The Grey Chronicles

2009.March.3

Relative Hardship in Iligan? Summary I


This is the ninth part of my previous post on a quest of a suitable figure for Iligan City’s Relative Hardship for 2005. This post summarizes the results found and published in previous posts which discussed a comparison of economic, political, and public service. The climatic, religious, safety, health, education and transportation conditions in India and the Philippines will be summarized next. As this summary is lengthy, it was divided into three parts.

Coleman (2009) specified India’s Relative Hardship as 40.0. To come up with a value for the Philippines, to be used for Iligan City, this site assumes that non-personal criteria, such as economic, political, public service, climate and religious conditions, were each given a raw score of 4.0. Meanwhile the personable criteria, such as safety, health, education, and transport conditions, were each given a raw score of 5.0.

Philippine base values were computed using the following formula, thus:

Philippine Score = Indian Score ± [(Indian IndicatorPhilippine Indicator)/Indian Indicator].

Example: Using 4.00 as Indian base, 0.591 for India’s GDP Index and 0.657 for Philippines’ GDP Index; thus: 4.00 + (0.5910.657)/0.591 = 3.89, the equivalent Philippine score for GDP Index. The plus/minus sign [ ± ] is arbitrarily employed, yet dependent on which indicator is better [highlighted in yellow background], as such: the Philippine GDP Index, 0.657, is much better than the Indian GDP Index, 0.591.


Economic conditions such as poverty and service provision.

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Economic Conditions

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Economic Conditions

GDP Index is calculated using adjusted GDP per capita (PPP US$) [see HDR (2007), pp. 355-6]. The higher the GDP Index, the better.

HPI-1 or Human Poverty Index measures deprivations in the three basic dimensions: a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living [see HDR (2007), pp. 355-6]. The lower the HPI, the better.

CPI Average Annual Change is computed through a time series of consumer price indices [see WB (2007), pp. 355-6]. The lower CPI Average Annual Change, the better.

Unemployment Rate as the percentage of total labor force, refers to all people above a specified age who are which is simultaneously without work, available to work, and actively seeking work. [see HDR (2007), pp. 371; WRI 2005, p. 190]. The lower unemployment as percent of labor force, the better.

GINI Index measures the level of income inequality between the poorest 10%, poorest 20%, richest 20% and richest 10% within a country. A value of 0 represents absolute equality, and a value of 100 absolute inequality. Thus the lower the GINI Index, the better. [see HDR (2007), p. 284; WRI (2008) p. 204-6.]


Political conditions such as tolerance of diverse views, life style and conformity to cultural norms.

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Political Conditions

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Political Conditions

Level of Democracy measures the degree to which a nation is either autocratic or democratic. A score of plus 10 indicates a strongly democratic state, which is better. [see WRI 2005, p. 198]

Level of Political Competition measures the extent to which alternate preferences for policy and leadership can be pursued in the political arena. Competitive systems, score of 5, are better. [see WRI 2005, p. 198]

Corruption Perceptions Index measures the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians, from 10 (least corrupt) to 0 (most corrupt). CPI is a composite index compiled by Transparency International. [see WRI 2005, p. 198]

Digital Access Index reflects the ability of each country’s population to take advantage of internet communication technologies calculated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). A score of 100 equals the most access. [see WRI 2005, p. 198]

Press Freedom Index by Freedom House measures the degree of each country permits the free flow of information, measured on a scale of 1 [“free” media] to 100. [see WRI 2005, p. 198]


Public Service conditions such as provision, administration and accessibility to water, electricity, sanitation, work permits, etc.

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Public Service Conditions

Comparative Relative Hardship 2005—Public Service Conditions

Water Poverty Index measures, for a given country, the impact of water scarcity and water provision on human populations. The WPI is a number between 0 and 100, where a low score indicates water poverty and a high score indicates good water provision. [see WRI (2008) pp. 214-213; and Lawrence, et. al. (2003)]

Improved Sanitation includes any of the following excreta disposal facilities: connection to a public sewer, connection to a septic tank, pour-flush latrine, simple pit latrine, and ventilated improved pit latrine. [see WRI 2005, p. 182] The higher the percentage access of the total population, the better.

Electrification Rate based on IEA 2002 and IEA 2006. [see WRI 2005, p. 182] The higher the electrification rate, the more access, the better. The higher consumption, much better lives to consumers.

Employment Ratio to Population, 15 years above based on MDG published data. The higher the employment ratio, the better.


Notes:

For interactive links, see also respective sources of data from the previous posts. A consolidated image of this summary is also found here.

Coleman, Steven (2009) Expatriate Cost of Living in India for February 2009 Online: EzineArticles.com, 13 February 2009. back to text

Lawrence, P., J. Meigh, and C. Sullivan (2003). The Water Poverty Index: an International Comparison. Staffordshire, UK: Keele University. 2003. back to text

UNDP HDR (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008. New York: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2007. pp. 355-6. back to text

World Resources Institute (2005) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank. World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor—Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2005. back to text

World Resources Institute (2008) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank. World Resources 2008: Roots of Resilience—Growing the Wealth of the Poor. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2008. back to text

Disclaimer : The posts on this site does not necessarily represent any organization’s positions, strategies or opinions; and unless otherwise expressly stated, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: