The Dimensions of Human Development

Whenever the issues of human and economic development are analysed, there is always a need to consider a set of criteria which must be fulfilled to judge whether such development has been successful or not. These criteria are the same as ‘dimensions’ of the same problem. A key feature of ‘dimensions’ are that they co-exist with other factors of the same problem. For example, in the context of human development, it is essential for an individual to have access to a balanced diet, access to healthcare, access to sanitation and drinking water, education and equal opportunities. The latter, in the context of human development, requires that there be a reasonable recognition of the human rights of an individual—reasonable in the context that the behaviour of any individual should not have any negative impact either on society or on other individuals. Unfortunately, in Western society ‘reasonable freedom’ is not recognised because society and injured parties have recourse to the law. And access to this tends to be expensive and the results of the legal process do not always lead to justice for those whose human rights have been violated by others. Nevertheless, the consideration of these ‘dimensions’ allows for the development and implementation of policies which enable the accomplishment and fulfilment of all the dimensions required for as complete human development as possible. In effect these dimensions serve as a benchmark for the elucidation of policies which would serve the purpose of achieving the multidimensional objective of human development. This would embrace full access to public, private, economic, social, political and spiritual resources. In this case, the evaluation of human development as seen a re-evaluation of economic activity as a process which merely satisfies the basic human needs to a process which provides opportunities for people to achieve valuable functionings. These functionings could range from those required for survival to those more simple such as visiting a relative. This would signify a shift from a unidimensional approach to understanding human development as a multidimensional problem requiring a multidimensional approach. This multidimensional approach to assessing development reflects the capability approach to assessing development, in which case the extent of development is measured on the basis of an expansion of capability. This could be an expansion of capability associated with survival, the ability to drink water or something as trivial as being able to visit a relative. A similar approach to the Capability Approach which also does not determine either basic needs or basic capabilities can be associated with a ‘no need to reason’ approach to the way in which people behave. In this case, by behaving in the way that they do, people are reflecting on a multidimensional view of their lives—access to resources, relationships, life experiences, beliefs and preferences, and thus can determine the best way in which they should behave. However, although these approaches take a multidimensional approach to human development, there is a better need to understand the ways in which behaviour and functioning can be improved. This improvement can be achieved by reducing the inequality in society and improving the mechanisms for opportunities to arise and be grasped. Economic growth could be one way in which inequality in society can be reduced. However, the maximisation of economic growth and GDP has been the centre piece of the economic policy of governments around the world since 1945. In conjunction with the rapid rise of globalisation after the late 1970s, the impact on human society regardless of country has been to polarise prosperity in the hands of the few and poverty in the hands of the many. Therefore, in the last few years there has been a shift away from the mainstream view that government economic policies aimed at maximising economic growth will lead to increasing prosperity for all to a non-consensus view that the focus of government socio-economic policy should be on enhancing and maximising human well-being and the quality of life. Two countries which have embraced this economic ideology are Bhutan and New Zealand. It is about time that other countries also followed suit so that human well-being is enhanced, and the uneven distribution of wealth reduced.