35. Southeast Asia’s Global Metrics

• Income Disparity in Southeast Asia
• Life Expectancy: National Longevity
• Human Development Index (HDI) & Inequality adjusted Index (IHDI)
• % Rise in Human Development Index (1980 -> 2013)
• Gender Inequality Index (GII)
• Global Hunger Index (1990-2013)

We have traced Southeast Asia’s story in two volumes. We started with her tectonic beginnings some 300 million years ago and finished with the political developments that led to the current state of affairs in the 2nd decade of the 21st century, 2014 to be specific. A long journey, to be sure. Before summarizing and saying our goodbyes, let us examine some global metrics that reveal where Southeast Asia’s nations rate with respect to the rest of the world.

Global metrics hold great appeal for a variety of reasons. The primary appeal is that empirical data protects us from personal bias and/or myopia, i.e. lack of general information. Similarly, scientists rely on experimental data to validate or invalidate personal opinion.

Relevant numbers can also be easily compared, while verbal reports or personal opinions are nearly impossible to rank. How bad is bad? For instance, one source implied that the income disparity between the rich and poor in Vietnam is large and rising. However, when all the international numbers are crunched, the global metrics give an entirely different picture. As we shall see, Vietnam’s income disparity is low relative to other nations.

Most would grant these numerically based international measures much more credence than purely verbal reports. Hearsay evidence is highly suspect. Even expert opinion must bow before empirical data. In other words, global metrics are highly rated on the evidence scale.

Before proceeding carelessly forth, let us add a cautionary note. We are looking at numbers accumulated by humans to reveal the ranking of the world’s nations with regard to each other. Because of their precise nature, numbers imply accuracy and objectivity. In actuality, the way that these numerical measures were tabulated, accumulated and averaged is inherently prone to inaccuracy and distortion. Even if these averages are totally correct, how can one number with a label, no matter how carefully recorded and computed, ever hope to summarize the nature of an entire nation with hundreds of thousands, if not a hundred million, people?

Further many of these tables of figures are composite averages that are computed from other composite numbers in very sophisticated ways. For instance, the gender inequality index (GII) is based upon 5 averages, each with their built-in ambiguities. In general, the potential for distortion is proportional to the number of measures and the complexity of computation employed to generate the global metric. As such, there is often some controversy associated with the more politically and emotionally charged categories, for instance gender equality, human development and corruption.

Because of this built-in ambiguity, it might be tempting to disregard the global information altogether – throwing these solitary numbers into the dustbin of over-generalization. However, these global metrics are the most objective information we have. Verbal reports are almost hopelessly subjective – skewed in one direction or another.

Not to worry. If we look carefully at this numerical information, we might be able to glean some useful knowledge that cannot be reliably derived in any other way. We must be constantly on guard against getting too carried away with our reason. For instance, we want to avoid granting the averages more weight than they deserve or over-claiming conclusions based upon inherently sketchy numbers.

Employing redundancy logic to check and crosscheck conclusions is a useful method of coming to a deeper understanding of the underlying message of the following multiplicity of global numbers. For instance, comparing political facts with the figures is a form of redundancy that can cast doubt upon or reaffirm conclusions. Sometimes numbers, historical events and commentary all point in the same direction. This confluence of knowledge validates the analysis. On the contrary, when number, history and knowledge point in contradictory directions, it is time to question assumptions.

A few caveats to hold in mind, as we enter following discussion: the global metrics are rough estimates rather than precise figures. There are subcategories behind each composite measure. As such, the name of the international measure is just an educated approximation of what the measures actually mean. For instance, the Gender Inequality Index is complied employing a variety of measures including teenage pregnancy percentages. However, income comparison is not a factor. Conclusions regarding women in these countries must be limited to what we know, not what we surmise.

With these admonitions in mind, let us proceed into the supposedly objective world of number comparisons.

Income Disparity in Southeast Asia

The relative income disparity between rich and poor is an indication of economic inequality. Some economic inequality is, of course, an inherent feature of any human society. However, too much disparity creates resentment and even blocks economic growth and national prosperity, according to a recent paper by Standard and Poor.

There are a variety of methods of measuring income disparity from the simple to the sophisticated. Based around population distributions and wealth, the GINI Index is the most sophisticated and is also the standard metric for measuring income disparity. A simpler and more accessible measure is based upon the income ratio between the top 10% earners and the bottom 10%. The world rankings for the measurement schemes are strikingly similar.

The following table provides some global metrics that compare the income disparity in a variety of countries. Southeast Asian nations are on the left; while a sampling of nations including the World average are on the right. The columns labeled ‘10%’ indicates the ratio between the incomes of the top 10% and the bottom 10% wage earners. The GINI columns indicate each nation’s score with this standard metric.

Income Disparity (2013)
10%	Country	GINI		10%	Country	GINI
–	Timor	31.9		12.5	Australia	30.5
7.8	Indonesia	33.4		9.4	Canada	32.6
6.9	Vietnam	35.6		8.6	India	33.4
8.3	Laos	36.7
12.2	Cambodia	37.9		4.5	Japan	38.1
12.6	Thailand	40.0		12	World	39
11.6	Myanmar	40.0		12.7	Russia	40.1
15.5	Philippines	43.0
22.1	Malaysia	46.2		15.9	US	45
17.7	Singapore	48.1		21.1	China	47
–	Brunei	–

 

Let us look at Indonesia as an example of how to understand the figures. The top 10% earn 7.8 times more than the bottom 10%. If the bottom earns $10,000, then the top averages $78,000/year. For the World, the top wage earners average 12 times more than the bottom rung. Thus Indonesia’s income disparity under this measurement is quite low on a global scale. The same holds true for all Southeast Asia’s mainland countries. Each is equal to or quite a bit lower than the world average.

The GINI Index only makes sense in comparison with other figures of the same nature. The World’s GINI score is 39. As such, any score below 39 indicates that the country’s income disparity is less than average. At 33.4, the income disparity between rich and poor is much less in Indonesia than most other nations. Similarly for the countries of what was formerly French Indochina, i.e. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. All three have low GINI scores in the mid 30s.

In an earlier article, we mentioned that income disparity has begun to grow in Vietnam much to the discouragement of the idealists. However, the top wage earners only make 7 times more than the bottom wage earners. Laos is also relatively low in these categories. It seems that these communist nations have been able to maintain relative income equality in their populations, despite claims to the contrary.

Thailand and Myanmar are in the mid range. The top 10% earn about 12 times as much as the bottom 10%, which is the world average.  Their GINI scores of 40 are just over the world average. The income gap in the Philippines is much greater, with scores well above the world average. Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the trio of former British colonies, have the greatest income disparity in all of Southeast Asia. The wage discrepancy between rich and poor could be termed excessive with the rich earning 20 times more than the poor and with GINI scores over 45.

According to a 2004 United Nations Human Development report, this discrepancy has led to problems in Malaysia. The richest 10% control 38.4% of the income, while the poorest 10% control only 1.7%. An increasing number of poor are squatters or living in shantytowns and slums. These squalid conditions have contributed to a rising crime rate; especially snatch theft, robberies and rape. Spread the wealth; increase general social contentment; reduce crime and insecurity. Simple. But who wants to share?

As a global comparison of GINI indexes, the U.S. at 45 ranks just below Malaysia’s 46. Dispelling any notion that communist nations keep a lid upon the income gap, China’s GINI score of 47 is higher still. In each country, the wealthy earn over 15 times more than the lowest wage earners. All measures are well above the world average.

In contrast, the GINI scores of Australia, Canada, India and the European nations are well under the global average, with scores in the low 30s and even some in the high 20s. In many of these countries, the top 10% wage earners typically earn less than 10 times the bottom.

Conversely, in most of the Central and South American countries, the top 10% earn from 30 to 90 times more than the bottom 10%. Shame! No wonder, the drug cartels have flourished and bribery is a way of life for public officials. In general, the countries of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of Canada, have high income disparity, with GINI scores between 40 and 65. Southern Africa is even worse with scores mostly above 50.

The Americas			Europe
Country	10%		Country	10%
Ecuador	35		England	13.8
Bolivia	93		Spain	10.3
Brazil	40		Germany	6.9
Venezuela	19		Greece	10.2
El Salvador	38		Portugal	15.0
Guatemala	33		France	9.1
Panama	50		Italy	11.6
Haiti	54		Holland	9.2
Mexico	21		Sweden	6.2
Nicaragua	31		Denmark	8.1
Miscellaneous			Norway	6.1
South Africa	33		Finland	5.6
Saudi Arabia	33

Although there is a temptation to read a lot into this measure of income disparity, we must be cautious. Instead of ‘reasoning’ what these figures might mean, we must instead investigate other measures to see what they reveal. High income disparity is neither inherently bad nor good. Are there some overlapping redundancies that create a pattern? Or instead do other measures contradict our ‘logical’ conclusions?

Life Expectancy: National Longevity

Let us now examine a global measure that is certainly an indication of how well the society or government looks after the health of its citizens – national life expectancy. This is a number that anyone can understand and has very little controversy associated with it. In brief, the ‘Age’ associated with each country is the age at which the average person dies. Even this number has a bit of ambiguity associated with it, as women tend to live 5 years longer than men, again on the average.

Life expectancy is a great figure to attune to as it reveals much about a society. For instance, longevity is associated with nutrition, health care and social stability. Further when an entire population lives a long time, it is an indication that the nation probably tends in some way to the needs of the elderly. The average age of death drops substantially when a country is at war, the citizens are malnourished, and/or medical care is lacking.

However, longevity is not correlated with personal and political freedoms. Even a prisoner can live a long time if properly nourished and cared for. Some might even prefer the uncertainty of freedom to the security of repression. Wild animals tend to prefer freedom in the wilderness to the regular meals of a cage in a zoo.

Life Expectancy
Rank	Country	Age		Rank	Country	Age
4	Singapore	84		2	Japan	85
41	Brunei	79		34	US	80
67	Malaysia	76		64	China	76
72	Vietnam	75
77	Thailand	75
112	Philippines	73
117	Indonesia	72		124	Russia	70
136	Laos	68		126	World	68
137	Myanmar	68
146	Cambodia	66		150	India	65
153	Timor	64

Those countries where individuals live about 80 years or more on the average represent the top tier in terms of human longevity (79 to 88 to be more precise). There are a little over 40 countries that fit into this category. Japan, the European nations, Canada, Australia, and the US are notable examples of societies that provide a social environment that sustains its citizens into old age.  

The Southeast Asian nations, Singapore and Brunei, also fit into the top longevity tier, with Malaysia not far behind. In other words, life expectancy is greatest in the 3 Southeast Asian countries with the greatest income disparity. This figure suggests that the citizenry in this trio of nations live in a socially stable environment, where food and medical care are readily available. Even though the press, civil liberties and personal freedoms might be restricted, the populace is cared for well enough to live a long time. Let us consider the notion that a healthy human tends to be someone with vitality. Vitality certainly places one in a better position to achieve self-realization, if not actualize potentials.

There are over 60 nations that fit into the 2nd longevity tier: those nations whose citizens regularly survive well into their mid-70s (74 to 78 years of age). Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand are the Southeast Asian nations that fit into this category. China does also. Both China and Vietnam are communist; Malaysia is a controlled Islamic democracy, while Thailand is a Buddhist monarchial democracy. It seems that there is very little correlation between the type of government or religion and how long the citizens live.

The next grouping contains those nations whose residents live until about 70 years of age (69 to 73). There are a little over 30 nations in this category, including the Philippines and Indonesia. Russian citizens also belong to this 3rd tier. Again in scanning the life expectancy list, there are no clear-cut patterns that jump out regarding the relation between the type of government and how long the citizens live.

There are about 20 nations whose citizens only survive into their mid-60s (64 to 68 years of age). Cambodia, Laos and Timor are the Southeast Asian nations that fit into this 4th category. India does as well.

There are still some 40 countries whose citizens tend to die even earlier (age 47 to 63). Gratefully in terms of this story, none of the Southeast Asian nations fit into this category. Many of the countries in the bottom tier are in Africa. Obviously these governments aren’t willing or are unable to take care of their citizenry.

We’ve spent a lot of time on the life expectancy list, because everyone can easily relate to the figures. More importantly, it reflects the findings of the more complex indexes.

Human Development Index (HDI) & Inequality adjusted Index (IHDI)

Let us now consider a pair of comparative indexes that measure the potential for human development, especially for children – the HDI and the IHDI. Because of the complex method of tabulation and computation, both metrics are a bit controversial. We take the two measures in tandem in order to gain perspective.

Developed first, the Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure based upon life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living, and quality of life for countries worldwide. As such, the HDI is a composite number. The HDI is intended to be the standard metric for measuring the relative well being of a nation’s citizens, especially child welfare. However, it does not take inequalities in access to health, education and income into account. As such, it could be said that the HDI rates the relative well-being of the upper and middle classes of each nation in comparison with the same classes in other nations.

To more accurately reflect the general well-being of a nation’s citizenry, not just the more prosperous classes, the Inequality adjusted HDI (IHDI) was generated to take these inequalities into account. To achieve its equalizing process, the IHDI reduces the HDI proportionately for disparities in access to health, education and income. Directly derived from the HDI, the IHDI is also a composite measure.

While the HDI reflects a nation’s general well-being if everyone has equal opportunities, the IHDI reduces this score to reflect opportunity disparity. In general, the HDI and IHDI rankings are similar if the income disparity between the top and bottom wage earners is low. In contrast, the global rankings tend to fall quite dramatically when a country’s income disparity is high. As such, the IHDI reflects the average potential for human development in the entire population, not just the wealthier sectors.

Let’s first examine the global rankings of the Human Development Index (HDI), as this wealth-skewed measure is still the standard for comparison.

The rankings are strikingly similar to the longevity readings. Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia are on top of the scale, while Timor, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are at the bottom. The US, Japan and the European nations rank at the top of the scale, while India ranks near the bottom. Russia, China, and the World average rank in the middle. Most Southeast Asian nations are well below average according to this index.

Human Development Index (2013)
Rank	Country	HDI		Rank	Country	HDI
9	Singapore	901		5	US	914
30	Brunei	852		17	Japan	870
62	Malaysia	773		57	Russia	778
89	Thailand	722		91	China	719
108	Indonesia	684		101	World	702
117	Philippines	660
121	Vietnam	638		187 nations
128	Timor	620
136	Cambodia	584		135	India	586
139	Laos	569
150	Myanmar	524

 

The rankings are strikingly similar to the longevity readings. Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia are on top of the scale, while Timor, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are at the bottom. The US, Japan and the European nations rank at the top of the scale, while India ranks near the bottom. Russia, China, and the World rank in the middle. Most Southeast Asian nations are well below average according to this index.

But remember, the HDI doesn’t take inequalities in opportunity into account. Hence this measure primarily compares the opportunities for those in the more privileged tiers of society. As such, it is great to be upper-middle class in the US, Singapore, and Brunei for opportunities abound.

Let’s examine when inequalities in health, education and income are taken into account. While Japan’s ranking is virtually unchanged, the ranking of the US falls precipitously. Over 20 countries jump ahead. It’s great to live in the US if you have money, while there might not be so many opportunities for human development if you are poor. Unfortunately, no IHDI was tallied for Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia, those Southeast Asian countries with the highest income disparity. We estimate that the rankings of these countries would also be impacted negatively – drawing down their relative score.

Inequality Adjusted HDI (IHDI 2013)
Rank	Country	IHDI		Rank	Country	IHDI
69	Thailand	573		19	Japan	799
72	Indonesia	553		28	US	755
74	Vietnam	543		40	Russia	685
76	Philippines	540		67	China	543
89	Laos	409
95	Cambodia	440
97	Timor	430
–	Singapore	–		100	India	418
–	Brunei	–
–	Malaysia	–		144 nations
–	Myanmar	–

 

After inequality adjustments, the global rankings of the rated Southeast Asian nations rise from 20 to 50 places. We can draw an interesting inference from this intriguing factoid. With the exception of the above-mentioned trio of unrated former British colonies, the relative equality of the citizenry of Southeast Asia is much greater than the rest of the world.

As a further indication, the global rankings of these nations unadjusted HDI scores were well below the global average. After adjustments for inequalities in opportunity, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines are all bunched in the middle of the world’s nations in terms of the potential for human development. Laos, Cambodia, Timor, and Myanmar remain at the bottom of the Southeast Asian nations. However, these low ranking countries are still well above the bottom quarter of the world’s countries in terms of relative well being.

Considering what Southeast Asian nations have been through in the last few centuries, i.e. colonialism, neo-colonialism, the wars, the military dictatorships and the misguided communist policies, all the countries with few exceptions are providing an environment that has a decent potential for human development for its children. The general social, economic and political circumstances in these countries is certainly far better than during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Some of the countries have just turned around in the last decade.

% Rise in Human Development Index: 1980 -> 2013

To provide historical perspective, let us examine what happened to each Southeast Asian nation’s HDI scores from 1980 to 2013. The final 3 columns represent the percentage rise per year in the specified decade (100 = 1%). For comparison, we also show the World averages.

		HDI		% Rise in HDI
Rank	Country	1980	2013	1980-90	1990-00	2000-13
9	Singapore	744*	901	–	72	92
30	Brunei	740	852	60	46	27
62	Malaysia	577	773	105	112	58
89	Thailand	503	722	128	127	83
108	Indonesia	471	684	116	144	90
117	Philippines	566	660	45	46	49
121	Vietnam	463	638	28	170	96
128	Timor	465*	620	–	–	225
136	Cambodia	251	584	483	147	175
139	Laos	340	569	151	183	144
150	Myanmar	328	524	59	194	169
101	World	559	702	66	67	73
	• Singapore begins 1990. Timor begins 2000.