=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2830/paper6
|storemode=property
|title=Comparative Estimates of Human Potential Taking into Consideration the Risks of Social Inequality
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2830/paper6.pdf
|volume=Vol-2830
|authors=Tatiana Tikhomirova,Ani Sukiasyan
}}
==Comparative Estimates of Human Potential Taking into Consideration the Risks of Social Inequality==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2830/paper6.pdf
Comparative Estimates of Human Potential Taking into
Consideration the Risks of Social Inequality
Tatiana M. Tikhomirova[0000-0003-3149-7673] and Ani G. Sukiasyan[0000-0002-9628-0275]
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics,
36 Stremyanny lane, Moscow, 115998, Russia
t_tikhomirova@mail.ru, anishka_90@mail.ru
Abstract. The paper considers key indicators to measure degree of achievement
of the Sustainable Development Goals until 2030, introduced by United Nations
in 2015. It presents the analysis of structure and trends of social disadvantage
risks in countries based on the World Bank data available for 1994-2018.
Particular attention is paid to indicators of population’s social well-being, their
main disadvantages are highlighted. Based on the set of social disadvantage in-
dicators, a comparative analysis of Russia and countries with comparative hu-
man development index (HDI) is carried out. It is shown the feasibility to take
into account the population’s well-being, assessed on the basis of main risks of
vital activity, when evaluating the HDI for regions. The estimates of social dis-
advantage for regions for 2000-2018 were obtained. Their sustainable grouping
by levels of these indicators was developed, according to which three groups
were determined. The paper defines main differences of these groups by levels
and structure of characteristics considered. An approach is proposed for calcu-
lating social well-being indicator as a characteristic of social aspect of popula-
tion’s vital activity and the feasibility is substantiated to use it when assessing
HDI along with demographic, educational and economic components both for
intercountry and regional comparisons.
Keywords: Human Development Index, human potential, social services, risks
of social inequality, countries differentiation, multidimensional ranking.
1 Introduction
At present for a quantitative estimation for cross-country comparisons of quality of
life is commonly used the Human Development Index (HDI), developed in the
framework of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) [1]. Changes of
the index in the countries are between 0.377-0.954 points (dimensionless). The high-
est index values belong to countries such as Norway (0.954), Switzerland (0.946),
Australia (0.938), Denmark (0.930), the lowest ‒ Chad (0.401), the Central African
Republic (0.381), Niger (0.377). Russia on the value of the index (0.824) is among the
countries with high levels of it, little yielding to many developed countries of the
world (see Fig. 1).
Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific and Practical Conference named after A. I. Kitov
"Information Technologies and Mathematical Methods in Economics and Management
(IT&MM-2020)", October 15-16, 2020, Moscow, Russia
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
However, this index, which is calculated on the basis of three indicators ‒ life ex-
pectancy, education and the its coverage, gross national income (GNI) per capita - in
the opinion of many researchers, as Alkire, McGillivray, Rimashevskaya and others,
has several disadvantages [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. First of all, criticism is subjected to the
choice of indicators characterizing the level of human development, in particular, the
economic component of the index ‒ gross national income in terms of purchasing
power parity [7, 8, 9, 10]. This is due to the fact that the other two components of the
index: life expectancy and the extent of the population education are directly related
to the level of GNI. Thus, this figure is a defining indicator of the other two compo-
nents of the index of human development [11, 12].
Fig. 1. Distribution of the countries according to the Human Development Index in 2018
This output is confirmed by the researches of interdependence of the HDI economic
component and the indicators of longevity and education in the countries of the world
community, shown in Figures 2 and 3. The increase in the gross national product per
capita leads to a progressive increase in the expected number of years of schooling
and life expectancy at birth.
Fig. 2. Distribution of the world countries according to the level of GNI per capita and expected
years of schooling in 2018
It should be noted that in countries with low income per capita, there are the lowest
life expectancy and literacy. The reverse situation is typical for leading countries in
terms of GNI [13, 14].
Russia, with a GNI per capita of $ 25.036 US in purchasing power parity in 2011,
is among the countries with high levels of development. The position of Russia in
terms of life expectancy and the number of years of schooling is also comparable with
the position of the country on the level of per capita income [15].
Fig. 3. Distribution of the world countries according to the level of GNI per capita and life
expectancy at birth in 2018
Thus, we can conclude that, due to significant correlations between GNI and the char-
acteristics of life expectancy and education when assessing of the Human Develop-
ment Index the decisive role is played by the economic component, while the compo-
nents of population longevity and literacy practically not taken into account in its
assessment [16, 17].
In this regard, we consider it necessary to expand the number of characteristics to
consider when evaluating the HDI. In particular, by adding to its structure a social
component [18, 19, 20].
2 Statistical characteristics of the risks of social inequality
in the groups of countries
The necessity of exploring the human potential structure, taking into account the im-
pact that social performance, is based on the fact that its level is not only connected
with longevity, literacy rate and gross national income, but also by many other factors
and life risks, characterizing, in particular, the degree of protection of the population
[21, 22, 23]. These risks include the main socially significant diseases: tuberculosis,
alcoholism, drug addiction, HIV/AIDS and others, the death risk by main causes and
premature mortality and others, homicides, suicides, all kinds of traffic accidents, and
others, the demographic risks (infant and maternal. mortality, migration, etc.), as well
as: crime, unemployment, sanitary living conditions, cost of living, housing condi-
tions, etc.
The following indicators were examined to obtain comparative estimates of human
development, taking into account the risks of social inequality for the 120 countries of
the world community, divided into four groups presented in Table 1 according to their
level of HDI [24, 25]:
Point prevalence, alcohol use disorders, 15+ years (%).
Point prevalence, drug use disorders, 15+ years (%).
Age-standardized death rates, alcohol and drug use disorders, (per 100 000).
Tuberculosis, new and relapse cases (per 100 000).
Prevalence of HIV, total (% of population ages 15-49).
Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate).
Population using improved drinking-water sources (%).
Population using improved sanitation facilities (%).
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1 000 live births).
Maternal mortality ratio (World Bank modeled estimate, per 100 000 live births).
Intentional homicides (per 100 000 people).
Suicides (per 100 000 people per year).
GINI index (World Bank estimate).
Estimated road traffic death rate (per 100 000 population).
International migrant stock (% of population).
Human Development Index (dimensionless).
In the structure of social inequality in these groups of countries, presented in the
Table 2, the largest share make up the risks unemployment (from 18.51% to 31.09%),
migration rates (from 12.26% to 43.30%), the prevalence of alcoholism among male
(from 17.58% to 26.71% ) and female (from 18.31% to 27.51%).
Table 1. Distribution of countries in accordance with the value of the Human Development
Index in 2018.
Group of countries Countries
Australia, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, Hungary,
Countries with a
Germany, Greece, Denmark, Israel, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy,
very high level of
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand,
human development
Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia Finland, France, Croatia,
(33 countries)
Czech Republic, Chile, Switzerland, Sweden, Estonia;
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Countries with a
Venezuela, Georgia, Dominican Republic, Jordan, Iran, Kazakhstan,
high level of human
China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mauritius, Macedonia, Malaysia,
development
Mexico, Mongolia, Panama, Peru, Russia, Thailand , Tunisia,
(29 countries)
Ukraine, Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Jamaica;
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Bhutan, Vietnam, Guyana, Ghana,
Countries with a
Guatemala, Honduras, Egypt, Zambia, India, Indonesia, Cape Verde,
medium level of
Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Congo, Maldives, Moldova, Morocco, Na-
human development
mibia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, El Salvador, Suriname, Tajikistan,
(29 countries)
Uzbekistan, Philippines, South Africa;
Afghanistan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Congo, Dem. Republic
Countries with a
of the Congo, Yemen, Cameroon, Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Lesotho,
low level of human
Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger,
development
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
(29 countries)
Uganda, Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia.
Source: Compiled by authors using UNDP data [1].
Also, groups of countries are characterized by high unit weights of prevalence drug
use disorders among male (from 1.28% to 1.94% in the overall structure of social
inequality risks) and female (from 0.44% to 0.64%), HIV prevalence among persons
aged 15-49 (from 0.35% to 4.76%) and income inequality (from 0.12% to 0.34%).
The risks with a low share in the total risks of social inequality are deaths from al-
cohol (0.1%) and drug addiction (from 0.0% to 0.1%), maternal mortality (from 0.0%
to 0.14%), intentional homicides (from 0.0% to 0.05%).
Table 2. The structure of the risks of social inequality in countries of world community and
Russia, %
Countries with the HDI level
Risks of social inequality Russia
Very High High Medium Low
Point prevalence, alcohol 17.58 23.81 26.71 21.41 32.24
use disorders, male
Point prevalence, alcohol 18.31 24.28 27.51 21.78 37.54
use disorders, female
Point prevalence, drug 1.28 1.87 1.74 1.94 0.75
use disorders, male
Point prevalence, drug 0.44 0.45 0.59 0.64 0.28
use disorders, female
Age-standardized death 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
rates, alcohol disorders
Age-standardized death 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
rates, drug use disorders
Tuberculosis, new and 0.02 0.22 0.61 0.97 0.16
relapse cases
Prevalence of HIV 0.35 0.88 1.78 4.76 1.18
Unemployment 18.51 31.09 28.01 29.51 8.08
Mortality rate, under-5 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.88 0.01
Maternal mortality ratio 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00
Intentional homicides 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02
Suicides per 100 000 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.04
people per year
GINI index 0.12 0.23 0.26 0.34 0.09
Estimated road traffic 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.25 0.04
death rate
International migrant 43.30 16.94 12.26 17.25 19.53
stock
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: Compiled by authors using The WHO and The World Bank data [24, 25].
However, analyzing the variation of the studied parameters in these groups of
countries, allows notice that the countries vary widely in terms of the basic risks of
social inequality even within the groups to which they have been divided in accord-
ance with the value of the HDI.
The values of prevalence of HIV in the countries are characterized by the greatest
variation equal to 272.2% (including variation on this indicator totaled 214.1% among
the countries with medium HDI, 166.4% – among the countries with very low HDI,
95.8% and 110.6% – among the countries with high and very high HDI levels). On
the rates of deaths from drug addiction variation is 232.3% (including the variation
69.3% among the countries with very high HDI, among the countries with a low HDI
– 314.8%), on number of intentional homicides – 171.5% (including countries with
high and medium levels of the HDI where the variation is 155.2% and 159.8% respec-
tively).
It should also be noted that in countries with a higher HDI prevalence of alcohol
and drug dependence is higher than in countries with a low HDI.
However, by the level of human development countries, the variation within
groups is quite low. It is 4.2% for countries with a very high level of HDI, 3.4% and
6.7% – for countries with high and medium level of HDI, respectively, and 12.1% –
for countries with low level of HDI, that indicates a relatively high homogeneity of
groups of countries on this indicator. In general, the variation of the countries of the
world community on the HDI is 23.5%, which indicates the insufficient distinguisha-
bility among them.
The fact that the human development index does not reflect the risks of social
sphere, reveals not only their variability on the considered parameters, but also the
results of the correlation analysis. In accordance with these results, HDI has a signifi-
cant direct proportional relationship with such risks of social sphere, as the prevalence
of alcohol use disorders among male and female. Such controversial results can be
explained by the higher-income population of developed countries and increased
number of stressful situations for their population.
The presence of a statistically significant direct correlation between the HDI and
the level of migration confirms the results obtained previously, according to which in
the countries of the world community there is a considerable migration from countries
with a low level of development to the countries with high and very high levels of
HDI.
Expansion of the population having access to clean drinking water and modern
sanitation conditions may also contribute to the growth of the level of human devel-
opment.
The decrease in the index of human development, based on the results of the corre-
lation analysis, affect such risks as the incidence of tuberculosis, infant and maternal
mortality, mortality in all kinds of traffic accidents.
We emphasize that the prevalence of HIV correlates only with the level of unem-
ployment, and this correlation is directly proportional, and drug addiction mortality
rate does not correlate with any of the examined parameters, including with the HDI,
whereas previously it was obtained that these two indicators are the most differentiat-
ed among the countries of world community.
3 Comparative analysis of the risks of social inequality in
the countries of the world community
These results are confirmed with the distributions countries of the world community
by the level of prevalence of alcohol use disorders among males and females. Coun-
tries characterized by the highest values of this indicator are the leaders in terms of
the value of the HDI.
In Russia, referred to developed countries according to the UN methodology, there
are fixed one of the highest prevalence of alcohol use disorders among males com-
pared to many countries of the world community is 30,8% of the total male popula-
tion aged 15 years and older. Above this figure is only the level recorded in Hungary
(a very high level of development), which is 36.9%.
The lowest prevalence rates of alcohol dependence among males are fixed in Iran
(a high level of development), Egypt (the medium level of development) and Pakistan
(the low level of development) – 0.4%, 0.4% and 0.5% respectively. In the countries
of the world community, the figure is on average 8.0% of the total number of male
populations. Countries with comparable values to this value include Guyana, Para-
guay, Dominican Republic, Suriname, Bolivia, Nicaragua (medium HDI), Venezuela,
Panama, Ecuador (high HDI).
The proportion of female suffering from alcohol dependence in Russia was 6.7%.
Russia with this indicator takes the 3rd place out of 120 countries. The highest values
of incidence of alcoholism among female were observed in Hungary (very high HDI)
– 6.8% and the UK (very high HDI) – 6.7%, the minimum – in Pakistan (0.1%) and
Mauritania (0.01%) (low HDI), and Iran (high HDI) (0.1%). The national average
level of female alcoholism prevalence is 1.8% of the total number of women. Compa-
rable to the average level recorded in Iceland (very high HDI), Jamaica (high HDI),
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan (medium HDI).
By the incidence of drug use disorders among male and female Russia takes the 39
and 38 place respectively. The proportion of male with the disease is 0.72%, and fe-
male – 0.23% of the total number of male and female respectively. The highest inci-
dence of drug use disorders among male (3.32% and 3.14%) is registered in Iran and
Colombia (high HDI), among female (1.04%) – in Colombia (high HDI). The lowest
values of these characteristics among males (0.02%) are fixed in Sierra Leone (low
HDI) and Indonesia (medium HDI), females (0.01%) – as in Sierra Leone and the
Republic of Moldova (medium HDI). The average value of this characteristic among
male amount 0.49%, female – 0.15%.
According to the World Bank, in Russia alcoholism and drug addiction are the
most common causes of death of the population (11.9% and 0.9% of the total number
of deaths, respectively) [26, 27, 28]. In 2008, in Russia, the mortality among patients
with alcohol dependence adjusted for the age structure of population was 3.5 cases
per 100 000 people, whereas the average for the countries of the world community,
the figure was 1.00 cases per 100 000 people. (the choice of time period is determined
by the presence information). The highest values of this index were registered in El
Salvador and Guatemala (22.08 and 14.7 cases per 100 000 people, respectively), the
lowest – in Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy (0.2 cases per 100 000 people,
respectively), and Jamaica (0.1 case per 100 000 people).
In addition, in Russia was recorded the highest mortality rate among persons suf-
fering from drug addiction (4.5 cases per 100 000 people), which is 6.4 times higher
than the international average. The highest death rate from drug addiction took place
in Afghanistan (33.1 cases per 100 000 people), the lowest – in Cyprus and the Neth-
erlands (0.1 cases per 100 000 people).
It should be noted that the HDI and the mortality rates of alcohol and drug abuse
do not correlate. Thus, we can conclude that the reduction of human disease by reason
of alcoholism and drug addiction does not affect the ranking of countries according to
HDI, proposed by the UN.
The situation is similar for other social risks. Russia is characterized by high rates
of tuberculosis and HIV. By the number of newly registered cases of tuberculosis or
relapse Russia occupies 43 place out of 120 with an figure equal to 71.35 cases per
100 000 people in 2014, which greatly exceeds the average level in the countries of
the world community (43.0 cases per 100 000 people.). The only exception is South
Africa, where among every 100 000 people it amounts to 567.3 new cases of tubercu-
losis. The lowest incidence of tuberculosis was recorded in Iceland, very high HDI,
(2.4 cases per 100 000 people).
By the value of HIV prevalence among the population of ages 15 to 49 Russia with
a value equal to 1%, exceeds the average level among the countries (0.4%). Countries
with HIV prevalence, comparable to the level of Russia, include Guyana, Honduras,
Niger, Panama and Ukraine. The highest values of indicators are fixed in Swaziland,
medium HDI, and Lesotho, low HDI, (27.4% and 22.9%), the lowest are fixed in Sri
Lanka, high HDI, Croatia, Czech Republic, Sweden, very high HDI (0.1%).
By the availability of clean drinking water for the population, Russia is at a high
level. Thus, 96.4% in 2018 of the population have access to clean drinking water, and
the availability of sanitation facilities in Russia is 72.2%, that is comparable with
those of Cape Verde, the Philippines, El Salvador. Fully provided clean water and
sanitation facilities are the population of Australia, Austria, Israel. In Papua New
Guinea and Chad, access to clean drinking water have only 40.0% and 50.8% of the
population, and in Madagascar and Niger, access to modern sanitation is 12.0% and
10.9% of the population respectively.
We consider it appropriate when assessing the human development level to take in-
to consideration the characteristics of infant and maternal mortality, which increasing-
ly dependent on the public health status of the country [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. In
Russia, high HDI, these levels are much higher than similar characteristics of devel-
oped countries (5 cases of infant mortality per 1000 live births and the maternal mor-
tality rate is 25 cases per 100 000 live births). In terms of infant mortality rate Russia
is comparable with such countries as Sri Lanka, Latvia, Uruguay, Maldives, Chile.
The lowest indicators of this characteristic were observed in Luxembourg and Iceland
(0.9 per 1000 live births).
The maternal mortality rate in Russia is comparable with those in Costa Rica, Iran,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova. The lowest values of maternal deaths are
recorded in Iceland and Finland (3 cases per 100 000 live births). The worst situation
for the infant and maternal mortality is significantly higher than the average for the
countries concerned, is typical for Sierra Leone (34.9 infant deaths per 1000 live
births and 1360 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births) and Pakistan (45.5 infant
deaths and 178.0 maternal deaths in comparable terms).
One of the indicators of social well-being of the country is a low level of mortality
from external causes (unnatural death). Theses causes include homicide, suicide, road
traffic deaths and some other reasons. Increased percentage of deaths for these rea-
sons in the general structure of mortality inevitably reduces the social security and
safety of citizens, which leads to a reduction of human potential. For Russia, this
problem is particularly relevant, since these risk levels of social distress we are ahead
of most countries of the world community. According to the World Bank in 2018 9.2
intentional homicides per 100 000 persons were registered in Russia, which is compa-
rable with those in Suriname, Chad, Guinea, Peru, Kazakhstan. The largest number of
homicides were committed in Honduras (91.0 cases per 100 000 people), the lowest
were committed in Iceland (0.3 cases per 100 000 people).
By the level of suicides in 2018 Russia was among the ten worst countries, with a
value of 19.5 cases per 100 000 people. While countries such as Guyana (44.2 cases
per 100 000 people), Sri Lanka (28.8) and Lithuania (28.2 cases) showed the worst
rating on this indicator. On the average per 120 countries of the world community the
value is 8.8 cases per 100 000 people. The lowest number of suicides was noted in
Jamaica (1.2 deaths for this reason per 100 000 people).
The level of deaths from road traffics in Russia (18.06 cases per 100 000 people) is
slightly higher than the average level of 18.9 cases for all the analyzed countries. The
spread of this indicator was recorded from 37.2 deaths per 100 000 people in Vene-
zuela to 2.5 deaths per 100 000 people in Sweden as of 2018.
Also on the quality of life and level of the human development have a negative im-
pact such socio-economic characteristics as unemployment, migration and degree of
differentiation of incomes of the population, which are reducing the motivation of
people to self-realization.
The unemployment rate in Russia in 2018 was 5.1%, which is comparable to such
countries as Austria (5.0%), Germany (5.0%), Iceland (5.0%) and Switzerland (4.5%).
The worst unemployment rate are fixed in Mauritania (31.0%) and Bosnia and Herze-
govina (27.9%).
By the number of migrants which is 8.6% of the total population Russia occupies
31 place and is among the countries with the highest values of this indicator along
with Portugal, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Malaysia and Slovenia. The most unfa-
vorable by the level of migration are Jordan and Israel, where the fixed values are
49.2% and 38.6%. The lowest level of migration was recorded in Indonesia and China
(0.05% of total population).
The GINI index for Russia in 2018 amounted to 40.9 points. The variation of this
indicator among the countries of the world community is more than 24.4% from 63.0
points in South Africa to 16.6 in Azerbaijan.
The foregoing results of the comparative analysis of the position of Russia with re-
gard to the countries of the world community on the risks of social sphere, which
have a significant influence on the development of human potential, were compiled
using the method of multidimensional ranking. Each factor of social inequality in
countries in accordance with the qualitative nature of its impact on the HDI has been
promoted to the rank – in descending order, if the increase of value of the factor re-
duces the quality of life of the population, and increasing, if the increase of value of
the factor increases the quality of life (e.g. population using improved drinking-water
sources, population using improved sanitation facilities). As a result, the overall grade
was calculated for all the countries under review, which allowed us to determine their
place in an orderly row of the degree of social inequality. Countries with high risk of
social inequality have been assigned lower values of aggregate, and the country with
the lowest levels of risk – the greatest (see Fig. 4).
Russia by the aggregate risk of social inequality at 722 points holds one of the
worst positions among the countries under review, which is contrary to its position on
the HDI, valued according to the UN methodology (high level). Less prosperous in
the social sphere in comparison with our country is only the Cote d'Ivoire (670 points,
the country with low HDI).
Fig. 4. Distribution of the countries of the world community by the total rank the risks of social
tensions in 2018, dimensionless
The average level of aggregated index of social inequality for the countries in ques-
tion amounted to 1123.5 points, which is typical for countries such as Portugal
(1129.0), Croatia (1125.0) (countries with very high HDI) and Burkina Faso (1122.0,
the country with low HDI).
We received considerable spread of countries at risk of social inequality (higher
than 1000%). The four most socially favorable countries, with a significant margin,
include countries with very high HDI countries - Czech Republic (1600.0), the Neth-
erlands (1534.5), Cyprus (1531.0), Italy (1505.0), Iceland (1505.0), in the most unfa-
vorable – Russia and Cote d'Ivoire (722.0 and 670.0 points respectively).
4 The modified HDI taking into account the Social
Well-being Index
According to the results of research it can be concluded that a common methodology
for the UN ranking of countries on the HDI do not adequately reflect the quality of
living of the population, does not take into account the social sphere, which leads to
contradictory conclusions about the true situation in the country [35, 36]. For a more
comprehensive and adequate assessment of the quality of life of the population of the
countries is necessary to expand the list of indicators considered in the HDI and take
into consideration the basic characteristics of the safety and social protection of the
population, expressed in social inequality risk levels.
For this purpose it is proposed to calculate the social well-being index, which re-
flects the position of the countries of world community on major risks of social sphere
listed, and the higher value of the index is, the more prosperous is a country.
For aggregation of analyzed risks of social inequality to index previously standardized
their original values to bring them to a common scale, equivalent to the interval (0, 1),
based on one of the following expressions:
j j
j X i 0,95 X min
Vi , (1)
j j
1, 05 X max 0,95 X min
j j
j X i 0,95 X min
Vi 1 . (2)
j j
1, 05 X max 0,95 X min
where X i j is the actual value of the j-th risk of social inequality in the i-th country,
j j
X min and X max is the minimum and maximum observed thresholds j-th risk of
social inequality in the countries of the world community.
Expression (1) is used to standardize the indicators, increasing the value of which
indicates an increase in social well-being. To standardize the indicators, which in-
crease in value reduces the assessment of social well-being, expression (2) is used.
The index Vis evaluating the state of social life in the i-th country, it is proposed to
determine in accordance with the following expression:
k
Vis k Vi ,
j
(3)
j 1
where Vi j is j-th sub-component of social well-being in the i-th country, which is the
reverse indicator to j-th risk of social inequality, k is the number of sub-components.
At the same time when assessing the sub-components of the index there were previ-
ously excluded those social inequality risks, for which have strong correlations with
other sub-components. So, from an consideration were excluded the characteristics of
prevalence of alcoholism and drug addiction among female which correlate with the
similar values fixed for the male population with the coefficients higher than 0.9.
Human Development Index, which takes into account social well-being, it is pro-
posed to estimate as the geometric mean of the Human Development Index and the
index of social well-being according to the following expression:
HDIis Vis HDIi , (4)
where HDIi is the Human Development Index in the i-th country, Vis is the social
well-being index in the i-th country.
5 Decision and conclusion
The results presented in Figure 5 show a significant change in the positions of the
countries in terms of human development, taking into account social well-being. So,
in the 36 countries of the 120 examined the level of human development decreased by
an average of 3.6% owing to the inclusion in the structure of HDI the indicator social
well-being. At the same time, it should be noted that 26 of the 36 countries are coun-
tries with a very high level of development, 7 countries with high level of develop-
ment. Close to average level of decline countries are such countries as Switzerland,
Luxembourg, Spain (3.9%), Greece (3.8%), Austria (3.7%). The greatest decline in
the human development is recorded in the Russia (8.1%), the UK (9.0%), Venezuela
(9.2%) and South Africa (13.6%).
Countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Swaziland, Finland, Iceland,
Portugal, Latvia, Ecuador (see Fig. 5) did not change their position relative to the
level of human development when included into the structure of HDI the social well-
being index. Deviation of the HDI values based on social well-being with regard to
the values represented in the UN report, in these countries does not exceed 1.0%.
In the other 82 countries considered, including 25 countries with middle and 28 coun-
tries with low human development, evaluations of the level of human development,
taking into account increased by on average of 10.6% when taking into account in its
structure social well-being indicator. In particular, such countries include Nicaragua,
Moldova (9.9%), Cape Verde (10.2%) and Egypt (11.0%).
Such countries as Mali (30.4%), Burkina Faso (31.3%) and Burundi (34.8) are charac-
terized with the biggest change of HDI, taking into account social well-being index.
Fig. 5. Comparative analysis of some countries of world community on the HDI, including the
social well-being index, and HDI, excluding social sphere (dimensionless) in 2018
The results of this study allow to conclude about the necessity to modify the HDI by
taking into account in the structure of social well-being indicator, due to the consider-
able differentiation of indicators that characterize this sphere of life in the countries of
the world community, and the exposure to the risks of social inequality on the level of
human development. This would allow providing a comparative analysis of the coun-
tries of the world community on the basis of a wider range of indicators that influence
the formation processes of accumulation and realization of human potential, com-
bined into in the economic, educational, demographic and social units.
Acknowledgements
The study was funded by the RFBR, project No. 20-010-00307 “Methodology for
assessing population health losses and justification of improving the efficiency of
healthcare systems in the regions of the Russian Federation”.
References
1. Pedro Conceição et al.: Human development report 2019. Beyond income, beyond averag-
es, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century. AGS, N.Y.
(2019).
2. Alkire S.: Human development: Definitions, critiques, and related concepts In: UNDP-
HDRO Occasional Papers, vol. 2010(1), pp. 1‒54 (2010).
3. McGillivray M. The Human Development Index: yet another redundant composite devel-
opment indicator? World Development 19(10), 1461‒1468 (1991)
4. Palazzi P., Lauri A.: The Human Development Index: suggested corrections. PSL Quarter-
ly Review 51(205), 193‒221 (2013).
5. Ranis G., Stewart F., Samman E.: Human development: beyond the human development
index. Journal of Human Development 7(3), 323‒358 (2006).
6. Rimashevskaya, N.: Russia's human potential and the problems of "public savings". Rus-
sian economic journal 9-10, 22‒40 (2004).
7. Duflo E.: The returns to human capital: health and education. In: РАНО Headquarters, pp.
1‒6, Washington (2004).
8. Folloni G., Vittadini G.: Human Capital Measurement: A Survey. Journal of Economic
Surveys 24 (2), 248–279 (2010).
9. Heckman J.J., Lochner L.J., Todd P.E.: Earnings Functions, Rates of Return and Treat-
ment Effects: the Mincer Equation and Beyond. In: Handbook of the Economics of Educa-
tion, vol. 1(7), pp. 310‒458 (2006).
10. Suri T. et al.: Paths to success: The relationship between human development and econom-
ic growth. World Development 39(4), 506‒522 (2011).
11. Biswas B., Caliendo F.: A multivariate analysis of the human development index. Indian
Economic Journal 49(4), 96‒100 (2002).
12. Tikhomirova T.M., Sukiasyan A.G.: Modified estimates of human potential in the regions
of Russian Federation taking into consideration the risks of health losses and social ten-
sions. Economy of region 4, 164‒177 (2014).
13. Le T., Gibson J., Oxley L.: Cost- and Income-Based Measures of Human Capital. Journal
of Economic Surveys 17(3), 271–307 (2003).
14. Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos, H.A.: Returns to investment in education: A further update.
Education Economics 12(2), 111‒134 (2004).
15. Tikhomirova, T.M., Sukiasyan, A.G.: Comparative assessment of human potential risk-
adjusted social inequality. Environmental Economics 1, 4‒41 (2015).
16. Saadia Zahidi et al. The Human Capital Report. World Economic Forum, Geneva (2013).
17. Van Leeuwen B., Földvári P.: How much human capital does Eastern Europe have? Meas-
urement methods and results. Post-Communist Economies 20(2), 189‒201 (2008).
18. Bovenberg A.L.: The Life-course perspective and social policies: An overview of the is-
sues. CESifo Economic Studies 54(4), 593‒641 (2008).
19. Brown P. and Lauder H.: Human Capital, Social Capital and Collective Intelligence. In:
Baron, S., Field, J. and Schuller, T. (eds.). Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, pp.
226‒242. Oxford University Press. Oxford (2001).
20. The Well-being of nations: The role of human and social capital. OECD. Paris (2001).
21. Chakravarty S.R.: A generalized human development index. Review of development eco-
nomics 7(1), 99‒114 (2003).
22. Coleman James S.: Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology. Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Ap-
proaches to the Analysis of Social Structure 94, S95‒S120 (1988).
23. Davidsson P., Honig B.: The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepre-
neurs. Journal of business venturing 18(3), 301‒331 (2003).
24. Global Health Observatory data repository. Available from.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.home (WHO), last accessed 2020/07/21.
25. World Bank Open Data. Available from.
http://data.worldbank.org/russian?cid=GPDru_10, last accessed 2020/07/21.
26. Ayvazyan S.A.: Analysis of the quality and way of life (econometric approach). Nauka.
Moscow, (2012).
27. Early to die. The problems of high morbidity and premature mortality from non-
communicable diseases and injuries in the Russian Federation and their solutions. In: The
World Bank Report. Washington, (2006).
28. Revich, B.: By assessing risk factors of mortality in Russia and the reality of their decline:
Comments to the World Bank report "Early to die". Problems of forecasting 6, 114‒132
(2006).
29. Cai L.: The relationship between health and labour force participation: Evidence from a
panel data simultaneous equation model. Labour Economics 17(1), 77‒90 (2010).
30. Despotis D.K.: A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment
analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(8), 969‒980 (2005).
31. Fogel R.W.: Nutrition, Physiological Capital, and Economic Growth. In: РАНО Headquar-
ters, pp.1-29. Washington, (2002)
32. Grossman M.: The human capital model of the demand for health. In: Working Paper no.
W7078, pp. 1‒98, National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Massachusetts
(1999).
33. Lee L.: Health and wages: a simultaneous equation model with multiple discrete indica-
tors. International Economic Review 23, 199‒221 (1982).
34. Leung Siu Fai, Wong Chi Tat.: Health Status and Labor Supply: Interrelationship and De-
terminants. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong (2002).
35. Liu G., Greaker M.: Measuring the Stock of Human Capital for Norway. A Lifetime La-
bour Income Approach. In: Statistics Norway Documents, no. 2009/12, pp. 1‒78 (2009).
36. Mahlberg B, Obersteiner M.: Remeasuring the HDI by data envelopment analysis. In: Re-
port IR-01-069. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg
(2001).