Human development report 1991
About: This article is published in International Affairs.The article was published on 1992-01-01. It has received 267 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Human Development Report.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a rigorous conceptual framework for vulnerability indicators is developed and applied to review the scientific arguments available for building climate change vulnerability indicators. But, the framework is only appropriate for addressing the second type of problem but only at local scales, when systems can be narrowly defined and inductive arguments can be built.
Abstract: The issue of “measuring” climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity by means of indicators divides policy and academic communities. While policy increasingly demands such indicators an increasing body of literature criticises them. This misfit results from a twofold confusion. First, there is confusion about what vulnerability indicators are and which arguments are available for building them. Second, there is confusion about the kinds of policy problems to be solved by means of indicators. This paper addresses both sources of confusion. It first develops a rigorous conceptual framework for vulnerability indicators and applies it to review the scientific arguments available for building climate change vulnerability indicators. Then, it opposes this availability with the following six diverse types of problems that vulnerability indicators are meant to address according to the literature: (i) identification of mitigation targets; (ii) identification of vulnerable people, communities, regions, etc.; (iii) raising awareness; (iv) allocation of adaptation funds; (v) monitoring of adaptation policy; and (vi) conducting scientific research. It is found that vulnerability indicators are only appropriate for addressing the second type of problem but only at local scales, when systems can be narrowly defined and inductive arguments can be built. For the other five types of problems, either vulnerability is not the adequate concept or vulnerability indicators are not the adequate methodology. I conclude that both the policy and academic communities should collaboratively attempt to use a more specific terminology for speaking about the problems addressed and the methodologies applied. The one-size-fits-all vulnerability label is not sufficient. Speaking of “measuring” vulnerability is particularly misleading, as this is impossible and raises false expectations.
914 citations
TL;DR: This paper studied the 1991-2002 Sierra Leone civil war using nationally representative household data on conflict experiences, postwar economic outcomes, local politics and collective action, and found that individuals whose households directly experienced more intense war violence are robustly more likely to attend community meetings, more likely join local political and community groups, and more likely vote.
910 citations
TL;DR: It is argued for a new approach to transcend the disciplinary bounds inherent in multi- and interdisciplinary research, which can provide a systematic, comprehensive theoretical framework for the definition and analysis of the social, economic, political, environmental, and institutional factors influencing human health and well-being.
799 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluate how well these reports have lived up to their own conceptual mandate and assesses the ability of the human development index to further the development debate, finding that the reports have lost touch with their original vision and the index fails to capture the essence of the world it seeks to portray.
666 citations
TL;DR: The empirical basis of the neoliberal argument is questioned and the evidence confirms that globalization in the context of the world economic regime in place since the end of Bretton Woods generates more "mutual benefit" than "conflicting interests".
634 citations