[accepted revision] | [accepted revision] |
Content deleted Content added
m just added a name Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
→Criticism: clarifiations Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
||
Line 602:
The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of grounds, including focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, lack of attention to development from a global perspective, measurement error of the underlying statistics, and on the UNDP's changes in formula which can lead to severe misclassification of "low", "medium", "high" or "very high" human development countries.<ref name="Wolff et al. 2011">{{cite journal |last1=Wolff |first1=Hendrik |last2=Chong |first2=Howard |last3=Auffhammer |first3=Maximilian |year=2011 |title=Classification, Detection and Consequences of Data Error: Evidence from the Human Development Index |journal=Economic Journal |volume=121 |issue=553 |pages=843–870 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02408.x |s2cid=18069132 |url=https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/338 |hdl=1813/71597 |hdl-access=free |access-date=13 July 2019 |archive-date=8 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200808041651/https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/338/ |url-status=live |issn=0013-0133}}</ref>
There have also been various criticism towards the lack of consideration regarding sustainability<ref>{{Cite journal |last=WWF |first=WWF |title=Living Planet Report 2014 |url=http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/723/files/original/WWF-LPR2014-low_res.pdf?1413912230 |journal=[[Living Planet Report]] |volume=2014 |pages=60–62}}</ref> (
=== Sources of data error ===
|