Proposal for UN to expand Gini measurement

Comments on UN “2014 AMR Part II (17 February - 2 March): Sustaining development gains through inclusive development”, 22/02/2014, https://www.unteamworks.org/node/423746#comment-63704

I address the last question listed above first. I think that a set of necessary and widely applicable conditions or strategies for fostering social inclusion and citizen engagement can be identified. 

If I can talk about social inclusion and citizen engagement in terms of economic ones because it is an important area and without this any benefits will not be sustainable in the long term.

Let's define economic growth as average growth of the economy of a country or a region. Then one can also calculate the economic growth by a set of classification of population based on their income levels, say percentiles. Inclusion can mean a number of concepts, say the lowest 10 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent have also achieved growth that is not appreciably below the average growth.

Many people are used to using Gini index for equality purposes. Gini index is very useful in measuring income or wealth distribution for a country or region and indeed the whole world if one wishes to do so.

I do mind using that but have some concerns on indiscriminately using it to every occasion particularly to situations where changes are rapid and large in some of the underlying indicators like GDP growth. This is because Gini is a static indicator of relativity of income distribution for a particular point of time and can indicate very little about the level. As such, it may mask significant improvement in, say, poverty reduction when economic growth is rapid with the poor benefiting from it but at the same time Gini may show inequality has increased.

China is a case for this where poverty has been reduced significantly but its Gini measure may have worsened.

I think the UN should undertake some studies to develop some measures which can improve the shortcomings of Gini in that regard. This work may have important applications in managing expectations and contributing to a better and happier society by showing a true picture.

Gender inequality and equality

Comments on Steve Harris “Find room at the top for women”, 27/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/find-room-at-the-top-for-women/story-e6frg6zo-1225995061393

This kind of mechanical approach to gender equality, that is, by "fixed targets of 40 per cent female representation on boards and senior management teams for July 2013 for all publicly funded bodies, and July 2015 for all publicly listed companies, with real financial incentives or penalties across contracts, accreditation, research grants, subsidies and taxation to drive it home", is nonsense.

It is inherently unequal if the market mechanism is to be based. It is not based on the principle of rewarding according to performance.

The use of Norway, a tiny country, as an example or model in this respect is appalling. Norway in a number of areas is on the extreme and what it does has serious efficiency effects. Why should Australia learn from that?

If people with the responsibility to educate others are thinking like this or fixated with such a poor approach, how can we expect that Australia can improve its efficiency and equality?

Harris' idea is no different to asking for man to give birth to babies so man and woman are equal! That is his concept of gender equality!

Democracy and freedom?

The following report should be an interesting reminder of that even democracy does not neceassrily mean much to personal freedom and equality between persons.

I heard in the past that there were different classes of people in India, but have thought those were probably past. But some things in India still appear odd.

Are they part of the human rights that many western politicians talk about?

ABS report: "Indian farmers sell wives to pay debts", 10/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681503.htm?section=justin