This essay will analyse the validity and reliability of two indicators of human development:
the human development index (HDI) and the gender inequality index (GII).
The human development index takes three different variables into account which are long
and healthy life which is measured by the life expectancy at birth. Life expectancy at birth is
a statistical measure that an average individual is expected to live. Education indicators are
the expected years of schooling and the mean years of schooling. The standard of living is
usually measured by the gross national income (GNI) per capita. The HDI is good because
of the many factors that make it up, so it takes more into account and can have a broader
spectrum, making it more valid. The HDI can also be used in most countries which is another
advance as it can be easily compared with other countries.
The negative to the human development index is that corporate governments can forge it.
Another problem is that some factors are not looked at when measuring a country's HDI, for
example, employment opportunities, which are also very important to the development of
humans. The HDI concentration is more on the long-term changes and the short-term ones.
The gender inequality index is made up of three different indicators, which are gender
disparities in health, empowerment and the labour market.
The GII value increases as gender inequalities increase. One of the index's significant
advantages is the ability to capture the linkages across different dimensions, such as
schooling and access to work. GII works across all countries, which is excellent and can
easily be compared to different countries.
In conclusion I think that both are very reliable because they use multiple indicators even
with the chance that countries with corrupt governments can cheat them. So i think that they
are also valid because of how they can both be compared making them very valid.