Another problematic index

Given Pakistan’s infamy on the failed state index and a range of other similar rankings, it was quite strange seeing it rank 16^th among 151 countries on the World Happy Planet Index for 2012.Pakistan seems to not only have been ranked ahead of India, but also the mighty United States. This is the third time that this index has been published and is compiled by the London-based New Economics Foundation (NEF), which aims to challenge mainstream thinking on economics, environment and social issues. Earlier, the NEF has worked on helping bring international debt onto the agenda of the G7 and G8 summits. The NEF’s Happy Planet Index (HPI) itself, however, seems a much less valuable venture.

The HPI points out that it is not trying to provide a ranking of the ‘happiest’ countries in the world. Instead, it wants to show the relative efficiency with which nations use natural resources to achieve the well-being of their citizens. The HPI tries doing so by comparing life expectancy, well-being experience and ecological footprint (per capita) using data collected from various sources including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Gallup data.

The NEF makes a valid point that the dominant Western model of development is not sustainable. It is also interesting to note how rich countries, such as Qatar, Luxembourg, Kuwait, the UAE, Denmark and the US have such a detrimental ecological footprint. However, the HPI assertion of providing a clear and meaningful barometer of how well a nation is doing remains problematic. Let’s return again to Pakistan’s ranking to demonstrate why.

While the life expectancy and experienced well-being of Pakistan were found to be mediocre, a ‘good’ ecological footprint was deemed responsible for propelling us to such an enviable position. Yet, the main reason why our ecological footprint is considered good has much less to do with environmental conscientiousness of our policymakers and more to do with our nation’s inability to catch up with major industrial countries.

A range of other indicators such as the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) provide a much less optimistic assessment concerning Pakistan’s situation. Pakistan’s HDI ranking of 145 out of 187 countries during this past year is in stark contrast to its position on the HPI.

The NEF and its index say nothing about the economic disparity, the dismal mother and child mortality rates or the growing food insecurity in the country. The devastation caused by the three massive consecutive years of flooding does not seem to have made a dent in our situation vis-à-vis contributing to ‘planet happiness’.

Placing Pakistan, or even Bangladesh for that matter, so high on the HPI due to apparently good ecological footprints, which are, in fact, based on our inability to achieve higher growth and the pervasive level of deprivation and disparities, is therefore, hardly constructive.

The NEF would have performed a more useful function by trying to calculate the effect of bad ecological footprints due to carbon emissions of developed countries on less developed countries in the form of climate change impacts. The NEF could even have made an index of worst offending and worst impacted countries and then publicised such a ranking in the attempt to have the offending countries pay for environmental havoc being caused in countries which are worst affected by unsustainable ecological footprints.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 22^nd,  2012.