Overview

Human Development Report 2020

The next frontier
Human development and the Anthropocene
 Human Development Report 2020

The next frontier

Human development and the Anthropocene

Human development and the Anthropocene

The next frontier
Copyright @ 2020
By the United Nations Development Programme
1 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017 USA
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission.

General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation The 2020 Human Development Report
of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any The 30th Anniversary 2020 Human
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Human Development Report Development Report is the latest in the series
Office (HDRO) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) of global Human Development Reports
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its published by the United Nations Development
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Programme (UNDP) since 1990 as independent
Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines and analytically and empirically grounded
for which there may not yet be full agreement. discussions of major development issues, trends
and policies.
The findings, analysis, and recommendations of this Report, as with
previous Reports, do not represent the official position of the UNDP or Additional resources related to the 2020 Human
of any of the UN Member States that are part of its Executive Board. Development Report can be found online at
They are also not necessarily endorsed by those mentioned in the http://hdr.undp.org. Resources on the website
acknowledgments or cited. include digital versions and translations of
the Report and the overview in more than 10
The mention of specific companies does not imply that they are languages, an interactive web version of the
endorsed or recommended by UNDP in preference to others of a similar Report, a set of background papers and think
nature that are not mentioned. pieces commissioned for the Report, interactive
data visualizations and databases of human
Some of the figures included in the analytical part of the report where development indicators, full explanations of the
indicated have been estimated by the HDRO or other contributors to the sources and methodologies used in the Report’s
Report and are not necessarily the official statistics of the concerned composite indices, country profiles and other
country, area or territory, which may use alternative methods. All the background materials, and previous global,
figures included in the Statistical Annex are from official sources. All regional and national Human Development
reasonable precautions have been taken by the HDRO to verify the Reports. Corrections and addenda are also
information contained in this publication. However, the published available online.
material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either
expressed or implied. The cover conveys the complex connections
between people and the planet, whose
The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with interdependence is a hallmark of the
the reader. In no event shall the HDRO and UNDP be liable for damages Anthropocene. The image evokes the many
arising from its use. possibilities for people and planet to flourish
if humanity makes different development
Printed in the USA, by AGS, an RR Donnelley Company, on Forest choices, ones that aim to enhance equity,
Stewardship Council certified and elemental chlorine-free papers. foster innovation and instill a sense of
Printed using vegetable-based ink. stewardship of nature.
 Empowered lives.
Resilient nations.

H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T
RE PO RT 2020

OVERVIEW

The next frontier

Human development and the Anthropocene
 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T RE PO RT 2020

Team

Director and lead author

Pedro Conceição

Research and statistics

Jacob Assa, Cecilia Calderon, Fernanda Pavez Esbry, Ricardo Fuentes,
Yu‑Chieh Hsu, Milorad Kovacevic, Christina Lengfelder, Brian Lutz,
Tasneem Mirza, Shivani Nayyar, Josefin Pasanen, Carolina Rivera Vázquez,
Heriberto Tapia and Yanchun Zhang

Production, communications, operations

Rezarta Godo, Kristin Hagegård, Jon Hall, Seockhwan Bryce Hwang,
Admir Jahic, Fe Juarez Shanahan, Sarantuya Mend, Anna Ortubia, Yumna
Rathore, Dharshani Seneviratne and Marium Soomro

ii H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
 Foreword

Hidden in the long shadow of Covid-19, 2020 has been a dark It is time to make a change. Our future is not a question of
year. Scientists have been forewarning a pandemic like this choosing between people or trees; it is neither or both.
for years, pointing to the rise in zoonotic pathogens­—­those When the Human Development Report first challenged
that jump from animals to humans­—­as a reflection of the the primacy of growth as the measure of progress in 1990,
pressures people put on planet Earth. the Cold War still shaped geopolitics, the World Wide Web
Those pressures have grown exponentially over the past had just been invented and very few people had heard of
100 years. Humans have achieved incredible things, but we climate change. In that moment UNDP offered a forward-
have taken the Earth to the brink. Climate change, ruptur‑ looking alternative to GDP, ranking all countries by whether
ing inequalities, record numbers of people forced from their people had the freedom and opportunity to live a life they
homes by conflict and crisis­—­these are the results of societ‑ valued. In so doing, we gave voice to a new conversation
ies that value what they measure instead of measuring what on the meaning of a good life and the ways we could
they value. achieve it.
In fact, the pressures we exert on the planet have become Thirty years on, much has changed, but hope and possi‑
so great that scientists are considering whether the Earth bility have not. If people have the power to create an entirely
has entered an entirely new geological epoch: the Anthro‑ new geological epoch, then people also have the power to
pocene, or the age of humans. It means that we are the first choose to change. We are not the last generation of the
people to live in an age defined by human choice, in which Anthropocene; we are the first to recognize it. We are the ex‑
the dominant risk to our survival is ourselves. plorers, the innovators who get to decide what this­—­the first
Advancing human development while erasing such plan‑ generation of the Anthropocene­—­will be remembered for.
etary pressures is the next frontier for human development, Will we be remembered by the fossils we leave behind:
and its exploration lies at the heart of this 30th anniversary swaths of species, long extinct, sunken and fossilized in
edition of UNDP’s Human Development Report. the mud alongside plastic toothbrushes and bottle caps, a
To survive and thrive in this new age, we must redesign a legacy of loss and waste? Or will we leave a much more valu‑
path to progress that respects the intertwined fate of people able imprint: balance between people and planet, a future
and planet and recognizes that the carbon and material that is fair and just?
footprint of the people who have more is choking the op‑ The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthro-
portunities of the people who have less. pocene sets out this choice, offering a thought-provoking,
For example, the actions of an indigenous person in the necessary alternative to paralysis in the face of rising poverty
Amazon, whose stewardship helps protect much of the and inequalities alongside alarming planetary change. With
world’s tropical forest, offsets the equivalent of the carbon its new, experimental Planetary pressures–adjusted Human
emissions of a person in the richest 1 percent of people in Development Index, we hope to open a new conversation on
the world. Yet indigenous peoples continue to face hardship, the path ahead for each country­—­a path yet unexplored.
persecution and discrimination. The way forward from Covid-19 will be the journey of a gen‑
Four thousand generations could live and die before the eration. We hope it is one that all people will choose to travel
carbon dioxide released from the Industrial Revolution to to‑ together.
day is scrubbed from our atmosphere, and yet decisionmak‑
ers continue to subsidize fossil fuels, prolonging our carbon
habit like a drug running through the economy’s veins.
And while the world’s richest countries could experience up
to 18 fewer days of extreme weather each year within our life‑
time because of the climate crisis, the poorest countries face Achim Steiner
up to 100 extra days of extreme weather. That number could Administrator
still be cut in half if the Paris Agreement is fully implemented. United Nations Development Programme

OV E RV I E W iii
 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T RE PO RT 2020

Acknowledgements

Every person, everywhere in the world, on several methodological and data Appreciation is also extended for all
has been affected by the Covid-19 aspects of the Report, in particular re‑ the data, written inputs and peer re‑
pandemic. Amidst untold suffering the lated to the calculation of the Report’s views of draft chapters to the Report, in‑
process of producing a Human Devel- human development indices. We are cluding those by Nuzhat Ahmad, Sabina
opment Report often appeared less grateful to all the panel members: Alkire, Simon Anholt, Edward Barbier,
urgent over the course of 2020. The Mario Biggeri, Camilo Ceita, Ludgarde Scott Barrett, Kendon Bell, Joaquín Ber‑
Report team felt the need to document Coppens, Koen Decancq, Marie Hal‑ nal, Christelle Cazabat, Manqi Chang,
the unfolding and devastating impact dorson, Jason Hickel, Steve Macfeely, Ajay Chhibber, David Collste, Sarah Cor‑
of the pandemic on human develop- Mohd Uzir Mahidin, Silvia Montoya, nell, Bina Desai, Simon Dikau, Andrea S.
ment, supporting UNDP’s response to Shantanu Mukherjee, Michaela Sai‑ Downing, Maria Teresa Miranda Espino‑
the crisis. The well planned process of sana, Hany Torky and Dany Wazen. sa, David Farrier, Katherine Farrow, John
consultations and team meetings had Many others without a formal ad‑ E. Fernández, Eduardo Flores Mendoza,
to be scrapped or changed in unprec- visory role offered advice, including Max Franks, William Gbohoui, Arunab‑
edented ways. This implied reinvent- Inês L. Azevedo, Anthony Cox, Andrew ha Ghosh, Oscar Gomez, Nandini
ing the Report’s typical production Crabtree, Erle C. Ellis, Eli Fenichel, Harihar, Dina Hestad, Solomon Hsiang,
process. At many points it seemed Victor Galaz, Douglas Gollin, Judith Inge Kaul, Axel Kleidon, Fanni Kosvedi,
that the Report simply could not be Macgregor, Ligia Noronha, Belinda Jan. J. Kuiper, Timothy M. Lenton, Wolf‑
finished on time. Doing so was possible Reyers, Ingrid Robeyns, Paul Schreyer, gang Lutz, Khalid Malik, Wolf M. Mooij,
only because of the conviction that Amartya Sen, Nicholas Stern, Joseph Michael Muthukrishna, Karine Nyborg,
the Report had something important E. Stiglitz, Izabella Teixeira and Duncan Karen O’Brien, Carl Obst, José Antonio
to say that speaks to this year’s crisis, Wingham. Ocampo, Toby Ord, Ian Parry, Catherine
the obligation to honour 30 years of We are thankful for especially close Pattillo, Jonathan Proctor, Francisco R.
Human Development Reports and collaborations with our partners at the Rodríguez, Valentina Rotondi, Roman
the encouragement, generosity and World Inequality Lab, including Lucas Seidl, Uno Svedin, Jeanette Tseng, Iñaki
contributions of so many, recognized Chancel and Tancrède Voituriez, and Permanyer Ugartemendia, David G. Vic‑
only imperfectly and partially in these with colleagues at the United Nations tor, Gaia Vince and Dianneke van Wijk.
acknowledgments. Environment Programme, including A number of virtual consultations
Inger Andersen, María José Baptista, with thematic and regional experts
The members of our Advisory Board, Maxwell Gomera, Pushpam Kumar, were held between February and
led by Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Cornelia Pretorius, Steven Stone and September 2020, and physical consul‑
A. Michael Spence as Co-Chairs, sup‑ Merlyn Van Voore, and at the Inter‑ tations were held in New York; in the
ported us in multiple and long virtual national Science Council, including Republic of Korea, hosted by UNDP’s
meetings, providing extensive advice Eve El Chehaly, Mathieu Denis, Peter Seoul Policy Centre; and in Zimbabwe,
on four versions of lengthy drafts. The Gluckman, Heide Hackmann, Binyam hosted by the United Nations Economic
other members of the Advisory Board Sisay Mendisu, Dirk Messner, Alison Commission for Africa. We are grateful
were Olu Ajakaiye, Kaushik Basu, Haroon Meston, Elisa Reis, Asunción Lera St. for inputs during these consultations by
Bhorat, Gretchen C. Daily, Marc Fleur‑ Clair, Megha Sud and Zhenya Tsoy, Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik, Bina Agarwal,
baey, Xiheng Jiang, Ravi Kanbur, Jaya with whom we partnered to initiate an Sanghoon Ahn, Joseph Aldy, Alessandra
Krishnakumar, Melissa Leach, Laura ongoing conversation on rethinking Alfieri, Frans Berkhout, Steve Brumby,
Chinchilla Miranda, Thomas Piketty, human development. We are grateful Anthony Cak, Hongmin Chun, Keeyong
Janez Potočnik, Frances Stewart, Pavan for the opportunity to present to and Chung, William Clark, Flavio Comin,
Sukhdev, Ilona Szabó de Carvalho, receive feedback from the Interna‑ Adriana Conconi, Fabio Corsi, Diane
Krushil Watene and Helga Weisz. tional Resource Panel and for the close Coyle, Rosie Day, Fiona Dove, Paul Ekins,
Complementing the advice from our collaboration with and support from Marina Fischer-Kowalski, Enrico Giovan‑
Advisory Board, the Report’s Statisti‑ the Stockholm Resilience Centre at nini, Pamela Green, Peter Haas, Raya
cal Advisory Panel provided guidance Stockholm University. Haffar El Hassan, Mark Halle, Stéphane

iv H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
Hallegatte, Laurel Hanscom, Gordon the United Nations Educational, Scien‑ the governments of Germany, the Re‑
Hanson, Ilpyo Hong, Samantha Hyde, tific and Cultural Organization; Shams public of Korea, Portugal and Sweden
Sandhya Seshadri Iyer, Nobuko Kajiura, Banihani, Hany Besada, Jorge Chediek, for their financial contributions. Their
Thomas Kalinowski, Simrit Kaur, Asim I. Naveeda Nazir and Xiaojun Grace ongoing support is much appreciated
Khwaja, Yeonsoo Kim, Randall Krantz, Wang at the United Nations Office for and remains essential.
Sarah Lattrell, Henry Lee, David Lin, South-South Cooperation; Kunal Sen We are grateful for the highly
Ben Metz, James Murombedzi, Connie at the United Nations University–World professional work of our editors and
Nshemereirwe, John Ouma-Mugabe, Institute for Development Economics layout artists at Communications De‑
Jihyeon Irene Park, Richard Peiser, Rich‑ Research; and many colleagues from velopment Incorporated—led by Bruce
ard Poulton, Isabel Guerrero Pulgar, the United Nations Children’s Fund and Ross-Larson with Joe Brinley, Joe Ca‑
Steven Ramage, Forest Reinhardt, Kath‑ the United Nations Entity for Gender ponio, Meta de Coquereaumont, Mike
erine Richardson, Jin Hong Rim, Giovan‑ Equality and the Empowerment of Crumplar, Peter Redvers-Lee, Christo‑
ni Ruta, Sabyasachi Saha, Saurabh Women. pher Trott and Elaine Wilson. A special
Sinha, Ingvild Solvang, Yo Whan Son, Colleagues in UNDP provided ad‑ word of gratitude to Bruce, who edited
Tanja Srebotnjak, Jomo Kwame Sunda‑ vice and inputs. We are grateful to the very first Report 30 years ago, and
ram, Philip Thigo, Charles Vörösmarty, Babatunde Abidoye, Marcel Alers, almost all the others since, bringing un‑
Mathis Wackernagel, Robert Watson Jesus Alvarado, Carlos Arboleda, Sade paralleled scrutiny and wisdom—and,
and Kayla Walsh. Bamimore, Betina Barbosa, Malika not infrequently, encouragement too.
Further support was also extended Bhandarkar, Bradley Busetto, Michele To conclude, we are extremely
by others too numerous to mention Candotti, Sarwat Chowdhury, Joseph grateful to UNDP Administrator Achim
here. Consultations are listed at http:// D’Cruz, Abdoulaye Mar Dieye, Simon Steiner. His probing intellect and con‑
hdr.undp.org/en/towards-hdr-2020, Dikau, Mirjana Spoljaric Egger, Jamison stant reminder that the Report needs
with more partners and participants Ervin (who devoted much time to to speak to people’s concerns pro‑
mentioned at http://hdr.undp.org/en/ advise and contribute to the Report), vided us the guideposts we needed to
acknowledgements-hdr-2020. Contri‑ Bakhodur Eshonov, Ahunna Ezia‑ develop the arguments in a rigorous
butions, support and assistance from konwa, Almudena Fernández, Cassie but practical way. He told us that this
partnering institutions, including UNDP Flynn, Bertrand Frot, Oscar A. Garcia, Report should matter in the context of
regional bureaus and country offices, Raymond Gilpin, Balazs Horvath, Vito the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.
are also acknowledged with much Intini, Artemy Izmestiev, Anne Juepner, That gave us the compass to navigate
gratitude. Stephan Klingebiel, Raquel Lagu‑ the production of the Report in a dis‑
We are grateful for many colleagues nas, Luis Felipe López-Calva, Marion orienting year—we hope to have been
in the UN family who supported the Marigo, George Gray Molina, Mansour able to meet that aspiration, as we
preparation of the Report by hosting Ndiaye, Sydney Neeley, Hye-Jin Park, seek to contribute to advance the next
consultations or providing comments Midori Paxton, Clea Paz, Isabel de frontier of human development in the
and advice. They include Robert Saint Malo de Alvarado, Tim Scott, Anthropocene.
Hamwey, Maria Teresa Da Piedade Ben Slay, Anca Stoica, Bertrand Tessa,
Moreira, Henrique Pacini and Shamika Anne Virnig, Mourad Wahba and Kanni
Sirimanne at the United Nations Con‑ Wignaraja.
ference for Trade and Development; We were fortunate to have the
Astra Bonini, Sara Castro-Hallgren, support of talented interns—Jadher
Hoi Wai Jackie Cheng and Elliott Harris Aguad, Cesar Castillo Garcia, Jungjin
at the United Nations Department of Koo and Ajita Singh—and fact check‑
Economic and Social Affairs; Manos ers—Jeremy Marand, Tobias Schillings
Antoninis, Bilal Barakat, Nicole Bella, and Emilia Toczydlowska. Pedro Conceição
Anna Cristina D’Addio, Camila Lima The Human Development Report Of‑ Director
De Moraes and Katharine Redman at fice also extends its sincere gratitude to Human Development Report Office

OV E RV I E W v
Contents of the 2020 Human Development Report

Foreword C H A PT E R 5
Acknowledgements Shaping incentives to navigate the future
Special contribution—Human development and Mahbub ul Haq Harnessing finance to incentivize transformation
Overview Shifting prices, changing minds
Enhancing international and multiactor collective action

PA RT I C H A PT E R 6
Renewing human development for the Anthropocene
Building nature-based human development
When local becomes global
C H A PT E R 1
Avoiding biosphere integrity loss, empowering people
Charting human development in the Anthropocene
Towards nature-based human development
Confronting a new reality: People versus trees?
Reimagining the human development journey: Bringing the
planet back in
PA RT I I I
Leveraging the human development approach for
Measuring human development and the Anthropocene
transformation: Beyond needs, beyond sustaining

C H A PT E R 7
C H A PT E R 2
Towards a new generation of human development metrics for
Unprecedented—the scope, scale and speed of human
the Anthropocene
pressures on the planet
One index to rule them all?
Looking beneath the environment and sustainability: Human
activity driving dangerous planetary change Broadening the vista on the Human Development Index: The
income component and planetary pressures
Enter the Anthropocene
Adjusting the Human Development Index as a whole
Anthropocene risks and human development
Planetary change is disempowering
Notes
References
C H A PT E R 3
Empowering people for equity, innovation and stewardship of nature
B OX E S
Enhancing equity to advance social justice and broaden choices
1 The planetary pressures–adjusted Human Development Index:
Pursuing innovation to widen opportunities Signposts to navigate the Anthropocene
Instilling a sense of stewardship of nature 1.1 Indigenous and local knowledge systems and practices generate
synergies between biodiversity and human wellbeing
1.2 A just transition
PA RT I I 1.3 Choosing inclusive futures for human development in the
Acting for change Anthropocene
1.4 Capabilities in a rapidly changing living planet
C H A PT E R 4
2.1 The planetary boundaries framework
Empowering people, unleashing transformation
2.2 Complexity in social and natural systems
From theory to change
2.3 Natural hazards and displacement
From learning to value formation
3.1 The Amazon’s biodiversity loss and disempowerment
From values to self‑reinforcing social norms
3.2 The environmental justice movement
From existential risks to transformation
3.3 The potential in recycling electronic waste
3.4 Human–nonhuman natures: Broadening perspectives
S1.3.1 Existential risk as sustainability
4.1 How education can save lives

OV E RV I E W vii
4.2 Real world transformation, unleashed by empowered people 2.1 How the Anthropocene would fit in the Geological Time Scale
corresponding to the Quaternary Period
4.3 What we need to do­—­learning from locals
2.2 Dating the beginning of the Anthropocene to the mid-20th century
4.4 Less voice, less power, more suffering
would correspond to the Great Acceleration of human pressures on
4.5 Why polycentric systems work: Insights from social psychology the planet that have the potential to leave a geological imprint
5.1 The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure 2.3 Rates of species extinction are estimated to be hundreds or
thousands of times higher than background rates
5.2 The Covid-19 pandemic and a green recovery
2.4 The Covid-19 pandemic’s unprecedented shock to human
5.3 Impediments to effective carbon pricing mechanisms
development
5.4 Payments for ecosystem services in New York and Tanzania
2.5 Hunger is on the rise
5.5 Trade-related incentives in international treaties­—­credible and
2.6 The effects of natural hazards appear to be increasing
effective?
2.7 By 2100 the number of days a year with extreme temperatures is
6.1. Telecoupling between Indian farmers and rainfall in East Africa
expected to increase more in lower human development countries
6.2 The Sendai Framework
2.8 Low human development countries have less exposure to sea level
6.3 The first reef insurance policy to protect coastal communities in rise in absolute terms but greater relative exposure per kilometre of
Mexico coastline
6.4. Using collective financing mechanisms to scale up nature-based 2.9 By 2070 temperatures are projected to shift outside the range of
water management human survivability more over the next 50 years than in the past
6,000 years­—­negatively in developing countries and positively in
6.5 Holistic approaches to nature can deliver multiple impacts
developed countries
6.6 Environmental activists are being killed
2.10 The Covid-19 pandemic has erased decades of progress in the
7.1 Would health-adjusted longevity better reflect the impact of female labour force participation rate
planetary pressures?
2.11 Countries with higher ecological threats tend to have greater social
7.2 Measuring wellbeing vulnerability
2.12 Links between equity and empowerment
F I G U RE S
2.13 The asymmetries between women owning land and living off the
1 Planetary and social imbalances reinforce each other land are striking
2 Changes in the number of extreme temperature days­—­a result 3.1 Equity, innovation and stewardship of nature can break the vicious
of climate change­—­will only worsen inequalities in human cycle of social and planetary imbalances
development
3.2 Two tales of environmental inequality
3 In countries with high ecological threats, there is also greater social
3.3 Growing environmental inequality
vulnerability
3.4 Unequal dynamics: Capturing benefits, exporting costs
4 The Covid-19 pandemic’s unprecedented shock to human
development 3.5 In vulnerable areas in poorer countries, gaps in infant mortality are
widening
5 Countries with higher human development tend to exert more
pressure over greater scales on the planet 3.6 Greater social efficiency of income (moving to the frontier) can
enhance equity and ease planetary pressures
6 Twenty nature-based solutions could provide much of the
mitigation needed to restrain global warming 3.7 Bitcoin energy use is alarming
7 The adjustment to standard Human Development Index values 3.8 The real cost of photovoltaic modules has dropped 89 percent since
by the Planetary pressures–adjusted Human Development Index 2010
widens as human development levels increase
3.9 Across the world, national policymaking has taken up the charge
1.1 Planetary and social imbalances reinforce each other for promoting renewable energy
1.2 Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion have fallen in 3.10 Lithium-ion battery prices fell between 2011 and 2020
several countries
3.11 How the circular economy differs from the linear
1.3 Where human development paths landed: High human
3.12 A conceptual framework for local environmental stewardship
development goes with high resource use
S1.1.1 The knowledge, social will and political power needed to achieve
1.4 Under the sustainability scenario, countries converge by 2100­—­with
sustainable development exists
lower carbon dioxide emissions per capita and higher human
development S1.3.1 Three types of existential catastrophe
1.5 Human societies are embedded in the biosphere: Energy and S1.3.2 While there have been substantial reductions in the number of
biophysical resources are used to build stocks and provide benefits active stockpiled nuclear warheads, the total number­—e­ specially in
for humans while generating waste and emissions the Russian Federation and the United States­—­remains high
1.6 Energy captured in the biosphere and human society 4.1 From learning to self-reinforcing social norms
1.7 Diversity in life, culture and language coevolve 4.2 Social media platforms can contribute to polarization
1.8 Global population is growing, but growth rates are falling 4.3 Most people agree that it is important to protect the planet,
regardless of their country’s level of human development
1.9 Lower total pollution but persistent inequities in pollution exposure
4.4 Lost opportunity: People would have given part of their income
1.10 Reduced economic damages from industrial pollution were driven
to protect the planet in the 1990s, regardless of levels of human
by utilities without losing economic value added
development

viii H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
4.5 Fewer people are likely to take concrete actions that reduce 7.6 Planetary pressures have increased with gains on the Human
planetary pressures Development Index
4.6 People expect governments to take action, but there is room for 7.7 Contrasting progress in human development with planetary
partnerships pressures
4.7 Agency plays out in a social structure and can take two dimensions 7.8 Of the more than 60 very high human development countries in
2019, only 10 are still classified as very high human development on
4.8 Tipping the balance towards transformation
the Planetary pressures–adjusted Human Development Index
A4.1 Disaggregated data for survey question in figure 4.3
7.9 Human Development Index and Planetary pressures–adjusted
5.1 Incentives are required to shift finance towards low-carbon energy Human Development Index trajectories are coupled in very high
human development countries
5.2 The cost of finance accounts for the largest share of historically low
solar tariffs in India 7.10 The world is moving far too slowly towards advancing human
development while easing planetary pressures
5.3 Financial intermediaries hold an increasing share of savings on
behalf of households in the United States S7.2.1 Greenhouse gas emissions and international trade: Europe, North
America, Central Asia and other rich countries, 1990–2019
5.4 Most countries have ratified international environmental treaties
S7.2.2 Large emerging countries are net exporters of carbon
5.5 Catalytic cooperation with increasing returns
S7.2.3 The wealthiest 1 percent of individuals worldwide emit 100 times as
6.1 Nature-based solutions and the potential for a virtuous cycle
much carbon dioxide each year as the poorest 50 percent
between people and planet
S7.2.4 Emissions from the poorest 50 percent over 1975–2020: small and
6.2 Twenty nature-based solutions can provide some of the mitigation
linked predominantly to consumption
needed to restrain global warming
S7.2.5 For the wealthiest 1 percent of individuals, the share of investment-
6.3 The local and the global are deeply interconnected
related emissions in total emissions has been rising over the past
6.4 The mitigation potential of eight climate change interventions four decades
is widely distributed across countries in different regions and at
S7.2.6 The top 1 percent of earners worldwide have recorded substantial
different levels of development
growth in emissions because of increased consumption as well as
6.5 The decrease in forest area in developing countries presents a increased emissions from their wealth and investments
challenge for the mitigation potential offered by nature-based
S7.3.1 Contours of shadow prices for different species of fish in the Baltic
solutions
Sea
6.6 Costa Rica’s high-resolution mapping of national nature-based
S7.4.1 The Human Development Index is positively associated with the
solutions priorities
Environmental Performance Index
6.7 Biodiversity richness is greatest under indigenous peoples’
S7.5.1 High human development index values go along with positive
management regimes
adjusted net savings
6.8 The per capita contribution by indigenous peoples preserving forest
storage capacity in the Amazon is roughly equal to per capita
S POT L I G H TS
greenhouse gas emissions by the top 1 percent of the income
distribution 1.1 Learning from sustainability science to guide sustainable human
development
6.9 Indigenous peoples and local communities move the leverage
points to build global sustainability 1.2 Learning from Life—an Earth system perspective
S5.2.1 Emissions are likely to start rising again in 2021 as economies 1.3 Existential risks to humanity
recover and some structural shifts are partially reversed
1.4 Conversations on rethinking human development: Ideas emerging
S5.2.2 The carbon prices consistent with countries’ mitigation pledges vary from a global dialogue
widely
2.1 A tale told to the future
S5.2.3 The economic efficiency costs of carbon pricing are more than
2.2 Developing humanity for a changed planet
offset by domestic environmental benefits
3.1 The future we want—the United Nations we need
S5.2.4 Carbon pricing can be moderately regressive, distribution-neutral or
moderately progressive 5.1 Implications of climate change for financial and monetary policy
S5.4.1 In a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, temperatures 5.2 The role of carbon pricing in climate change mitigation
are projected to climb to unprecedented levels throughout the
5.3 How do governments’ responses to the Covid-19 pandemic address
developing world by the end of the century
inequality and the environment?
S5.4.2 Average mortality risk due to climate change in 2100, accounting for
5.4 Policymaking for sustainable development 2.0
both the costs and the benefits of adaptation
7.1 The Human Development Index at 30: Ageing well?
7.1 New dashboard on human development and the Anthropocene
7.2 Global inequality in carbon emissions: Shifting from territorial to net
7.2 The changes to Human Development Index values after subtracting
emissions by individuals
the social costs of carbon at $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide
emissions are generally small 7.3 Wealth accounting and natural capital
7.3 The steady decline in natural capital 7.4 Evolving metrics to account for environmental degradation and
sustainability
7.4 Visual representation of the Planetary pressures–adjusted Human
Development Index 7.5 Adding environmental and sustainability dimensions to the Human
Development Index
7.5 Planetary pressures–adjusted Human Development Index values are
very close to Human Development Index values for countries with a
Human Development Index value of 0.7 or lower TA B L E S
2.1 Perspectives from the natural sciences on the Anthropocene

OV E RV I E W ix
3.1 Examples of horizontal inequalities and intergenerational STAT I ST I CA L A N N E X
inequalities connected to power imbalances
3.2 Typologies of interaction dynamics between inequality and RE A D E RS G U I D E
sustainability
S1.3.1 Progress in tracking large near-Earth asteroids STAT I ST I CA L TA B L E S
S1.3.2 Estimates and bounds of total natural extinction risk per century Human development composite indices
based on how long humanity has survived, using three conceptions
1 Human Development Index and its components
of humanity
2 Human Development Index trends, 1990–2019
S1.3.3 Estimates of total natural extinction risk per century based on the
survival time of related species 3 Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index
5.1 Carbon prices vary and are much lower than estimated social costs 4 Gender Development Index
of emissions
5 Gender Inequality Index
6.1 Examples of nature-based solutions by indigenous peoples and
6 Multidimensional Poverty Index: developing countries
local communities
S5.3.1 A breakdown of green recovery measures
Human development dashboards
A7.1 Planetary pressures-adjusted Human Development Index
1 Quality of human development
S7.4.1 Composite indices that combine economic, social and environment
dimensions 2 Life-course gender gap
S7.5.1 Gaps from sustainable values of the ecological footprint and 3 Women’s empowerment
adjusted net savings
4 Environmental sustainability
5 Socioeconomic sustainability

D E V E LO P I N G REG I O N S

STAT I ST I CA L RE F E RE N C E S

x H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
 OV E RV I E W

Human development
and the Anthropocene
 OV E RV I E W

Human development and the Anthropocene

Structure of the 2020 Human Development Report

2020 HDR
Expanding human
development, easing
planetary pressures

Renewing human Exploring

development for new metrics
the Anthropocene Mechanisms of change
to catalyse action
We are destabilizing the A new era requires new
planetary systems we measures of
rely on for survival. We need a just human development.
transformation in the
The strain on our planet way we live, work The Report proposes
mirrors that in societies. and cooperate. the Planetary pressures–
adjusted Human
These imbalances reinforce New social norms, Development Index
each other, amplifying improved incentives and a new generation
the challenges. and working with— of dashboards.
not against—nature
can take us there.

2 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
We are at an unprecedented moment in the history of While Covid-19 has absorbed the world’s atten-
humankind and in the history of our planet. Warning tion, pre-existing crises continue. Consider climate
lights­—­for our societies and the planet­—­are flashing change. The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season either
red. They have been for some time, as we well know. set new records or was on the verge of doing so, both
The Covid-19 pandemic is the latest harrowing con- in the number of storms and how many rapidly inten-
sequence of imbalances writ large. Scientists have sified.2 Within the past 12 months extraordinary fires
long warned that unfamiliar pathogens will emerge scorched enormous swaths of Australia, the Brazilian
more frequently from interactions among humans, Pantanal, eastern Siberia in the Russian Federation
livestock and wildlife,1 interactions that have steadily and the West Coast of the United States.3 The planet’s
increased in scale and intensity, ultimately squeezing biodiversity is plunging, with a quarter of species fac-
local ecosystems so hard that deadly viruses spill out. ing extinction, many within decades.4 Numerous ex-
The novel coronavirus may be the latest to do so, and perts believe we are living through, or on the cusp of,
unless we relax our grip on nature, it will not be the a mass species extinction event, the sixth in the histo-
last. ry of the planet and the first to be caused by a single
New pathogens do not fall from the sky, nor do organism­—­us.5
the epidemics they may cause. Covid-19 has spread
quickly around an interconnected world, taking root
wherever it has landed and thriving especially in the
“ Warning lights­—­for our societies
and the planet­—­are flashing red.
cracks in societies, exploiting and exacerbating myr-
iad i­ nequalities in human development. In too many The strain on the planet mirrors the strain fac-
cases those cracks have hamstrung efforts to control ing many of our societies. This is not mere coinci-
the virus (chapter 2). dence. Indeed, planetary imbalances (the dangerous

Figure 1 Planetary and social imbalances reinforce each other

Shocks

Planetary Social
Risks Inequalities
imbalances imbalances

Pressures

Source: Human Development Report Office.

OV E RV I E W 3
 planetary change for people and all forms of life) and of the past, a return to which would seemingly con-
social imbalances exacerbate one another (figure 1).6 sign the future to endless crisis management, not to
As the 2019 Human Development Report made plain, human development.
many inequalities in human development have been Whether we wish it or not, a new normal is coming.
increasing and continue to do so.7 Climate change, Covid-19 is just the tip of the spear. Scientists gener-
among other dangerous planetary changes, will only ally believe that we are exiting the Holocene, which
make them worse (figure 2).8 Social mobility is down; spanned some 12,000 years, during which human
social instability is up.9 Ominous signs of demo- civilization as we know it came to be. They propose
cratic backsliding and rising authoritarianism are that we are now entering a new geologic epoch­—­the
worrying.10 Collective action on anything from the Anthropocene­—­in which humans are a dominant
Covid-19 pandemic to climate change becomes more force shaping the future of the planet.12 The question
difficult against a backdrop of social fragmentation is: What do we do with this new age? Do we choose
(chapter 1).11 in the face of uncertain futures to embark on bold
new paths that expand human freedoms while easing

“ A new normal is coming. Covid-19

is the tip of the spear.
planetary pressures? Or do we choose to try­—­and ul-
timately fail­—­to go back to business as usual and be
swept away, ill equipped and rudderless, into a dan-
There is talk of returning to “normal,” as if some gerous unknown?
predetermined end date exists for the many cri- This Human Development Report is firmly be-
ses gripping our societies and the planet, as if going hind the first choice, and its arguments go beyond
back to normal is desirable or even possible. What or summarizing well known lists of what can be done
whose normal should that be? Lurching from crisis to realize it. We know that carbon pricing can be an
to crisis is one of the defining features of the present effective and efficient policy measure for reducing
day, which has something to do with the “normalcy” carbon emissions. We know that fossil fuel subsidies

Figure 2 Changes in the number of extreme temperature days­—­a result of climate change­—­will only worsen
inequalities in human development

No mitigation: RCP 8.5 Moderate mitigation: RCP 4.5

temperature days by 2100, compared

200
Number of additional extreme

with average for 1986–2005

100

–100

Low Medium High Very high

Human development group

Note: Extreme temperature days are days during which the temperature is below 0 degrees Celsius or above 35 degrees Celsius. The figure shows the
change between the actual number of extreme temperature days in 1986–2005 and the median projected number of extreme temperature days in
2080–2099.
Source: Human Development Report Office based on Carleton and others (2020).

4 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
encourage those very emissions and should be In the face of complexity, progress must take on
phased out (chapter 5). While the Report discusses an adaptive learning-by-doing quality, fuelled by
various ways that societies can make different choic- broad innovations, anchored in deliberative shared
es, its unique contribution is a human development decisionmaking and buttressed by appropriate mixes
lens, a lens that aims to unlock some of the deeper of carrots and sticks. Getting there will not be easy.
obstacles to advancing human flourishing while eas- Fundamental differences loom large­—­in interests
ing planetary pressures. It focuses on why much-­ and around the responsiveness and accountability of
discussed “solutions” are not being implemented current institutions. So do various forms of inequal-
fully­—­and in many cases not yet at the scale to make ity, which restrict participation in decisionmaking,
a difference. limit the potential for innovation and increase vul-
The Report questions the very narrative around nerability to climate change and ecological threats
“solutions to a problem,” which frames solutions (figure 3).13 Development choices are often framed as
to discrete problems as somehow external, some- if confined to a set of narrow, well trod but ultimately
where “out there,” disconnected from ourselves and unsustainable paths. Deeper still are questions about
from one another. Once solutions are discovered, what we value and by how much.14
the storyline goes, we need only implement them as
panaceas everywhere. Technology and innovation
matter­—­and matter a lot, as the Report argues­—­but
“ Human choices, shaped by values and
institutions, have given rise to the interconnected
the picture is much more complex, much more non- planetary and social imbalances we face.
linear, much more dynamic than simple plug-and-
play metaphors. There can be dangerous unintended As Cassius famously remarks in Shakespeare’s Ju-
consequences from any single seemingly promising lius Caesar: “The fault…is not in our stars/But in our-
solution. We must reorient our approach from solving selves.”15 Consciously or not, human choices, shaped
discrete siloed problems to navigating multidimen- by values and institutions, have given rise to the inter-
sional, interconnected and increasingly universal connected planetary and social imbalances we face.
predicaments. Understanding and addressing them are impeded by

Figure 3 In countries with high ecological threats, there is also greater social vulnerability

Inequality in human development Gender Inequality Index Share of children, 2030

40 80 60

50
30 60

40

20 40
30

10 20
20

0 0 10
Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High

Ecological threat level

Note: Excludes outliers. Ecological threats include water stress, food insecurity, droughts, floods, cyclones, temperature rise, sea level rise and
population growth. Levels are defined by number of threats faced by each country: low (zero to one threat), medium (two to three threats)
and high (four or more threats). See IEP (2020).
Source: Human Development Report Office based on data from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and IEP (2020).

OV E RV I E W 5
 rigidities in the very same values and institutions, ri- not changed­—­its lodestar remains what people value.
gidities that lend inertia to our past choices. We must What has changed is the context. Consider that more
critically examine the crucible of human values and than 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme
institutions­—­specifically the way power is distribut- poverty within a generation,19 unquestionably one of
ed and wielded­—­to accelerate implementation of the humanity’s greatest accomplishments. But also con-
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for people sider that the Covid-19 pandemic may have pushed
and planet. some 100 million people into extreme poverty, the
The human development approach has much to worst setback in a generation.20 Human development
contribute in addressing our collective paralysis in may have taken a big hit in 2020 (figure 4).21 Eliminat-
the face of alarming planetary change. Human de- ing poverty in all its forms­—­and keeping it eliminated
velopment is about expanding human freedoms and in a dynamic world­—­remains central, but ambitions
opening more choices for people to chart their own are continuously being raised, as they should be,
development paths according to their diverse values alongside a firm commitment not to leave anyone
rather than about prescribing one or more particu- behind in the process. Human development is an on-
lar paths. Too often, development choices pit people going journey, not a destination. Its centre of gravity
against trees because the environment has been sys- has always been about more than just meeting basic
tematically undervalued while economic growth has needs. It is about empowering people to identify and
had top billing. The human development concept pursue their own paths for a meaningful life, one an-
emerged 30 years ago precisely as a counterpoint chored in expanding freedoms. It challenges us to
to myopic definitions of development. Economic think of people as agents rather than as patients­—­a
growth is important, especially for developing coun- central theme of this year’s Report.
tries; raising income levels is crucial for those living The ground beneath us is shifting as we confront
in poverty, in every country. But as the 2019 Human the unprecedented challenges of the apparent An-
Development Report emphasized, the increasing- thropocene. This time, the way forward is not only
ly important questions for many countries are not about expanding people’s capabilities to lead lives
about the overall size of the pie but the relative size they value­—­that is, expanding choices available to
of its slices.16 In this year’s Report, though not for people. We must also carefully consider two other
the first time in its history, we also worry about the critical dimensions of human development: agency
oven. (that is, the ability to participate in decisionmaking
The human development approach reminds us and to make one’s desired choices) and values (that
that economic growth is more means than end. More is, the choices that are most desired), with special at-
material resources matter, when fairly distributed tention to our interactions with nature, to our stew-
and within planetary boundaries,17 because they ex- ardship of the planet.
pand people’s opportunities, from one generation to
the next. Indeed, the income component of the orig-
inal Human Development Index (HDI) was meant
“ Human development is about empowering
people to identify and pursue their
to serve as a proxy for material resources that ena- own paths for a meaningful life, one
ble a suite of basic capabilities that expand people’s anchored in expanding freedoms.
opportunities. Two capabilities­—­living a healthy life
and having an education­— ­are of such critical im- Like a three-legged stool, capabilities, agency and
portance that they have been measured as part of values are inseparable in how we think about human
the HDI since its inception. Unlike income or eco- development in the context of the Anthropocene. We
nomic growth, they are not just means but ends in cannot assume that expanding people’s capabilities
themselves. will automatically ease planetary pressures. The HDI
The 2019 Human Development Report argued that provides clear historical evidence to the contrary­—­
a new generation of enhanced capabilities is becom- countries at the highest levels of the HDI have tend-
ing more important for people to thrive in the digital ed to exert more pressure over greater scales on the
age.18 The central tenets of human development have planet (figure 5).

6 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
Figure 4 The Covid-19 pandemic’s unprecedented shock to human development

The global financial crisis

0.010

0.005
Annual change in Human
Development Index value

0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
–0.005

–0.010

–0.015

–0.020

–0.025 2020 simulated change in Covid-19-adjusted HDI

–0.030

Source: Updated version of figure 3 in UNDP (2020b).

Figure 5 Countries with higher human development tend to exert more pressure over greater scales on the planet

100

80
Material footprint per capita, tonnes

60

40

20

0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000

Human Development Index value, 2019

Note: Material footprint measures the amount of domestic and foreign extraction of materials (biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores and nonmetal ores) used
to meet domestic final demand for goods and services within a country. Bubble size is proportional to country population. The green rectangle at the
bottom right-hand corner represents the currently empty aspirational space for the human development journey in the Anthropocene (see box 1).
Source: Human Development Report Office based on data from the United Nations Environment Programme.

OV E RV I E W 7
 Nor can we simply assume that expanding agency marked the advent of the modern environmental
on its own means that more empowered people will movement, whose roots are centuries older.27 Distri-
invariably choose, individually and collectively, to butional concerns soon came to the fore with the en-
avoid dangerous planetary change. Values, especial- vironmental justice movement. Each was in no small
ly how they stack up and interact, help provide the part a practical reaction to new realities, such as air
overall direction for the choices that empowered peo- and water pollution, happening in unprecedented
ple make about their lives. Values are fundamental to ways and at unprecedented scales and often dispro-
our personal understanding of what it means to live a portionately impacting marginalized groups. Each
good life. But people cannot realize their values with- broadened the idea of what constituted a good life
out having sufficient capabilities and agency. by creating space for environmental stewardship, so-
The Report argues that to navigate the Anthropo- cial justice and intergenerational responsibilities, lay-
cene, humanity can develop the capabilities, agency ing the foundations for the sustainable development
and values to act by enhancing equity, fostering inno- era. And each must continue to evolve in response to
vation and instilling a sense of stewardship of nature.22 global planetary challenges that it, in its original in-
If these have greater weight within the ever widen- carnation, did not set out to address.
ing choice sets that people create for themselves­—­if Now, in the context of the Anthropocene, it is es-
equity, innovation and stewardship become central sential to do away with stark distinctions between
to what it means to live a good life­—­then human people and planet. Earth system approaches in-
flourishing can happen alongside easing planetary creasingly point to our interconnectedness as socio­
pressures.23 ecological systems, a notion highly relevant to the
We have ample evidence that values can be Anthropocene.28 Human development aligns well
changed purposefully and fairly quickly. Consider with such thinking. It has always been about break-
the sea change in many countries in tobacco-related ing down silos and making connections. How could a
social norms, regulations and behaviours.24 Until re- development perspective centred on human possibil-
cently, smoking tobacco commanded a coveted cul- ity be otherwise? Every one of us moves in and out of
tural position in countries around the world. Over the social, economic and environmental spaces. On any
past decades, in varying degrees, smoking cigarettes given day a farmer might be navigating roles as moth-
has been reduced to junk status, though much work er and wife, collecting firewood and fetching water,
remains, especially in addressing residual inequali- worrying about weather and pests, negotiating the
ties in tobacco use, particularly in developing coun- marketplace, buying medicine and textbooks. Peo-
tries.25 The first international health treaty negotiated ple, place and environment are not only connected in
under the auspices of the World Health Organiza- rural contexts. City dwellers, too, interact with their
tion is dedicated exclusively to tobacco control­—­the environment, often on a much larger or more var-
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. With ied scale for food, water, air quality, recreation and
182 parties covering more than 90 percent of the mental and physical health. It is the lens centred on
world’s people, the treaty is a testament to what sci- any individual’s experience, rather than institutional
ence-based public health expertise, coupled with sus- structures organized in terms of sectors, that allows
tained and effective political leadership, can do to the human development approach to break free from
galvanize action on a globalized problem.26 disciplinary and sectoral shackles. It aims to be devel-
opment as seen through any of our own eyes.

“ If equity, innovation and stewardship

become central to what it means to live a
And the system-level crises we are increasingly see-
ing are cause for alarm (chapter 2). We no longer have
good life, human flourishing can happen the luxury, if we ever really did, of solving problems
alongside easing planetary pressures. as isolated, quasi-independent points in separate so-
cial and ecological spheres. Instead, they are nodes
Environmental values have witnessed similar up- in an inter­dependent socioecological network that,
heavals. Take the publication of Rachel Carson’s as a whole, is flashing red.29 The resilience of the sys-
landmark Silent Spring, widely considered to have tem has been taken for granted, especially when only

8 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
 one part of it was under strain at a given time.30 The renewable indefinitely­—­as from the sun­—­and to what
homogenizing effect of our predominant models of extent are materials recycled rather than outcycled
production and consumption, which have been busy in waste and pollution? The accumulating carbon di-
knitting the world together, have eroded the diversity­ oxide in the atmosphere and plastic in the oceans are
—­in all its forms, from biological to cultural­—­that is just two of many examples that illustrate the risks of
so vital to resilience.31 Diversity increases redundan- relying on fossil fuels and open material cycles. So
cy, and while redundancy may not be good for busi- is biodiversity loss, which often parallels loss of cul-
ness, it is good for system resilience in the face of tural and language diversity, impoverishing societies
shocks, which travel along the lines that connect peo- culturally.34
ple and nations.32 The Earth has gone through periods of instability
before, evolving into new states. Planetary process-

“ In the Anthropocene, it is essential

to do away with stark distinctions
es normally unfold over hundreds of thousands to
millions of years, a timescale well beyond the reach
between people and planet. of our species. For us, ancient is measured in thou-
sands of years; our recorded history is a mere speck
Now, in little more than a decade, the global finan- against the vastness of geologic time. Complicating
cial crisis, the climate crisis, the inequality crisis and matters is a backdrop of intrinsic climate instabil-
the Covid-19 crisis have all shown that the resilience ity. The Holo­cene, despite its apparent stability, is a
of the system itself is breaking down. Buffering sys- warm blip within a changing climate regime, one in
tems are maxing out. Once-supple connections can which oscillations between cooler glacial periods and
become brittle, leaving them more inclined to break warmer ones have become deeper and stronger. If
than to bend, further destabilizing the Earth system.33 the Earth’s climate has already been characterized by
The result is that perturbations more easily become abrupt change, then greenhouse gas emissions, along
contagion­— ­whether economic, environmental or with other human-caused planetary disruptions to
viral­—­that slips indifferently through the porous bor- material cycles, add fuel to the fire, layering new in-
ders of nation-states and scales illusory walls that di- stabilities on top of existing ones.
vide people from planet. The Report calls for a just transformation that ex-
Business as usual simply will not work. The same pands human freedoms while easing planetary pres-
applies to the human development concept, which sures. It organizes its recommendations not around
must be continually refreshed to respond to the chal- actors but around mechanisms for change­— ­social
lenges of our time. It is not about throwing out its norms and values, incentives and regulation, and
central tenets, which remain vital to the many chal- ­nature-based human development. Each mechanism
lenges of today, but rather drawing on them to help of change specifies multiple potential roles for each
navigate a turbulent new geologic epoch. The goal of of us, for governments, for financial markets, for po-
human development is as relevant as ever­—­for peo- litical and civil society leaders. It is not about pitting
ple to live lives they value. And within that goal lies people against trees or about doing away with mar-
the potential to navigate our predicament, if for no kets simply because they sometimes fail. Instead, it is
other reason than business as usual means that peo- about seeing how different approaches­—­using norms
ple, including future generations, will face ever nar- and values, using incentives and regulation, using
rowing instead of ever expanding sets of choices in nature itself­— ­can be brought together in concert to
their lives. expand human freedoms while mitigating planetary
Easing planetary pressures implies understanding pressures.
how all life on the planet­—­the biosphere­—­underpins Systems and complexity thinking applies equal-
so much of what we take for granted, like the air we ly to social norms, which are generated and rein-
breathe. This puts in sharp relief the importance of forced across society, from what children learn in
a biosphere that is regenerated, not depleted. It also school, what people do online, what leaders say and
implies understanding how societies use energy enact by way of policy. Norms exhibit properties of
and materials. To what extent are sources of energy stability and resilience, but they can be­—­and have

OV E RV I E W 9
 been­— ­nudged enough at critical points into new individuals do not change their minds or their values.
states, sometimes desirably, sometimes less so. Pos- Incentives­—­from fossil fuel subsidies to carbon pric-
itive feedback loops can help accelerate change and es, or a lack thereof­—­help explain current patterns of
stabilize new normative states, sometimes swiftly, consumption, production and investment and other
as we have seen with tobacco norms. But, of course, choices that lead to planetary and social imbalances.
reversion is possible. How do norms, as nebulous as Take fossil fuel subsidies, which result in direct and
they are powerful, change? What levers and mecha- indirect costs of over $5 trillion a year. Eliminating
nisms are available to policymakers and everyday citi- those subsidies in 2015 would have reduced global
zens? This question animates chapter 4 of the Report. carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pol-
A first step is to expand choices available to people. lution deaths by 46 percent.36
Expanding choice­—­such as renewable energy sourc- The Report goes on to document how incentives
es and multimodal transportation networks­—­is in and regulation could evolve in ways that would ease
line with helping people realize their values. It is also planetary pressures and move societies towards the
in line with competitive well functioning markets. transformative changes required to advance human
development in the Anthropocene. It considers three

“ The Report calls for a just transformation

that expands human freedoms while
domains shaped by incentives. The first is finance,
which includes the incentives within financial firms
easing planetary pressures. as well as the regulatory authorities that oversee
them. The second is prices, which rarely fully reflect
At the same time, moments of crisis can move social and environmental costs, thus distorting be-
systems closer to critical change thresholds. Con- haviour. The third is incentives for collective action,
sider many countries’ experience in their progress including at the international level.
towards universal health coverage, one of the Sus- Nature-based human development helps tackle
tainable Development Goals. A recent analysis found three central challenges of the Anthropocene together­
that among 49 countries spanning different incomes, —­mitigating and adapting to climate change, protect-
most moved towards universal health coverage as a ing biodiversity and ensuring human wellbeing for all.
result of disruption in the status quo, including when Nature-based human development is about nesting
recovering from episodes of social instability.35 More- human development­—­including social and economic
over, countries’ transitions to universal health cover- systems­—­into ecosystems and the biosphere, building
age have typically been easier when neighbours and on a systemic approach to nature-based solutions that
peers have already achieved it­—­an example of both puts people’s agency at the core. The potential is huge,
incentives and positive feedback effects. The over- with benefits ranging from climate change mitigation
lapping crises we are facing now and facing most im- and disaster risk reduction to improving food securi-
mediately in the Covid-19 pandemic give a chance for ty and increasing water availability and quality. A set
societies to re-evaluate norms and for policymakers of 20 cost-effective actions across global forests, wet-
to take spirited steps towards social and economic lands, grasslands and agricultural lands could provide
recoveries that invest in healthier, greener, more eq- 37 percent of the mitigation needed through 2030 to
uitable futures­— ­ones that expand human freedoms keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius above
while easing planetary pressures. preindustrial levels and 20 percent of the mitigation
Today almost 80 percent of the world’s people be- needed through 2050 (figure 6).37 About two-thirds
lieve that it is important to protect the planet. But of that mitigation potential (equivalent to one-fourth
only about half say they are likely to take concrete of total mitigation needs) is linked to forest pathways,
action to save it. There is a gap between people’s mainly reforestation. The contribution per capita of
values and their behaviour (see chapter 4). To help indigenous peoples in the Amazon to climate change
bridge the gap, to help empower people, the Report mitigation through their actions to preserve forests
also looks at the ways incentives and regulation can amounts to as much as the emissions per capita of the
prevent or promote people taking action based on top 1 percent of the global income distribution (see
their values (chapter 5). Incentives matter, even when chapter 6).

10 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
Figure 6 Twenty nature-based solutions could provide whether that is enacting and enforcing a carbon
much of the mitigation needed to restrain global warming price, removing laws that marginalize and disenfran-
chise or setting up the policy and institutional frame-
works, backed by public investment, to spur ongoing
broadly shared innovation. Power goes hand-in-hand
(petagrams of carbon dioxide per year)

80
s
70 issio
n with responsibility and accountability.
em
s ual But governments cannot go it alone. The challenges
Global carbon emissions

-u
60 s-as
ines of the Anthropocene are too complex for white knights
Bus
50
or for technological fixes only. Nor can we ignore the
40 missio
ns
Na
Fossil fuel mitigation opportunity for and importance of social mobiliza-
ric e tur
Histo e tion from the bottom up. Individuals, communities
30 -ba
sed
so and social movements demand, pressure and sup-
20 lut
< 2˚ ion port government action. But if government leader-
Cp m
way itiga
ath
10 tio ship and action are insufficient on their own, they are
n
0 certainly necessary. Leadership by example matters.
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 When governments subsidize fossil fuels, they send
power­ful signals beyond the obvious economic and
Source: Griscom and others 2017. environmental implications. They also send powerful
messages about values. Several countries­—­including
Chile, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea­—­have
While the term “nature-based solutions” suffers recently sent strong messages in the other direction
from solutions-oriented language, it is not of that ilk. by announcing bold new commitments to carbon
On the contrary, nature-based solutions, or approach- neutrality.38 The European Union has as well.39 More
es, are often rooted in socioecological system per- government commitments­—­as well as commitments
spectives that recognize the many benefits and values from the private sector that are picking up renewed in-
of a healthy ecosystem for both people and planet. Yet terest in sustainable investment and in business prac-
it is the very complexity, and the multidimensionality tices that are mindful of environmental, social and
of their benefits, that tend to make them the excep- governance impacts (chapter 5)­—­backed by action,
tion rather than the rule. It is admittedly difficult for can facilitate the normative changes needed to ad-
their benefits to be properly aggregated and account- vance human development in the Anthropocene.
ed for using traditional economic metrics and when Development is dynamic; priorities and values
benefits are dispersed across ministries of agricul- shift. So should metrics. That is why the human de-
ture, environment, transport and infrastructure, de- velopment measurement toolkit has constantly
velopment, tourism, health, finance­—­the list goes on. evolved. The past decade has seen the launch of a
The problem, then, is not with nature-based solutions suite of new dashboards and composite indices ded-
but with the inadequacy of our prevailing metrics and icated to measuring gender inequalities and women’s
models of governance, and not recognizing people’s empowerment. Since the 2010 Human Development
agency in their implementation. Joined-up thinking Report, the Inequality-adjusted HDI has accounted
and policymaking must become the norm for coun- for the distribution of human development within
tries and people to succeed in the Anthropocene. countries. A global Multidimensional Poverty Index
The Report focuses on mechanisms of action, was also introduced then to shift our attention from
rather than on specific actors, partly because human traditional income-based poverty measures towards
development in the Anthropocene will require a more holistic view of lived poverty.
whole-of-society responses. Even so, one set of ac- The HDI remains useful for measuring a set of
tors plays a uniquely important leadership role: gov- basic capabilities, but clearly we have moved beyond
ernments, especially national governments. Only one indicator to rule them all. Indeed, the HDI never
governments have the formal authority and power to claimed to reflect the totality of human development.
marshal collective action towards shared challenges, The challenges we face, and the possibilities before

OV E RV I E W 11
 us, have always been more complex, much more normative judgements about countries. Instead, as
multidimensional and interconnected than a single with all the other human development metrics, they
metric­— ­or even a handful of metrics, no matter how help countries understand their own progress broadly
good­— ­could ever capture on its own. Complexity re- over time, learn from other countries’ experiences and
quires more lenses. New metrics help construct them. raise their ambitions in advancing human develop-
ment while accounting for people’s interactions with

“ The Report presents an adjustment to the

Human Development Index for planetary
the planet. They also help people and civil society or-
ganizations hold countries accountable for their com-
pressures, ushering it into a new geologic epoch. mitments. While composite metrics, especially at the
global level, are inherently unable to capture national
What does the Report explore by way of new met- and local complexities, such metrics nonetheless offer
rics? Among them is a new generation of dashboards, broad high-level and directional perspectives. At their
as well as metrics that adjust the income component best they can contribute to but do not substitute for
of the HDI to account for the social costs of carbon or the nitty-gritty of dialogue and policymaking, which
for natural wealth. Together they do not aim to make must happen in every society.

Figure 7 The adjustment to standard Human Development Index values by the Planetary pressures–adjusted
Human Development Index widens as human development levels increase

Human development group

Low Medium High Very high 45 degree

1.000

0.900
Planetary pressures–adjusted Human

0.800
Development Index value, 2019

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300
0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

Human Development Index value, 2019

Source: Human Development Report Office.

12 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
Box 1 The planetary pressures–adjusted Human Development Index: Signposts to navigate the Anthropocene

The PHDI provides a guiding metric towards advancing human development while easing planetary pressures­
—­a combination that today corresponds to an “empty corner” when human development is contrasted with
indicators of planetary pressure (the green rectangle in figure 5).1 In the figure below the horizontal axis is HDI
value, and the vertical axis is the index of pressures on the planet.2 The contours of the shaded areas represent
constant PHDI values that result from different combinations of HDI values and index of planetary pressures val‑
ues. PHDI values increase as these lines move towards the bottom right corner, which corresponds to expanded
capabilities and reduced planetary pressures. That corner, highlighted in green, is the aspirational destination
of the human development journey in the Anthropocene. The curve corresponding to the average performance
on the two indices for all countries moved towards that corner between 1990 and 2019.3 But that movement was
far too slow and modest. Further progress will require all countries to shift rapidly and substantially towards the
bottom right corner. The PHDI and the HDI can help in assessing and, more importantly, in encouraging choices
towards a human development journey in the Anthropocene that move us all in the direction of advancing
human development while easing planetary pressures.

The world is moving far too slowly towards advancing human development while easing planetary pressures

Improvements in efficiency: 1990 vs. 2019

Pressure pattern 1990 Pressure pattern 2019

0.800
Index of planetary pressure

0.600

PHDI=0.550
0.400

PHDI=0.700
1990
0.200 2019
PHDI=0.800

0.000
PHDI=1.000
0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000

Human Development Index value, 2019

Note: Cross-sectional pressure patterns for 1990 and 2019 were calculated using polynomial regression models. Shaded areas are confidence intervals.
Source: Human Development Report Office.

Notes
1. See similar analysis in Lin and others (2018). As an image of aspirational space in development, it is also reminiscent of the idea of “casillero
vacío” in Fajnzylber (1990). 2. That is, one minus the adjustment factor for planetary pressures that is multiplied by the HDI to generate the PHDI.
3. We thank Marina Fischer-Kowalski for insights on this pattern.

OV E RV I E W 13
 The Report presents an adjustment to the HDI expand traditional, capabilities-based notions of
for planetary pressures. The planetary pressures–­ human development while reducing planetary pres-
adjusted HDI (PHDI) retains the simplicity and clarity sures. When agency and values are added to the mix,
of the original HDI while accounting for some of the as the Report demonstrates, the opportunities for ex-
complex system-level dynamics discussed throughout panding human freedoms while easing those pres-
the Report. By accounting for key planetary pressures, sures become even greater.
it ushers the HDI into a new geologic epoch. In his great postwar novel The Plague, Albert Camus
wrote, “everyone has it inside himself, this plague,

“ There are many opportunities for countries to

expand capabilities-based human development
because no one in the world, no one, is immune.”40 If
he were writing today, he could have easily been com-
while reducing planetary pressures. When menting on Covid-19 or climate change, though of
agency and values are added to the mix, course we understand that while everyone is affected,
the opportunities become even greater. they are not affected equally. But while the stakes for
humanity may unfortunately be much higher today
The PHDI adjusts the standard HDI by a coun- than they were some 70 years ago, there is cause for
try’s level of carbon dioxide emissions and material hope­—­we need no longer be passive recipients of
footprint, each on a per capita basis. For countries on plagues or of development. Fate has been usurped by
the lower end of the human development spectrum, choice, which in turn is predicated on power. In this
the impact of the adjustment is generally small. For brave new geologic epoch of the Anthropocene­—­in
high and very high human development countries the this age of humans­—­inside our species, and our spe-
impact tends to become large, reflecting the various cies uniquely, is the power to reimagine and rebuild
ways that their development paths impact the planet our world, to choose justice and sustainability. This
(figure 7 and box 1). 2020 Human Development Report, coming at the
The good news is that there are many options and close of a tumultuous year of layered global crises,
opportunities for countries to maintain and even helps signpost the way.

14 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
 Notes

1 Berger 2020; Carroll and others 2018; Cheng framing of the concept of the Anthropocene, surely is it. But in order to make this possible
and others 2007; Johnson and others 2020; see (Steffen, Crutzen and McNeill 2007). The and effective, we need a vision of mankind not
Morse and others 2012. original proposal was made by Crutzen (2002) as patients whose interests have to be looked
and Crutzen and Stoermer (2000). See also after, but as agents who can do effective
2 Dolce 2020; Guzman 2020; Lam 2020; Nor‑
Steffen and others (2016). Zalasiewicz and oth‑ things—both individually and jointly.”
man 2020.
ers (2008) raised the possibility of formalizing a
23 See also Ellis (2019b).
3 Bloch 2020; Guy 2020; Mega 2020; Witze new geological epoch, and Zalasiewicz came
2020. to lead the Working Group on the Anthropo‑ 24 As discussed in WHO (2019) and Wipfli and
cene that formally provisionally recommended Samet (2016).
4 Díaz and others 2019a. See also Díaz and oth‑
in August 2016 to the International Union of
ers 2019b. 25 Bilano and others 2015.
Geological Sciences the designation of the
5 As argued in Kolbert (2014). See also Ceballos, Anthropocene as the new geological epoch, 26 World Health Organization 2018, 2020.
Ehrlich and Raven (2020) and Torres-Romero with a start date in the mid-20th century. This
27 See Carson (1962), Turner and Isenberg (2020)
and others (2020) . was followed by a binding vote of the working
and Wills (2020).
group affirming these recommendations in
6 Social imbalances refer to asymmetries in op‑
May 2019 (http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/ 28 Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz 1999; Leach and
portunities, wealth and power across groups
working-groups/anthropocene/). For a recent others 2018; Weisz and Clark 2011.
of people. The term “balance” is used recog‑
review, see Ellis (2018a).
nizing that the Earth system has displayed 29 Downing and others 2020; Lele 2020; Steffen
many different states over time and that the 13 IEP 2020. and others 2018.
planet and its subsystems (including the bio‑
14 And how to work together towards a better 30 Cai, Lenton and Lontzek 2016; Lenton 2013.
sphere, which comprises all life on Earth) are
future when our values and perspectives dif‑
dynamic and constantly evolving. So it should 31 Nyström and others 2019.
fer. See Ellis (2018b, 2019a).
not be seen as aiming to capture a “balance of
32 On the importance of biocultural diversity, see
nature” concept or a return to some prior state 15 This observation is also relevant in the context
Merçon and others (2019) and (Maffi 2005). On
of a more desirable equilibrium. It is meant of narratives of societal collapse, as discussed
broader perspectives on resilience, see Folke
simply as shorthand for dangerous planetary in chapter 4 of the Report. See Butzer and
(2016), Lenton (2020) and Reyers and others
change for life on Earth, including for people. Endfield (2012).
(2018).
We are grateful to Victor Galaz of the Stock‑
16 UNDP 2019.
holm Resilience Centre and Erle C. Ellis of the 33 Lenton and others 2008; Steffen and others
University of Maryland for help clarifying this 17 Steffen and others 2015. 2018.
concept and terminology.
18 UNDP 2019. 34 Galaz, Collste and Moore 2020. See also Maffi
7 UNDP 2019. (2005).
19 United Nations 2020.
8 Carleton and others 2020. 35 McDonnell 2019.
20 World Bank 2020. In addition, countries might
9 For the interaction between equity and sus‑ experience a setback equivalent to 9 years 36 Coady and others 2019. Jewell and others
tainability, see Leach and others (2018). of progress on the Multidimensional Poverty (2018) found a smaller impact on emissions
Index (UNDP and OPHI 2020). than that reported by Coady and others
10 Hyde 2020.
(2017), but Parry (2018) explains the discrepan‑
21 UNDP 2020.
11 See also the discussion in the 2019 Human cy in terms of the scope of the consideration of
Development Report (UNDP 2019) on how 22 Amartya Sen (Sen 2013., p. 7) emphasized the the impact of subsidies in the two studies, with
inequalities make acting on climate change importance of this shift in seeing people as Coady and others (2019) having a broader
more difficult. agents, rather than patients, as we confront perspective, and reiterates the large impact of
the challenges of the Anthropocene: “The subsidies on emissions .
12 As a compelling symbolic characterization of
quandary of unsustainability may be our
the Anthropocene, by the end of 2020 the mass 37 Griscom and others 2017.
predicament, but the task of solving it is ours
material output of human activities (which has
as well. The nature of the problem, its fuller ap‑ 38 Climate Action Tracker 2020, McCurry 2020a, b;
doubled every 20 years in the recent past) will
preciation and the ways and means of solving Sengupta 2020.
for the first time ever overtake natural biomass
it all belong to us—humanity as a whole. If
(Elhacham and others 2020). See the discus‑ 39 European Commission 2019 .
there is a subject on which collaboration and
sion in chapter 2 of the Report. For an early
non-divisive commitments are needed, this 40 de Botton 2020.

OV E RV I E W 15
Human development indices
Human
Development
Index (HDI) Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) Gender Development Index Gender Inequality Index Multidimensional Poverty Indexa
Difference Intensity of
Overall from HDI Headcount deprivation Year and
Value Value loss (%) rankb Value Groupc Value Rank Value (%) (%) surveyd
HDI rank 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019
Very high human development
1 Norway 0.957 0.899 6.1 0 0.990 1 0.045 6 .. .. .. ..
2 Ireland 0.955 0.885 7.4 –3 0.981 1 0.093 23 .. .. .. ..
2 Switzerland 0.955 0.889 6.9 –1 0.968 2 0.025 1 .. .. .. ..
4 Hong Kong, China (SAR) 0.949 0.824 13.2 –17 0.972 2 .. .. .. .. .. ..
4 Iceland 0.949 0.894 5.8 2 0.969 2 0.058 9 .. .. .. ..
6 Germany 0.947 0.869 8.2 –4 0.972 2 0.084 20 .. .. .. ..
7 Sweden 0.945 0.882 6.6 0 0.983 1 0.039 3 .. .. .. ..
8 Australia 0.944 0.867 8.1 –3 0.976 1 0.097 25 .. .. .. ..
8 Netherlands 0.944 0.878 7.0 0 0.966 2 0.043 4 .. .. .. ..
10 Denmark 0.940 0.883 6.1 4 0.983 1 0.038 2 .. .. .. ..
11 Finland 0.938 0.888 5.4 7 0.990 1 0.047 7 .. .. .. ..
11 Singapore 0.938 0.813 13.3 –15 0.985 1 0.065 12 .. .. .. ..
13 United Kingdom 0.932 0.856 8.1 –3 0.970 2 0.118 31 .. .. .. ..
14 Belgium 0.931 0.859 7.7 1 0.974 2 0.043 4 .. .. .. ..
14 New Zealand 0.931 0.859 7.8 0 0.964 2 0.123 33 .. .. .. ..
16 Canada 0.929 0.848 8.7 –1 0.986 1 0.080 19 .. .. .. ..
17 United States 0.926 0.808 12.7 –11 0.994 1 0.204 46 .. .. .. ..
18 Austria 0.922 0.857 7.1 3 0.964 2 0.069 14 .. .. .. ..
19 Israel 0.919 0.814 11.4 –6 0.973 2 0.109 26 .. .. .. ..
19 Japan 0.919 0.843 8.3 1 0.978 1 0.094 24 .. .. .. ..
19 Liechtenstein 0.919 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
22 Slovenia 0.917 0.875 4.6 12 1.001 1 0.063 10 .. .. .. ..
23 Korea (Republic of) 0.916 0.815 11.0 –2 0.936 3 0.064 11 .. .. .. ..
23 Luxembourg 0.916 0.826 9.8 2 0.976 1 0.065 12 .. .. .. ..
25 Spain 0.904 0.783 13.4 –13 0.986 1 0.070 16 .. .. .. ..
26 France 0.901 0.820 9.0 2 0.987 1 0.049 8 .. .. .. ..
27 Czechia 0.900 0.860 4.4 14 0.985 1 0.136 36 .. .. .. ..
28 Malta 0.895 0.823 8.0 5 0.966 2 0.175 40 .. .. .. ..
29 Estonia 0.892 0.829 7.1 9 1.017 1 0.086 21 .. .. .. ..
29 Italy 0.892 0.783 12.2 –7 0.968 2 0.069 14 .. .. .. ..
31 United Arab Emirates 0.890 .. .. .. 0.931 3 0.079 18 .. .. .. ..
32 Greece 0.888 0.791 10.9 –3 0.963 2 0.116 29 .. .. .. ..
33 Cyprus 0.887 0.805 9.2 1 0.979 1 0.086 21 .. .. .. ..
34 Lithuania 0.882 0.791 10.3 0 1.030 2 0.124 34 .. .. .. ..
35 Poland 0.880 0.813 7.6 6 1.007 1 0.115 28 .. .. .. ..
36 Andorra 0.868 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
37 Latvia 0.866 0.783 9.5 0 1.036 2 0.176 41 .. .. .. ..
38 Portugal 0.864 0.761 12.0 –5 0.988 1 0.075 17 .. .. .. ..
39 Slovakia 0.860 0.807 6.1 7 0.992 1 0.191 45 .. .. .. ..
40 Hungary 0.854 0.791 7.4 6 0.981 1 0.233 51 .. .. .. ..
40 Saudi Arabia 0.854 .. .. .. 0.896 5 0.252 56 .. .. .. ..
42 Bahrain 0.852 .. .. .. 0.922 4 0.212 49 .. .. .. ..
43 Chile 0.851 0.709 16.7 –12 0.963 2 0.247 55 .. .. .. ..
43 Croatia 0.851 0.783 8.0 2 0.990 1 0.116 29 .. .. .. ..
45 Qatar 0.848 .. .. .. 1.030 2 0.185 43 .. .. .. ..
46 Argentina 0.845 0.729 13.7 –4 0.993 1 0.328 75 .. .. .. ..
47 Brunei Darussalam 0.838 .. .. .. 0.981 1 0.255 60 .. .. .. ..
48 Montenegro 0.829 0.749 9.6 0 0.966 2 0.109 26 0.005 1.2 39.6 2018 M
49 Romania 0.828 0.730 11.9 –1 0.991 1 0.276 61 .. .. .. ..
50 Palau 0.826 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
51 Kazakhstan 0.825 0.766 7.1 4 0.980 1 0.190 44 0.002 e 0.5 e 35.6 e 2015 M
52 Russian Federation 0.824 0.740 10.2 2 1.007 1 0.225 50 .. .. .. ..
53 Belarus 0.823 0.771 6.4 7 1.007 1 0.118 31 .. .. .. ..
54 Turkey 0.820 0.683 16.8 –11 0.924 4 0.306 68 .. .. .. ..
55 Uruguay 0.817 0.712 12.9 –2 1.016 1 0.288 62 .. .. .. ..
56 Bulgaria 0.816 0.721 11.6 2 0.995 1 0.206 48 .. .. .. ..
57 Panama 0.815 0.643 21.1 –17 1.019 1 0.407 94 .. .. .. ..
58 Bahamas 0.814 .. .. .. .. .. 0.341 77 .. .. .. ..
58 Barbados 0.814 0.676 17.0 –9 1.008 1 0.252 56 0.009 f 2.5 f 34.2 f 2012 M
60 Oman 0.813 0.714 12.2 3 0.936 3 0.306 68 .. .. .. ..
61 Georgia 0.812 0.716 11.9 5 0.980 1 0.331 76 0.001 e 0.3 e 36.6 e 2018 M
62 Costa Rica 0.810 0.661 18.5 –11 0.981 1 0.288 62 .. .. .. ..
Continued →

16 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
 Human
Development
Index (HDI) Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) Gender Development Index Gender Inequality Index Multidimensional Poverty Indexa
Difference Intensity of
Overall from HDI Headcount deprivation Year and
Value Value loss (%) rankb Value Groupc Value Rank Value (%) (%) surveyd
HDI rank 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019
62 Malaysia 0.810 .. .. .. 0.972 2 0.253 59 .. .. .. ..
64 Kuwait 0.806 .. .. .. 0.983 1 0.242 53 .. .. .. ..
64 Serbia 0.806 0.705 12.5 2 0.977 1 0.132 35 0.001 e 0.3 e 42.5 e 2014 M
66 Mauritius 0.804 0.694 13.6 1 0.976 1 0.347 78 .. .. .. ..
High human development
67 Seychelles 0.796 0.670 15.8 –6 .. .. .. .. 0.003 g,h 0.9 g,h 34.2 g,h 2019 N
67 Trinidad and Tobago 0.796 .. .. .. 1.003 1 0.323 73 0.002 e 0.6 e 38.0 e 2011 M
69 Albania 0.795 0.708 11.0 6 0.967 2 0.181 42 0.003 0.7 39.1 2017/2018 D
70 Cuba 0.783 .. .. .. 0.944 3 0.304 67 0.002 i 0.4 i 36.8 i 2017 N
70 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.783 0.693 11.5 3 0.866 5 0.459 113 .. .. .. ..
72 Sri Lanka 0.782 0.673 14.0 –1 0.955 2 0.401 90 0.011 2.9 38.3 2016 N
73 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.780 0.667 14.5 –3 0.937 3 0.149 38 0.008 f 2.2 f 37.9 f 2011/2012 M
74 Grenada 0.779 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
74 Mexico 0.779 0.613 21.3 –13 0.960 2 0.322 71 0.026 f 6.6 f 39.0 f 2016 N j
74 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.779 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
74 Ukraine 0.779 0.728 6.6 16 1.000 1 0.234 52 0.001 i 0.2 i 34.5 i 2012 M
78 Antigua and Barbuda 0.778 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
79 Peru 0.777 0.628 19.1 –8 0.957 2 0.395 87 0.029 7.4 39.6 2018 N
79 Thailand 0.777 0.646 16.9 –2 1.008 1 0.359 80 0.003 e 0.8 e 39.1 e 2015/2016 M
81 Armenia 0.776 0.699 9.9 12 0.982 1 0.245 54 0.001 0.2 36.2 2015/2016 D
82 North Macedonia 0.774 0.681 12.0 8 0.952 2 0.143 37 0.010 f 2.5 f 37.7 f 2011 M
83 Colombia 0.767 0.595 22.4 –12 0.989 1 0.428 101 0.020 i 4.8 i 40.6 i 2015/2016 D
84 Brazil 0.765 0.570 25.5 –20 0.993 1 0.408 95 0.016 e,i,k 3.8 e,i,k 42.5 e,i,k 2015 N k
85 China 0.761 0.639 16.1 2 0.957 2 0.168 39 0.016 l,m 3.9 l,m 41.4 l,m 2014 N n
86 Ecuador 0.759 0.616 18.8 –3 0.967 2 0.384 86 0.018 e 4.6 e 39.9 e 2013/2014 N
86 Saint Lucia 0.759 0.629 17.2 0 0.985 1 0.401 90 0.007 f 1.9 f 37.5 f 2012 M
88 Azerbaijan 0.756 0.684 9.5 16 0.943 3 0.323 73 .. .. .. ..
88 Dominican Republic 0.756 0.595 21.3 –8 0.999 1 0.455 112 0.015 i 3.9 i 38.9 i 2014 M
90 Moldova (Republic of) 0.750 0.672 10.4 13 1.014 1 0.204 46 0.004 0.9 37.4 2012 M
91 Algeria 0.748 0.596 20.4 –3 0.858 5 0.429 103 0.008 2.1 38.8 2012/2013 M
92 Lebanon 0.744 .. .. .. 0.892 5 0.411 96 .. .. .. ..
93 Fiji 0.743 .. .. .. .. .. 0.370 84 .. .. .. ..
94 Dominica 0.742 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
95 Maldives 0.740 0.584 21.0 –10 0.923 4 0.369 82 0.003 0.8 34.4 2016/2017 D
95 Tunisia 0.740 0.596 19.4 –1 0.900 4 0.296 65 0.003 0.8 36.5 2018 M
97 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.738 .. .. .. 0.965 2 .. .. .. .. .. ..
97 Suriname 0.738 0.535 27.6 –18 0.985 1 0.436 105 0.011 2.9 39.4 2018 M
99 Mongolia 0.737 0.634 14.0 11 1.023 1 0.322 71 0.028 o 7.3 o 38.8 o 2018 M
100 Botswana 0.735 .. .. .. 0.998 1 0.465 116 0.073 p 17.2 p 42.2 p 2015/2016 N
101 Jamaica 0.734 0.612 16.7 4 0.994 1 0.396 88 0.018 f 4.7 f 38.7 f 2014 N
102 Jordan 0.729 0.622 14.7 9 0.875 5 0.450 109 0.002 0.4 35.4 2017/2018 D
103 Paraguay 0.728 0.557 23.5 –7 0.966 2 0.446 107 0.019 4.5 41.9 2016 M
104 Tonga 0.725 .. .. .. 0.950 3 0.354 79 .. .. .. ..
105 Libya 0.724 .. .. .. 0.976 1 0.252 56 0.007 2.0 37.1 2014 P
106 Uzbekistan 0.720 .. .. .. 0.939 3 0.288 62 .. .. .. ..
107 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.718 0.546 24.0 –9 0.945 3 0.417 98 0.094 20.4 46.0 2008 D
107 Indonesia 0.718 0.590 17.8 2 0.940 3 0.480 121 0.014 i 3.6 i 38.7 i 2017 D
107 Philippines 0.718 0.587 18.2 –1 1.007 1 0.430 104 0.024 i 5.8 i 41.8 i 2017 D
110 Belize 0.716 0.554 22.6 –5 0.976 1 0.415 97 0.017 4.3 39.8 2015/2016 M
111 Samoa 0.715 .. .. .. .. .. 0.360 81 .. .. .. ..
111 Turkmenistan 0.715 0.586 18.1 2 .. .. .. .. 0.001 0.4 36.1 2015/2016 M
113 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 0.711 0.588 17.3 6 1.009 1 0.479 119 .. .. .. ..
114 South Africa 0.709 0.468 34.0 –18 0.986 1 0.406 93 0.025 6.3 39.8 2016 D
115 Palestine, State of 0.708 0.613 13.5 15 0.870 5 .. .. 0.004 1.0 37.5 2014 M
116 Egypt 0.707 0.497 29.7 –10 0.882 5 0.449 108 0.019 h 5.2 h 37.6 h 2014 D
117 Marshall Islands 0.704 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
117 Viet Nam 0.704 0.588 16.5 9 0.997 1 0.296 65 0.019 i 4.9 i 39.5 i 2013/2014 M
119 Gabon 0.703 0.544 22.6 0 0.916 4 0.525 128 0.066 14.8 44.3 2012 D
Medium human development
120 Kyrgyzstan 0.697 0.630 9.6 25 0.957 2 0.369 82 0.001 0.4 36.3 2018 M
121 Morocco 0.686 .. .. .. 0.835 5 0.454 111 0.085 e 18.6 e 45.7 e 2011 P
122 Guyana 0.682 0.556 18.5 5 0.961 2 0.462 115 0.014 3.4 41.8 2014 M
123 Iraq 0.674 0.541 19.7 2 0.774 5 0.577 146 0.033 8.6 37.9 2018 M
Continued →

OV E RV I E W 17
 Human
Development
Index (HDI) Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) Gender Development Index Gender Inequality Index Multidimensional Poverty Indexa
Difference Intensity of
Overall from HDI Headcount deprivation Year and
Value Value loss (%) rankb Value Groupc Value Rank Value (%) (%) surveyd
HDI rank 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019
124 El Salvador 0.673 0.529 21.5 0 0.975 2 0.383 85 0.032 7.9 41.3 2014 M
125 Tajikistan 0.668 0.584 12.6 11 0.823 5 0.314 70 0.029 7.4 39.0 2017 D
126 Cabo Verde 0.665 .. .. .. 0.974 2 0.397 89 .. .. .. ..
127 Guatemala 0.663 0.481 27.5 –3 0.941 3 0.479 119 0.134 28.9 46.2 2014/2015 D
128 Nicaragua 0.660 0.505 23.5 0 1.012 1 0.428 101 0.074 16.3 45.2 2011/2012 D
129 Bhutan 0.654 0.476 27.2 –3 0.921 4 0.421 99 0.175 e 37.3 e 46.8 e 2010 M
130 Namibia 0.646 0.418 35.3 –14 1.007 1 0.440 106 0.171 38.0 45.1 2013 D
131 India 0.645 0.537 16.8 8 0.820 5 0.488 123 0.123 27.9 43.9 2015/2016 D
132 Honduras 0.634 0.472 25.6 –2 0.978 1 0.423 100 0.090 q 19.3 q 46.4 q 2011/2012 D
133 Bangladesh 0.632 0.478 24.3 2 0.904 4 0.537 133 0.104 24.6 42.2 2019 M
134 Kiribati 0.630 0.516 18.1 7 .. .. .. .. 0.080 19.8 40.5 2018/2019 M
135 Sao Tome and Principe 0.625 0.520 16.7 9 0.906 4 0.537 133 0.092 22.1 41.7 2014 M
136 Micronesia (Federated States of) 0.620 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
137 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 0.613 0.461 24.8 0 0.927 3 0.459 113 0.108 23.1 47.0 2017 M
138 Eswatini (Kingdom of) 0.611 0.432 29.4 –5 0.996 1 0.567 143 0.081 19.2 42.3 2014 M
138 Ghana 0.611 0.440 28.0 –3 0.911 4 0.538 135 0.138 30.1 45.8 2014 D
140 Vanuatu 0.609 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. e .. e .. e ..
141 Timor-Leste 0.606 0.436 28.0 –2 0.942 3 .. .. 0.210 45.8 45.7 2016 D
142 Nepal 0.602 0.446 25.8 3 0.933 3 0.452 110 0.148 34.0 43.6 2016 D
143 Kenya 0.601 0.443 26.3 3 0.937 3 0.518 126 0.178 38.7 46.0 2014 D
144 Cambodia 0.594 0.475 20.0 9 0.922 4 0.474 117 0.170 37.2 45.8 2014 D
145 Equatorial Guinea 0.592 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
146 Zambia 0.584 0.401 31.4 –2 0.958 2 0.539 137 0.232 47.9 48.4 2018 D
147 Myanmar 0.583 .. .. .. 0.954 2 0.478 118 0.176 38.3 45.9 2015/2016 D
148 Angola 0.581 0.397 31.7 –4 0.903 4 0.536 132 0.282 51.1 55.3 2015/2016 D
149 Congo 0.574 0.430 25.1 2 0.929 3 0.570 144 0.112 24.3 46.0 2014/2015 M
150 Zimbabwe 0.571 0.441 22.8 7 0.931 3 0.527 129 0.110 25.8 42.6 2019 M
151 Solomon Islands 0.567 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
151 Syrian Arab Republic 0.567 .. .. .. 0.829 5 0.482 122 0.029 e 7.4 e 38.9 e 2009 P
153 Cameroon 0.563 0.375 33.4 –7 0.864 5 0.560 141 0.243 45.3 53.5 2014 M
154 Pakistan 0.557 0.384 31.1 –4 0.745 5 0.538 135 0.198 38.3 51.7 2017/2018 D
155 Papua New Guinea 0.555 0.390 29.8 –1 .. .. 0.725 161 0.263 i 56.6 i 46.5 i 2016/2018 D
156 Comoros 0.554 0.303 45.2 –21 0.891 5 .. .. 0.181 37.3 48.5 2012 D
Low human development
157 Mauritania 0.546 0.371 32.1 –4 0.864 5 0.634 151 0.261 50.6 51.5 2015 M
158 Benin 0.545 0.343 37.1 –10 0.855 5 0.612 148 0.368 66.8 55.0 2017/2018 D
159 Uganda 0.544 0.399 26.7 7 0.863 5 0.535 131 0.269 55.1 48.8 2016 D
160 Rwanda 0.543 0.387 28.7 3 0.945 3 0.402 92 0.259 54.4 47.5 2014/2015 D
161 Nigeria 0.539 0.348 35.4 –3 0.881 5 .. .. 0.254 46.4 54.8 2018 D
162 Côte d’Ivoire 0.538 0.350 34.9 –1 0.811 5 0.638 153 0.236 46.1 51.2 2016 M
163 Tanzania (United Republic of) 0.529 0.397 25.0 10 0.948 3 0.556 140 0.273 55.4 49.3 2015/2016 D
164 Madagascar 0.528 0.390 26.1 9 0.952 2 .. .. 0.384 69.1 55.6 2018 M
165 Lesotho 0.527 0.382 27.6 6 1.014 1 0.553 139 0.084 h 19.6 h 43.0 h 2018 M
166 Djibouti 0.524 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
167 Togo 0.515 0.351 31.8 4 0.822 5 0.573 145 0.180 37.6 47.8 2017 M
168 Senegal 0.512 0.348 32.1 2 0.870 5 0.533 130 0.288 53.2 54.2 2017 D
169 Afghanistan 0.511 .. .. .. 0.659 5 0.655 157 0.272 i 55.9 i 48.6 i 2015/2016 D
170 Haiti 0.510 0.303 40.5 –10 0.875 5 0.636 152 0.200 41.3 48.4 2016/2017 D
170 Sudan 0.510 0.333 34.7 –3 0.860 5 0.545 138 0.279 52.3 53.4 2014 M
172 Gambia 0.496 0.335 32.4 1 0.846 5 0.612 148 0.204 41.6 49.0 2018 M
173 Ethiopia 0.485 0.348 28.3 5 0.837 5 0.517 125 0.489 83.5 58.5 2016 D
174 Malawi 0.483 0.345 28.6 5 0.986 1 0.565 142 0.243 52.6 46.2 2015/2016 D
175 Congo (Democratic Republic of the) 0.480 0.335 30.3 3 0.845 5 0.617 150 0.331 64.5 51.3 2017/2018 M
175 Guinea-Bissau 0.480 0.300 37.5 –7 .. .. .. .. 0.372 67.3 55.3 2014 M
175 Liberia 0.480 0.325 32.3 1 0.890 5 0.650 156 0.320 62.9 50.8 2013 D
178 Guinea 0.477 0.313 34.4 0 0.817 5 .. .. 0.373 66.2 56.4 2018 D
179 Yemen 0.470 0.321 31.8 4 0.488 5 0.795 162 0.241 47.7 50.5 2013 D
180 Eritrea 0.459 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
181 Mozambique 0.456 0.316 30.7 3 0.912 4 0.523 127 0.411 72.5 56.7 2011 D
182 Burkina Faso 0.452 0.316 30.1 5 0.867 5 0.594 147 0.519 83.8 61.9 2010 D
182 Sierra Leone 0.452 0.291 35.7 –2 0.884 5 0.644 155 0.297 57.9 51.2 2017 M
184 Mali 0.434 0.289 33.4 –1 0.821 5 0.671 158 0.376 68.3 55.0 2018 D
185 Burundi 0.433 0.303 30.0 3 0.999 1 0.504 124 0.403 74.3 54.3 2016/2017 D
185 South Sudan 0.433 0.276 36.2 –2 0.842 5 .. .. 0.580 91.9 63.2 2010 M
187 Chad 0.398 0.248 37.8 –1 0.764 5 0.710 160 0.533 85.7 62.3 2014/2015 D
188 Central African Republic 0.397 0.232 41.6 –1 0.801 5 0.680 159 0.465 e 79.4 e 58.6 e 2010 M
189 Niger 0.394 0.284 27.9 3 0.724 5 0.642 154 0.590 90.5 65.2 2012 D
Other countries or territories
.. Korea (Democratic People’s Rep. of) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. Monaco .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. Nauru .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Continued →

18 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
 Human
Development
Index (HDI) Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) Gender Development Index Gender Inequality Index Multidimensional Poverty Indexa
Difference Intensity of
Overall from HDI Headcount deprivation Year and
Value Value loss (%) rankb Value Groupc Value Rank Value (%) (%) surveyd
HDI rank 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019 2008–2019
.. San Marino .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. Somalia .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. Tuvalu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Human development groups
Very high human development 0.898 0.800 10.9 — 0.981 — 0.173 — 0.002 0.4 37.3 —
High human development 0.753 0.618 17.9 — 0.961 — 0.340 — 0.017 4.1 40.7 —
Medium human development 0.631 0.503 20.2 — 0.835 — 0.501 — 0.133 29.2 45.5 —
Low human development 0.513 0.352 31.4 — 0.861 — 0.592 — 0.333 61.0 54.7 —
Developing countries 0.689 0.549 20.3 — 0.919 — 0.463 — 0.108 22.0 49.0 —
Regions
Arab States 0.705 0.531 24.6 — 0.856 — 0.518 — 0.077 15.8 48.5 —
East Asia and the Pacific 0.747 0.621 16.8 — 0.961 — 0.324 — 0.023 5.4 42.5 —
Europe and Central Asia 0.791 0.697 11.8 — 0.953 — 0.256 — 0.004 1.0 38.1 —
Latin America and the Caribbean 0.766 0.596 22.1 — 0.978 — 0.389 — 0.031 7.2 43.0 —
South Asia 0.641 0.519 19.1 — 0.824 — 0.505 — 0.132 29.2 45.2 —
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.547 0.381 30.4 — 0.894 — 0.570 — 0.299 55.0 54.3 —
Least developed countries 0.538 0.384 28.6 — 0.874 — 0.559 — 0.292 55.0 53.1 —
Small island developing states 0.728 0.549 24.5 — 0.959 — 0.458 — 0.111 23.3 47.6 —
Organisation for Economic Co‑operation
0.900 0.791 12.1 — 0.978 — 0.205 — 0.024 6.1 39.4 —
and Development
World 0.737 0.599 18.7 — 0.943 — 0.436 — 0.108 22.0 49.0 —

Notes o Indicator on sanitation follows the national classification Multidimensional Poverty Index: Percentage of the popula‑
in which pit latrine with slab is considered unimproved. tion that is multidimensionally poor adjusted by the intensity
a Not all indicators were available for all countries, so
of the deprivations. See Technical note 5 at http://hdr.undp.
caution should be used in cross-country comparisons. p Indicator on child mortality captures only deaths of
org/sites/default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf for de‑
When an indicator is missing, weights of available children under age 5 who died in the last five years
tails on how the Multidimensional Poverty Index is calculated.
indicators are adjusted to total 100 percent. See Tech- and deaths of children ages 12–18 who died in the last
nical note 5 at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/ two years. Multidimensional poverty headcount: Population with a
hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf for details. deprivation score of at least 33 percent. It is expressed as
q Missing indicator on electricity.
a share of the population in the survey year, the number of
b Based on countries for which an Inequality-adjusted
multidimensionally poor people in the survey year and the
Human Development Index value is calculated.
projected number of multidimensionally poor people in 2018.
c Countries are divided into five groups by absolute
Intensity of deprivation of multidimensional poverty: Aver‑
deviation from gender parity in HDI values. Definitions age deprivation score experienced by people in multidimen‑
d D indicates data from Demographic and Health Sur‑ Human Development Index (HDI): A composite index measur‑ sional poverty.
veys, M indicates data from Multiple Indicator Cluster ing average achievement in three basic dimensions of hu‑
Surveys, N indicates data from national surveys and P man development—a long and healthy life, knowledge and
indicates data from Pan Arab Population and Family a decent standard of living. See Technical note 1 at http://hdr.
Health Surveys (see http://hdr.undp.org/en/mpi-2020- undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf for
faq for the list of national surveys). Main data sources
details on how the HDI is calculated.
e Considers child deaths that occurred at any time be‑ Columns 1 and 7: HDRO calculations based on data from UN‑
Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI): HDI value adjusted for in‑
cause the survey did not collect the date of child deaths. DESA (2019a), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2020), United
equalities in the three basic dimensions of human devel‑
Nations Statistics Division (2020b), World Bank (2020a), Barro
f Missing indicator on child mortality. opment. See Technical note 2 at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/
and Lee (2018) and IMF (2020).
default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf for details on how
g Missing indicator on school attendance. the IHDI is calculated. Column 1: HDRO calculations based on data from UNDESA
h Missing indicator on cooking fuel. (2019), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2020), United Nations
Overall loss: Percentage difference between the IHDI value
Statistics Division (2020), World Bank (2020), Barro and Lee
i Missing indicator on nutrition. and the HDI value.
(2018) and IMF (2020).
j Multidimensional Poverty Index estimates are based Difference from HDI rank: Difference in ranks on the IHDI and
Column 2: Calculated as the geometric mean of the values in
on the 2016 National Health and Nutrition Survey. the HDI, calculated only for countries for which an IHDI value
inequality-adjusted life expectancy index, inequality-adjusted
Estimates based on the 2015 Multiple Indicator Cluster is calculated.
education index and inequality-adjusted income index using
Survey are 0.010 for Multidimensional Poverty Index Gender Development Index: Ratio of female to male HDI the methodology in Technical note 2 (available at http://hdr.
value, 2.6 for multidimensional poverty headcount values. See Technical note 3 at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/de‑ undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf).
(%), 3,207,000 for multidimensional poverty headcount fault/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf for details on how
in year of survey, 3,281,000 for projected multidimen‑ Column 3: Calculated based on data in columns 1 and 2.
the Gender Development Index is calculated.
sional poverty headcount in 2018, 40.2 for intensity of
Column 4: Calculated based on IHDI values and recalculated
deprivation, 0.4 for population in severe multidimen‑ Gender Development Index groups: Countries are divided
HDI ranks for countries for which an IHDI value is calculated.
sional poverty, 6.1 for population vulnerable to multidi‑ into five groups by absolute deviation from gender parity in
mensional poverty, 39.9 for contribution of deprivation HDI values. Group 1 comprises countries with high equality in Column 5: HDRO calculations based on data from UNDESA
in health, 23.8 for contribution of deprivation in educa‑ HDI achievements between women and men (absolute de‑ (2019), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2020), Barro and Lee
tion and 36.3 for contribution of deprivation in stan‑ viation of less than 2.5 percent), group 2 comprises countries (2018), World Bank (2020), ILO (2020) and IMF (2020).
dard of living. with medium to high equality in HDI achievements between
Column 6: Calculated based on data in column 5.
women and men (absolute deviation of 2.5–5 percent),
k The methodology was adjusted to account for miss‑
group 3 comprises countries with medium equality in HDI Column 7: HDRO calculations based on data from WHO, UNI‑
ing indicator on nutrition and incomplete indicator on
achievements between women and men (absolute devia‑ CEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and United Nations Popula‑
child mortality (the survey did not collect the date of
tion of 5–7.5 percent), group 4 comprises countries with me‑ tion Division (2019).
child deaths).
dium to low equality in HDI achievements between women
Column 8: Calculated based on data in column 7.
l Given the information available in the data, child and men (absolute deviation of 7.5–10 percent) and group 5
mortality was constructed based on deaths that oc‑ comprises countries with low equality in HDI achievements Columns 9–11: HDRO and OPHI calculations based on data
curred between surveys—that is, between 2012 and between women and men (absolute deviation from gender on household deprivations in health, education, and stan‑
2014. Child deaths reported by an adult man in the parity of more than 10 percent). dard of living from various household surveys listed in column
household were taken into account because the date 12 using a revised methodology described in Technical note 5
Gender Inequality Index: A composite measure reflecting in‑
of death was reported. (available at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020_
equality in achievement between women and men in three
technical_notes.pdf).
m Missing indicator on housing. dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and the
labour market. See Technical note 4 at http://hdr.undp.org/ Column 12: Refers to the year and the survey whose data
n Based on the version of data accessed on 7 June 2016.
sites/default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf for details on were used to calculate the country’s Multidimensional Pov‑
how the Gender Inequality Index is calculated. erty Index value and its components.

OV E RV I E W 19
 References

Barro, R. J., and J.-W. Lee. 2018. Dataset of Educa‑ Coady, D., Parry, I., Le, N.-P., and Shang, B. 2019. European Council, the Council, the European Eco‑
tional Attainment, June 2018 Revision. http://www. “Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An nomic and Social Committee and the Committee of
barrolee.com. Accessed 20 July 2020. Update Based on Country-Level Estimates.” Work‑ the Regions. The European Green Deal. Com/2019/640
ing Paper WP/19/89, International Monetary Fund, Final.” Brussels: European Commission. https://eur
Berger, K. 2020. “The Man Who Saw the Pandemic Washington, DC. -lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%
Coming.” Nautilus, 12 March. http://nautil.us/issue/ 3A2019%3A640%3AFIN. Accessed 23 November 2020.
83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the-pandemic Coady, D., Parry, I., Sears, L., and Shang, B. 2017.
-coming. Accessed 23 November 2020. “How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies?” World Fajnzylber, F. 1990. “Industrialización en América
Development 91: 11–27. Latina: de la ‘caja negra’ al ‘casillero vacío’: compa‑
Bilano, V., Gilmour, S., Moffiet, T., d’Espaignet, E. ración de patrones contemporáneos de industriali‑
T., Stevens, G. A., Commar, A., Tuyl, F., and others. Crutzen, P., and Stoermer, E. 2000. “The ‘Anthropo‑ zación.” United Nations Economic Commission for
2015. “Global Trends and Projections for Tobacco cene.’” Global Change Newsletter (41): 17–18. Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago.
Use, 1990–2025: An Analysis of Smoking Indicators
from the WHO Comprehensive Information Systems Crutzen, P. J. 2002. “Geology of Mankind.” Nature Fischer-Kowalski, M., and Weisz, H. 1999. “Society as
for Tobacco Control.” The Lancet 385(9972): 966–976. 415(6867): 23–23. Hybrid between Material and Symbolic Realms: To‑
ward a Theoretical Framework of Society-Nature In‑
Bloch, M., Reinhard, S., Tompkins, L., Pietsch, B., and de Botton, A. 2020. “Camus on the Coronavirus.” terrelation.” Advances in Human Ecology 8: 215–251.
McDonnell Nieto del Rio, G. 2020. “Fire Map: Califor‑ New York Times, 19 March. https://www.nytimes.
nia, Oregon and Washington.” The New York Times. com/2020/03/19/opinion/sunday/coronavirus Folke, C. 2016. “Resilience (Republished).” Ecology
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/fires -camus-plague.html. Accessed 8 December 2020. and Society 21(4).
-map-tracker.html. Accessed 18 November 2020.
Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Galaz, V., Collste, D., and Moore, M.-L. 2020. “Plan‑
Butzer, K. W., and Endfield, G. H. 2012. “Critical Per‑ Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., and others. 2019a. “Pervasive etary Change and Human Development.” Unpub‑
spectives on Historical Collapse.” Proceedings of the Human-Driven Decline of Life on Earth Points to the lished manuscript, Stockholm University, Stockholm
National Academy of Sciences 109(10): 3628–3631. Need for Transformative Change.” Science 366(6471). Resilience Centre.

Cai, Y., Lenton, T. M., and Lontzek, T. S. 2016. “Risk Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E., Ngo, H., Guèze, M., Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R.
of Multiple Interacting Tipping Points Should Encour‑ Agard, J., Arneth, A., and others. 2019b. “Summary A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., and
age Rapid CO2 Emission Reduction.” Nature Cli- for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report others. 2017. “Natural Climate Solutions.” Proceed-
mate Change 6(5): 520–525. on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Bonn, Ger‑ ings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(44):
many: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform 11645–11650.
Carleton, T. A., Jina, A., Delgado, M. T., Greenstone, on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Secretariat.
M., Houser, T., Hsiang, S. M., Hultgren, A., and oth- Guy, J. 2020. “Nearly Three Billion Animals Killed or Dis‑
ers. 2020. “Valuing the Global Mortality Conse‑ Dolce, C. 2020. “All the Records the 2020 Hurricane placed by Australia’s Fires.” CNN, 28 July. https://www.
quences of Climate Change Accounting for Adap‑ Season Has Broken So Far.” The Weather Channel, cnn.com/2020/07/28/asia/australia-fires-wildlife
tation Costs and Benefits.” Working Paper 27599, 6 October. https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/ -report-scli-intl-scn/index.html. Accessed 18 Novem‑
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, news/2020-09-21-atlantic-hurricane-season-2020 ber 2020.
MA. -records. Accessed 18 November 2020.
Guzman, J. 2020. “Zeta Becomes 27th Storm This
Carroll, D., Daszak, P., Wolfe, N. D., Gao, G. F., Mo- Downing, A. S., Chang, M., Kuiper, J. J., Campenni, Year. The Atlantic Hasn’t Experienced This Many
rel, C. M., Morzaria, S., Pablos-Méndez, A., and M., Häyhä, T., Cornell, S., Svedin, U., and Mooij, W. Storms for Nearly Two Decades.” The Hill, 26 Oc‑
others. 2018. “The Global Virome Project.” Science 2020. “Learning from Generations of Sustainability tober. https://thehill.com/changing-america/
359(6378): 872–874. Concepts.” Environmental Research Letters 15(8). sustainability/environment/522795-zeta-becomes
-27th-storm-this-year-the-atlantic. Accessed 18 No‑
Carson, R. 2002. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Ellis, E. C. 2018a. Anthropocene: A Very Short Intro- vember 2020.
Mifflin Harcourt. duction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hyde, S. D. 2020. “Democracy’s Backsliding in the
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., and Raven, P. H. 2020. Ellis, E. C. 2018b. “Science Alone Won’t Save the International Environment.” Science 369(6508):
“Vertebrates on the Brink as Indicators of Biologi‑ Earth. People Have to Do That.” The New York Times, 1192–1196.
cal Annihilation and the Sixth Mass Extinction.” 11 August. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/11/
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences opinion/sunday/science-people-environment-earth. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace). 2020. Ecologi-
117(24): 13596–13602. html. Accessed 23 November 2020. cal Threat Register 2020: Understanding Ecological
Threats, Resilience and Peace. Sydney, Australia.
Cheng, V. C. C., Lau, S. K. P., Woo, P. C. Y., and Yuen, K. Ellis, E. C. 2019a. “Sharing the Land between Nature
Y. 2007. “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona‑ and People.” Science 364(6447): 1226–1228. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2020.
virus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infec‑ ILOSTAT database. https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/. Ac‑
tion.” Clinical Microbiology Reviews 20(4): 660–694. Ellis, E. C. 2019b. “To Conserve Nature in the Anthro‑ cessed 21 July 2020.
pocene, Half Earth Is Not Nearly Enough.” One Earth
Climate Action Tracker. 2020. “Climate Action 1(2): 163–167. IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2020. World
Tracker: Chile.” https://climateactiontracker.org/ Economic Outlook database. Washington, DC.
countries/chile/pledges-and-targets/. Accessed 23 European Commission. 2019. “Communication from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2020/01/
November 2020. the Commission to the European Parliament, the weodata/index.aspx. Accessed 15 July 2020.

20 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
Jewell, J., McCollum, D., Emmerling, J., Bertram, C., Mega, E. R. 2020. “‘Apocalyptic’ Fires Are Ravag‑ Human-Altered Landscapes to the Conservation of
Gernaat, D. E. H. J., Krey, V., Paroussos, L., and oth- ing the World’s Largest Tropical Wetland.” Nature, the World’s Largest Terrestrial Mammals.” Biological
ers. 2018. “Limited Emission Reductions from Fuel 25 September. https://www.nature.com/articles/ Conservation 249: 108706.
Subsidy Removal except in Energy-Exporting Re‑ d41586-020-02716-4. Accessed 18 November 2020.
gions.” Nature 554(7691): 229–233. Turner, J. M., and Isenberg, A. C. 2020. “Earth Day at
Merçon, J., Vetter, S., Tengö, M., Cocks, M., Balvane- 50.” Science 368(6488): 215.
Johnson, C. K., Hitchens, P. L., Pandit, P. S., Rush- ra, P., Rosell, J., and Ayala-Orozco, B. 2019. “From
more, J., Evans, T. S., Young, C. C. W., and Doyle, M. Local Landscapes to International Policy: Contribu‑ UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic
M. 2020. “Global Shifts in Mammalian Population tions of the Biocultural Paradigm to Global Sustain‑ and Social Affairs). 2019. World Population Pros-
Trends Reveal Key Predictors of Virus Spillover Risk.” ability.” Global Sustainability 2(e7): 1–11. pects: The 2019 Revision. Rev 1. New York. https://
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci- population.un.org/wpp/. Accessed 30 April 2020.
ences 287(1924): 20192736. Morse, S. S., Mazet, J. A., Woolhouse, M., Parrish, C.
R., Carroll, D., Karesh, W. B., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).
Kolbert, E. 2014. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural and others. 2012. “Prediction and Prevention of the 2019. Human Development Report 2019: Beyond
History. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Next Pandemic Zoonosis.” The Lancet 380(9857): Income, Beyond Averages, Beyond Today: Inequali-
1956–1965. ties in Human Development in the 21st Century. New
Lam, L. 2020. “Hurricane Epsilon Is the Seventh Atlan‑ York.
tic Storm to Rapidly Intensify in 2020.” The Weather Norman, G., and Chinchar, A. 2020. “With Two
Channel, 21 October. https://weather.com/storms/ Months Left, the 2020 Hurricane Season Has a UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).
hurricane/news/2020-10-21-rapid-intensification Chance to Set the Record for Most Named Storms.” 2020. Covid-19 and Human Development: Assessing
-atlantic-2020. Accessed 18 November 2020. CNN, 3 October. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/03/ the Crisis, Envisioning the Recovery. 2020 Human
weather/gamma-rapid-intensification-on-record Development Perspectives. New York.
Leach, M., Reyers, B., Bai, X., Brondizio, E. S., Cook, -season/index.html. Accessed 18 November 2020.
C., Díaz, S., Espindola, G., and others. 2018. “Equity UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
and Sustainability in the Anthropocene: A Social– Nyström, M., Jouffray, J.-B., Norström, A. V., Crona, and OPHI (Oxford Poverty and Human Develop-
Ecological Systems Perspective on Their Intertwined B., Søgaard Jørgensen, P., Carpenter, S. R., Bodin, Ö., ment Initiative). 2020. Global Multidimensional
Futures.” Global Sustainability 1. and others. 2019. “Anatomy and Resilience of the Poverty Index 2020: Charting Pathways out of Multi-
Global Production Ecosystem.” Nature 575(7781): dimensional Povery: Achieving the SDGs. New York.
Lele, S. 2020. “Environment and Well-Being: A Per‑ 98–108. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2020_mpi_
spective from the Global South.” New Left Review report_en.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2020.
123(May–June): 41–63. Parry, I. 2018. “Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Assessed.” Na-
ture 554(7691): 175–176. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Lenton, T. M. 2013. “Environmental Tipping Points.” Cultural Organization) Institute for Statistics. 2020.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38(1): Reyers, B., Folke, C., Moore, M.-L., Biggs, R., and Data Centre. http://data.uis.unesco.org. Accessed 21
1–29. Galaz, V. 2018. “Social-Ecological Systems Insights July 2020.
for Navigating the Dynamics of the Anthropocene.”
Lenton, T. M. 2020. “Tipping Positive Change.” Philo- Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43(1): United Nations. 2020. “We Can End Poverty: Millen‑
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biologi- 267–289. nium Development Goals and Beyond 2015.” https://
cal Sciences 375(1794): 20190123. www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml. Ac‑
Sen, A. 2013. “The Ends and Means of Sustainabil‑ cessed 18 November 2020.
Lenton, T. M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Lucht, ity.” Journal of Human Development and Capabili-
W., Rahmstorf, S., and Schellnhuber, H. J. 2008. ties 14(1): 6–20. United Nations Statistics Division. 2020. Nation‑
“Tipping Elements in the Earth’s Climate System.” al Accounts Main Aggregates Database. http://
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sengupta, S. 2020. “China, in Pointed Mes‑ unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama. Accessed 15 July
105(6): 1786–1793. sage to U.S., Tightens Its Climate Targets.” New 2020.
York Times, 22 September. https://www.nytimes.
Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., com/2020/09/22/climate/china-emissions.html. Ac‑ Weisz, H., and Clark, E. 2011. “Society–Nature Co‑
Neill, E., Mancini, M. S., and others. 2018. “Ecological cessed 1 December 2020. evolution: Interdisciplinary Concept for Sustainabil‑
Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Re‑ ity.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geogra-
sults of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018.” Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., and McNeill, J. R. 2007. phy 93(4): 281–287.
Resources 7(3). “The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelm‑
ing the Great Forces of Nature.” Ambio 36(8): WHO (World Health Organization). 2018. 2018
Maffi, L. 2005. “Linguistic, Cultural, and Biologi‑ 614–621. Global Progress Report on Implementation of the
cal Diversity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34(1): WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
599–617. Steffen, W., Leinfelder, R., Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. Geneva.
N., Williams, M., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A. D.,
McCurry, J. 2020a. “Japan Will Become Carbon and others. 2016. “Stratigraphic and Earth System WHO (World Health Organization). 2019. WHO Re-
Neutral by 2050, PM Pledges.” The Guardian, 26 Oc‑ Approaches to Defining the Anthropocene.” Earth’s port on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2019. Geneva.
tober. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ Future 4(8): 324–345.
oct/26/japan-will-become-carbon-neutral-by-2050 WHO (World Health Organization). 2020. WHO
-pm-pledges. Accessed 18 November 2020. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Ge‑
S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., and others. neva. https://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/.
McCurry, J. 2020b. “South Korea Vows to Go Carbon 2015. “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Devel‑ Accessed 18 November 2020.
Neutral by 2050 to Fight Climate Emergency.” The opment on a Changing Planet.” Science 347(6223).
Guardian, 28 October. https://www.theguardian. World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations
com/world/2020/oct/28/south-korea-vows-to-go Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Population
-carbon-neutral-by-2050-to-fight-climate-emergency. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C. P., and Fund (UNFPA), World Bank Group and United Na-
Accessed 18 November 2020. others. 2018. “Trajectories of the Earth System in the tions Population Division. 2019. Trends in Maternal
Anthropocene.” Proceedings of the National Acad- Mortality: 2000 to 2017: Estimates by WHO, UNICEF,
McDonnell, A. U., Ana F., and Samman, E. 2019. emy of Sciences 115(33): 8252–8259. UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations
“Reaching Universal Health Coverage: A Political Population Division. Geneva: World Health Orga‑
Economy Review of Trends across 49 Countries.” Torres-Romero, E. J., Giordano, A. J., Ceballos, G., nization. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/
Working Paper 570, Overseas Development Insti‑ and López-Bao, J. V. 2020. “Reducing the Sixth publications/maternal-mortality-2000-2017/. Ac‑
tute, London. Mass Extinction: Understanding the Value of cessed 4 August 2020.

OV E RV I E W 21
Wills, M. 2020. “The First Earth Day, and the First Witze, A. 2020. “The Arctic Is Burning Like Never World Bank. 2020. World Development Indicators
Green Generation.” JSTOR Daily, 15 April. https:// Before—and That’s Bad News for Climate Change.” database. Washington, DC. http://data.worldbank.
daily.jstor.org/the-first-earth-day-and-the-first Nature, 10 September. https://www.nature.com/ org. Accessed 22 July 2020.
-green-generation/. Accessed 23 November 2020. articles/d41586-020-02568-y. Accessed 18 November
2020. Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Smith, A., Barry, T. L.,
Wipfli, H., and Samet, J. M. 2016. “One Hundred Coe, A. L., Bown, P. R., Brenchley, P., and others.
Years in the Making: The Global Tobacco Epidemic.” World Bank. 2020. Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2008. “Are We Now Living in the Anthropocene.”
Annual Review of Public Health 37: 149–166. 2020: Reversals of Fortune. Washington, DC. GSA Today 18(2): 4.

22 H U M A N D E V E LO P M E N T R E PO RT / 2020
KEY TO H D I C O U N T RI E S A N D R A N KS , 2019

Afghanistan 169 Dominican Republic 88 Liberia 175 Saint Lucia 86

Albania 69 Ecuador 86 Libya 105 Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines 97
Algeria 91 Egypt 116 Liechtenstein 19
Samoa 111
Andorra 36 El Salvador 124 Lithuania 34
San Marino
Angola 148 Equatorial Guinea 145 Luxembourg 23
Sao Tome and Principe 135
Antigua and Barbuda 78 Eritrea 180 Madagascar 164
Saudi Arabia 40
Argentina 46 Estonia 29 Malawi 174
Senegal 168
Armenia 81 Eswatini (Kingdom of) 138 Malaysia 62
Serbia 64
Australia 8 Ethiopia 173 Maldives 95
Seychelles 67
Austria 18 Fiji 93 Mali 184
Sierra Leone 182
Azerbaijan 88 Finland 11 Malta 28
Singapore 11
Bahamas 58 France 26 Marshall Islands 117
Slovakia 39
Bahrain 42 Gabon 119 Mauritania 157
Slovenia 22
Bangladesh 133 Gambia 172 Mauritius 66
Solomon Islands 151
Barbados 58 Georgia 61 Mexico 74
Somalia
Belarus 53 Germany 6 Micronesia
(Federated States of) 136 South Africa 114
Belgium 14 Ghana 138
Moldova (Republic of) 90 South Sudan 185
Belize 110 Greece 32
Monaco Spain 25
Benin 158 Grenada 74
Mongolia 99 Sri Lanka 72
Bhutan 129 Guatemala 127
Montenegro 48 Sudan 170
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 107 Guinea 178
Morocco 121 Suriname 97
Bosnia and Herzegovina 73 Guinea-Bissau 175
Mozambique 181 Sweden 7
Botswana 100 Guyana 122
Myanmar 147 Switzerland 2
Brazil 84 Haiti 170
Namibia 130 Syrian Arab Republic 151
Brunei Darussalam 47 Honduras 132
Nauru Tajikistan 125
Bulgaria 56 Hong Kong, China (SAR) 4
Nepal 142 Tanzania (United Republic of) 163
Burkina Faso 182 Hungary 40
Netherlands 8 Thailand 79
Burundi 185 Iceland 4
New Zealand 14 Timor-Leste 141
Cabo Verde 126 India 131
Nicaragua 128 Togo 167
Cambodia 144 Indonesia 107
Niger 189 Tonga 104
Cameroon 153 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 70
Nigeria 161 Trinidad and Tobago 67
Canada 16 Iraq 123
North Macedonia 82 Tunisia 95
Central African Republic 188 Ireland 2
Norway 1 Turkey 54
Chad 187 Israel 19
Oman 60 Turkmenistan 111
Chile 43 Italy 29
Pakistan 154 Tuvalu
China 85 Jamaica 101
Palau 50 Uganda 159
Colombia 83 Japan 19
Palestine, State of 115 Ukraine 74
Comoros 156 Jordan 102
Panama 57 United Arab Emirates 31
Congo 149 Kazakhstan 51
Papua New Guinea 155 United Kingdom 13
Congo Kenya 143
(Democratic Republic of the) 175 Paraguay 103 United States 17
Kiribati 134
Costa Rica 62 Peru 79 Uruguay 55
Korea (Democratic People’s Rep. of)
Côte d’Ivoire 162 Philippines 107 Uzbekistan 106
Korea (Republic of) 23
Croatia 43 Poland 35 Vanuatu 140
Kuwait 64
Cuba 70 Portugal 38 Venezuela
Kyrgyzstan 120
(Bolivarian Republic of) 113
Cyprus 33 Qatar 45
Lao People’s
Viet Nam 117
Czechia 27 Democratic Republic 137 Romania 49
Yemen 179
Denmark 10 Latvia 37 Russian Federation 52
Zambia 146
Djibouti 166 Lebanon 92 Rwanda 160
Zimbabwe 150
Dominica 94 Lesotho 165 Saint Kitts and Nevis 74
 United Nations Development Programme
One United Nations Plaza New York,
NY 10017
www.undp.org

We may be entering a new geologic age called the Anthropo- the context of easing planetary pressures; it is instrumental
cene in which humans are a dominant force shaping the plan- to doing so.
et’s future. That future is already taking frightening shape in
many ways, from climate change to plunging biodiversity to The Report calls for a just transformation that expands hu-
the epidemic of plastics in our oceans. man freedoms while easing planetary pressures. For people
to thrive in the Anthropocene, new development trajectories
The strain on the planet mirrors the strain facing many so- must do three things: enhance equity, foster innovation and
cieties. Indeed, planetary and social imbalances reinforce instil a sense of stewardship of the planet. These outcomes
one another. As the 2019 Human Development Report made matter in their own right, and they matter for our shared fu-
plain, many inequalities in human development continue to ture on our planet. All countries have a stake in them.
increase. Climate change, among other dangerous planetary
changes, will only make them worse. The Report organizes its recommendations around mech-
anisms for change: social norms and values, incentives and
The Covid-19 pandemic may be the latest harrowing conse- regulation, and nature-based human development. Each
quence of imbalance writ large. Scientists have long warned mechanism of change specifies multiple potential roles for
that unfamiliar pathogens will emerge more frequently from each of us, for governments, for firms and for political and
interactions among humans, livestock and wildlife, squeezing civil society leaders.
ecosystems so hard that deadly viruses spill out. Collective
action on anything from the Covid-19 pandemic to climate The Report goes on to explore new metrics for a new age. Among
change becomes more difficult against a backdrop of social them is a planetary pressures-adjusted Human Development
fragmentation. Index, which adjusts the standard Human Development Index
(HDI) by a country’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions and
Consciously or not, human choices, shaped by values and material footprint. The Report also introduces a next generation
institutions, have given rise to the interconnected planetary of dashboards, as well as metrics that adjust the HDI to account
and social imbalances we face. The good news, then, is that for the social costs of carbon or for natural wealth.
we can make different choices. We have the power to embark
on bold new development paths that allow for the continuing A new normal is coming, one that is more than uncertain; it is
expansion of human freedoms in balance with the planet. unknown. And it cannot be “solved” neatly. The Covid-19 pan-
demic is just the tip of the spear. Nothing short of a wholesale
That is what the concept of human development, celebrat- shift in mindsets, translated into reality by policy, is needed to
ing its 30th anniversary this year, can contribute to the com- navigate the brave new world of the Anthropocene, to ensure
plex predicaments that this new age poses to each of us. And that all people flourish while easing planetary pressures. This
that is the central message of this year’s global Human De- year’s 2020 Human Development Report helps signpost the
velopment Report. Human development is not just possible in way.