/32-22_files/32-2200001im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Lesson 22

REPORTS

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's 2007 survey Freedom in the World, concerning the state of

world freedom in 2006.

Free

Partly Free

Not Free

This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there

are surveys, 1972-2005

/32-22_files/32-2200002im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Countries highlighted in blue are designated "Electoral Democracies" in Freedom House's 2006 survey

Freedom in the World.

Since 1972, (1978 in book form) Freedom House publishes an annual report, Freedom in the World, on the

degree of democratic freedoms in nations and significant disputed territories around the world, by which it

seeks to assess the current state of civil and political rights on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). These

reports are often used by political scientists when doing research. The ranking is highly correlated with several

other ratings of democracy also frequently used by researchers.

In its 2003 report, for example, Canada (judged as fully free and democratic) got a perfect score of a "1" in civil

liberties and a "1" in political rights, earning it the designation of "free." Nigeria got a "5" and a "4", earning it

the designation of "partly free," while North Korea scored the lowest rank of "7-7", and was thus dubbed "not

free." Nations are scored from 0 to 4 on several questions and the sum determines the rankings. Example

questions: "Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and

fair elections?", "Is there an independent judiciary?", "Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or

equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private

organizations?" Freedom House states that the rights and liberties of the survey is derived in large measure

from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The research and ratings process involved two dozen analysts and more than a dozen senior-level academic

advisors. The eight members of the core research team headquartered in New York, along with 16 outside

consultant analysts, prepared the country and territory reports. The analysts used a broad range of sources of

information--including foreign and domestic news reports, academic analyses, nongovernmental organizations,

think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region--in preparing the reports.

The country and territory ratings were proposed by the analyst responsible for each related report. The ratings

were reviewed individually and on a comparative basis in a series of six regional meetings--Asia-Pacific, Central

and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North

Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe--involving the analysts, academic advisors with expertise in

each region, and Freedom House staff. The ratings were compared to the previous year's findings, and any

major proposed numerical shifts or category changes were subjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews

were followed by cross-regional assessments in which efforts were made to ensure comparability and

consistency in the findings. Many of the key country reports were also reviewed by the academic advisers.

Regardless, such a process contains elements of subjectivity.

The survey's methodology is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee of political scientists with

expertise in methodological issues.

Freedom House also produces annual reports on press freedom (Press Freedom Survey), governance in the

nations of the former Soviet Union (Nations in Transit), and countries on the borderline of democracy (Countries

at the Crossroads). In addition, one-time reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the Middle East.

Freedom House generally uses standard geographic regions for its reports, though it groups the countries of

the Middle East and North Africa together, separately from Sub-Saharan Africa; and it still uses the arguably

outdated concept of Western Europe, to include countries such as Turkey and Cyprus, while categorizing

Central and Eastern Europe separately -- a division stemming from the Cold War era which ignores the

/32-22_files/32-2200003im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

eastwards expansion of such organizations such the EU and NATO. However, these groupings have nothing

to do with the individual country ratings; they're merely used to make nations easier to find when perusing their

reports, and also for comparative statistics between the modern day and the ratings of decades past.

Criticisms of Freedom House Methodology

The methodology Freedom House uses for its reports has been criticised for its perceived bias towards

countries with pro-US positions. By relying on 'experts' or 'judges', the methodology is claimed to fall into the

what is described as 'systematic measurement error': "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly

likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement

error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of

information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all

indicators from a common publication.

Other activities

In addition to these reports, Freedom House participates in advocacy initiatives, currently focused on North

Korea, Africa, and religious freedom. It has offices in a number of countries, where it promotes and assists

local human rights workers and non-government organizations.

On January 12, 2006, as part of a crackdown on unauthorized nongovernmental organizations, the Uzbek

government ordered Freedom House to suspend operations in Uzbekistan. Resource and Information Centers

managed by Freedom House in Tashkent, Namangan, and Samarkand offered access to materials and books on

human rights, as well as technical equipment, such as computers, copiers and Internet access. The government

warned that criminal proceedings could be brought against Uzbek staff members and visitors following recent

amendments to the criminal code and Code on Administrative Liability of Uzbekistan. Other human rights

groups have been similarly threatened and obliged to suspend operations.

Freedom House is a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more

than 70 non-governmental organisations that monitors free expression violations around the world and

defends journalists, writers and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organisations selected by the State

Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside Iran. In a research study, with Mr Ackerman

acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than is generally understood,

the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass

protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources

of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders.

Regarding regime change, the organization states "Freedom House works directly with men and women around

the world to expand the political rights and civil liberties they experience in their countries. More specifically,

Freedom House focuses on initiatives that contribute to long-term stability and growth in countries, such as

strengthening civil society, promoting open government, defending human rights, and facilitating the free flow

of information and ideas. While these activities - and the liberties they represent - may be threatening to some

repressive governments, Freedom House does not initiate or sponsor regime change or popular revolutions.

We help men and women of good will to improve their own societies.

Criticism and praise

As noted in the section on organization above, Freedom House receives most of its funding from the US

government, and prominent US government officials reside on its board, most notably neo-conservatives.

These ties to state power and rightist institutions have been criticized. The organisation states that its board of

trustees contains Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are a mix of business and labor leaders,

former senior government officials, scholars and journalists.

Noam Chomsky describes how Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League,

Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long

served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing. He justifies this claim

by presenting a series of national elections generally considered as staged, that the Freedom House observers

however found "fair". He also criticizes the unconditional support of Freedom House members to all U.S.

international military interventions, and the expenditure of "substantial resources in criticizing the media for

insufficient sympathy with U.S. foreign-policy ventures and excessively harsh criticism of U.S. client states."

/32-22_files/32-2200004im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

In May 2001, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations heard arguments

pro and against Freedom House. Representatives of Cuba described the organization as a U.S. foreign policy

instrument linked to the CIA and "submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the

NGO (Freedom House) carried out against their Government". They also pointed out the lack of criticism of

U.S. human rights violations in the annual reports. These violations are well documented by other reports, such

as those of Human Rights Watch. Other countries such as China and Germany also offered criticism. The

Russian Federation representative also inquired "why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights,

was against the creation of the International Criminal Court". The United States representative denied the links

between Freedom House and CIA and pointed out that "his country was not immune from criticism from

Freedom House" and that "the organization was a human rights organization, which sought to represent those

who did not have a voice".

We must also remember that the organisation was formed by the United States government, which already

makes it a not neutral-starting point. On a similar line, Freedom House has also been criticized by Justin

Raimondo, who claims that "Freedom House standards are elastic, bending to the dictates of American foreign

policy.

Freedom House reports have criticized both the United States and its major allies to a certain extent, for

example in its 2006 report on the U.S. and Israel. Nevertheless, Israel earns good scores in political and civil

rights, despite international perception that the Israeli state violates the rights of Arab populations. Evidently,

Freedom House has also been critical of some traditional US allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Chile under

Pinochet, classifying them as "Not Free" It was also strongly critical of apartheid South Africa and military

dictatorships in Latin America. However, it could be argued that not to criticize the lack of political freedom of

these regimes would be contradictory.

Despite the criticism, many thinkers defend the organization's dedication to the promotion of human rights.

Writing in the rightist National Review Online, John R. Miller, a research professor at the George Washington

University's Elliott School, states that

Freedom House has unwaveringly raised the standard of freedom in evaluating fascist countries,

Communist regimes, and plain old, dictatorial thugocracies. Its annual rankings are read and used in

the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as by the U.S. State Department.

Policy and aid decisions are influenced by Freedom House's report. Those fighting for freedom in

countries lacking it are encouraged or discouraged by what Freedom House's report covers. And

sometimes -- most importantly -- their governments are moved to greater effort.

Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007

GINI COEFFICIENT

Graphical representation of the Gini coefficient

/32-22_files/32-2200005im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is

defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1: the numerator is the area between the Lorenz curve of the

distribution and the uniform distribution line; the denominator is the area under the uniform distribution line.

Thus, a low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient

indicates more unequal distribution. 0 corresponds to perfect equality (e.g. everyone has the same income) and

1 corresponds to perfect inequality (e.g. one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income).

The Gini coefficient requires that no one have a negative net income or wealth.

The Gini coefficient was developed by the Italian statistician Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper

"Variabilità e mutabilità" ("Variability and Mutability").

The Gini coefficient is also commonly used for the measurement of the discriminatory power of rating systems

in credit risk management.

The Gini index is the Gini coefficient expressed as a percentage, and is equal to the Gini coefficient multiplied

by 100. (The Gini coefficient is equal to half of the relative mean difference.)

Advantages of Gini coefficient as a measure of inequality

· The Gini coefficient's main advantage is that it is a measure of inequality by means of a ratio analysis,

rather than a variable unrepresentative of most of the population, such as per capita income or gross

domestic product.

· It can be used to compare income distributions across different population sectors as well as countries,

for example the Gini coefficient for urban areas differs from that of rural areas in many countries

(though the United States' urban and rural Gini coefficients are nearly identical).

· It is sufficiently simple that it can be compared across countries and be easily interpreted. GDP

statistics are often criticised as they do not represent changes for the whole population; the Gini

coefficient demonstrates how income has changed for poor and rich. If the Gini coefficient is rising as

well as GDP, poverty may not be improving for the majority of the population.

· The Gini coefficient can be used to indicate how the distribution of income has changed within a

country over a period of time, thus it is possible to see if inequality is increasing or decreasing.

· The Gini coefficient satisfies four important principles:

o Anonymity: it does not matter who the high and low earners are.

o Scale independence: the Gini coefficient does not consider the size of the economy, the way it is

measured, or whether it is a rich or poor country on average.

o Population independence: it does not matter how large the population of the country is.

o Transfer principle: if income (less than the difference), is transferred from a rich person to a poor

person the resulting distribution is more equal.

Disadvantages of Gini Coefficient as a Measure of Inequality

The Gini coefficient of different sets of people cannot be averaged to obtain the Gini coefficient of all the

people in the sets: if a Gini coefficient were to be calculated for each person it would always be zero. When

measuring its value for a large, economically diverse country, a much higher coefficient than each of its regions

has individually will result.

For this reason the scores calculated for individual countries within the EU are difficult to compare with the

score of the entire US: the overall value for the EU should be used in that case, 31.3, which is still much lower

than the United States', 45. Using decomposable inequality measures (e.g. the Theil index T converted by 1 - e

- T into a inequality coefficient) averts such problems.

The Lorenz curve may understate the actual amount of inequality if richer households are able to use income

more efficiently than lower income households. From another point of view, measured inequality may be the

result of more or less efficient use of household incomes.

Economies with similar incomes and Gini coefficients can still have very different income distributions. This is

because the Lorenz curves can have different shapes and yet still yield the same Gini coefficient. As an extreme

example, an economy where half the households have no income, and the other half share income equally has a

Gini coefficient of ½; but an economy with complete income equality, except for one wealthy household that

has half the total income, also has a Gini coefficient of ½. In practice, such distributions don't exist, and

therefore, the impact of different but realistic curves is less obvious.

/32-22_files/32-2200006im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS

Gross National Happiness (GNH) is an attempt to define quality of life in more holistic and psychological

terms than Gross National Product.

The term was coined by Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck in 1972. It signaled his commitment to

building an economy that would serve Bhutan's unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual values. Like many

worthy moral goals it is somewhat easier to state than to define, nonetheless, it serves as a unifying vision for

the Five Year planning process and all the derived planning documents that guide the economic and

development plans to the country.

While conventional development models stress economic growth as the ultimate objective, the concept of

GNH claims to be based on the premise that true development of human society takes place when material and

spiritual development occur side by side to complement and reinforce each other. The four pillars of GNH are

the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of

cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance

Qualitative and Quantitative Indicators

There is no exact quantitative definition of GNH.

GNH is a qualitative condition that is often discussed in tandem with the Genuine Progress Indicator which,

unlike GNP, attempts to quantify well-being and happiness. The two measures agree, however, that subjective

measures like well-being are more relevant and important than more objective measures like consumption.

According to Daniel Kahneman, a Princeton University psychologist, the indicator is measured using a new

technique called the day reconstruction method. It consists in recollecting memories of the previous working

day by writing a short diary.

Happiness as Understood by Classical Liberalism

Under classical liberal economic theory happiness was already an economic measurement used interchangeably

with utility as well as the general welfare. Classical liberal economists attempt to quantify happiness through

measurements in consumption and profits. For example if X product is consumed in good quantity for high

profit, classical liberal economists argue that societies know that this good, and all the factors used in the

production of the good, generate a great deal of happiness for society. It is this equating of high consumption

levels with happiness that has been challenged by proponents of GNH.

Criticism of GNH

Critics allege that because GNH depends on a series of subjective judgments about well-being, governments

may be able to define GNH in a way that suits their interests. In the case of Bhutan, for instance, they say that

the government expelled about one hundred thousand people and stripped them of their Bhutanese citizenship

on the grounds that the deportees were ethnic Nepalese who had settled in the country illegally. While this

would reduce Bhutan's wealth by most traditional measures such as GDP, the Bhutan government claims it has

not reduced Bhutan's GNH.

Alternative indicators of economic progress have also been supported by a number of NGOs such as the UK's

New Economics Foundation, and are employed in some governments notably in Europe and Canada.