___________________
A little while ago I asked if the United States was becoming a third world country. The purpose of that post was to point out that the US had rates of income inequality that were totally out of line with other developed countries, but would have been typical for countries in the developing world.
But there's a much more direct measure of the actual level of development of a country: the human development index. The HDI combines measures of various social indicators, including life expectancy, literacy, education, and per capita GDP, to measure overall human development, which "refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income, employment, etc." By this measure, the United States ranks rather high - 15th out of all countries, with an HDI of .950, according to this table, which is based on 2006 data. But the HDI of individual states varies quite a bit. Here is a map from Wikipedia of states by their human development index score:
This map is based on numbers from this table, which come from the American Human Development Report. It gives a good sense of regional patterns of human development in the US and the comparative relationship of states to each other. But the numbers in the abstract don't tell us much; to see what these numbers mean, we need to compare them to other countries. And when we do that, we see that the HDI of many states are comparable to some of the most developed countries in the world. However, other states have HDI scores well outside the range of the developed economies of Europe and Asia.
To illustrate the point, I am now going to make a long list. These are the 76 top countries ranked by human development index score, with the 50 states interposed to show their relative level of development, based on the two tables linked above:
1. Iceland - .968
2. Norway - .968
3. Canada - .967
4. Australia - .965
5. Ireland - .962
Connecticut - .962
Massachusetts - .961
New Jersey - .961
District of Columbia - .960
Maryland - .960
Hawaii - .959
New York - .959
6. Netherlands - .958
7. Sweden - .958
New Hampshire - .958
Minnesota - .958
Rhode Island - .958
California - .958
Colorado - .958
Virginia - .957
Illinois - .957
8. Japan - .956
9. Luxembourg - .956
10. Switzerland - .955
11. France - .955
Vermont - .955
Washington - .955
Alaska - .955
12. Finland - .954
Delaware - .953
13. Denmark - .952
Wisconsin - .952
14. Austria - .951
Michigan - .951
15. United States - .950
Iowa - .950
Pennsylvania - .950
16. Spain - .949
17. Belgium - .948
18. Greece - .947
Nebraska - .946
19. Italy - .945
20. New Zealand - .944
21. United Kingdom - .942
22. Hong Kong - .942
Kansas - .941
23. Germany - .940
Arizona - .939
North Dakota - .936
Oregon - .935
Maine - .932
Utah - .932
Ohio - .932
24. Israel - .930
Georgia - .928
Indiana - .928
25. South Korea - .927
North Carolina - .925
26. Slovenia - .923
27. Brunei - .919
28. Singapore - .918
Texas - .914
29. Kuwait - .912
30. Cyprus - .912
Missouri - .912
Nevada - .911
31. United Arab Emirates - .903
32. Bahrain - .902
South Dakota - .902
33. Portugal - .900
34. Qatar - .899
Florida - .898
35. Czech Republic - .897
Wyoming - .897
New Mexico - .895
36. Malta - .894
Idaho - .890
37. Barbados - .889
Montana - .885
38. Hungary - .877
39. Poland - .875
40. Chile - .874
41. Slovakia - .872
42. Estonia - .871
South Carolina - .871
43. Lithuania - .869
44. Latvia - .863
45. Croatia - .862
46. Argentina - .860
47. Uruguay - .859
48. Cuba - .855
49. Bahamas - .854
50. Costa Rica - .847
51. Mexico - .842
52. Libya - .840
53. Oman - .839
54. Seychelles - .836
55. Saudi Arabia - .835
56. Bulgaria - .834
57. Trinidad and Tobago - .833
58. Panama - .832
59. Antigua and Barbuda - .830
60. Saint Kitts and Nevis - .830
61. Venezuela - .826
62. Romania - .825
63. Malaysia - .823
64. Montenegro - .822
65. Serbia - .821
66. Saint Lucia - .821
Kentucky - .820
67. Belarus - .817
Tennessee - .816
Oklahoma - .815
Alabama - .809
68. Macedonia - .808
69. Albania - .807
70. Brazil - .807
71. Kazakhstan - .807
72. Ecuador - .807
73. Russia - .806
Arkansas - .803
74. Mauritius - .802
75. Bosnia and Herzegovina - .802
Louisiana - .801
West Virginia - .800
Mississippi - .799
76. Turkey - .798
As you can see, there's a number of states, mostly in the Northeast but some in the Midwest and West, that are as highly developed as just about anywhere in the world. Other states are more similar to the Asian Tiger countries or the more marginal areas of Western Europe. Still others are most comparable to some of the emerging economies of Eastern Europe or the Petrostates of the Middle East.
And then there is a group of Southern States that is a good jag farther down the list. These eight states - Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Mississippi - form a core region where human development index scores are well below the HDIs of any other country that would clearly be considered "highly developed." Among the nations that have a higher HDI than each of these states are Cuba, Mexico, Libya, Bulgaria, Panama, Malaysia, Montenegro, and Serbia. Four of these states rank below Albania, which has a per capita GDP of $6,000. In terms of human development, this clutch of states in the Upland and Deep South is well outside of the mainstream of developed economies.
22 comments:
well sure, but does Albania have walmart?
Laying this map on top of the mood map, below, it looks like the least developed states also have the most depressed, and vice versa. The relation is not 1 to 1.
Why, that's the same map as the states that went more for McCain than Kerry!
Really interesting. I'd think that for the index to really reflect people's living situation, you'd need to incorporate affordability. I'm pretty sure that the average guy in Kentucky is better off than the average guy in Albania (ironically, to some extent because of the existence of Wal-Mart in Kentucky.)
It would be cooler if the authors of the index included the big mac index
http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/about.cfm
as part of it to normalize for affordability...
Furthermore it would be interesting to examine if there is a correlation between the level of religiosity and HDI in the US. Here in Europe there clearly is.
Which brings up the question if reliosity leads poverty or the other way round. Anyone?
Ernst.
Ernst, not a bad point, but if you check here the World's map of HDI, and compare it with this Importance of Religion map by Gallup, you'll see how some countries don't follow this rule: Ireland, the whole ex-communist block (but Poland), some Arabian & Latin-american countries. And, generally speaking, it seems to be a light correlation, more than a strong one, so I'd look for a group of third causes or intermediate variables related with both Religion and Human development.
Also, let's don't forget Max Weber.
How strange. Right when you thought that places like Kansas and Alabama were so advanced.
The issue with this study is that there are over 190 recognized countries in the world, so -- even using these stats** -- every one of the US states is better off that 60% of the world.
** And you really do need to factor in luxuries like Walmart, or Alabama would not be able to afford nice baseball bats for gay-bashing and whatnot.
U-S-A! We're in the top two quintiles! We're in the top two quintiles!
I think that this map is highly misleading, certainly when it come to Mississippi, and probably for the whole map.
To switch to yellow for MS, as opposed to another green, really makes it stand out as different. And yet, its score (.799) is hardly different from WV's (.800). In fact, I'll bet that the American Human Development Report's author's would tell you that there's no real difference between their develop levels.
This map should be done with a smooth gradient for the color, not these discrete buckets. That would solve both of these problems.
"This map should be done with a smooth gradient for the color, not these discrete buckets. That would solve both of these problems."
Uh, still doesn't solve the problem that there's something fundamentally wrong with the discrepancies in HDI between this particular region and the bulk of the rest of the states. Whether comparing the US to third world countries or first world and via that comparison defending our superiority because there's a Walmart there, you still need to look internally within the US itself and wonder about this region.
That said, I live in California, shown as having an HDI of over .950. As of today we have a 21 billion dollar deficit and the 49th lowest state budget for public education. I can't see how these metrics reflect reality.
All of the states in the darkest color went for Obama, save Alaska. All of the states in the lightest green and yellow went for McCain.
Hmmm.
A couple of contrarian observations:
First, scarcely any of the countries on this list are what I'd consider "Third World" [whatever that means in a post-Cold-War context]. South Carolina is roughly equivalent to the Baltics; can any EU member be called "Third World"? Mississippi ranks with Turkey, but Turkey can better be understood as like India or Brazil--an emerging economy with frightful problems but a dynamic and expanding modern sector. Nobody's Guatemala or Congo here.
Second, I'm struck at the increasing divergence among southern states, especially between the South Atlantic and Texas, on the one hand, and the South Central States and Appalachia on the other. Basically we're looking at two things: first, the long-term disabilities of the Cotton-Belt plantation South [countered by the rise of Atlanta in GA, retirement-tourism in SC, and the shift to post-industrial pursuits in VA and NC], and, second, the enduring plight of Appalachia, due to a combination of overpopulation and outside exploitation.
Ceolaf - actually, I agree with you. The coloration seems to be standard for these HDI maps; a number of them that I've come across have had the same color scale; and it does just so happen that MS falls just over the line. If I had the technical know-how to do a smooth color-gradient, I would do it.
DC - Well, the NC-SC-GA corridor constitutes the Piedmont/Charlanta megaregion; and Texas has the Texas Triangle. Just ask Richard Florida - it's all about the megaregions.
What's not being taken into account here is one key variable: the % of blacks that a state has.
Some people here mention that the red states (Southern states) that are ranked lower on the Human Development Index are states that voted for John McCain for president. However, you also failed to mention that those states also feature urban areas where the Democratic Party's staunchest supporters - which would be blacks - live. Southern states have the highest black populations in America, as most blacks live in the South. The states that went for Kerry/Obama are also the whiter states in the country.
This map is more indicative of that demographic pattern or racial diversity (or lack thereof) than anything else.
Well, Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, New York, and Michigan, which all have fairly large black populations; and he lost Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, which all have fairly large black populations. And he won Vermont, Oregon, Maine, Colorado, and Iowa, which all have fairly small black populations; and he lost Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Nebraska, and West Virginia, which all have fairly small black populations. As for the states on this map: West Virginia is one of the whitest states in the country, and Mississippi is the blackest; the other states fall all over the place in between.
I'm not seeing real strong correlations there.
@SBC, Shay, Chacy:
There appears to be a pretty good overall correlation. I plotted the HDI versus the % Obama (of the two candidates' vote) and while there are definitely outliers, the data line up pretty well.
More specifically, states where Obama far outperformed what the HDI would predict were New Mexico, Nevada, Maine and Oregon. He also did in Vermont and Hawaii, but mainly because of his strength there. In addition, amongst the states clustered at the top of the HDI scale, there are two clusters, one where he outperformed (60% of the vote or more) and where he performed around predicted (50-55% of the vote).
This is mainly because there is little variation amongst the HDI amongst high-scoring states. The top 20 states, which are above the US average of .950 (these are larger states, which is why only 20 are above) range from .950 to .962. There is a lot more variation lower down; while the top 20 states fall in to .012, the bottom 30 span .151.
The states where Obama underperformed what the HDI would predict were Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah (note that he underperformed here by far more than he outperformed in any state). It is the southern states which are clustered with both low HDIs and low Obama vote totals.
In any case, there's definitely a correlation. The R-squared is 0.37. And I posted the chart over my way.
So here is my problem with this comparison. the HDI and the modified HDI used to develop this map are made using different methods. (states in article source "Development approach to the United States and includes a modified American Human Development Index.") so out the door they are comparing apples to oranges.
On further evaluation the whole cannot be greater than the sum of its parts. wiki list the HDI for the united states as .950 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) if the US HDI is to be compared to other countries HDI the average of the us should be .950.
I will use maximum possibilities to demonstrate a best case scenario.
There are 21 states at 1 (21 * 1 = 21)
There are 15 states at .949 (15 * .949 = 14.235)
there are 6 states at .899 (6 * .889 = 5.334)
there are 7 states at .849 (7 * .849 = 5.943)
there is 1 states at .799 (.799)
47.311/50 = 0.94622
even with rounding up to three significant digits you get .946. You don't reach the necessary .950 to validate the state to country comparison until you break the spread of .06 which would require another tier between the states. I think the qualitative comparison is still intact (with in the states through it may have its own problem) but a quantitative comparison is out the door especially to other countries.
Chachy,
This is an interesting excercise but it should come with a huge disclaimer. The US HDI is not at all comparable to the world HDI. For example the income component of the US HDI is based on median earnings but the income component of the World HDI is based on GDP per capita. In addition the education component of the US HDI is based on an aggregate index of educational attainement (as well as educational enrollment) but the education component of the World HDI is based on adult literacy (as well as educational enrollment).
Furthermore it's not at all clear that the scaling of the health component is compatible or that the weights for identical components are the same. I'm sorry, but it appears to me that you've wasted a lot of time comparing apples to oranges.
On a different note, where did Wikepedia get those numbers? The rankings are indeed the same as the American HDI but the scale is completely different. The American HDI runs from 3.58 to 6.37. It looks to me like someone rescaled it so that the average of the state US HDI scores is 0.95, or the to be the same as the US score in the World HDI. Just another reason why you can't trust anything posted in Wikepedia. In fact, while I'm on a rant go check out this entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_
capita_(nominal)
The figures listed there are not GDP per capita at all. They are per capita personal incomes.(To get the actual state GDP per capitas you'll have to go to the BEA website.) Wikepedia is the nation's leading source of missinformation.
P.S. I see that anonymous has beaten me to making a similar point.
Ceolaf, the map already has as much of a gradient as it CAN have. And Mississippi is the 50th state in so many categories that it deserves special recognition.
To the blog author: I love this map! Thanks so much. I'm going to steal it now and link to this...
"K H D and sometimes T said...
well sure, but does Albania have walmart?
May 6, 2009 10:25 AM "
Albania not, but Brazil have... =D
Thanks ever so much, very useful article. If you do not mind, please visit my article related to pandeglang district in Banten, Indonesia at Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang or Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang second and also Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang Objek Wisata Air Terjun Curug Gendang or related to a leadership at Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa and Oes Tsetnoc or Oes Tsetnoc the second and our hard work at Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita that's right Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita, and Gempa 6,4 SR Ujung Kulon Saat Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang also Objek Wisata Taman Wisata Alam Carita, very smart thank you!
This is actually really interesting regarding your fact article here, This article is very informative.
Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang | Blog SEO | cah bagoes | oes tsetnoc | blogger
Post a Comment