Basic Capabilities Index (BCI) 2008 - WAY TOO SLOW!

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes
Summary: 
The Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved by 2015 at the present rate of progress Progress in basic social indicators slowed down last year all over the world and at the present rate it does not allow for the internationally agreed poverty reduction goals to be met by 2015, unless substantial changes occur. This is the main conclusion that can be extracted from the 2008 figures of the Basic Capabilities Index (BCI), calculated by Social Watch.



The Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved by 2015 at the present rate of progress

Progress in basic social indicators slowed down last year all over the world and at the present rate it does not allow for the internationally agreed poverty reduction goals to be met by 2015, unless substantial changes occur. This is the main conclusion that can be extracted from the 2008 figures of the Basic Capabilities Index (BCI), calculated by Social Watch.

Out of 176 countries for which a BCI figure can be computed, only 21 register noticeable progress in relation to how they were in 2000. Other 55 countries show some progress, but at a slow rate, while 77 countries are stagnated or worse. Information is insufficient to show trends for the remaining 23. As the impact of the food crisis that started in 2006 begins to be registered by the new statistics coming in, the situation is likely to get worse in the next months.

Contrary to frequent claims that poverty is diminishing fast in the world, the index computed by Social Watch shows that the deficient coverage of the basic needs required to escape poverty persists; even more, it is increasing, in spite of impressive economic growth in most developing countries.


LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN: Slight progress, with some countries regressing.
EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA: Acceptable BCI level reached before 2000.
SOUTH ASIA: Significant progress. India improving fast, pushes the region up.
CENTRAL ASIA: Slight progress, with some countries regressing.
MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA: Slight progress.
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC: Slight progress. No recent evolution data for China.
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: Average progress is extremely slow, with some countries regressing even further from already low levels. At the current rate, the region would need more than a century to reach an acceptable BCI.

FOR THE PRESS
DOWNLOAD PRESS RELEASES

Alternative poverty estimates say progress is too slow to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015
(.pdf or .doc)

Poverty is not decreasing as the World Bank claims, argues a civil society monitoring organization
(.pdf or .doc)

AttachmentSize
ICB08_eng.gif261.86 KB
ICB08_rev_eng.gif156.17 KB
ICB2008_eng.pdf2.77 MB
Image_block: 

BCI 2008 country by country

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes

 

 

AttachmentSize
BCI-2008-alphabetical-eng.pdf249.5 KB
BCI-2008-value-eng.pdf247.55 KB
Region: 
left

BCI 2008 evolution

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes

COUNTRY

BCI LEVEL

BCI EVOLUTION

Chad

42.4

<<<< 

Afghanistan

51.8

 

Niger

52.4

<<

Rwanda

52.7

>>

Ethiopia

53.5

>>

Bangladesh

57.1

=

Burundi

57.9

>>

Lao, PDR

58.2

>>

Equatorial Guinea

59.0

=

Uganda

59.3

=

Timor-Leste

59.8

 

Guinea-Bissau

60.7

 

Sierra Leone

60.7

 

Madagascar

60.7

=

Yemen

61.1

<<

Angola

62.0

 

Malawi

62.0

<<

Nigeria

63.3

=

Pakistan

63.7

>>>>

Burkina Faso

64.3

>>

Central African Republic

64.5

 

Liberia

64.8

 

Nepal

65.1

>>>>

Mozambique

65.5

>>>>

Mauritania

65.8

=

Guinea

66.0

=

Ghana

66.1

=

Cambodia

66.2

>>>>

Eritrea

66.7

>>>>

Papua New Guinea

67.5

>>

Benin

67.6

<<<<

Guatemala

68.3

>>

Mali

68.7

>>

Congo, DR

69.2

 

Cameroon

70.2

<<

Gambia

70.2

>>

Kenya

70.8

>>

Togo

70.9

=

Senegal

71.1

>>

India

71.1

>>>>

Lesotho

71.8

=

Nicaragua

72.3

>>

Zambia

73.0

>>

Tanzania

73.1

>>>>

Djibouti

74.9

 

Sudan

75.6

<<<<

Myanmar

75.8

>>>>

Swaziland

76.8

=

Philippines

77.2

>>

Honduras

78.1

>>>>

Bhutan

78.3

>>>>

Comoros

78.5

>>>>

El Salvador

78.6

>>

Congo, Rep.

78.9

 

Côte d'Ivoire

79.3

>>>>

Morocco

79.4

>>>>

Zimbabwe

79.7

=

Bolivia

79.8

>>

Guyana

81.4

<<<<

Solomon Islands

81.6

 

Sao Tome and Principe

81.9

 

Gabon

82.1

>>

Ecuador

82.6

>>

Iraq

82.7

>>>>

Indonesia

84.1

>>

Tajikistan

85.0

=

Azerbaijan

85.3

<<<<

Namibia

85.3

<<

Paraguay

85.3

>>>>

Suriname

85.9

<<<<

Peru

86.3

>>>>

Maldives

86.4

>>

Vanuatu

87.0

<<

Dominican Republic

87.8

=

Kiribati

88.2

=

Egypt

88.4

>>

Tuvalu

88.7

=

South Africa

89.2

>>

Georgia

89.4

<<<<

Vietnam

90.0

>>>>

Colombia

90.1

>>>>

Cook Islands

90.3

 

China

90.4

 

Panama

91.3

=

Singapore

91.5

 

Iran

91.5

<<

Brazil

91.8

=

Grenada

92.3

<<

Botswana

92.4

=

Turkey

92.4

>>>>

Cape Verde

92.7

=

Belize

93.2

>>

St Vincent and Grenadines

93.3

=

Marshall Islands

93.4

 

Syria

93.7

>>>>

Algeria

93.9

=

Albania

94.3

<<

Mexico

94.4

>>

Costa Rica

94.5

<<

Venezuela

94.6

=

Tonga

94.7

=

Trinidad and Tobago

94.7

<<

Jamaica

94.7

>>

Kyrgyzstan

94.9

=

St Kitts and Nevis

94.9

=

Tunisia

94.9

>>

Lebanon

95.3

>>

Mongolia

95.5

=

Armenia

95.6

>>

Romania

95.6

<<

Macedonia

96.0

=

Moldova

96.1

=

Qatar

96.2

=

Thailand

96.3

 

Uruguay

96.3

=

Saudi Arabia

96.6

>>

Slovakia

96.6

 

Switzerland

96.7

=

Samoa

97.0

=

Dominica

97.1

>>

Luxembourg

97.2

<<

Jordan

97.3

=

Denmark

97.6

<<

Sri Lanka

97.9

 

Kazakhstan

98.0

>>

Argentina

98.1

>>

New Zealand

98.1

=

St Lucia

98.2

=

Mauritius

98.2

=

Kuwait

98.2

>>

Libya

98.4

 

Russian Federation

98.5

>>

Bulgaria

98.5

>>>>

Ukraine

98.5

>>

Fiji

98.6

>>

United Arab Emirates

98.7

=

United States of America

98.7

>>

United Kingdom

98.8

>>

Cuba

98.8

=

Belgium

98.9

>>

Barbados

98.9

>>

Bahamas

98.9

 

Belarus

98.9

>>

Oman

98.9

>>

Bahrain

99.0

=

Palau

99.0

 

Latvia

99.0

>>

Malaysia

99.1

=

Lithuania

99.1

>>

Hungary

99.1

 

Canada

99.1

>>

Croatia

99.1

>>

Portugal

99.2

>>

France

99.2

=

Japan

99.2

>>

Slovenia

99.2

>>

Cyprus

99.2

=

Spain

99.3

>>

Czech Republic

99.3

=

Estonia

99.4

=

Australia

99.4

>>

Italy

99.5

=

Korea, Rep.

99.5

=

Greece

99.5

>>

Poland

99.5

=

Brunei Darussalam

99.5

>>

Malta

99.6

=

Chile

99.6

=

Netherlands

99.6

=

Finland

99.7

=

Israel

99.8

=

Ireland

99.8

=

Iceland

99.8

=

Sweden

99.8

>>

Norway

99.9

=

Germany

99.9

>>

 

BCI 2008 evolution

<<<< 

Major regression

<< 

Regression

=

Stagnant

>> 

Slight progress

>>>> 

Significant progress

 

No data on evolution

Region: 
left

BCI by region

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes

Region: 
left

BCI evolution and projection

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes

click to enlarge

80 countries containing half the world population rank as low, very low or critical in the BCI. Only 16 of them are improving fast since 2000. Yet, this group includes large countries, like India, and a total population of 1.6 billion. Meanwhile, 13 countries with low BCI and a combined population of 150 million people are regressing, most of them suffer war and armed conflicts.

An absolute majority of the world population lives in countries which are stagnant in their social indicators or not progressing fast enough to reach an acceptable level in the next decade, or for which there is no reliable information to determine a trend. In the case of
Sub-Saharan Africa, in spite of the recent impressive economic growth, progress in the social indicators is so slow that, at the current rate, an acceptable BCI would only be achieved in the 23rd century!

 

Region: 
left

CZECH VERSION OF THE BASIC CAPABILITIES INDEX 2008 (pdf)

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes
AttachmentSize
2008-Czech-Republic-BCI.pdf1.7 MB
Region: 
left
Image_block: 

How is China really doing?

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes

China is one of 23 countries for which the BCI 2008 does not provide data on the direction or speed of evolution. It is also the one country that according to income poverty estimates is advancing so fast that it compensates for all the rest in world averages.

The actual trend of poverty in China is difficult to determine. We now have, as a result of a credible global survey, the income poverty figures for 2005, but all previous values are mere estimates. On top of that, in the transition to a market economy, income may grow without peoples’ life actually changing. Think of the commune system where millions of peasants were self-sufficient. They now receive a salary, but they also have to pay for the food they used to get free. The total registered income increases both with the money they receive and what they pay.

Should Social Watch attempt to provide a guess for the recent evolution of the Chinese BCI? We think not. On the one hand the reliability of our index is based on its data being verifiable against those published by trusted international sources. On the other, the index should be used to deduct a trend and not the other way around. It is easy to assume that the recent economic growth in China has been followed by a similar improvement in education and health statistics. But in an historical perspective there is also evidence for the opposite: Chinese spectacular economic growth seems to have started AFTER a basic improvement in health and education for all had been achieved. We will have to wait for reliable social statistics to be able to establish with certainty what the recent trend for China is.

Region: 
left

Methodology (PDF)

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes
AttachmentSize
BasicCapabilitiesIndex2008.pdf142.1 KB
Region: 
left

The BASIC CAPABILITIES INDEX

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes

THE BASIC CAPABILITIES INDEX
a measure of “dignity for all”

There are many ways to define “poverty” and many methods to measure it. How a society defines which of its members are “poor” is a relative concept that changes over time but, generally, expresses the insufficient satisfaction of a set of basic needs that includes housing, clothing, education, access to health services, food and entertainment. Thus, lack of a TV set can become, in many places, a factor defining a family as poor, while possessing one was an expression of luxury 50 years ago.

While not being able to satisfy some basic needs in a dignified way defines a household as poor, the inability to reach a minimum daily intake of food defines the condition of “extreme poverty” or “absolute poverty”. Based on empirical research conducted a couple of decades ago, the World Bank determined a daily income equivalent to one dollar a day as being the universal line to define extreme poverty.

Poverty indicators based on income are extremely difficult to compute, as they require extensive and expensive household surveys. Further, low income countries have a bigger informal and non-monetized economy and vulnerable social sectors within them -- particularly those not living in the major towns tend to satisfy a bigger proportion of their needs outside the market economy, making income estimates and their international comparisons even more difficult. When those estimates exist, their evolution over time is extremely hard to assess, since many years pass between one survey and the next one.

Thus, for example, prior to a major worldwide survey on income poverty carried out in 2005, the estimates on the one dollar poverty line were based on surveys conducted in 1993 for most countries and in 1985 for India, while no such study had ever been carried out in China before and all figures for the most populated country in the world were just educated guesses.

Further, since income poverty definitions based on household surveys usually express national averages, they are useless for analyzing variations in poverty levels between provinces or municipalities. When civil society organizations monitor social policies, like the Social Watch national coalitions around the world do, the trends are even more important than the absolute number. Is poverty increasing or diminishing? Is the trend faster or slower than in the neighbouring countries? And what about the neighbour provinces?

Thus, Social Watch developed a Basic Capabilities Index (BCI) as a tool to monitor the evolution of basic social indicators and compare them between and within countries without using income statistics*.

The BCI indicators express different areas addressed by internationally agreed development goals (education, children’s health and reproductive health). By not using income as an indicator, the BCI is consistent with a definition of poverty based on capabilities and (the denial of) human rights. At the same time, the index is comparatively easy to compute at sub-national and municipal levels.

The BCI is a simple average of three indicators: percentage of children who reach fifth grade, survival until the fifth year of age (based on mortality among children under five) and percentage of deliveries attended by skilled health personnel.

As a summary index, the BCI provides a consistent general overview of the health status and basic educational performance of a population. It has also proven to be closely correlated to the measurement of other human capabilities related to countries’ social development. The index makes it possible to assign a score to each country and compare it with other countries, or assess its evolution over time.

The highest possible BCI score is reached when all women receive medical assistance during labour, no child leaves school before completing the fifth grade and infant mortality is less than five deaths for every thousand live births, seemingly the lowest possible level attainable. These indicators are closely linked to the minimum capabilities that members of any society should have and which mutually reinforce one another. They focus especially on capabilities that incorporate the youngest members of society and reflect a concern for women’s wellbeing, thereby fostering future development.

A BCI value close of 99+ means in essence that practically all of the inhabitants in a country benefit from very basic education and health. Since a high BCI can only be achieved without malnourishment (of children and their mothers) and when basic housing and sanitation are provided, at Social Watch we understand a BCI value close to the maximum to be synonymous with the “dignity for all” that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wants to achieve. Such dignity is not the objective of social development but a necessary starting point to achieve it.

Thus, the BCI is not especially useful to distinguish between countries that have achieved minimum social standards, but it turns up extremely helpful to assess the situation and trends whenever comparatively high levels of poverty prevail.

*The current formulation of the BCI is an elaboration of the Social Watch research team, based on an idea first developed as “Quality of Life Index” by Action for Economic Reforms for the Social Watch coalition in the Philippines. In turn, it was inspired in the Capability Poverty Measure (CPM) proposed by Professor Amartya Sen and popularized by the Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). For a detailed methodological explanation and the complete tables on which the BCI is based, see www.socialwatch.org

Region: 
left

The MDGs, easier said than measured

Publication_year: 
2008
Annual report: 
Yes

In September 2000, world leaders adopted the Millennium Declaration committing their nations to achieve a set of poverty reduction targets by 2015.

The Millennium Development Goals:

1.  Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2.  Achieve universal primary education
3.  Promote gender equality and empower women
4.  Reduce child mortality
5.  Improve maternal health
6.  Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7.  Ensure environmental sustainability
8.  Develop a global partnership for development

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has highlighted that “the MDGs set time-bound targets, by which progress can be measured.”

The measurability of the MDGs is key to their success. Same as the Olympic Games (or any other tournament, for the matter) base their appeal in the simple notion that all players abide by the same rule and a set of impartial referees and scorekeepers guard the integrity of “fair play”, the MDGs derive their capacity to motivate decision-makers and mobilize public support in their being time-bound and measurable.

In order to monitor progress towards the MDGs at a global level and country by country, the 8 goals were subdivided in 48 indicators, ranging from the proportion of the population below USD 1 a day (adjusted by the purchasing power parity of their income) to the percentage of internet users. Since January 15, 2008 the list of indicators has been officially expanded to more than 60, so as to be able to include data on issues like employment that were not counted before.

In real life, though, for most of the developing countries there are no accurate or updated data for many, if not most, of those 60 indicators, and the set is too complicated for non-experts. Thus, the World Bank-defined poverty line of USD 1 a day became the de facto yardstick with which progress was being measured. In 2000 the figure of 1.2 billion people living in poverty was massively circulated and quoted indirectly by the heads of state themselves in the Millennium Declaration: “We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected.”

By October 2007 the number of people living in extreme poverty had been reduced substantially: “Nearly one billion people live on just USD 1 a day” said World Bank President Robert B. Zoelick in his address to the Board of Governors of his institution. By June 2008, the draft Accra Action Agenda on aid, authored mainly by donor governments and the secretariats of the World Bank and the OECD stated that “progress has been made. Fifteen years ago, one of every three people lived on less than one dollar a day; today, that figure has been reduced to one in five. Yet one billion people still live in extreme poverty”.

All of a sudden, in August 26, 2008 the World Bank announced that poverty estimates had been revised and the number of extremely poor people was actually 1.4 billion in 2005. An overnight increase of almost 50%! Yet, according to Martin Ravallion, director of the Bank’s Research Group, “the developing world is poorer than we thought but no less successful in the fight against poverty”. In order to substantiate such an optimistic view, the team led by Ravallion and Shaohua Chen revised the poverty figures all the way back to 1981 and claimed that previous estimates were mistaken, that the proportion of poor people has been cut to half in the last 25 years and that, therefore, it can still be reduced enough to meet the MDG number 1 by 2015.
Social Watch has argued repeatedly that the USD 1 a day indicator is the wrong indicator. But even if the concept behind that indicator had been right, we know now that the estimates were wrong. And even if the new estimates and their recalculated history are right, the trend of the last years is not a forecast of the future, among other things because, as the Bank itself recognizes,“the new estimates do not yet reflect the potentially large adverse effects on poor people of rising food and fuel prices since 2005”.

Using three simple indicators available for most countries in the world and averaging them in a way that any secondary school student can repeat, the national and international trends in the fight against poverty can easily and convincingly be assessed. The resulting picture is not rosy. Policy makers need to understand that the credibility of their commitments relies, like in the Olympic Games, in honest scorekeeping, independent referees and rules that do not change in the middle of the game. An adverse half time result might be bad news for the coach, but it allows to change strategies for the second half.

Region: 
left