robeyns (2003) said the following:
…we are interested in evaluating group inequalities in the space of capabilities, and not in achieved functionings. But given that we have little direct information about people’s capability levels, we could start by taking group inequality in achieved functionings as indicative of inequalities in capabilities. This could later be refined and adapted in the face of new evidence or compelling arguments.
The list of capabilities in the context of Western countries has been as follows:
Life and physical health Mental well-being Bodily integrity and safety Social relations Political empowerment Education and knowledge Domestic work and non-market care Paid work and other projects Shelter and environment Mobility Leisure activities Time autonomy Respect Religion
Policies to Address Inequalities
General Policy Framework
HDR (2019) lays stress on ‘virtuous policy cycle’ (Figure 3) comprising pre-market, in-market and post-market policies. Pre-market inventions shall be funded by post-market tax collection. Pre-market inventions would be helpful in enhancing productivity, leading to the expansion of incomes. The report recognises the potential to enhance other capabilities through pre-market invention. It says:
Premarket policies can reduce disparities in capabilities, helping everyone enter the labour market better equipped—even though it is important to emphasize that this is far from the only reason why capabilities matter and that by enhancing capabilities the contributions to expanding incomes go beyond participating in the labour market (they can, for instance, enhance political participation). (HDR, 2019, p. 224)
The report has emphasised a lot on the labour market productivity and efficiency. For instance, while discussing in-market policies, the HDR (2019) advocated for fairer income distribution (in labour market) that does not hinder the incentives for labour productivity. However, it does not consider that productivity is not easily measured in some sectors, especially the service sector, where labour is both an input and an output.
HDR (2019) also advocates for universal access to social services, along with targeted policies for marginal groups. Due to group-based discrimination and other socio-economic challenges, benefits to universal services may not reach all. The report also acknowledges that there might be several challenges to the political will for such interventions. The challenges may arise due to the presence of economic elites, such as those who can withhold investments, control press, fund election campaigns, etc. (HDR, 2019).
Gender Equality
To address gender inequalities, the report advocates for education, awareness about gender stereotyping and incentives such as parental leaves.
Paternal leaves and maternity benefits have been considered to be an important intervention to ensuring gender equality. However, there are various complexities around parental leaves that work towards gender equality. First, maternity benefits might not be useful in increasing the participation of women at work, but it might be useful in ensuring they do not neglect their domestic duties and childcare responsibilities (Nyberg, 2004, 2008 as cited in Castro-García & Pazos-Moran, 2015). Second, in the Indian context, the amended Maternity benefit Act, 2017, provides for 26 weeks of paid maternity leaves, which might restrict employers in hiring women who would be considered as an additional cost during their maternity (Mathew, 2019). Provision of day care facility would also be an additional cost for employers, especially in the absence of state-sponsored childcare policy. On the other hand, whatever intervention the state had for the provision of day care for the poor sections is also on the decline. Between January 2015 and January 2019, there has been an 68.6 per cent decline in the number of functional creches under the Rajiv Gandhi National Creche Scheme. 1
The third important aspect is the participation of men in childcare responsibilities. Castro-García and Pazos-Moran (2015) discuss parental leaves for European countries and show that to ensure men’s participation, parental leaves had to be non-transferable, highly paid and of a longer duration. However, in India, only central government employees can avail paternity leave, and that too for 2 weeks only. This implies that maternity leaves in the absence of paternity leaves is a gendered intervention that does not ensure men’s contribution to childcare.
To address inequitable gender norms, the report argues for involvement of boys and men into discussions and advocates for generating better data for gender-based analysis. It also advocates for the following:
Norm-aware interventions for women focus on supporting them by providing solutions that work around existing social norm constraints.
However, the challenge is to devise interventions in such a way that they not only manoeuvre around the existing norms but also have the potential to defy them. Addressing social and gender norms is a humongous task. Norms are not exogenous and static. Their evolution depends upon who benefits from conforming to them and what is lost for those who challenge them. As discussed earlier, women are susceptible to backlash, both in private and public spheres, and even well-intended programmes might fail. A popular instance is of political representation of women. An affirmative action may result in mere ‘tokenism’ rather than in the actual participation of women in the democratic decision-making process. Further, gender-just outcomes will not emerge only through women’s participation in governance. There is a requirement for the gender education of male elected representatives, careful designing of training programmes for men and careful designing of projects that open opportunities to newer interests which can potentially challenge existing power relations (Kodoth & Mishra, 2011).
The report proposes greater education, awareness and designing incentives to promote gender equality, which also involves the participation of women in different spheres. A specific kind of intervention that the report could have dealt with is ‘gender budgeting’ or ‘gender mainstreaming’. This approach is not only about making public expenditures but is also a framework that can potentially deal with development as a social, political and economic process.
Gender budgeting is a process of bringing forward a gender perspective at all stages of policymaking. This includes the employment of a gender lens in the formulation of legislation, policies, plans, programmes and schemes, allocation and collection of resources, implementation, monitoring, audit and impact assessment of programmes and schemes, and corrective action to address gender disparities. It is far from just reporting information in the format provided for the Gender Budgeting Scheme. It uses the budget as one of many entry points to correct gender gaps, but it is not limited to the budget statement. Rather, it is a continuum or an ongoing process of applying a gender lens at all stages of policymaking—before, during, and after the passage of the budget. (Kapur, 2020)
Moreover, it not only involves making specific expenditure to address gender inequalities (such as on girls' education and women's health) but also involves using a gender perspective to assess the implications/impact of overall fiscal policy (Elson, 1993 as cited in Addabbo et al., 2010). Addabbo et al. (2010), using the capability approach, provided an extensive framework for gender auditing/budgeting, which first requires ‘politically accepted and locally specified dimensions of women’s empowerment’. The authors made a special reference to caring, which is most often provided by women, that enhances capabilities but is also a capability in itself.
In India, gender-responsive budgeting had been faltering in many ways (Sinha & Mishra, 2020). For instance, it just remains an ex- post exercise for government departments/ministries to provide information about their schemes under Gender Budgeting Scheme after the allocations have already been made (Kapur, 2020). Further, it is difficult to demarcate expenditures made for men and women (Kapur, 2020). There are several ambiguities in how programmes fall under different ministries. Sinha (2020
2
) notes the following:
While the ICDS comes under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, mid-day meals in schools for children up to class 8 implemented by the HRD ministry is also included in the NFSA (National Food Security Act).
Gender and Sustainable Development
The recent water crisis in India affected the poor the most, and women and children carried the highest burden of this crisis.3,4 Studies have critically analysed sustainable development goals (SDGs) for gender equality, food security and climate action. For instance, Agarwal (2018) notes that SDGs fail to recognise the role of forests and fisheries in food diversity and the important role played by women in procuring them. She suggests that women’s participation in public spheres has to go beyond legislatures and village councils to cover ‘community institutions for natural resource management’. Other scholars have also highlighted that questions of gender remain unaddressed in water policies in India (Paul, 2017). The water policies do raise concerns about accessibility of water but hardly give attention to issues like women and girls spending long hours to collect water. The trade-off between time spent in collecting water and in attending school has also been noted (HDR, 2006, as cited in Paul, 2017). Paul (2017) also notes that there is a need to learn from micro-level interventions that highlight the role of women in the equitable and sustainable mobilisation of natural resources. Most importantly, she iterates, ‘Yet, women’s concerns remain subsumed under the rubric of “households” or “social equity”’ (Paul, 2017). The climate policy in India has also been criticised for ignoring social meanings attached to resources and that climate change aggravates pre-existing socio-economic vulnerabilities. In addition, there is unequal access to climate information and coping strategies to female farmers that constitute a large share of the farming community in India (Rao & Hans, 2018; Rengalakshmi et al., 2018; Joshi, 2011, as cited in EPW Engage, 2020).
Need for Better Data
The report places a lot of emphasis on the collection of quality data; however, there is not enough discussion on what this quality data would imply. Second, it is well recognised that any single metric will not be sufficient to capture progress made in human capabilities. Therefore, several agencies have been pondering over creating a parsimonious dashboard of indicators that capture various aspects of well-being but which is not too large to process and comprehend (Stiglitz et al., 2018). Third, the UNDP itself has constructed several indicators. Therefore, is the call for better data pointing towards insufficiency of such measures? In other words, what have we gained from these advancements? Following are a few perspectives on data collection and understanding data as statistics and for understanding pathways or constraints to make progress in human capabilities:
Basic statistics are definitely required to capture several dimensions of human life, such as wealth held by the top 1 per cent, access to safe drinking water throughout the year, reporting of crime, etc. Data collection must ensure enhanced transparency of data, as suggested by the report, and disaggregated distribution of any indicator/metric. It must also ensure adequate coverage of metrics; for instance, Economic Survey of India, 2019, used Employee Provident Fund Organisation payroll data to estimate rise in jobs. However, there are serious concerns over coverage of labour force in such payrolls. At the next level, we need information to assess differentials in equal outcomes. For instance, two states/countries might have the same infant mortality rate, but one of them might have a high incidence of malnutrition while the other does not. We need to move beyond quantifiable indicators to further our understanding of enhancement of capabilities. For instance, there is mixed evidence on whether economic empowerment of women can reduce gender-based violence. Moreover, violence can take various forms: economic, sexual, physical and emotional. Hence, one should not just depend on available outcomes to make sense of capabilities. Rather, data and information need to be collected according to capabilities that a society intends to achieve. There is need for an engaging discussion about forms of data collection and dissemination of information. HDR (2019) identifies three main data sources of income inequality: household surveys, administrative tax data and national accounts, but all three have their respective pros and cons. For example, tax data exclude many with low income, and there can be evasion of taxes. On the other hand, the richest might be missed in household surveys. Therefore, any assessment of economic well-being and inequality should bring together several forms of data. HDR (2019) recognises the potential role played by investigative journalism in this regard. Such forms of data hold immense importance in shaping political claims. A strand in academic research promotes mixed methods for collecting data and analysing and interpreting results. This is important for the assessment of any kind of intervention. For instance, Kabeer (2019) analyses the outcomes of randomised control trials (RCTs) performed to address poverty in West Bengal (India) and Sindh (Pakistan) through qualitative studies. The divergences in results were attributed to inadequacy of RCT evaluation to account for a section of people who were targeted but were not part of the end-line survey, greater zeal for participation from a marginalised group, likely influence of organisations implementing the programme and conditions under which livestock (assets provided during the intervention) would survive and expand. Kabeer (2019) argued for mixed methods for research to augment the limitations of an RCT and to make better interpretations of its findings. There are methodological advancements suggesting that collection of individual-level data can capture intra-household inequalities. One such attempt has been made by Vijaya et al. (2014) in India. They highlight that even among non-poor households, there is a reasonable proportion of households where only women are poor. This indicates inequalities within households, which needs to be further investigated. For instance, Cantillon and Nolan (2001) measure disadvantages among Irish spouses based on various non-economic indicators. Collection of individual-level information will not be sufficient unless it is carefully designed and the data are carefully processed. For example, questions like how individuals with differential outcomes are related and are there inequalities among spouses, siblings and generations have to be carefully analysed.
Discussion and the Case of Kerala: Human Development Beyond Incomes, Beyond Average, Beyond Today
The preceding subsections have brought forth that any discussion on human development and inequalities involves complexities that are economic, social and political in nature. Moreover, they might not always be quantifiable. Structural and power imbalances might also result in unequal access to newer forms of technologies and resilience to climate conditions. The case of Kerala, a state in India, is a fine example to discuss human development beyond incomes, beyond averages and beyond today. At the sub-national level, the state has achieved high levels in human development indicators (higher than the national average) despite its slow economic growth (Sen, 1997). These achievements were attributed to prudent public expenditure policies, such as universal and free education and health coverage, by a government that was resource-stricken, with no substantial economic activity taking place in the state. Further, there were benefits from historic social movements challenging social hierarchies and from land reforms. In other words, the progress was not market-led, and benefits of public infrastructures could be further drawn because of collective action and greater levels of awareness about the utilisation of public services (Kurien, 1995). However, the benefits did not reach the marginal groups, such as the fisheries sector, because of their dependence on natural resources, leading to uncertainty of returns, and lack of class consciousness due to dependence on ‘open access’ resources, social structures and dependence on market for other provisions (Kurien, 1995).
The experiences of Kerala also illustrate that progress made in gender development indicators such female literacy and work participation might not be accompanied by enhancement of other capabilities. There have been negative trends in women’s property rights, rapid growth and spread of dowry and rising gender-based violence (Kodoth & Eapen, 2005).
The post-reform period witnessed a different development trajectory in Kerala. This period was marked by economic growth and rising inequality resulting from different factors. All sections did not benefit from growing migration, and there were changes in the structure of the state economy. Kerala experienced service-led growth with a stagnant agricultural sector; further, land reforms failed to address the marginalisation of tribal people and landless Dalits (Oommen, 2014).
The preceding discussion on Kerala highlights aspects of human development and inequalities that are beyond incomes and beyond averages. However, more recent discussions in the state are around growth policies undertaken in ‘ecologically sensitive’ areas (such as mining) that have resulted in recent floods and landslides (Padma, 2018). 5 This highlights that the development process has to be beyond today and has to be sustainable.
Kerala’s experience informs us that along with public action, collective action is also important; however, in India there are several challenges in organising a large informal labour force, especially in sectors like paid domestic work. Moreover, instead of the pre-market, in-market and post-market framework, we need policy discussion around market and non-market dimensions. Therefore, any discussion on human development needs careful understanding of economic, social and political details.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I thank Dr Ritika Jain for encouraging me to write this review. I am thankful to Prof Praveena Kodoth and Dr Anirban Dasgupta for providing valuable inputs. I am also grateful to Dr Thiagu Ranganathan for providing feedback. An earlier version was discussed for Centre for Development Studies (CDS) commentary series.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.