HUMANDEVELOPMENT

NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT SYSTEM

EVALUATION OF

United Nations Development Programme

HUMANDEVELOPMENT

THE NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT SYSTEM

EVALUATION OF

Evaluation OfficeUnited Nations Development Programme

Copyright © UNDP 2006, all rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America

The analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or the United Nations Member States.This is an independent publication by UNDP and reflects the views of its authors.

Design: Suazion Inc. (NY, suazion.com) Production: A.K. Office Supplies (NY)

EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT SYSTEM

Team Leader Ha-Joon Chang (Reader, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge University)

Principal Consultant Carl Riskin (Distinguished Professor of Economics at Queen’s College,& Lead Author City University of New York)

International Celina Souza (Professor, Federal University of Bahia, Brazil)Consultant & Author

International Sam Moyo (Executive Director, African Institute for Agrarian Studies, Zimbabwe)Consultants

Mohamed Ould Maouloud (Professor, University of Nouakchott, Mauritiana)

George Kossaifi (Director, Dar al Tanmiya, Lebanon)

Oscar Yujnovsky (former Director, Urban and Regional Studies, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

National Consultants Naresh C. Saxena (India)

Susanna B. Yeghiazaryan (Armenia)

Manuela Malindi (Albania)

Halla El Shafie (Egypt)

Evaluation Office S. NanthikesanTask Manager

Advisory Committee Peter Evans (Professor of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley)

Sir Richard Jolly (Professor Emeritus, Institute for Development Studies, Sussex)

Aziz Khan (Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of California, Riverside)

Sanjay Reddy (Associate Professor of Economics, Faculty of Economics,Barnard College, Columbia University)

Akilgapa Sawyer (Chancellor of African Universities, Ghana)

Frances Stewart (Director,Centre for Research on Inequality,Human Security and Ethnicityat the Department for International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford)

Panel of Peter Evans (University of California, Berkeley)Methodology

Barbara Harris-White (Professor of Development Studies and Governing Body Fellow,ExpertsWolfson College, Oxford)

Mary Morgan (Professor of History of Economics, London School of Economics)

Theodore Porter (Professor of History of Science, University of California, Los Angeles)

Frances Stewart (Director,Centre for Research on Inequality,Human Security and Ethnicityat the Department for International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford)

Peer Review Panel Selim Jahan (Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP)

Marc-Andre Finch (Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, UNDP)

Nadia Hijab (member, Human Development Report Network)

EVALUATION TEAM

The United Nations Development Programmehas produced a global Human DevelopmentReport (HDR) each year since 1990. Thereis wide consensus that the report has playedan important role in raising awareness ofthe need to place human well-being at thecore of the global development agenda. Ithas affected the development debate in apositive way, challenging the longstandingdevelopment paradigm that focused narrowlyon the growth of gross national income.

The global Human Development Report hasbeen joined by a less well-known butpotentially equally important tool fordiscussing national, regional and even localdevelopment issues, namely, the nationalhuman development report. National HDRsare now produced or overseen by more than130 UNDP country (and regional) offices,resulting in nearly 550 reports and a largenumber of disaggregated and supplementaryhuman development indexes, reflectingnational and local conditions as no otherglobal instrument can.

While the global Human DevelopmentReport has been subjected to considerabledebate and evaluation, the same cannot besaid about NHDRs. Sustainable humandevelopment is the mandate of UNDP,and NHDRs are the organization’s mostvisible instrument for advocating humandevelopment around the world. Despitethe large number and variety of NHDRsproduced, there has not been any systematicevaluation of their performance.

This evaluation assesses the strategicrelevance, effectiveness and sustainabilityof the NHDR system—that is, the sumtotal of policies, practices, organizationalstructures and networks linked toproducing and disseminating the reports.In doing so, the evaluation has developed arigorous methodology to assess the influenceand impact of advocacy efforts and is basedon a case-study approach.

The evaluation involved missions to sevencountries (Albania, Armenia, Brazil, Egypt,India, Senegal and Zambia), eight in-depth desk reviews (on NHDRs in Bolivia,Botswana, Bulgaria, Colombia, Kazakhstan,Slovakia, Ukraine and the United Republicof Tanzania), and a review of related UNDPprogrammes and corporate policies. Thisreport draws on these assessments to providelessons and recommendations for the policiesand practices governing the production anddissemination of NHDRs.

The conclusions of this evaluation arerelevant to UNDP decision-makers as wellas other individuals and organizationsconcerned with human development, suchas governments, civil society groups andthe public. The evaluation finds that theNHDR system, despite its meagre resources,has made significant achievements inhighlighting human development prioritiesin countries and has influenced intellectualdiscourse, policy formation and governmentresource allocation. It urges future NHDRsto move from introducing human develop-ment to a deeper analysis of the developmentchallenges faced by countries.

The evaluation calls for UNDP to recognizethe NHDR system as a core component ofUNDP’s mission and to provide strongersupport. It recommends that the contribu-tions of the NHDR system be reflected inUNDP by being incorporated within itsbusiness plans, programming activities,accountability mechanisms and incentivesystems. It also points to the need to formulateclear policies regarding the relationshipbetween the NHDR, the MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report and the PovertyReduction Strategy Paper to avoid competitionamong these programmes for scarce humanresources, which has been observed insome countries.

The evaluation report represents thededication and contributions of many

F O R E W O R D i

Foreword

F O R E W O R Di i

people. First and foremost, the EvaluationOffice is deeply grateful to the evaluationteam. The team was led by Ha-Joon Chang,and this report was authored by CarlRiskin, Ha-Joon Chang and Celina Souza.Team members included George Kossaifi,Sam Moyo, Mohamed Maouloud, CarlRiskin, Celina Souza and Oscar Yujnovsky.The international team was accompanied bya team of national experts: Halla El Shafie(Egypt), Manuela Malindi (Albania),Naresh C. Saxena (India) and Susana B.Yeghiazarayan (Armenia). We are gratefulto all of them, especially Carl Riskin andCelina Souza, who put in countless hoursshaping and refining the text to bring it toits current state.

The evaluation also benefited from the adviceof a panel of six leading internationalexperts drawn from academia and thepublic arena: Peter Evans, Sir Richard Jolly,Aziz R. Khan, Sanjay Reddy, AkilgappaSawyer and Frances Stewart. We gratefullyacknowledge the comments of Selim Jahan,Marc-Andre Finch and Nadia Hijab, whopeer reviewed the draft report.

We are also grateful to the panel of expertswho provided valuable input in developingthe rigorous and pioneering methodologyused in this exercise to assess the results ofadvocacy: Peter Evans, Barbara Harris-White, Mary Morgan, Theodore Porterand Frances Stewart.

The team was assisted by excellentresearchers, namely Afiya McLaughlin-

White, Mariana Newport and RachelSorrentino. Mahahoua Toure, Cecilia Corpusand Michelle Sy provided administrativesupport to this exercise and Anish Pradhanprovided technical support to the publicationprocess. We would also like to express ourappreciation to Shreya Dawan, editor ofthe country studies, and to Lois Jensen,editor of this report. In the EvaluationOffice, the evaluation was task-managedby S. Nanthikesan.

I am very grateful to the national teams whohave worked on NHDRs, and to governmentand civil society representatives in the case-study countries, who shared their insightswith the team. I would like to extend ourdeep appreciation also to all the UNDPresident representatives and staff of thecountries visited by the team, the directorand deputy director of the Human DevelopmentReport Office and other colleagues inHeadquarters who provided vital feedbackto the team and the Evaluation Office.

I hope that this evaluation will find a broadaudience and that the recommendationsprovided here will result in stronger supportto the NHDR system and better integrationof the contributions of NHDRs withinUNDP’s own programming.

Saraswathi Menon,DirectorUNDP Evaluation Office

C O N T E N T S i i i

Acronyms and Abbreviations iv

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Objective, Scope and Coverage 11.2 Key Audiences 11.3 Evaluation Criteria 11.4 Evaluation Approach 21.5 NHDR System Context 31.6 Organization of this Report 5

2. Conceptual Framework and Methodology 7

2.1 Methodology for Assessing Influence and Impact 72.2 Constraints 8

3. Findings 11

3.1 Influence and Impact of the NHDR System 113.2 The NHDR System and Corporate Decision-making 173.3 The NHDR System at the Country Level 20

4. Recommendations 31

4.1 Recommendations for Corporte Decision-makers 314.2 Recommendations for UNDP Country Offices 33

Annexes

Annex 1. Terms of Reference 37Annex 2. Select Bibliography 43Annex 3. List of Persons Consulted 47Annex 4. NHDR Themes in Case-study Countries 53

Boxes

Box 1. The Objectives of National Human Development Reports 4Box 2. The Intellectual Influence of Human Development Products in Brazil 16Box 3. Why are Indexes so Successful in Brazil? 23Box 4. An Unusual Progression: From Subnational to National Reports 24Box 5. National Ownership and the Importance of Editorial Independence 25Box 6. Consultation and Dissemination Strategies: The Bolivian Example 28

Tables

Table 1. NHDR Evaluation Studies 3Table 2. Axes for Assessing Influence and Impact of NHDRs 8Table 3. The Influence of HDIs on Legislation and Social Programmes

of Selected Brazilian States 15

Figures

Figure 1. Selected Variables to Assess Influence and Impact of NHDRs 7

Contents

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N Si v

CIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesDFID Department for International Development (UK Government)HDI Human development indexHDR Human Development ReportHDRC Human Development Resource Centre HDR-Net Human Development Report NetworkHDRStat-Net Human Development Report Statistics NetworkHDRO Human Development Report OfficeIBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (Brazil)FJP Fundação João Pinheiro (Brazil)INP Institute of National Planning (Egypt)IPEA Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (Brazil)MDG Millennium Development GoalMDGR Millennium Development Goals ReportMISR Municipal Initiative for Strategic Recovery (Egypt)NGOs Non-governmental organizationsNHDR National human development reportPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

Acronyms and Abbreviations

National human development reports(NHDRs) are now produced or overseen bymore than 130 UNDP country (and regional)offices. Since their inception in 1992,nearly 550 reports and a large number ofdisaggregated and supplementary humandevelopment indexes (HDIs) have beenproduced, reflecting national and localconditions as no other global instrument can.

In January 2000, the Business Plan of theUNDP Administrator identified the globalHuman Development Report (HDR) and itsnational counterparts as major pillars of the organization’s analytic and policy work.That same year, a corporate policy was laid down to govern the production anddissemination of NHDRs.

The basic objectives of NHDRs include:1) raising public awareness and triggeringaction on critical human developmentconcerns; 2) strengthening national statisticaland analytic capacity to assess and promotepeople-centred development; and 3) shapingpolicies and programmes by providingoptions and broad recommendations basedon concrete analysis.

This evaluation assesses the strategicrelevance, effectiveness and sustainabilityof the NHDR system. It synthesizes themain findings of 16 studies carried out bythe evaluation team to provide lessons andrecommendations for NHDR teams incountry offices around the world, and forUNDP managers and policy makers (locatedin the Bureau for Development Policy, HumanDevelopment Report Office, the ExecutiveOffice, the Operations Support Group, theregional bureaus and the regional centres).

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This evaluation exercise attempts to addressthe following four issues:

1. Appropriateness: Is the NHDR systemthe most suitable vehicle to promotehuman development approaches?

2. Relevance: How strategically relevantand necessary is the system of NHDRsto UNDP?

3. Effectiveness: Has the NHDR systemmade a difference? That is, has it beeninfluential with regard to the country’senvironment and agenda? What workedand why?

4. Sustainability: Is the NHDR systemsustainable?

The terms of reference for this evaluationwere developed through a consultativeprocess using professional networks ofevaluators and human development expertsworldwide. The methodology for theevaluation was developed by the team in aninception workshop with inputs from aPanel of Methodology Experts that wasconvened earlier. Special attention wasgiven to finding practical ways to assess theoften amorphous, diffuse and indirectinfluence and impact of an intellectual-political exercise such as the NHDR. Themain variables selected to assess influence/impact include improvement of humandevelopment-related statistics, increasingawareness of the human developmentconcept and related issues, expansion ofpolicy dialogue, and policy changes in apro-human development direction.

Seven countries—Albania, Armenia, Brazil,Egypt, India, Senegal and Zambia—werechosen for in-depth field studies thatinvolved visits by the team. Given the widevariations in country contexts and NHDRproduction processes, and the limitedresources and time, the aim was not toproduce in-depth studies of a representativesample of countries producing NHDRs.Rather, countries were chosen to ensure

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v

Executive Summary

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i

regional representation, as well as toprovide valuable forward-looking lessonsand ‘best/worst practices’. The goals wereto better understand how NHDRs caninfluence policy-making and developmentplanning and to identify best practices inproducing and disseminating NHDRs thatcan be adopted elsewhere. Pilot exercises inBrazil and India were conducted throughtwo-week missions; the other five studieswere completed within one week (fiveworking days).

To supplement this exercise, eight othercountry case studies—from Bolivia,Botswana,Bulgaria, Colombia, Kazakhstan, Slovakia,Ukraine and the United Republic ofTanzania—were conducted through deskresearch. The reviews were mainly basedon documentary evidence and e-mailcorrespondence with select stakeholders.Finally, another study was conducted atUNDP Headquarters in New York toassess the policy frameworks and incentivesaround NHDRs. Information from thesesixteen reports provided the basis for thisevaluation report.

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Influence of NHDRs

The NHDR system has been marked bysignificant achievements, given its relativelymeagre resources, the short period of timeit has existed, and the constraints that ithas faced at both national and global levels.In virtually all the countries reviewed, theNHDR succeeded in spreading—andfirmly establishing—the concept of humandevelopment in development discourse. Inseveral countries, this accomplishmentincluded new or improved production ofhuman development-related statistics,including those needed to calculate themajor HDIs. In most countries studied,NHDRs have made some progress ininfluencing policies; in some countries,they have even produced deeper analysis ofsocio-political obstacles to improvinghuman development status and taken on

crucial issues that are often difficult todiscuss because of their political sensitivity.A country-by-country summary is providedin chapter 3.

These findings support the argument that ifone wishes to promote human development,then the NHDR is UNDP’s only instrumentavailable for defining what the goal ofhuman development entails at the nationallevel and analysing obstacles to achievingit. The NHDR thus constitutes UNDP’sunique brand, for no other internationalorganization is responsible for promotinghuman development in all its dimensions.

Although this evaluation finds that theNHDRs have contributed significantly toUNDP’s fulfilment of its mission, challenges,limitations and constraints within theNHDR process exist. Since no otherinstrument remain for analysing andpropounding human development at thenational level, identifying the chiefobstacles to it and suggesting effectivepolicies for overcoming such obstacles,UNDP Headquarters and country officesshould support and strengthen the NHDRsystem. To this end, to the evaluationmakes the following recommendations:

Recommendations for corporatedecision-makers:

1. Recognize that the NHDR system isa core component of UNDP’s missionand provide stronger support. IfUNDP’s unique contribution amonginternational organizations is itspromotion of human development inall its dimensions, then the NHDR isthe only holistic representation of thatrole at the national level. First andforemost, stronger support for theNHDR system should take the form ofpolitical support. UNDP Headquartersshould make it clear that the NHDRsystem is a high priority, and shouldnot allow it to be pushed aside by newinitiatives that constantly appear on theagenda. Headquarters should formulate

a clear policy regarding the relationshipbetween the NHDR, the MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report and thePoverty Reduction Strategy Paper, ascalled for in Recommendation 2 below,and otherwise focus on solving theproblem of competition among theseprogrammes for scarce human resourcesthat has developed in some countries,to the detriment of the NHDR.

In addition, the contributions of theNHDR system should be reflected inUNDP Headquarters and country officesby being incorporated within theirbusiness plans, programming activities,existing accountability mechanismsand incentive systems.

While Headquarters support for theNHDR system should be strengthened,measures taken to promote such supportmust in no way compromise thedecentralized nature of the system orweaken the existing autonomy ofcountry offices.

2. Clarify NHDR’s relationship to otherinstruments and exercises.

n Clarify the NHDR’s relationship toother UNDP programmes. A clearUN corporate policy on the exactrelationship between the NHDR,the Millennium Development GoalsReport and the Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper is needed. Thecomplementarities and differencesin purpose among these instrumentsshould be fully recognized. Thecompetitive relationship for time,attention, resources, and politicalcapital must be better managed so asto ensure an enabling environmentfor the NHDR system. Theindependence of the NHDR systemmust be protected.

To promote the use of NHDRs inUN-wide efforts to achievedevelopment goals, UNDP shouldpromote greater involvement of theUN Country Teams in the processof report preparation.

n Promote a more productive two-wayinteraction between the global HDRand the NHDR. The upwardinfluence of the NHDR on theglobal HDR has been smaller and less productive than it should be.The value of NHDRs shouldreceive closer attention at UNDPHeadquarters, and the HumanDevelopment Report Office shouldimplement its plans to conductmission exchanges as well as jointoutreach and advocacy efforts.

3. Encourage the transfer of internationalexpertise on the NHDR through moreregional workshops and bilateralexchanges. The most effective toolsfor transferring international expertisefor the preparation and dissemination ofNHDRs have been workshops organizedby the Human Development ReportOffice and UNDP regional bureaus aswell as bilateral exchanges (some of theminter-continental). These initiativesshould be introduced where absent andstrengthened where practised.

Recommendations for UNDP country offices:

4. Emphasize national ownership of theNHDR. National ownership of theNHDR—which is distinct fromgovernment ownership—should beincreased as much as possible, whilealso ensuring political independenceand analytic quality.

5. Clarify and productively utilize theNHDR’s relationship with manyother exercises. Such exercises includethe Common Country Assessment(CCA), the UN Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF), CountryProgramme Documents (CPD), as wellas civil society organization and privatesector reports and national developmentplanning documents, which overlap invarious ways. NHDRs may benefitfrom the data and analyses containedin such exercises and may alsoinfluence them. Potential synergies andconflict should be recognized and,where possible, used productively inthe preparation of NHDRs.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v i i

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i i i

6. Move from introducing humandevelopment to a deeper analysis ofthe challenges it faces. Since NHDRsand human development conceptshave gained acceptance, the NHDRshould deepen and sharpen analysis ofimpediments to human developmentand the means to overcoming them.Usually this will mean taking on politi-cally and/or socially sensitive issues.Experience suggests that analyticalexcellence, combined with appropriatetact and skill, can make it easier to dealfrankly with sensitive topics.

7. Revisit themes. There is value intaking a second and even third look atcertain issues. Precisely because theNHDRs have taken up basic andgeneral topics in their early years—suchas poverty, inequality and gender—thereis often the need to use subsequentreports to check progress in light ofchanged circumstances. There is alsothe possibility of going deeper into theanalysis of a particular topic and usinga more creative approach. In doing so,NHDRs should always take advantage ofthe opportunities for complementingthe Millennium Development GoalReports (the latter, by design, avoidcritical analysis of policies affecting the MDGs—a job that the NHDRscan take on.)

8. Disaggregate statistics to coversensitive issues. Disaggregating humandevelopment-related indexes has proveduseful for many countries, particularlythose with high (geographic, social and economic) inequalities. Initially,disaggregation has taken geographicform, since this is usually less contro-versial and may also have obviouspolitical ‘champions’, such as mayorsand governors. It is important, however,to progress to more controversial kindsof disaggregation, based on race,gender or caste, for example—factorsthat are generally more important thangeography in determining humandevelopment outcomes.

9. Avoid both report ‘fatigue’ and longgaps between reports. Both reportfatigue from excessive frequency andpolicy irrelevance from long gapsbetween reports are to be avoided. Theoptimal gap between the issuance ofsuccessive reports is probably twoyears, possibly three if circumstanceswarrant. Cogency and relevance topolicy are the crucial criteria of success,and frequency should be determinedwith these criteria in mind, in light ofother country-specific considerations.

10. Improve monitoring of NHDRimpact. Systematic monitoring of theresults of past NHDRs is a weak linkin the NHDR system. UNDP countryoffices should build such systematicmonitoring into their NHDR systemand make the results publicly available.

11. Improve the monitoring and evalua-tion of policies. Systematic evaluationof policy results and performance is acrucial but weak facet of public policyin many countries. A potentially usefulcontribution of future NHDRs wouldbe to help develop practical methodsfor monitoring and evaluating policiesand programmes, especially with respectto their human development contentand impact.

12. Strengthen outreach efforts.

n Knowledge produced in the course ofthe NHDR process should be madepublic. UNDP country offices shouldmake it clear that all knowledgegenerated in the process of preparingthe NHDR is in the public domain.Clear guidelines on this matterfrom UNDP Headquarters wouldbe useful. UNDP should also makebackground papers available on anaccessible website.

n Produce different versions of thereports to suit different groups. Theimpact of the NHDR is enhancedwhen different versions of it areavailable to suit the needs andabilities of different population

groups. Potentially useful versionsare shorter versions for time-strapped policy makers, simplerversions for public consumptionand, where applicable, versions invernacular languages.

n Make access to the NHDR easier.NHDR availability has been aproblem in some countries. Copiesshould be distributed widely andreadily available in the publicdomain. All UNDP country officesshould post their NHDRs on theirwebsite, which has not been donein a surprising number of countries.Currently, the Human DevelopmentReport Office is promoting effortsto have new reports available online.Since online access to informationis becoming increasingly important,UNDP should find, develop andutilize the most effective and user-friendly software for exploiting thisenormous potential.

n Introduce human development materialinto university and school curricula.Getting materials into the educationalsystem can be an effective way ofspreading human development ideasover the long term. Some countrieshave already had success in promotinghuman development materials inuniversity and even school curricula,but other countries have yet toattempt this. Such efforts shouldbe encouraged.

n Conduct activities to strengthensociety’s capacity to absorb humandevelopment ideas through bettereducation programmes. NHDRs aremore effective when society has theability to understand and debatebasic human development-relatedideas. Such capacity can be enhancedthrough education and informationprogrammes targeted at differentgroups, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students andthe general public.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y i x

Human development is about enhancingpeople’s capabilities, enlarging their rangeof choices, expanding their freedom andpromoting human rights for all citizens. Itis concept of development that goes beyondeconomic growth and regards people’s lives as its central focus. National humandevelopment reports (NHDRs) seek topromote human development strategies thatare owned not only by government but alsoby civil society. In short, they promotenational ownership of human development.

The national human development reportsystem refers to the processes and partnershipsinvolved in producing and disseminatingNHDRs and working to achieve theirintended outcomes—namely, to influencemacro-level decision-making, strengthencapacity to advocate human developmentmeasures and promote human developmentawareness throughout society.

1.1 OBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND COVERAGE

This evaluation is a strategic, forward-lookingassessment that aims to provide lessons forthe production and dissemination of NHDRsglobally. It takes stock of the nearly 550reports that have been produced around theworld since the inception of the NHDRsin 1992, and goes beyond assessing thequality of the reports themselves by askingthe following questions:

n Is the NHDR system the best vehicle topromote human development approaches?

n How strategically relevant and necessaryis the system of NHDRs to UNDP?

n Has the NHDR system made a differ-ence? That is, has it been influential withregard to the country’s environmentand agenda? What worked and why?

n Is the NHDR system sustainable?

When assessing the influence and impactof the reports, the evaluation team is notonly referring to achievements in the longrun. It is also addressing trend changes in ‘inputs’ in the context of competingpolitical priorities, such as changes in the pattern of resource allocation, changesin academic curricula, use of humandevelopment concepts in parliamentarydebates, etc. Influence and impact havebeen assessed through various axes, whichare discussed later in this report.

1.2 KEY AUDIENCES

The target audiences for this evaluationreport are primarily UNDP country officesproducing or intending to produce NHDRsas well as UNDP Headquarters units(including the Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy, the Human Development ReportOffice, the Executive Office, the OperationsSupport Group, regional centres and theregional bureaus). Other organizations and individuals concerned with humandevelopment, such as national andsubnational governments, civil societyorganizations and the general publicconstitute a secondary audience.

1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

As outlined in the terms of reference, thisevaluation will assess the performance ofnational Human Development Reports bylooking at their:

n Effectiveness. Are the NHDRs makinga difference? If so, what is their influence?

n Relevance. Are they making a differencein priority areas for the host country?

n Appropriateness. Are these changescreating synergies with other ongoing efforts?

n Sustainability. Is the NHDR systemsustainable?

I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

C H A P T E R 12

1.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

The terms of reference for this evaluationwere developed through a consultative processusing professional networks of evaluators(EVALNET), human development expertsfrom around the world (HDR Network)and UNDP units.

The methodology for the evaluation wasderived from the following:

n An expert panel meeting on method-ology. A preliminary methodologicalframework for the evaluation wasdeveloped by independent internationaldevelopment experts in a one-dayworkshop held at the London Schoolof Oriental Studies. The necessarycontextual background of the NHDRsystem was provided by UNDP.

n A review of existing methodologies. Acomprehensive review of existing method-ologies for assessing advocacy efforts wasconducted and a report produced.

n An inception workshop. Based on thisreview and the initial methodologicalframework, the evaluation team metfor a two-day inception workshop.

Special attention was given to findingpractical ways to assess the often amorphous,diffuse, and indirect influence and impactof an intellectual-political exercise such asthe NHDR. The methodology for theevaluation was presented as the inceptionreport and became an appendix to the finalterms of reference (see www.undp.org/eofor details).

1.4.1 Selection of countries

Seven countries—Albania, Armenia, Brazil,Egypt, India, Senegal and Zambia—werechosen for in-depth field studies thatinvolved visits by the team. To supplementthis exercise, eight other country case studieswere conducted through desk research.

The case-study countries were not selectedon the basis of a random, representativesample of countries that have produced

NHDRs. This was not feasible given thewide variations in country contexts andNHDR systems, and the limited resourcesand time.

Rather, the selection criteria included thefollowing: 1) regional representation in thesample (minimum representation fromeach of five UNDP regional bureaus);2) experience with NHDRs (number ofreports published); 3) possibility of providingbest (or worst) practice examples of the broadinfluence of NHDRs; and 4) best practicesin producing and disseminating NHDRsso that they can be adopted elsewhere.

While the evaluation team hoped toinclude both best and worst cases withinthe selection of country studies, it provedimpossible to do so since only thoroughassessment could reveal whether particularcases were successful or not. As it turnedout, the findings presented in chapter 3reflect a sample that is stronger in positivethan negative examples. Still, there werechallenges and tradeoffs, which are mentionedwherever they have been identified. Further-more, the selection process targeted countriesin which general lessons could be discernedthat could be applicable elsewhere.

Of the seven countries chosen for in-depthstudy, two (Brazil and India) were selectedas pilot studies to test the implementation ofthe evaluation methodology. In addition, astudy was conducted at UNDP Headquartersin New York to assess the policy frameworksand incentives around NHDRs (see Table 1).

1.4.2 Field studies

The team conducting the field studies wascomprised of at least two members—oneinternational team member and onecountry expert. Upon completion of thepilot studies in Brazil (three weeks’ duration)and India (two weeks), a teleconferencewas held to share the team members’experiences and to fine-tune subsequentfield missions. The country experts wererequired to play an active role in identifyingthose to be consulted. The mission team

was entrusted with the responsibility ofensuring balanced representation fromUNDP, the UN, government, civil societyorganizations and those involved in theproduction of NHDRs. Specifically, thelist of interviewees included NHDR teammembers, senior UNDP officials, UN teammembers, government officials, civilsociety organizations (including academiaand the media) and donors. The views fromUNDP were triangulated with governmentand civil society perspectives and availabledocumentation. Consultations involved semi-structured interviews with stakeholdersand, where possible, group discussions (suchas those held in Bangalore, India).

1.4.3 Desk studies

Desk studies involved extensive review ofall available NHDRs and other relateddocuments. Electronic surveys (structuredquestions) were undertaken for countriesin which desk studies were conducted.Where possible, evaluation team membersconducted telephone interviews withUNDP and local partners.

UNDP country offices and key stakeholderswere given the opportunity to review the reportand make comments and factual corrections.

A two-day workshop was held by the teamto discuss the reports and develop aframework for the final synthesis report(February 2006). The evaluation will becompleted upon submission of all reports

(see Table 1) and the methodologicalprocedures to an Advisory Committee anda Peer Review Panel for validation.

1.5 NHDR SYSTEM CONTEXT

Following the success of the global HumanDevelopment Report, the HDR teamdecided to establish an instrument at thecountry level for stimulating debate anddiscussion about human developmentpolicy. This was done at the request ofUNDP country offices.

Four initial reports—from Bangladesh,Cameroon, Pakistan and the Philippines—were published in 1992.1 The HumanDevelopment Report Office (HDRO) inNew York provided support services tocountry offices, contacts, assistance in theselection of consultants and follow-up.However, not all of these reports could be called true NHDRs. For instance, theCameroon report was a situation analysis.Moreover, the reports were directlyproduced by consultants and academics,and governments were not involved.

Nevertheless, the idea of the nationalhuman development report took root and anumber of countries soon followed the lead.At the time of this evaluation (2005-2006),over 130 UNDP country (and regional)offices had produced nearly 550 HDRs atthe national, regional and subnationallevels. The reports have taken on diverse

I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

TABLE 1. NHDR EVALUATION STUDIES

Country reports Desk reviews UNDP Headquarters study

AlbaniaArmeniaBrazilEgyptIndiaSenegalZambia

BoliviaBotswanaBulgariaColombiaKazakhstanSlovakiaUkraineUnited Republic of Tanzania

Headquarters study

1 UNDP Human Development Report 1998, p. 17.

C H A P T E R 14

themes, including education, human rights,poverty, hunger, human security, conflict,democracy, sustainability, empowerment,decentralization and globalization.

Since their inception, NHDRs have beenone of the main channels for UNDPdialogue with stakeholders in programmecountries, particularly decision makers at thenational and regional level and civil societyorganizations. Production of NHDRs isusually a highly decentralized exercise.Therefore, they tend to vary widely withregard to their quality, ownership, themes,frequency, dissemination strategies, impact andinfluence on a country’s development agenda.

1.5.1 The objectives of national humandevelopment reports

UNDP’s fundamental goal is furtheringhuman development, a concept that hasbecome widely accepted as an appropriateobjective for development policies throughoutthe world. While the mandates of otherinternational organizations may includethe promotion of human development inwhole or in part, UNDP has this as itsprimary mandate.2

Human development has many dimensions.Understanding the concept in its fullcomplexity, identifying the barriers to it, andformulating policy options for overcomingthese obstacles and making progress towardsimproved human development requires notonly financial, political and technicalresources. It also requires intellectualinvestment. The flagship HDRs have been

a major locus for that investment, and theircontributions have been useful to numerousnational development efforts. However, itis clear that each country has a uniqueenvironment in which human developmentmust be sought, and only national orsubnational efforts can address thoseunique conditions adequately. The NHDRhas therefore evolved as the one vehicle inwhich UNDP’s core concern is seriouslydiscussed and analysed in the local context. Itis, or should be, the intellectual and analyticexpression at the national level of UNDP’smission. The objectives of NHDRs arepresented in Box 1.

1.5.2 UNDP corporate policy towards NHDRs3

In January 2000, the UNDP Administrator’sBusiness Plan, which was presented to theExecutive Board, identified the HumanDevelopment Report and the national humandevelopment reports as major pillars of theorganization’s analytic and policy work. Itaffirmed that “…the principal objective ofthe reports is to raise public awareness andtrigger action on critical human developmentconcerns.” It envisioned support for theNHDRs, including the establishment of anNHDR unit within the Human DevelopmentReport Office. In addition, corporate policylaid down the following six principles togovern the production and disseminationof NHDRs:

n National ownership

n Participatory and inclusive preparation process

BOX 1. THE OBJECTIVES OF NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTS

UNDP corporate policy identifies three distinct goals for NHDRs:

n Raise public awareness of the human development perspective

n Strengthen national statistical capacity to identify and measure human developmentstatus and short-comings, and strengthen analytic capacity to understand them

n Shape policies and programmes to achieve improvements in human developmentthrough solid analysis.

2 In 1994, the Executive Board of UNDP endorsed ‘sustainable human development’ as the central priorityof the organization.

3 Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/nhdr/corporate_policy/nhdr_cp_english.pdf

n Independence of analysis

n Quality of analysis

n Flexibility and creativity in presentation

n Sustained follow-up.

It is important to note that ‘nationalownership’ in this context does not meangovernment authorship of the report or controlof the NHDR planning and preparationprocess, which may compromise editorialindependence. To quote the NHDR unit’sexplanation: “The NHDRs must be countrybased and country driven. They must focus oncountry realities, and reflect well-defined nationalperspectives on human development inaddressing priority national themes, emergingtrends, opportunities and challenges. They mustpromote national policy dialogue, constructiveexpression of divergent views, and the identi-fication and analysis of development.” 4

Concern over variations in the quality ofthe large number of NHDRs produced ledto the creation of a small NHDR unit (fourfull-time staff ) in 2000, which was housedwithin the Human Development ReportOffice.5 To advance corporate policy, theNHDR unit was intended to:

n Define the essential characteristics ofsuccessful NHDR processes andclarify the roles and responsibilities ofmajor actors who support them

n Establish corporate standards for content,analysis, participation, intercountryexchanges, peer reviews, dissemination,sharing of best practices, follow-up andimpact monitoring

n Mobilize enhanced capacities, broadersubstantive support and additionalresources for NHDR processes

n Establish appropriate links betweenNHDR analyses and UNDP/UNsystem operational work

n Provide a solid platform for strength-ening the position and impact of theNHDRs as effective applied policyinstruments for human development.

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

This evaluation report is organized intofour chapters.

This section, chapter 1, provides backgroundon the evaluation, including objective,scope and coverage, target audiences,evaluation criteria, evaluation approachand the context of the NHDR system.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to methodologicalissues. It explains the conceptual framework,the methodological instruments developedto assess the influence and impact of theNHDRs at the national and subnational level,and the key limitations of the evaluation.Discussion of methodological issues issupplemented by the terms of reference(Annex 1) and an inception report(available in the online version of thisreport, at www.undp.org/eo), whichprovides a detailed explanation of theevaluation methodology.

Chapter 3 outlines the main findings of the evaluation. It looks first at the influenceand impact of the NHDR system, citingexamples from the 15 countries that werestudied in-depth. It then looks at ways inwhich decision-making at the corporatelevel, and production and disseminationprocesses at the country level, could strengthenthe system and increase its impact.

Chapter 4 contains recommendations bothfor corporate UNDP decision makers and for country offices involved in theNHDR process.

I N T R O D U C T I O N 5

4 UNDP Corporate Policy on NHDRs, p. 6.5 The other choice for housing the NHDR unit was the Bureau for Development Policy, which is responsible

for advocacy efforts. The HDRO pointed out that enhancing the quality of reports was necessary beforethe potential for influencing policy changes could be reached in all countries.

Substantive issues at hand, rather than apriori preferences, usually drive the methodsused in all forms of evaluation. Because thesubstantive issues of this assessment deal withthe evaluation of an intellectual-politicalproject, one of the main challenges washow to assess as well as measure, wheneverpertinent, the influence and impact of theNHDR, which is also affected by eachcountry’s political, economic and socialenvironment. Of particular importance ishow to approach the issue of whether theNHDR system has made a difference—that is, whether it has influenced thecountry’s environment and agenda andwhat has worked and why.

2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSINGINFLUENCE AND IMPACT

Based on an analysis of the goals andobjectives of NHDRs, the broad variablesselected to assess and measure influenceand impact are summarized in Figure 1.

Although presented as a sequence, thesevariables do not necessarily follow one

another. Moreover, ‘improvement of statistics’means not only the capacity to collect andprocess human development-related data, butalso efforts by statistics offices to disaggregatedata and to build supplementary indexes inaddition to the straightforward humandevelopment indexes (HDIs).

Certain kinds of influences and impact (or their absence) were possible to identifyand assess with relative accuracy. Assessinginfluence on data improvement, on raising awareness and on intellectual andacademic debates has been, in most cases, possible through interviews,previous documents, media coverage of the launch event, training courses onhuman development concepts, newspaperarticles, school curricula, informationprovided on websites other than those ofUNDP country offices and through the useof search tools available on the Internet.However, the usefulness of these method-ological tools depends on several factorsthat vary in accessibility, quality andreliability, and that are different fromcountry to country.

C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y 7

Chapter 2

Conceptual Framework and Methodology

FIGURE 1. SELECTED VARIABLES TO ASSESS INFLUENCE AND IMPACT OF NHDRs

Improvement of statistics

Raising awareness of human development concepts and issues

Expanding policy dialogue

Giving rise to policy changes

C H A P T E R 28

Other kinds of influences and impact,however, are more difficult to measure andquantify, such as those related to policy-making and policy changes. However, insome cases it was possible to assess thesethrough various axes, although not everycountry report addresses policy issues dueto time constraints and/or lack of availableinformation (see Table 2).

Because policy changes occur as a result ofgovernment decisions (by policy makers andelected leaders), particular emphasis has beengiven to examining government involve-ment in the various stages of the NHDRprocess. The team therefore looked at:

n Shifts in government policy formulationprocesses, policy objectives, resourceallocation and policy implementation.Sources of information: analysis ofgovernment documents, laws and otherregulations approved in the legislature.

n Commitment of high-level policy makersand elected officials to design andreview NHDRs. Sources of information:interviews and press releases.

n Financial support for funding NHDRs.Sources of information: NHDRs.

n Inputs into the production process(regarding, for example, themes, data,report review). Sources of information:semi-structured interviews, mediacoverage and information on the NHDRs.

n Commitment to dissemination ofNHDRs. Sources of information: interviews,press releases, media coverage andinformation on government websites.

n Engagement in specific follow-upactivities arising from NHDRs. Sourcesof information: government websites,programmes and interviews.

2.2 CONSTRAINTS

There were several constraints to measuringthe influence and impact of NHDRs,which deserve further discussion.

First, there were methodological constraints.In particular, as with all intellectual-political initiatives, there was the absenceof a clear reference group of beneficiaries

TABLE 2. AXES FOR ASSESSING INFLUENCE AND IMPACT OF NHDRs

Policy influence Intellectualinfluence

Civil society advocacy

n Adoption by the government ofrecommended objectives andpractices

n Resource allocation shifts basedon recommendations in theNHDR and on HDIs

n Pronouncements by government in policy/planning documentsand public speeches

n Government efforts to collect,use and disaggregate humandevelopment data

n Resource allocation to the NHDR

n Involvement of human developmentspecialists in the government

n Government willingness toinvolve civil society organizationsin policy and planning processes

n Use of NHDRs and HDIs by parliamentarians.

n Use of NHDRsand HDIs in research and publicaddresses

n Adoption of humandevelopmentcurricula inschools andcolleges

n Trainingworkshops andcourses foracademics,civil society,journalists and others

n Level of humandevelopmentdebates inacademic andpublic fora.

n Inputs into NHDR data and analyses

n Human developmentdata advocacy activities on single or broader issues

n NGO fora created to debate humandevelopment

n Training of NGO staff onhuman development

n Programming NGO work around human development issues

n Innovations in private sector strategies topromote humandevelopment

n Media interest(awareness) in human development.

ANALYSIS OF

CONSTRAINTS TO

IMPROVE HUMAN

DEVELOPMENT

AND POLICIES

TO OVERCOME

THEM IS THE

DEEPEST AND

MOST COMPLEX

OF NHDR’S GOALS.

(for example, advancing human developmentknowledge could have ramifications notonly for the host country but on othergroups, including the whole of humanity).Moreover, without counterfactuals orcomparison groups, filtering out unintendedconsequences and externalities in assessinginfluence was a challenging task. Forinstance, the influence of NHDRs isaffected by the competing and sometimesconflicting agendas of other institutions,such as the World Bank.

Understanding the relation of inputs tooutcome is another constraint facingintellectual-political projects. Beyond themost immediate output of the report itself,there were many further repercussions noteasily identified. The team made a greatdeal of effort to find the most suitable waysto assess influence and impact, given theseproblems. Yet there is an irreducibleelement of uncertainty and ambiguity inany such intellectual-political project,which constrains the evaluation.

Second, constraints on the influence andimpact of NHDRs can also be due to thepolicies and limited capacity of governments.These include:

n Limitations on the capacity of governmentinstitutions to translate recommenda-tions into concrete policy and actions

n Limited resources available to allocateto human development

n Restrictions imposed by tight fiscalcontrol on expenditure, thus restricting,for instance, hiring and/or improvementof teachers’ and nurses’ salaries

n Civil society capacity constraints in theformulation of policy options andalternative implementation strategies

n Limitations on government intellectualresources to undertake research (collectdata, hire top scientists, etc.)

n Competing priorities of various groupsand political parties, which sometimesleads to policy changes in humandevelopment programmes when adifferent political coalition takes office.

Third, the resources and time available tothe team were very limited—five days for eachnon-pilot country study and approximately$225,000 to conduct 16 studies and twoteam meetings in New York.

Fourth, there was a paucity of required data.UNDP country offices did not always haveall the relevant information. Moreover, asthis was the first time the NHDRs as asystem was subjected to independent externalassessment, there was no evaluative materialavailable. Consequently, consultations playeda significant role in forming the evaluativejudgements presented here. Claims aboutthe successes or failures of NDHRs wereverified wherever possible by documentaryevidence or, in the absence of such evidence,by holding consultations with a range ofstakeholders representing diverse viewpoints.However, while every effort was made tohave full coverage of key stakeholders, asan external evaluation, it is far from certainwhether the consultations succeeded ingetting all necessary viewpoints.

Fifth, though senior-level national consultantswere recruited and tasked to determinewho should be interviewed, country officesalso played a role in determining thestakeholders to be consulted given thatthey were responsible for arranging thelogistics and appointments. Consequently,it was difficult to strike a balance betweenthe team’s reliance on the country officesand the need to consult with dissentingvoices to better understand the situation.This was particularly a constraint in deskreviews, since identifying and getting inputfrom stakeholders from a distance posedsignificant challenges.

Although the methodological proceduresand instruments adopted are far fromperfect, the team believes that this exercisemay contribute to improved knowledge ofhow to approach policy evaluation andanalysis when the substantive issue underconsideration is a complex intellectual-political project such as the NHDR.

C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y 9

The NHDR system has, in general, beenmarked by significant achievements, giventhe relatively meagre resources available toit, the short period of time it has existed,and the constraints it has faced at bothnational and global levels. The firstobjective—raising broad public awarenessof human development concepts—wasachieved by virtually all the countriesreviewed and appears to be a relativelyreachable goal (the ‘low hanging fruit’).In several countries, this accomplishmentincluded the production of new orimproved human development-relatedstatistics, including those needed tocalculate the major HDIs. NHDRs havealso prompted changes in the educationalsystem in four of the 15 countries reviewedto include the study of human developmentin their curricula.

In most countries studied, NHDRs havemade some progress in achieving thesecond goal, that of influencing policies ina pro-human development direction.

The third objective appears to be the mostdifficult to achieve. Solid analysis of theconstraints and impediments to improvinghuman development and of policy-relevantmethods of overcoming them is thedeepest and most complex of the NHDR’sgoals. It is necessarily multidimensionalbecause it is likely to require considerationof political, social, economic, gender,ethnic, geographic, technological and evenpsychological factors. Whereas it is possiblethat the goal of raising public awareness of human development concerns can besuccessfully achieved, the analytic respon-sibility is an unending one that will alwaysgenerate new issues and perspectives toexamine. Nevertheless, in some countries,the NHDR system has even made progresstowards achieving this objective.

While the impact of the NHDR system isdifficult to measure, it is fair to say that ithas some impressive achievements to itscredit. It is also true that the quality of thesystem has varied widely across countriesand that, in some places, it has not beentotally satisfactory, either intellectually (interms of the quality of data and analysis) orin terms of impact and influence. However,in most of the countries sampled, NHDRquality has improved over time.

Moreover, if the ultimate goal is to promotehuman development, then the NHDR isUNDP’s only available instrument fordefining what that goal means at thenational level and analysing the obstaclesto implementing it. The NHDR is thus apart of UNDP’s unique brand: While themandates of other international organizationsmay include the promotion of humandevelopment in whole or in part, UNDPhas this as its primary mandate.

The answers to the evaluation questionswith which we began (see chapter 1.3) aregenerally positive. The NHDR system hasbeen an effective vehicle for promotinghuman development and is a strategicallyrelevant and necessary part of UNDP’smission. It has also made a significantimpact on the intellectual environment andpolicy agendas of many countries. Thereare, of course, shortcomings in the systemas well as questions related to its futureviability, and these are discussed below.

3.1 INFLUENCE AND IMPACT OF THE NHDR SYSTEM

As discussed in the methodology section,an evaluation of the impact and influenceof NHDRs must take into account theopportunities and constraints that exist ineach set of national circumstances. In some

F I N D I N G S 1 1

Chapter 3

Findings

C H A P T E R 31 2

country contexts, allocating public resourcesin favour of human development goals iswell within the realm of possibility, while,in others, merely getting the humandevelopment concept and related ideas intopublic discourse might constitute a substantialcontribution. Our general conclusion isthat, while impact varied from place to place,it was substantial, on average, and oftenmultidimensional as well, affecting, forexample,political and/or intellectual discourse,policy formation, resource allocation bygovernment, etc. The following two sectionsprovide evidence for this conclusion.

3.1.1 Country examples

The following list presents brief summariesof the influence wielded by NHDRs incountries examined as case studies for this evaluation.

Albania. The 2002 and 2005 AlbanianNHDRs have been closely linked togovernment policy. UNDP initiated adevelopment programme for Kukes, theregion with the lowest HDI, to which thegovernment allocated C4 million providedby the EU.

Armenia. NHDRs contributed to theestablishment of a poverty monitoringsystem and the incorporation of humandevelopment-related concepts and approachesin poverty reduction policies, which arenational priorities reflected in the interimand final Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper(PRSP). The NHDR has also given rise toa course at Yerevan University.

Bolivia. NHDRs have had a pronouncedimpact on policy debates and the intellec-tual climate of Bolivia more generally. In2002, an election year, President JorgeQuiroga called the NHDR obligatoryreading for all presidential candidates andsaid that it served as a guide to opening thedoors of the national debate. The timing ofthe report’s launch was a strategic move tostimulate debate on the country’s future inthe run-up to the elections. Similarly, the2005 thematic report on natural gas became

a reference document in the 2005 electoralcampaign, particularly due to its generalargument favouring an economic modelcapable of incorporating hundreds ofthousands of micro and small producerstraditionally ignored or discriminated against.

Botswana. The 1997 and 2000 NHDRsaddressed the issue of AIDS. The 2000report became the most frequently cited reportfrom Botswana on this problem, producingstatistics that are widely used internation-ally, raising awareness of the extent of theepidemic, and prompting a decision by thepresident of the country to provide freeantiretroviral drugs to those infected.

Bulgaria. A municipal HDI influencedfunding allocations by the Ministry ofRegional Development. The last threeNHDRs, in particular, have made asubstantial impact. The 2003 report onrural areas gave birth to an integrated area-based approach consisting of a set ofpartnership projects initiated by UNDP andsupported by the Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry and other donors. In addition,NHDRs have increased the ability of NGOsto influence the country’s policy-makingagenda from a civil society perspective. Asa result of the 2001 NHDR, for example,which focused on citizen participation,representatives of civil society organizationswere invited to participate in the preparationof central government strategies on anti-corruption, judicial reform and Bulgaria’saccession to the EU. NHDRs also contributedto developing intellectual networks inBulgaria. Additional evidence of influenceis the fact that human development hasalso been incorporated into the curriculumat Sophia University.

Colombia. NHDRs in Colombia havebeen influential in three main areas:1) building methodological capacity tocalculate several human developmentindicators, thus contributing to thecountry’s knowledge of these indicators;2) contributing to the development ofanalytical approaches to the country’s mostpressing problems, as evident from the 2003

NHDR that deals with the influence ofviolence on human development principles;and 3) setting new standards in policyrecommendations for conflict resolution.For example, policy recommendationsissued in the 2003 NHDR offer new andmore sophisticated ways of addressing the issue of violence and raising awarenessof the impact of violence on humandevelopment issues.

Egypt. NHDRs have brought considerableattention to human development issues inEgypt, influencing both the intellectualcommunity and the positions of politicalparties. NHDRs posed issues for debateand action within parliamentary groups, aswell as in ministerial committees. Theclearest example of policy influence is theuse of HDI rankings of governorates as thebasis upon which resources are allocated.As a result, the neediest governoratesreceived a larger proportion of funds,instead of the ‘flat rate’ rule that waspreviously applied. Another importantindicator of impact is the establishment ofthe Municipal Initiative for StrategicRecovery (MISR) project in 2004, whichspans 10 governorates in 58 regions withthe lowest ranking HDI.

Europe and the Commonwealth ofIndependent States (CIS) region. NHDRsin Eastern European and the CIS countrieshave had a significant influenced on thedevelopment debate. In the beginning,(1995-1997), the reports were unique inchallenging the dominant idea of economicgrowth as the overarching goal of developmentin countries where government officialswere largely unaware of human developmentconcepts and where the number of NGOsand academic centres was small. TheNHDRs prompted discussion and debateamong political leaders, the policy-makingand donor communities and society as a whole. The report production processalso incorporated different groups andstrengthened societal partnerships, leadingto a greater overall involvement of civilsociety in the policy debate for nationalhuman development.

India. Human development reports havebeen produced by 17 states in India, withvarying degrees of influence. In general,they have led to a better understanding ofthe concept of human development amongthe public. School curricula now containmodules on human development and at leastfour universities will offer human develop-ment courses next year. UNDP-India’sHuman Development Resource Centre hasbegun initiatives on human developmentcourse curricula for postgraduate studentsand on human development training forcivil servants, parliamentarians, NGOs andthe media. In some states, HDRs have hada particularly strong impact, includingmajor media attention, mention in StateAssembly debates and the establishment ofnew government policies to address issuesraised. The state reports have affected socialpolicies most, especially those dealing witheducation and health, and have led to morepolicy-oriented research. For example, asurvey of landlessness and rural indebtednesswas conducted in West Bengal after itsstate HDR unexpectedly revealed rollbacksin land reform. State HDR findings havealso given rise to commissions to discussspecific issues, such as the Commission onRegional Disparities in Karnataka. Amonitoring cell was subsequently establishedin Karnataka to assess changes in povertyand human development. A valuable indirectproduct of the state HDR experience inIndia is that it prompted the centralPlanning Commission to begin producingstate development reports as sequels to thestate HDRs. These reports discuss a widerange of development issues, includingfiscal constraints and infrastructure.

Kazakhstan. NHDRs have played a rolein the development of government strategieson poverty reduction, rural development, watermanagement and education in several areaswhere several university courses on humandevelopment have been inaugurated.

Senegal. NHDRs have become a referencefor key national development actors,including politicians, public officials and

F I N D I N G S 1 3

C H A P T E R 31 4

civil society, including labour and businessorganizations and academics. Analysesproduced by the 2001 NHDR were used inthe tenth Economic and Social DevelopmentPlan (2002-2007). As a result, the governmentset up an independent body against non-transparency and corruption, good governanceand sustainable development departments,and a national local development programme,all reflecting the themes covered in theNHDRs. Human development conceptsare part of the curricula of economicscourses at the University of Dakar.

Slovakia. Although the concept of humandevelopment is relatively new here, severalNHDRs have prompted broad-baseddiscussions of the country’s developmentproblems. Work on the NHDR has alsohelped expand the scope of statisticalsurveys. NHDRs have had some influenceon the redesign of the health-care system,as well as on other policy issues such asgender equality and poverty reduction, byraising awareness, promoting discussionand suggesting concrete steps to be taken.This influence can be traced to theinclusion of NHDR concepts and quotesin several policy documents. The NHDRs,and UNDP more generally, have had animpact on the practices of the governmentstatistical office, which has shifted towardsgreater focus on quality-of-life indicators.

Ukraine. As a result of the NHDRs, theconcept of human development haspermeated the political dialogue here, atleast nominally. For instance, the primeminister, in his foreword to the 2003report, wrote that “Human development isbecoming a strategic goal for nationalpolicy,” and that the dialogue initiated by the NHDR would lead to specificgovernment action to promote humandevelopment goals. The latest Programmeof Activity of the Cabinet of Ministersfeatures human development as one of thethree priority concerns and as a strategicgoal of the overall national developmentplan. Within the government, socialbudgets and programmes were preparedand explicitly linked to recommendations

made in the NHDRs. A locally definedindex of human development is regularlytracked as a poverty metric and influencesbudget allocations for local governments.One must keep in mind, however, thatpronouncements and policies do notautomatically translate into results. As aUNDP ‘Country Evaluation of DevelopmentResults in Ukraine’ (2004) pointed out,“Rarely in the period 1997-2003 did theGovernment have a credible plan orstrategy whose priorities and policies wereconsistent with the budget.”

United Republic of Tanzania. TheNHDR production process helped buildlocal capacity to carry out analyticalresearch. Capacity development, whichwas lacking in the first two NHDRs, is alsobeing pursued through the universities ofDar es Salaam, Zanzibar and Dodoma.These institutions are running a focusedprogramme to enhance skills in povertyanalysis through modules involving variouspoverty indicators. The national humandevelopment report was used to formulatethe Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper in2000 and to assess progress thereafter.Following the alignment of the NHDRwith the PRSP process, there has beenincreased participation of civil societyorganizations in providing data and inmonitoring the government’s commitmentto pro-poor policies.

Zambia. According to the minster offinance and national planning, theGovernment of Zambia regards theNHDRs as strong advocacy tools that are also useful in tracking progress towardsthe Millennium Development Goals.NHDRs promote human developmentthrough national focus on critical develop-ment issues, and they have played a majorrole in the government’s decision toformulate the national Poverty ReductionAction Plan, which, in turn, was the mainbackground document for Zambia’s PRSP.National budget allocations directedtowards human development prioritieshave grown, especially for basic educationand primary health care.

THOUGH

THE NHDR AND

THE MDGR ARE

INTELLECTUALLY

COMPLEMENTARY,

THEY CAN AND

DO COMPETE FOR

SCARCE TIME

AND HUMAN

RESOURCES.

3.1.2 Case study: Brazil

Brazil may be the country in which theconcept of human development has mostpermeated public and political discussionand the HDI has been the most widelyused as a policy tool. It is thus worthsetting out in greater detail the extent ofinfluence wielded by so-called ‘human

development products’—including reports,indexes and atlases—in Brazil. Animportant enabling condition is that the relative fiscal weight of the federalgovernment has sharply increased relativeto gross domestic product. UNDP’sstrategy of developing partnerships withfederal agencies has thus targeted the

1 5

TABLE 3. THE INFLUENCE OF HDIs ON LEGISLATION AND SOCIAL PROGRAMMES OF SELECTED BRAZILIAN STATES

State Legislation/programme

Description

Amazonas

Bahia

Ceará

Maranhão

Minas Gerais

Paraná

Pernambuco

Rio Grande do Sul

SantaCatarina

São Paulo

Tocantins

State Council on Human Development

Law 2784 of 2003

Law 2798 of 2003

CitizenshipProgramme

4-year Plan

Economic Development Plan

Government Plan,2003-2006

Electricity and milk distribution to needy children

Rebirth Project

School uniforms

Fund for small-sizecompanies

Social Network

Includes representatives of state agencies and ofcivil society to coordinate social policies

Creation of the Fund for Human Development

Creation of a minimum wage to “contribute to increasing the state’s HDI”

To “contribute to the increase of the state’s HDI”

One of the objectives of the 2004-2007 develop-ment plan is to increase the state’s HDI

To further improve the state’s position in HDI,which moved from 23 in 1991 to 19 in 2000

To increase the state’s ranking in the HDI from0.547 to 0.65

The stated goal of the current government is toincrease the state’s HDI from 0.776 to 0.800

These two programmes target municipalitieswith lower HDIs

Social projects and microcredit for the rural population

Distributed to municipalities with less than15,000 inhabitants and with lower HDIs

Loans to be granted to municipalities with an HDIequal to or lower than 90% of the state’s average

To integrate federal, state, municipal and privateprojects in the 50 municipalities with lower HDIs

In Tocantins, the federal programme Fome Zerotargets 42 municipalities with lower HDIs

F I N D I N G S

THE NHDR SYSTEM

APPEARS TO

HAVE HAD NO

DISCERNABLE

IMPACT ON

THE POLICIES,

PRACTICES AND

PROGRAMMING

ACTIVITIES

OF UNDP

HEADQUARTERS.

C H A P T E R 31 6

main financer of social programmes in the federation—and has also made UNDPan important actor in influencing thepolicy dialogue.

Human development products in Brazilhave become particularly influential in twodomains: 1) as tools for targeting states andmunicipalities for federal and state socialprogrammes; and 2) intellectually, bybecoming important factors in the analysisof social issues. These two domains can bemeasured in quantitative terms.

The HDI as a tool for policy makers.During the eight years of Brazil’s CardosoAdministration, the HDI was used forselecting states, municipalities and familiesin four main federal projects. Of these, themost important in terms of its territorialimpact was the Alvorada (Dawn) programme,launched in 2000 “…to improve the livingconditions of the most needy in theshortest term possible….” The programmecovered most Brazilian states, micro-regions, and municipalities with an HDIlower than the Brazilian average using the1998 HDI. In total, it reached 24 statesand 2,185 municipalities, covering apopulation of over 36 million poor people.

Although the Alvorada programme wasterminated when the new Lula administra-tion came into office in 2003, the HDIcontinues to be used as a tool to targetother social programmes in Brazil,

including programmes for youth and adulteducation, electricity for all, basic sanitation,food security for families living below thepoverty line and the Young Agents for Socialand Human Development Programme (whichprovides an allowance for adolescentsbetween 15 and 17 years of age to remainin school with the aim of preventingviolence, drug abuse and adolescentpregnancy, and invested the equivalent of$17 million in 2004).

As in many other places, evaluation ofperformance seems to be an especiallyweak facet of public policy in Brazil, andHDIs have not been used in Brazil for thispurpose. A potentially useful contributionof the NHDR in Brazil and elsewherecould be in helping develop practicalmethods for monitoring and evaluatingpolicies and programmes.

The influence of HDIs as targeting tools isas high in Congress as it is in federalpolicy-making. This is particularly trueamong parliamentarians from the pooreststates, who use the indexes to bring extraresources to the states and municipalitiesthey represent. Congress is now discussingthe use of HDIs for allocating resources inthe federal budget. It is also common forindividual states to use municipal HDIs astools for allocating funds for socialprogrammes, as shown in Table 3.

The evidence in Table 3 suggests that:

BOX 2. THE INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTS IN BRAZIL

The evidence below suggests that human development products in Brazil have had asubstantial intellectual impact:

n Search engines on the World Wide Web come up with hundreds of articles by academicsand professionals citing ‘human development index’ and ‘Brazil’, written in bothPortuguese and English.

n At time of this writing there were seven articles in print in Brazil’s top academic journalsdiscussing or using the HDI as a variable and one article concerning Amartya Sen’s principles on inequality and poverty.

n Human development products have also influenced Brazil’s educational curricula. Threeout of seven exams measuring student performance in secondary school includedquestions on the HDI, signalling that HDIs and human development principles areconsidered part of the secondary school syllabus.

WHATEVER

THE COSTS

OF NATIONAL

OWNERSHIP OF

NHDRS, THIS

OWNERSHIP IS

CRITICAL IN

MAINTAINING

THE STRATEGIC

POSITION OF

THE NHDR.

n Both economically well-off and poorstates have incorporated humandevelopment principles and indexesinto their programmes and plans.

n In some states and in certain programmes,HDIs are used as a targeting tool andin others as a governing principle.

n State policy makers have used HDIs as atargeting tool in various ways, showingtheir capacity to innovate and to make useof the indexes in a wide range of policies.

Intellectual influence of human develop-ment products. Human development indexes,atlases and other products have also hadsubstantial intellectual influence in Brazil(see Box 2).

Despite fiscal constraints at all levels ofgovernment since the mid-1990s, thebroad dissemination of human developmentproducts is one of the factors that hashelped place education, health care, andincome transfer issues on the country’sagenda, and change policy priorities.

3.2 THE NHDR SYSTEM ANDCORPORATE DECISION-MAKING

3.2.1 Support from UNDP Headquarters

The NHDR unit added considerably to theresources already established by HDRO tosupport the production and disseminationof national reports. The most importantresources added were:

n Human Development Report Network(HDR-net): Created in 1999, thisforum for professional knowledge-sharing and learning has evolved into acommunity of over 1,000 humandevelopment experts from UNDP,government, academia, researchorganizations and NGOs.

n HDR Statistics Network (HDRStats-Net): This global forum for experts,established in 2003, discusses issuesrelated to measuring human development(including how to calculate composite

human development indexes), methodsof adapting indexes to local contexts,good methodological practices, andother issues. Both the HDRStats-Netand the HDR-Net discuss substantiveissues, indexes and statistical material,and experiences on specific themes.

n Biennial summer training courses (for2 weeks) at Oxford University forprofessionals and policy makers involvedin international development issues andthose preparing sub-national, nationaland regional HDRs. The course aimsto teach the theoretical foundations ofhuman development and to explore thehuman development approach to awide range of key policy issues. Inaddition to raising awareness of thehuman development paradigm, itprovides the tools and skills for analysisand dissemination of NHDRs.

n The HDR Toolkit: Available online fornational and regional HDR teams, thekit provides succinct descriptions ofkey concepts and strategies, methods,standards, examples of good practicesand other relevant information. HDRTimeline: online material outlining thekey processes involved in producing aNHDR, which serves as a companion tothe Toolkit.

n Thematic Guidance Notes: Prepared incooperation with the Bureau for Develop-ment Policy, the Bureau for CrisisPrevention and Recovery and otherpartners, these guidance notes “providetheoretical background and practicalsupport for development practitioners toaddress certain themes within a humandevelopment conceptual framework.”

n Annual global forum on humandevelopment: an annual forum forhuman development practitioners andexperts to discuss pressing issuesrelated to human development reports.

n The Journal of Human Development.NHDR preparation also benefits fromUNDP regional centres,6 which provide

F I N D I N G S 1 7

6 Previously known as subregional resource facilities (SURFs).

C H A P T E R 31 8

networking and other services relatedto human development.

n A system of awards to stimulatethinking about innovation, conceptualand policy issues and communicationand outreach of NHDRs. A two-stepjudging process was introduced withthe participation of UNDP bureaus andexternal judges. In 2004, a contributionfrom the Government of the Netherlandshelped establish an ‘innovation fund’ topromote innovative practices in theNHDR process.There were 93 applicants,and $500,000 was distributed among20 recipients ($25,000 each).

3.2.2 Links to related exercises

One common dilemma facing the NHDRprocess across countries is its relationship withother exercises, such as the MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report (MDGR) andthe Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.

Relationship to the MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report. There is noinherent substantive conflict between theNHDR and the MDGR; indeed, there issubstantial potential synergy. These reportsdiffer in content, process and audience.MDGRs are products of national governmentsworking with UN Country Teams, whereasNHDRs are the responsibility of UNDP,promoting national ownership in variousforms. MDGRs are reports of progresstowards the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, providing data that are of use to theNHDRs, whereas NHDRs are analyticaldocuments that deal with challenges tohuman development and seek policy-relevant solutions. NHDRs are also amacro planning tool to help ascertain whatUNDP programmes are needed andpotentially useful.

To take a concrete example, the PhilippineSecond MDGR (2005) “tracks andmonitors how the Philippine Governmentand other stakeholders are faring in effortsto attain the MDGs. The progress madeon each Goal, the challenges that remain aswell as next steps are delineated.” On the

other hand, the fifth Philippine NHDR(also 2005) deals exhaustively with oneoutstanding impediment to achieving theMDGs, namely, the armed conflicts thathave raged on and off in that country fordecades, and offers ideas on ways to endthese conflicts. The relationship betweenthese two reports is clearly complementary.

The Tanzanian and Zambian cases areexamples of explicit attempts to align theNHDR process to both the MDGR andthe PRSP. Since 2000, the TanzanianNHDR has been produced under thegeneral title of ‘Poverty and HumanDevelopment Report’, with a view toassessing progress towards the MDGs andinforming and focusing the PRSP. InZambia, the last three reports highlightedMDG priorities as key themes, which hasenhanced the relevance of the NHDR tothe policy process and policy community.

In Senegal, MDGRs and PRSPs areconsidered priority programmes for thepromotion of human development, butNHDRs are also being produced. Withingovernment, the prevailing view is thathuman development cannot be effectiveunless the MDGs are achieved. There is aneed for UNDP in Senegal to find the bestway of harmonizing these initiatives.

Unfortunately, the synergies between theNHDR and the MDGR have not beenfully recognized and exploited. While theNHDR and the MDGR are intellectuallycomplementary, they can and do competefor scarce time and human resources. TheUNDP Resident Representative is usuallythe Resident Coordinator of the UNsystem and, as such, is responsible for theMDGs; UNDP is the lead agency for theMDGs, so there is great pressure onUNDP to prioritize the MDGR. This is aproblem that calls for attention.

Relationship to the Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper. The PRSP was initiatedby the World Bank. In some cases, therelationship of the NHDR to the PRSPinvolves a trade-off between the benefits of

maintaining the ‘UN brand’ (political andintellectual), which is distinct from that ofthe Bretton Woods institutions, and thepossibility of increasing UNDP’s policyinfluence by working with these institutions,which have far greater resources to wield.While being explicitly linked with thePRSP may increase the impact of theNHDR, the gain may prove to be onlyshort-term if the link threatens to dilutethe NHDR’s independence.

Evidence suggests that cooperation withthe PRSP process may entail a loss ofindependence (or even existence) for theNHDR. For example, in Zambia, theNHDR was used for a while by a govern-ment-UNDP coalition to balance theinfluence of the Bretton Woods institutions.Eventually, however, the NHDR wassubsumed by the PRSP and became a‘PHDR’—a joint effort between UNDPand the Bretton Woods institutions.The samething happened in the United Republic of Tanzania. In Armenia, an NHDRplanned for 2002 was cancelled because thegovernment was focusing its attention on aPRSP. As a result, Armenia has not producedan NHDR since 2001 (although one wasin preparation at the time of this writing),which has diminished its previouslyestablished visibility and importance inthat country’s policy debates.

Timing of the NHDR in relation to thePRSP is an important issue. UNDP’sability to influence the use of resourceswielded by the Bretton Woods institutionswill depend in part on its making itsarguments persuasively and early. If significant resources are to be allocatedaccording to priorities determined by the PRSP, then UNDP should do its best to develop its own analysis andpromulgate its own views via the NHDRbefore that happens.

Relationship to the global HumanDevelopment Report. One crucial questionthat needs to be addressed for the future ofthe NHDR is its relationship to the globalHDR. While there have sometimes been

conflicts between the HDR and NHDRover issues of data choice and methods of calculating indexes, in general there is a complementary relationship between the two reports because the HDR’sinternational standing affects the NHDR’sposition nationally.

This complementary relationship, however,should not be interpreted as one where theNHDRs simply bask in the glory of theHDR. The evaluation indicates that in allthe countries studied, the NHDRs areconsidered more relevant to the nationalscene than HDRs.

In general, the downward flow from theHuman Development Report Office toNHDRs has been extensive and helpful.HDRO and its NHDR unit have done agood job with meagre resources to supportthe NHDR process throughout the world,through the posting of standards, methodsand awards, establishment of networks, etc.There is also agreement that, partlybecause of the assistance provided to theNHDR programme by HDRO, someNHDRs have gone beyond the originalexpectations of stimulating debate andproviding policy options, by:

n Presenting disaggregated data thatmade clear the existence of stronginternal development disparities

n Innovating in terms of measures andindicators

n Generating innovative policy ideas

n Attracting the participation of civil societyorganizations, including professionalorganizations, indigenous peoples andprivate sector groups

n Pushing for more substantive research,garnering interest from academicinstitutions

n Helping donors shape their owncooperation programmes.

On the other hand, there is little evidenceof an upward flow of influence from the

F I N D I N G S 1 9

NHDRS HAVE

GONE ON

TO TACKLE

IMPORTANT

AND MORE

DIFFICULT ISSUES.

MOREOVER, THEY

HAVE NOT SHIED

AWAY FROM

TABOO ISSUES OF

OR CRITICIZING

GOVERNMENT

POLICIES AND

PROGRAMMES.

C H A P T E R 32 0

NHDR system, or that the extremelyvaluable material emerging from the NHDRshas had much impact on the global HDR.In fact, the system appears to have had nodiscernable impact on the more generalactivities of UNDP Headquarters. This is amissed opportunity, since gradual absorptionat Headquarters of country-specific andregion-specific analyses of human develop-ment issues might eventually be reflectedin the design of new, responsive andinnovative programmes coming from thecentre of UNDP’s global network.

3.2.3 Links to other exercises

Many other exercises, including CommonCountry Assessments and UN DevelopmentAssistance Frameworks, governmentinvestigative reports and planningdocuments, reports of civil society andprivate sector organizations, touch onissues dealt with in current or past NHDRsor those to be addressed in future years.NHDRs may benefit from the data andanalyses contained in such exercises, andmay also influence them. On the otherhand, in some cases, NHDRs will beputting forward ideas and approaches quitedifferent from—or even antagonistic to—those of other groups and organizations.The potential synergies and conflicts shouldbe recognized and, wherever possible, usedproductively in the preparation of NHDRs.

3.3 THE NHDR SYSTEM AT THECOUNTRY LEVEL

3.3.1 National ownership

As the UNDP corporate policy on theNHDR emphasizes, national ownership isone of the key principles behind theNHDR system (see chapter 1.5.2). Nationalownership increases the influence of theNHDR by bringing to it greater politicallegitimacy, which helps increase its impact.National ownership is also more likely tocause the NHDR to pay attention to localdetails, which increases its credibility,relevance and appeal to policy makers andlocal people. Because national ownershipusually (although not necessarily) means

government involvement in the productionprocess, it gives the NHDR better access toinformation and, more importantly, increasesits policy impact by bringing it in closerproximity to the government policyagenda. National ownership also contributesto the building of better statistical andanalytical capacities by government andother organizations and individuals involvedin the production process, as demonstratedin Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Egypt andother countries.

However, national ownership also has itscosts. Government involvement oftenmeans that it is difficult to raise issues thatmight be embarrassing to the government,although it may be possible to do soanyway with good quality analysis and a dose of political skill. For example, stateHDRs in India have tended to avoiddealing in depth with fundamental class orcaste issues, while the governments ofsome former Soviet republics have shiedaway from discussion of governance issues. In other countries, however (suchas Bulgaria), the potential trade-offbetween national ownership and ‘politicalindependence’ was never considered aproblem at all.

This evaluation suggests that there is a casefor working closely with the government inthe beginning, even if it means sacrificingsome political independence, becausepartnership with the government increasespolicy influence, thus strengthening thestrategic position of the NHDR in thenational policy debate. This conclusion iscontingent on particular national conditions,and the extent of the sacrifice, which canrange from government objection to aphrase to suppression of an entire report.

In addition to the issue of politicalindependence, there is also the potentialtrade-off between national ownership andreport quality, if the national partner lacks the necessary analytic capacity. Theevaluation found that the quality of theanalysis is a key determinant of anNHDR’s credibility, so that maintenance

of intellectual robustness might requiresacrificing national ownership.7 In Egypt, atemporary capacity gap created by thedeparture of the main NHDR author fromthe national partner organization wasdeemed sufficiently severe that the UNDPopted to produce the NHDR without anational partner until a credible alternativecould be found. In Botswana, due toproblems encountered with the preparingorganization (BIDPA), the UNDPcountry office had to substantially rewritethe final draft with the assistance ofUNDP staff brought in from New Yorkand Johannesburg. Collaboration on thepart of multiple organizations was necessaryto produce the report.

An alternative scheme of nationalownership was adopted in Senegal. There,NHDRs are the product of a partnershipbetween UNDP and the government, withthe participation of a Steering Committeecomposed of representatives of government,civil society, academia, the private sectorand UN agencies. The committee discussesthemes, provides guidelines, and reviewsthe work of national consultants in chargeof writing the report. Recently, the role of the committee was complemented by the formalization of a National HumanDevelopment Forum, consisting of morethan 150 representatives, with the tasks ofbuilding consensus and validating the finalversion of the reports. This approach alsohas its costs: Although based on thedesirable goal of a broad consultativeprocess, it can lead to long delays inlaunching the reports.

Whatever the costs of national ownership,however, our studies suggest that it iscritical in maintaining the strategicposition of the NHDR.

3.3.2 Producing the report

NHDRs are produced in one of threedifferent ways, each with its benefits and problems:

1. UNDP country offices producingreports in-house. This methodproduces the greatest coherence andconsistency over time, but may restrictthe injection of new ideas. It alsorequires investment in building in-house research capabilities, whichtakes time and may be expensive. Thismethod also inevitably limits the senseof national ownership.

2. Partial outsourcing of the productionof reports. This permits greaterbreadth of inputs while enabling theUNDP country office to maintaincontrol. Coherence will then depend onthe degree of control and coordinationexercised by the UNDP country office.Some stakeholders commented that aregular injection of ‘new blood’ throughhiring of at least some new consultantsevery year is useful. In very smallcountries, however, there may not be abig enough pool of experts to makesuch renewal feasible. Small expertpools in such countries may also createa problem of using ‘experts for hire’,with the same people working both forthe NHDR and for rival publications (aswas the case in Albania and Bulgaria).

3. Complete outsourcing of the produc-tion of reports. This method enableslocal organizations to be involvedmuch more actively in the process, thusincreasing national ownership.

An exception to these general patterns isIndia, whose states undertook the productionof state HDRs on their own and initiallywithout a UNDP role. UNDP becameinvolved only later, in partnership with thenational Planning Commission andindividual state governments.

Even within a given country, modes ofproduction have changed over time, ascircumstances dictate. For example,between the first NHDR in 1994 and1999, the UNDP office in Egypt totally

F I N D I N G S 2 1

7 The problem of analytic capacity could lie with the UNDP office rather than with the national partner,as in the case of the early reports produced by Colombia.

C H A P T E R 32 2

outsourced the report to the Institute of National Planning (INP), a semi-governmental research institute affiliatedwith the Ministry of Planning. However,the NHDR project coordinator wasappointed INP director in 2000 and thenminister of planning in 2003. Because theINP lost its human development-relatedcapacity, its role vis-à-vis the NHDR wasweakened, and in 2004 the UNDP countryoffice took over management of the reportwhile subcontracting its production to anoutside consultant.

In Brazil, the first NHDR was outsourcedto the Instituto de Pesquisa EconômicaAplicada (IPEA), a respected government-connected think-tank. The subsequent andpopular ‘atlases’ were coordinated byUNDP-Brazil and IPEA. A state-levelplanning and statistics agency, the JoãoPinheiro Foundation, produces the indexesbased on data from the federal governmentstatistical office, with some methodologicalsupport from IPEA. However, themethodology and data of the recentlyproduced Racial Atlas were elaborated by aresearch centre linked to the FederalUniversity of Minas Gerais.

When the preparers of the report changeover time, the country office should ensurethat consistency is maintained and thatknowledge is shared among relevantorganizations. It is important to recognizethe value of diversity in productionmethods to meet local conditions, whilealso emphasizing the underlying principlesof quality, coherence, consistency over timeand national ownership.

Partnership issues. The evaluation showsthat it is extremely important to consult asbroad a group of stakeholders as possiblefrom the beginning (for example, inchoosing a theme) and throughout theproduction process. Of course, prolongedconsultation can cause long delays inpublication, resulting in data gaps, and thusreduce the impact of the report. This wasthe case in Senegal, where members of civilsociety organizations, academics, government

and UNDP officials are jointly responsiblefor various decisions taken during thelengthy NHDR process. However, broadconsultation is generally better than theopposite. In Zambia, even the businesscommunity, not typically thought of as adevelopment partner, was involved in theconsultation process. In many countries,preparation of the reports has incorporatedthe work of various organizations andreceived institutional contributions fromNGOs, as well as civil society andacademic organizations. In Albania, forinstance, cooperating organizations for the2005 report include the AlbanianAssociation of Municipalities, the Centrefor Rural Studies, Co-Plan; the GenderAlliance for Development Centre, PartnersAlbania—Centre for Change and ConflictManagement, and United Nations Volunteers.

In Brazil, partnerships that have been builtup by UNDP with governmental and non-governmental agencies from the verybeginning are largely responsible for the success of that country’s humandevelopment products. Of particularimportance is the partnership with IPEA.Brazil’s statistical office, the InstitutoBrasileiro de Geografia e Estatística(IBGE), also played a key role by supplyingvery detailed statistics that are not usuallyavailable to the general public forcompiling local indexes. UNDP has alsopartnered with João Pinheiro Foundation,a state government agency, to produce stateand municipal indexes.

In the United Republic of Tanzania,UNDP works closely with the nationalgovernment and other UN agencies in theproduction of the NHDR. Principalcontributors to the 2002 and 2003 reportscame from the University of Dar esSalaam, University College of LandStudies, Sokoine University of Agriculture,the Prime Minister’s Office, Economic andSocial Research Foundation, WaterAid,UNICEF and the UK’s Department forInternational Development (DFID), aswell as from UNDP itself. Civil societyorganizations were initially underrepresented

among UNDP’s partners, but that situationhas improved with the 2002 and 2003 reports.

Partnership with the government at variouslevels (national, regional, municipal, etc.) isarguably the most important of all partner-ships, ensuring that the data and otherinformation are of good quality and increasingthe policy impact of the NHDR.

Most of the country studies point out thatworking with NGOs throughout theproduction process is an effective way toincrease the impact of the report, since itenables the production team to pursuepolitically relevant issues that may evenhave campaign backing by NGOs.

3.3.3 Content

Indexes versus issues. Most country reportsindicate that the HDI and other humandevelopment-related indexes have beenimportant in attracting attention to theNHDR. One exception in this regard is

Albania, which did not publish an HDIuntil 2002, due to data deficiencies. Inparticular, the disaggregation of variousHDIs to smaller administrative units (for example, states, governorates andmunicipalities) has been crucial in generatinginterest in human development issues. Thedisaggregation exercise has been particu-larly successful in Egypt, where it sparkedcompetition to improve human developmentamong governorates, and in Brazil, whereits concrete depiction of inequalities at thestate, municipal and even neighbourhoodlevel seized public and media attention.

Important as the indexes may have been in capturing initial attention, the moresuccessful NHDRs have also simultaneouslyintroduced the human development approachand then moved into specific, often controversial, issues.

An interesting exception is Brazil, wherethe disaggregated indexes, accompanied bysophisticated maps and interactive mapping

F I N D I N G S 2 3

BOX 3. WHY ARE INDEXES SO SUCCESSFUL IN BRAZIL?

Brazil produces a series of national, state and municipal indexes with disaggregated dataavailable on an electronic database.The indexes includes information on 135 human developmentindicators for all 26 states, the federal capital (Brasília) and for all 5,507 municipalities.

The presentation of the indexes is widely praised. Accessing the data is simple and self-explanatory through software that allows users to create their own analytical tools whenaccessing it, including thematic maps, tables, graphics and rankings.The information can beeither printed or exported to other programs, such as electronic spreadsheets.The main goal isto facilitate access to very detailed information, which was previously scattered over multiplewebsites using unfriendly software that prevented users from easily manipulating the data.

That said, there is also a cultural basis for the success of human development products inBrazil. Brazilians, in general, and the media in particular, are obsessed by figures and statistics,particularly if they are presented in a synthetic and accessible manner. Possible reasons forthis obsession include: the country’s long history of inflation and hyperinflation that madeBrazilians familiar with the use of indexes and the country’s passionate interest in football(soccer) and the World Cup competition. The same competitive spirit has been observed asBrazilians follow the changing HDI rankings of their country and its states and municipalities. Asformer President Cardoso put it, Brazilians are more competitive than analytical, making theindexes more popular than the reports.

This does not mean that Brazilians eschew analysis altogether.The controversial 2005 reporton racism, poverty and violence, which analyses racial inequalities in areas such as income,education, health, employment, housing and violence, received a great deal of attention,though much of it was probably due the receptive climate created by previous humandevelopment atlases and indexes.

C H A P T E R 32 4

software, have become the main feature ofthe NHDR. For historical and culturalreasons, and also due to the outstandingoutreach efforts of the UNDP countryoffice, the HDI was an effective means ofintroducing and popularizing the conceptof human development in Brazil (see Box3). It led to improved understanding of theextent and nature of inequality, and to theadoption of measures, including targetingof a share of budgetary expenditures to lowHDI communities, designed to reduce it.The Brazilian case, which took advantageof local predilections, is a good example offlexibility in the global NHDR system.

Selecting themes. The main topics ofNHDRs produced by our sample countriesare numerous (see Annex 4). What isapparent from this list is the tremendousflexibility of the NHDR system in encouraging countries to pursue thoseissues most relevant to the advancement ofhuman development in their particularcircumstances. Cross-cutting issues, suchas poverty, gender, inequality, good governanceand democracy, education, decentralization,and sustainable livelihoods share thelimelight with issues of special localimportance, and the links between the twosets of issues are often made explicit.Whether it is transition issues in EasternEurope and Central Asia, AIDS inBotswana, violence and conflict in Colombia,the race issue in Brazil, corruption inSenegal or the particular problems of forestdwellers in the border states of India, theNHDR has proved to be an instrumentadaptable to the priorities of time andplace (see Box 4).

Human development is a multidimensionalconcept, which cannot be captured byeconomic variables alone. Therefore, amultitude of potential NHDR themes mayarise, of varying degrees of relevance andurgency. To achieve greatest impact, it isimportant that the right themes are chosenat the right time.

Some themes may be unacceptable togovernment because of their politicalsensitivity or because they violate certainsocial taboos. The advantage of avoidingsuch themes is that the report’s messagemay be more readily absorbed when thereis little resistance to it. It is probably forthis reason that initial NHDRs havetended to focus on introducing the conceptand providing a summary discussion ofmajor aspects of human developmentstatus in the country, while avoidingsensitive topics.

However, research for this evaluationsuggests that, in many cases, NHDRs havegone on to tackle important and moredifficult issues. Moreover, they have notshied away from taboo issues or criticizinggovernment policies and programmes.For instance, the 2000 Botswana report on AIDS came at a time when stigma and silence surrounding the subject werestill strong in the country. The reportgenerated a great deal of debate around theproblem of AIDS, thereby increasing itsprominence on the national agenda. Evenpolitically sensitive subjects can beaddressed if the preparers are politicallyadept and produce high-quality analysis(see Box 5).

BOX 4. AN UNUSUAL PROGRESSION: FROM SUBNATIONAL TO NATIONAL REPORTS

Unlike most countries, whose first human development report took a national perspective,Bolivia focused on one region, Cochabamba, in 1995. In the 1990s, the production ofsubnational reports was still very rare outside of India. Nevertheless, in Bolivia, the decisionwas made to start the NHDR process by better understanding the local scenario and thenmoving to a national scale. This unique approach was the result of a workshop organized by UNDP-Bolivia and the Bolivian Government, in which a select group of intellectuals, politi-cians and government officials got together to examine human development perspectives intheir country.

IT IS IMPORTANT

THAT THE IMPACT

OF THE NHDR

EXTEND BEYOND

POLICY MAKERS,

ACADEMICS,

JOURNALISTS

AND NGOS TO

THE PUBLIC AT

LARGE. THUS

COMMUNICATING

DIRECTLY WITH THE

GENERAL PUBLIC

CAN BE A MORE

EFFECTIVE WAY

OF PROMOTING

HUMAN DEVELOP-

MENT IN THE

LONG RUN.

In general, NHDRs have continued topush boundaries by bringing up issues thatdirectly engage with the very powerstructures that are impeding humandevelopment. Such political courage shouldbe commended and further encouraged inthe future This will provide an incentivefor those who continue to face toughchallenges in accomplishing this.

Another key issue regarding the selectionof themes is that of repetition, and thisevaluation suggests that there is value in re-visiting certain themes and issues. Thishas several advantages: it supports theassessment of progress over time inachieving important human developmentobjectives; it enables the study of a persistent issue from a different angle; andit provides an opportunity for deeperanalysis of an issue, which will hopefullylead to relevant policy changes.

Improving the indexes. The credibility ofNHDRs depends on the use of high-quality data, including data that supportthe indexes. With this in mind, UNDPcountry offices have worked closely withcentral statistical offices and other relevantgovernment organizations to develop areliable database for the HDIs and to

improve the statistical techniques employedin processing them.

However, because indexes are greatlysimplified representations of humandevelopment status, good quality data,other than official government data, shouldbe used where available. For instance,informants in India suggested that muchhuman development-related informationwas not being utilized by the state HDRs.At the same time, indiscriminate use ofoutside data sources must be avoided (forexample, the use of a ‘freedom index’produced by Freedom House in the 2002Arab Human Development Report was widelycriticized). It is necessary to strike a balancebetween appropriate opportunism in the useof available information, on the one hand,and ensuring that data used are dependableand of high quality, on the other.

UNDP Headquarters has emphasized theneed to develop ‘creative indexes’ and thisevaluation tends to support that view. Forexample, a number of studies have pointedout that the slow response of the HDI toreflect improvements in policies hasdiscouraged some local government leaderswho used local HDI values as a basis for allocating resources. It might be

F I N D I N G S 2 5

BOX 5. NATIONAL OWNERSHIP AND THE IMPORTANCE OF EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

To date, Colombia has produced four national human development reports. The first threewere written by a government agency, and the fourth was the sole responsibility of UNDP,which, in turn, consulted a wide range of experts, including academics from many fields andmembers of national, regional and local committees. Thus the principle of nationalownership was observed in the broader sense of widespread national participation.

The trajectory of NHDRs in Colombia shows an incremental advance; 2003, however, was aturning point in which new views and specific policy proposals for the country’s mainproblem—internal armed conflict—were introduced. Although the report began as apartnership with central government, in 2003 it was produced independently of formalgovernment organizations. The two forms of ‘ownership’ had different consequences. Onthe one hand, the government’s ownership of the first three reports gave rise to improveddata collection and the accumulation of information about government programmes andplans. On the other hand, the NHDR written under the sole coordination of UNDP was notconstrained in its analysis by the views and commitments of a sitting government, one thatis also an important player in the conflict.

The independence of the 2003 NHDR is clearly visible in the even-handed way it approachesthe problem of violence in Colombia and makes recommendations for action, taking intoaccount the involvement of all actors.

C H A P T E R 32 6

important to devise and/or emphasize newhuman development-related indexes thatare more immediately responsive to policyimprovements (for example, by usinginfant mortality rather than life expectancyas an indicator), so that politicians, whosefocus on election gives them a short-termoutlook, will have a greater incentive toimplement human development-orientedpolicies.8 In Senegal, there are controversiesabout the calculation of HDIs, particularlythe illiteracy rate, which leaves aside non-formal and popular schemes of education,such as the daaras (Islamic training)schools, which are spread all over thecountry, especially in rural areas.

Greater efforts need to be made to ensureindex compatibility over time. When theproduction of the NHDR is done by anoutside contractor through an openbidding process, there is a possibility that producers in different years may usedifferent data, not least because organizationsmay regard their data as proprietary andrefuse to share it with their successors.

3.3.4 Frequency of publication

The frequency with which the NHDR isproduced has bearing on its impact.Excessive frequency (every year) hascreated ‘fatigue’ on the part of the productionteam and ‘indigestion’ on the part of theaudience. Conversely, infrequent productionmay reduce the report’s influence bylowering its presence on the national policyscene. Two years is widely regarded as theoptimum interval, although three yearsmay be acceptable if conditions warrant. InArmenia, however, it has been five yearssince the last (2001) NHDR was published,and as a result, there is currently nomention of NHDR on the Armeniancountry office website (although a newreport on education is in preparation).Ultimately, the exact frequency should be amatter of choice for the individual countryoffices, given their resources and othercommitments, as well as in light of the nationalpolitical and economic situation. Cogencyand relevance to policy are more importantcriteria than any exact target frequency.

A related issue arises when subnationalHDRs are prepared. In India, a specialcase, some 25 state HDRs have beenprepared over the past decade or are beingfinalized, most of them with the assistanceof the Human Development ResourceCentre (HDRC), a unit within the UNDPcountry office dedicated to aiding the stateHDR preparation process. This is a largernumber of reports than the total of globalHDRs that have been produced from thebeginning of the programme in 1990, andthe UNDP role in enabling them hasentailed a major commitment of time andenergy by a small but dedicated staff. Thecountry office has opted out of producingadditional reports in favour of supportingvarious kinds of follow-up activities.While these are important, they are notsubstitutes for the ongoing examination ofcritical human development issues providedby regular state HDRs. It is unclear to theevaluation team whether such regularreports will continue to be produced. Whatis clear is that the more ambitious the scopeof the HDR production system is, thegreater its resource demands and the moredifficult it is to produce reports frequently.

3.3.5 Strengthening capacity

In-house capacity.The amount of investmentmade to increase in-house capacity dependson the mode of production selected. As arule, a greater degree of in-house responsibilityfor production leads to a greater requirementfor in-house capacity.

However, even if a report is completelyoutsourced, development of some in-houseintellectual capacity is still necessary at allUNDP country offices, in order to exerciseeffective control in the choice of preparers,encourage participatory methods of prepara-tion, oversee quality, vetting, feedback anddissemination, and ensure adherence to abasic human development framework ofanalysis. The Indian case discussed aboveillustrates the burden on in-house capacitythat can exist even when preparers are stategovernments or their selected agents. On theother hand, in-house capacity developed

8 Needless to say, this should not be carried to the extreme of favouring human development-related policiesthat only have a short-term effect and will not lead to permanent improvements.

within the Human Development ResourceCentre greatly helped in enabling states toproduce good quality reports. Similarly, theBolivian experience of establishing an in-house NHDR team resulted in the creationof one of Bolivia’s most important think-tanks, a crucial asset in a poor country inwhich intellectual and technical expertise is scarce.

Capacity of the State and civil society.Conversely, even if most of the productionof the NHDR is done in-house, it is stillnecessary to invest in building humandevelopment-related capacity outside theUNDP country office. The reason for thisis obvious: Improving human developmentstatus requires commitment from allsectors of national life; it cannot beachieved by UNDP (or any internationalorganization) alone.

In addition, the evaluation showed thatthere is a need for building the capacity of the government central statistical officein collecting and processing humandevelopment-related data in order toenhance the quality of the data and theanalyses carried out to produce the NHDRs.

Several country reports suggest thatbuilding the capacity of academics to usethe human development framework is auseful way to create a pool of experts todraw upon and of more broadly spreadingthe human development concept. Theyalso show that building the capacity ofjournalists and NGOs to understand thehuman development discourse is importantin more effectively disseminating humandevelopment ideas. This may be achieved,for example, through training programmesin various human development themes orworkshops targeted to journalists prior tothe launch of particular reports.

Transfer of international expertise. Oneimportant finding of the country studies is thatthe capacities required for the productionof the NHDRs have been spread acrossnational borders through various channels.

Sometimes, the transfer was engineered from‘higher up’. UNDP Headquarters in New

York disseminated information on certain‘best practices’ either directly (for example,specific processes used in the NHDRs inEgypt and Brazil were recommended toother countries), or indirectly (the successof the Colombian NHDR on violenceprompted the development of a UNDPprogramme on Conflict Prevention andPeace Building, which has influencedNHDR thinking in other countries). InBolivia in the late 1990s, the NHDRpreparation team provided assistance tohuman development reports in othercountries, including Bulgaria, Chile andHonduras. UNDP Headquarters alsodisseminates information on best practicesthrough the NHDR Award exercise.

In some cases, UNDP regional bureaustook the initiative in spreading bestpractices, particularly but not exclusivelyfrom the region. This was done by theregional bureaus for Latin America and theCaribbean, Eastern Europe and the CISand the Arab States.

Transfer of expertise has also resulted frominitiatives taken by UNDP country offices.The transfers were sometimes from nearbycountries—for example, from Bulgaria toAlbania, or from the Russian Federation toArmenia—but they sometimes involvedinterregional transfers, for example, fromBrazil to Zambia.

Sometimes, the movement of personnelacross UNDP country offices ‘accidentally’transferred expertise. For example, thedeputy resident representative of Brazil, acountry with well-developed humandevelopment-related capacity, became theresident representative of Bulgaria in 1997.It is expected that such transfers willbecome more frequent, as more countriesacquire greater capacity through one of theabove channels.

3.3.6 Dissemination

Launch strategy. The evaluation indicatesthat a high-profile launch involving toppolitical leaders helps attract the attentionof policy makers and the general public tothe NHDR. However, this does not implythat launches have to be organized at the

F I N D I N G S 2 7

C H A P T E R 32 8

centre of a country’s political system. Thisdepends on the theme of the report. Forinstance, if the theme is decentralization orissues that pertain to particular regions, itmight be more effective to launch thereport from important regional centres.

The impact of NHDRs in Kazakhstan hasbeen greatly enhanced by varying thelaunch sites. In the mid-1990s, NHDRswere launched in the former capital ofAlmaty and received attention from thenational media. The 1998 and 1999 reportswere launched in the new capital ofAstana, as well as in Almaty, the largestcity. Since 2000, the launch sites alsoincluded the regions of Kazakhstanrelevant to the themes of the reports. Forinstance, the 2000 NHDR tackled povertyand was launched in the country’s poorestregions, Kyzylorda and Atyrau. The 2002NHDR dealt with rural development andwas launched in East Kazakhstan, Almatyand West Kazakhstan oblasts (subnationalregions). The 2003 report, on water, waspresented in Kyzylorda, while the 2004report, on education, was launched inSouth Kazakhstan and Aktobe oblasts. As aresult of the geographic spread of thelaunches, national as well as provincialmass media were able to cover them.

A number of studies conducted for thisevaluation have found that doing somegroundwork with the media before thelaunch, for instance, through workshops

targeted to journalists, can help increasethe impact of the report. Such workshopsalso increase the capacity of the broadersociety to understand and debate humandevelopment-related issues.

Post-launch dissemination strategies.The evaluation team found several examplesof post-launch dissemination strategiesthat were particularly well thought out. Inthe Ukraine, hard copies of the report weremailed to 781 major central governmentagencies, regional and local governments,universities, civil society organizations andregional libraries. For the most recentreports, special web-design tools wereintroduced for uploading the reports inorder to make them available to the publicfree of charge. Bolivia has also used severalinnovative ways for disseminating theirfindings and human development concepts(see Box 6).

Brazil has had an especially effectivedissemination strategy, one that has madejournalists and the media partners in avariety of ways. In addition to its strategyof including high-profile politicians, policymakers and institutions to launch thereport, it has 1) provided journalists withpre-launch embargoed briefings fromUNDP, allowing them sufficient time toanalyse the results; 2) made training coursesavailable to journalists; and 3) arranged thegranting of awards to newspapers andjournalists for quality coverage, mainly

BOX 6. CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION STRATEGIES: THE BOLIVIAN EXAMPLE

Between 1995 and 2005, Bolivia produced 15 HDRs, including national, thematic, macro-regional and regional reports. These reports are characterized by their creative approachesin disseminating human development concepts, and by a wide consultation process, whichprovide a model for NHDRs around the globe.

The dissemination techniques adopted in Bolivia include caravans, songs, soap operas, radioand TV programmes, games and street performances. These are in Spanish as well as themain languages spoken by indigenous Bolivians and deal with the main findings of theNHDRs, using humour and music. In 2003, more than 105 radio programmes on humandevelopment topics were transmitted by over 200 radio stations.

The 2003 NHDR consultation process involved 45 focus groups and a total of about 500people, ranging from managers of transnational companies to cooperative miners, ethnicgroups in different regions and representatives from religious groups, as well as a surveyusing a sample of 3,617 people, 32 case studies and several interviews.

through funding from private and non-governmental organizations.

The UNDP office in Brazil has closelymonitored media coverage since the launchof the 1996 report. Because indexes arehighly cherished in Brazil, the mediacoverage is not restricted to the day of the launch. Such coverage also providesfurther analysis of the main subjects of thevarious human development products,generally relating them to a broaderanalysis of the country’s social conditions.Signed articles making use of HDIs as ananalytical tool are distributed to newsagencies, keeping the topic in the mediawell after the launch. Human developmentproducts are headline news in the mostimportant newspapers and weekly magazinesdistributed nationally, and are discussed ineditorials and in signed articles by journalists,politicians and academics.

Because the Internet has become a majortool for distribution, the effectiveness anduser-friendliness of software is now animportant consideration in the disseminationprocess and should receive serious attention.In Brazil, in order to disseminate its atlasesonline, UNDP licensed from a privatedeveloper an effective interactive programmefor giving the public access to detailedgeographic breakdowns of the data, whicheven permitted querying of the data. Later,UNDP decided to revert to softwaredeveloped within the United Nations,which greatly limited the usefulness ofonline dissemination.

Dissemination clearly requires moreattention in some places. For instance,apart from the national launch and distri-bution of the Tanzanian report to govern-ment, UN agencies, donors and civilsociety, there is no information concerningcoordinated dissemination or advocacyresulting from the report. Efforts to getthis information from the websites, UNDPcountry offices and civil society organiza-tions in Tanzania were futile. There is alsovery little evidence of sustained dialogueafter the launch of the first two reports.The Tanzanian desk review indicates thatresources were not adequately devoted

to dissemination and advocacy of therecommendations made in the reports. Theneed for a post-dissemination strategy wasalso reported in the case of Senegal, wheredissemination has been limited to a ceremonyorganized by the Steering Committee(although the launch of the report is a keyevent generally chaired by a governmentauthority, even the president himself, andattended by major stakeholders).

The evaluation found that the launchshould be not be treated as a self-containedevent, but as part of a larger disseminationand popularization process, with continuousmonitoring and feedback. Otherwise, theNHDRs are likely to disappear intooblivion after their one day of glory.

Monitoring issues. Monitoring the resultsof past NHDRs involves assessing theirdissemination strategies and the policyrecommendations they advanced. Thecontributions of NHDRs are wide-ranging,from affecting the climate of opinion toexerting intellectual influence to alteringpolicy directions. And it is far fromimmediately clear what metrics are best forevaluating the impact of a NHDR system.UNDP focal points can often provide a listof things that happened as a result ofNHDRs under the heading of ‘impact’ or‘influence’.However, the systematic monitoringof results as a tool to enable improvements inapproaches to production and disseminationis one of the weakest links in the chain ofactivities connected with the NHDRsystem, perhaps because it is inherentlydifficult and complex. There is also a greatdeal of variation among countries. Forexample, post-launch monitoring wasbeing carried out relatively well in theLatin American countries reviewed, butnot in the African countries, where theUNDP country offices lacked basicinformation on citations and discussions ofthe NHDR in the media, parliament andother forums for public debate.

Partnership issues. Partnership is asimportant for dissemination of the NHDRas it is for its production. Several countrystudies find that working closely withgovernment in the dissemination process of

F I N D I N G S 2 9

C H A P T E R 33 0

the NHDR, especially at a high level, is veryuseful. This holds true not just at the launchstage but throughout the disseminationprocess. In some countries, such as Brazil,Kazakhstan and Ukraine, the involvementof the parliament was productive. This isbecause the participation of leading politicianslends a high profile to the report and theideas associated with it, thus attracting moremedia attention and increasing the chancesthat the report will influence policy.

A number of studies carried out for thisevaluation reveal that competition amongsubnational governments in terms of the HDIand other indicators of human developmentcan also help disseminate the NHDR byincreasing its public profile. Competitionamong governorates in Egypt, state govern-ments in India, and state governments andmunicipalities in Brazil are prominentexamples of how such competition has ledto faster and more effective disseminationof human development-related ideas.

Collaboration with NGOs, especially wherethey are a significant force in society, is alsoimportant in effectively disseminatingideas and information originating from theNHDR. The media can be a significantpartner in dissemination, and the strategyof involving journalists in the process hashad substantial payoffs in countriesincluding Brazil. Attracting media attentionis a certain way of gaining politicians’attention. It also provides high visibility tohuman development products. Virtually allBrazilian informants stressed the role ofthe media in the success and the impact ofsuch products.

Reaching out to people. Partnering withthe media can be an effective means ofreaching out to the broader public. It isimportant that the impact of the NHDRextend beyond policy makers, academics,journalists and NGOs to the public at large.Of course, the ideas and policies derived fromthe NHDR may reach the broader publicthrough these elite groups, but communi-cating directly with the general public canbe a more effective way of promoting humandevelopment in the long run.

One important, but often neglected, reasonwhy NHDRs have not reached as manypeople as they should have is that they areoften produced only in the dominantlanguages, or in languages used by thesocial elite. Recognizing this problem,UNDP offices in a number of countrieshave produced NHDRs in local languages.For example, in Kazakhstan, the earlyNHDRs were produced only in Russian,and it was only from 1999 onwards that aKazakh version was produced (in additionto versions in Russian and English).This enabled the NHDR to involve the Kazakh-speaking community in theprocess, and has led to a much greatersense of national ownership of the report.Local language versions were alsoproduced in Bolivia, Botswana and severalof the Indian states.

Another way of reaching out to a broaderaudience was proposed by Egypt (whichhas yet to adopt it), namely, to produce asimple, more accessible version of theNHDR. This practice could be worthwhilein other countries as well. A number ofcountry studies have recommended thatshorter (but not necessarily intellectuallysimpler) versions for policy makers mightincrease the report’s policy impact.

Getting human development material intoschools and universities can be anothereffective way of enhancing the impact of the NHDRs and exposing the next generation to human development concepts.The extent to which human developmentmaterial has penetrated the educationsystem varies greatly, ranging fromcountries where human development isstill a relatively new, and academic, notion,to countries where it is already wellentrenched in school curricula.

Popular culture can also be used to reachthe general public. The best example of thisis a Bolivian troupe of actors performingplays on human development themes inthe countryside, to the benefit of bothliterate and illiterate audiences alike.

4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FORCORPORATE DECISION-MAKERS

1. Recognize that the NHDR system is a core component of UNDP’s mission and provide stronger support.

If UNDP’s unique contribution amonginternational organizations is its promotionof human development in all its dimensions,then the NHDR is the only holistic repre-sentation of that role at the national level.It is the only instrument, aside from thosethat might be fashioned by governments orcivil society organizations, through whichthe problems and means of achievinghuman development on the ground can befully explored. The NHDR is not just apoverty reduction report or a report onprogress toward the MDGs. It is an effortto identify and cope with critical issues inadvancing human development in givennational circumstances and at a givenhistorical juncture. The establishment ofthe NHDR system was a major step indefining UNDP’s mission, and that systemshould not be allowed to weaken or lapse.

First and foremost, stronger support for theNHDR system should take the form ofpolitical support. UNDP Headquarters shouldmake it clear that the NHDR system is ahigh priority, and should not allow it to bepushed aside by new initiatives that constantlyappear on the agenda. Headquarters shouldformulate a clear policy regarding the relation-ship between the NHDR, the MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report and the PovertyReduction Strategy Paper, as called for inRecommendation 2 below, and focus onsolving the problem of competition amongthese programmes for scarce human resourcesthat has developed in some countries, tothe detriment of the NHDR.

Since the NHDR is an intellectual-political exercise, many of its effects may

not be immediate. Also, there are oftenimpediments to improving policies that arebeyond the capacity of an NHDR (or ofUNDP) to change. Targets for improvement,such as life expectancy, educationalachievement, gender balance, or regionalinequality may respond only slowly toimproved policies. Therefore, it would berash to blame the NHDRs for slow progressin improving human development, especiallywhen they have been in existence for lessthan 15 years, and when there have notbeen more than a few NHDRs produced inmost countries. It must be emphasized thatmuch has been achieved by the NHDRsystem in many countries, despite theseinherent limits.

In addition, contributions of the NHDRsystem should be reflected in UNDPHeadquarters and country offices by beingincorporated within their business plans(Multi-year Funding Framework), pro-gramming activities (for example, CountryProgramme Documents, Thematic TrustFund initiatives, etc.), existing accountabilitymechanisms (for example, balance scorecard,monitoring and evaluation systems, etc.),and incentive systems (such as resultscompetency assessments).

While Headquarters support for the NHDRsystem should be strengthened, measurestaken to promote such support must in noway compromise the decentralized nature ofthe system or weaken the existing autonomyof country offices.

2. Clarify the NHDR’s relationship to other instruments and exercises.

n Define the exact relationshipbetween the NHDR, the MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report and thePoverty Reduction Strategy Paper

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 3 1

Chapter 4

Recommendations

C H A P T E R 43 2

through a clear UNDP corporatepolicy. In general, the evaluation foundthat there is a natural complementarityin the missions of the NHDR and theMDGR. However, this complementarityis neither fully recognized nor generallyexploited. Moreover, there is competitionbetween the two exercises for time,attention and political capital. Whilethe MDGR is the responsibility of thehost government and the entire UNcommunity, UNDP plays a leadingrole in its preparation. Given limitedhuman and other resources, this coulddrain energy and resources from theNHDR. The MDGR is also a potentialvenue for governments to spotlighttheir achievements and plans in glossyand attention-grabbing formats. Forthis reason, some MDGRs have grownwell beyond the brief progress report9

that was intended, and heightens thepotential for negative impact on theNHDR system. One reason for such astate of affairs is that, while usefuldiscussions of the potential synergiesbetween the NHDR and MDGR haveoccurred,10 there is not, as yet, a clearcorporate policy by the UNDP on the relationship between the twoprogrammes. UNDP should developsuch a policy and make sure it isunderstood everywhere. Our evaluationexercise suggests that, in devising one, the independent and uniqueresponsibilities of the NHDR shouldbe clearly reiterated. The NHDRshould not, for instance, be subsumedunder the MDGR, both because oftheir distinct objectives and because oftheir different auspices, the latter beinga joint government-UN product, andthe former a UNDP product that playsan important role in defining the coreidentity of UNDP.

Different considerations apply to therelationship between the NHDR andthe PRSP. The latter is required by theWorld Bank and may reflect differentconcerns and perspectives than theNHDR. It is thus all the moreimportant for the NHDR to maintainits independence. The Bretton Woodsinstitutions, however, wield comparativelyplentiful resources, which suggests thatthe timing and focus of NHDRs shouldtake into account their potential toexert a positive influence on the PRSP.

n Promote a more productive two-wayinteraction between the global HDRand national human developmentreports through a clear UNDPcorporate policy. While the global HDRand, in particular, the NHDR unitwithin the Human Development ReportOffice have had a valuable impact on the NHDR system, the reverseinfluence of the NHDR on the HDRhas been smaller and less productivethan it should be. The NHDRs havegenerated useful information and manyvaluable insights, and there is much thatthe HDR could absorb from NHDRs.This suggests that the interaction betweenthe two needs to be made closer and thevalue of NHDRs should receive closerattention at UNDP Headquarters. TheHuman Development Report Office iscurrently taking steps to enhance thisinteraction and this effort deservesencouragement. UNDP needs to comeup with a clear policy for encouraging fullexploitation of the potential synergybetween the two products.

3. Encourage the transfer of international expertise on the NHDRthrough more regional workshops and bilateral exchanges.

The evaluation shows that the transfer ofinternational expertise has helped countries

9 For example, the most recent MDGR of the Philippines is over 140 pages in length, and the most recentreport for Kazakhstan is over 180 pages.

10 For instance, see Burd-Sharps, Sarah, Sharmila Kurukulasuriya and Elham Seyedsayamdost, ‘HDR 2003Discussion Series: MDGRs and NHDRs—Ensuring Complementarity and Avoiding Duplication’,11 November 2003. Available at: hdr.undp.org/docs/nhdr/consolidated_replies/MDGRandNHDRs-EnsuringComplementarityandAvoidingDuplication.pdf

develop their ability to improve the qualityof their NHDRs. The most effective way ofmaking such transfers has been workshopsorganized by the Human Development ReportOffice and UNDP regional bureaus as well as bilateral exchanges (some of theminter-continental). These initiatives shouldbe introduced where absent and strengthenedwhere practised.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FORUNDP COUNTRY OFFICES

4. Emphasize national ownership of the NHDR.

All the studies conducted for this evaluationshow that there is much to gain from fullnational involvement in all aspects of theNHDR. Such involvement increases areport’s political legitimacy, policy impactand intellectual relevance. Therefore, thedegree of national ownership should beincreased as much as possible, keeping inmind that this is distinct from governmentownership. If there are serious impedimentsto national ownership, such as the sacrificeof political independence or lack of analyticcapacity, then the UNDP country officeshould intervene directly in the productionprocess, provided that this intervention isseen as transitory and an exception to thegeneral rule. UNDP country offices mustmake informed judgements on the issue ofnational ownership, promoting it to themaximum degree possible while maintain-ing the report’s political independence andanalytic quality.

5. Clarify and productively utilize the NHDR’s relationship with manyother exercises.

Many other exercises, such as CommonCountry Assessments and UN DevelopmentAssistance Frameworks as well as civilsociety organization and private sectorreports and national development planningdocuments, overlap in various ways withNHDRs. NHDRs may benefit from the dataand analyses contained in such exercises,and may also influence them. In somecases, NHDRs will be putting forward

ideas and approaches quite differentfrom—or even contradictory to—those ofother groups and organizations. Potentialsynergies and conflicts should berecognized and, wherever possible, usedproductively in the preparation of NHDRs.

6. Move from an introduction tohuman development to a deeperanalysis of the challenges it faces.

The evaluation reveals that it wasimportant for the NHDR to first establishcredibility and political space before tacklingmore important and sensitive issues. Inthat sense, it is advisable, as many countrieshave done, to first start the NHDR exercisewith basic introductions to the humandevelopment perspective and progress reportson achievements in human development,sector by sector. However, the core goal ofthe NHDR is to produce an effectiveanalysis of the impediments to humandevelopment, which is likely to requirebroaching politically and/or socially sensitiveissues. It is thus necessary for the NHDRto keep pushing the boundaries of publicdebate, and thus of human development,by bringing up difficult issues. Experiencesuggests that analytic excellence, combinedwith appropriate political skill and tact,can make it possible to deal frankly withsensitive topics.

7. Revisit important themes.

There is value in revisiting themes thathave been addressed in earlier NHDRs.National human development reportsfrequently take up very basic and generalissues in their early years—such as poverty,inequality and gender—and there is oftenthe need to use subsequent NHDRs tocheck on progress on those issues, especiallyin light of changed circumstances.Moreover, revisiting themes allows for thepossibility of analysing a topic more deeplyor using a more creative approach.

8. Disaggregate statistics to tacklesensitive issues.

Studies undertaken for this evaluation suggestthat disaggregating human development-

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 3 3

C H A P T E R 43 4

related indexes has been a valuable exercisein many countries. Disaggregation can be done in several ways. It is common to initially disaggregate in terms ofgeography, as this is less controversial andmay also have obvious political champions,such as mayors and governors. Whengeographic disaggregation has accomplishedits job of raising awareness of inequalitywithin the country, it is time to move on tomore controversial lines of disaggregation,including by race, gender or caste. Suchfactors are generally more important than geography in determining humandevelopment outcomes, but have beeninfrequently discussed and rarely tackledbecause they challenge the underlyingpower structure of the society morestrongly than geographic dividing lines.

9. Avoid both report fatigue and long gaps between reports.

Attempting to produce a report every yearputs unnecessary strain on the productionteam and may create indigestion on thepart of the audience. Two reports perdecade, on the other hand, would tend tolower the NHDR’s visibility too much.The appropriate gap between reports isprobably two years, possibly three ifcircumstances warrant. Ultimately, frequencyshould be determined by the productionteam’s capability, the strategic positionoccupied by the NHDR in the country,and other country-specific factors. There isprobably a trade-off between quality andfrequency, given limited resources. Cogencyand relevance to policy are the crucial criteriaof success, and it is better to produce strongreports that seize public attention andmake a discernable impact than to turn outweak reports with reliable frequency.

10. Improve monitoring of NHDR impact.

Systematic monitoring of the results of pastNHDRs is the weak link in the NHDRsystem. It is important to collect regularinformation on the impact and influence ofpast reports, their policy recommendationsand their dissemination strategies, in order tojudge their effectiveness and make needed

improvements. UNDP country officesshould build such systematic monitoringinto their NHDR systems and make theresults publicly available. Because theprogramme itself yields various kinds ofresults, some difficult to measure, there is aneed for both intellectual and practical helpthrough networking and perhaps workshopsto develop effective monitoring tools.

11. Improve monitoring and evaluation of policies.

Systematic evaluation of policy results andperformance is a crucial but weak facet ofpublic policy in many countries. The themeof monitoring and evaluation has not beena common one among NHDRs producedto date. Thus, a useful contribution of futureNHDRs might be to help in developingpractical methods for monitoring andevaluating policies and programmes, especiallywith respect to their human developmentcontent and impact.

12. Strengthen outreach efforts.

The best-written report will have littleinfluence if it sits on a shelf and never reachesthe public. Yet post-launch disseminationefforts are sometimes lacking and varywidely among countries. Innovative methodsof dissemination undertaken in countriessuch as Bolivia, Brazil and Ukraine shouldbe examined by other countries with a viewto incorporating or adapting them to theirown circumstances. The suggestions in thisrecommendation will also go a long waytowards meeting the needs of members ofthe extended audience for the NHDR system:governments, civil society organizationsand members of the general public, who havean interest in ready access to the findingsand analyses of the NHDRs, as well as inthe adoption of participatory processes ofpreparing them. The following specific pointsaddress ways of strengthening outreach:

n Ensure that the knowledge producedin the course of the NHDR process ismade public. It is important for theUNDP country office to make it clearthat all the knowledge generated in theprocess of preparing the NHDR should

be in the public domain. This will not only guarantee consistency acrossreports when outsourcing the bulk oftheir production. It will also preventunwarranted privatization of whatshould be public knowledge. Someclear guidelines on the matter fromUNDP Headquarters would be useful.UNDP should also make backgroundpapers available on an accessible websiteso that interested members of the publiccan see the more detailed analysis thatunderlies the NHDR itself.

n Produce different versions of thereports tailored to different groups.Experience shows that the impact ofthe NHDR can be enhanced whenthere are different versions of itavailable to suit the needs and theabilities of different groups of thepopulation. Potentially useful versionsare shorter for time-strapped policymakers, simpler for public consumption,and, where applicable, written in locallanguages for minority groups.

n Make access to the NHDR easier.Our studies show that, at least in somecountries, NHDR availability was aproblem to a surprising extent. Printcopies of the NHDR need to bedistributed more widely and, moreimportantly, distributed so they arereadily available in the public domainthrough libraries. All UNDP countryoffices should post their NHDRs ontheir website, something that has notbeen done in a large number ofcountries. Brazil has pioneered theproduction of interactive humandevelopment maps and tables, usingingenious and user-friendly software,which has contributed enormously to

the popularity and impact of humandevelopment products there and to theunderstanding of a variety of existingsocio-economic disparities. Since onlineaccess is becoming increasingly importantas a way of disseminating and accessinginformation, UNDP should concernitself with finding/ developing/usingthe most effective and user-friendlysoftware for exploiting the enormouspotential of online public access.

n Introduce human development materialinto university and school curricula.Getting human development productsinto the educational system can be avery effective way of spreading humandevelopment ideas over the long term.Some countries have already had successin promoting the subject of humandevelopment in university and evenschool curricula, but other countrieshave yet to attempt this. Such effortsshould be encouraged.

n Increase society’s capacity to absorb human development ideas throughbetter education programmes. Giventhat the human development frameworkis not the dominant intellectualframework, getting people to acceptthe issues raised by NHDRs requiresthat they be familiar with the basicconcepts of human development. Ourstudies show that NHDRs are moreeffective when society is more capableof understanding and debating basichuman development-related ideas.Such capacity can be enhancedthrough education and informationprogrammes targeted at differentgroups, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students and thegeneral public.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 3 5

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

The Human Development Report (HDR)was first launched in 1990 with the singlegoal of putting people back at the centre of thedevelopment process in terms of economicdebate, policy and advocacy. The goal was bothmassive and simple, with far-rangingimplications—going beyond income to assessthe level of people’s long-term well-being.Bringing about development of the people,by the people, and for the people, andemphasizing that the goals of development arechoices and freedoms. — Human DevelopmentReport website

Human Development Reports (HDRs)advanced the view that human developmentis about broadening people’s choices. Thereby,HDRs have shifted the development focusaway from a growth-centred approach to abroader notion of development by addressingthe multidimensional needs of people andempowering them to act in pursuit of fulfillingthese capabilities. National human develop-ment reports (NHDR) took this globalmessage to the national context.

Ever since their inception in 1992,NHDRs have been the main channel ofUNDP dialogue with stakeholders inprogramme countries, particularly decisionmakers at the national/regional level andcivil society organizations. Over 470reports have been produced at the regional,national and subnational levels.

Yet to this date, there has not been anysystematic evaluation of the strategicrelevance of the NHDRs, either corporatelyor at the country level. Consequently,through a consultative process withHeadquarters units, initiated by a requestfrom the Human Development Report Office

(HDRO), this evaluation was included inUNDP’s evaluation agenda.

This is a strategic, forward-looking assessmentthat is expected to provide valuable lessonsfor UNDP Headquarters, country officesand NHDR teams for improving theinfluence of future NHDRs in promotinghuman development approaches.

SCOPE

To understand and assess the influence ofNHDRs, it is necessary to look at NHDRssince their inception as the conditionsunder which they were produced, thepractices involved, etc., have evolved overtime. Moreover, NHDRs should be viewedas a system, rather than as a collection ofindividual reports. At the country level, thissystem involves the networks/partnershipsestablished in the course of production anddissemination of reports to state organizations,academics, civil society organizations,donors, etc.

The production processes covered by theassessment will include selection of themesand the writing team, peer reviewmechanisms, consultation processes withcivil society, relevant government lineministries and statistical bodies.

The dissemination processes that theassessment focuses on will begin with thelaunch of the report and cover ongoingactivities to promote the key messages.

The outputs and outcomes considered willbe in the realms of changes in developmentpolicies, practices and priorities; innovativepolicy proposals; enhancing democraticspace to advance development alternatives;strengthening networks of human develop-ment activists; raising awareness of human

T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 3 7

Annex 1

Terms of Reference

A N N E X 13 8

development approaches; influencing civilsociety thinking and capacity to advocatehuman development approaches; engenderingother human development instruments;and strengthening the statistical capacity ofthe country to track human poverty.

At the corporate level, the assessment willcover the framework under which thereports are conceived and produced,including the incentives, guidance andcapacity to support the effort. The assessmentwill also focus on the influence of NHDRson UNDP’s policies and programming.

KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS

To assess the strategic relevance andimportance of the NHDR system toUNDP, this evaluation will be guided bythree sets of questions:

1. How strategically relevant and necessaryis the system of NHDRs to UNDP?

2. What differences have the NHDRsmade (in terms of results and processes)at the corporate and at the countrylevel? Are these consistent with humandevelopment approaches and are thesechanges sustainable?

3. What are the (corporate and country-level) enabling conditions for NHDRsto contribute towards developmenteffectiveness of programme countries?In other words, how effective are thecorporate policies, priorities, incentives,guidance, etc. in supporting NHDRs?

EVALUATION CRITERIA

As outlined in the methodologicalframework, the performance of theNHDR system will be assessed in terms of:

n Relevance—in terms of the humandevelopment needs of the country

n Effectiveness—in terms of influencingthe policy framework and intellectualapproaches to human development,enhancing government and civil society

capacity to formulate human developmentstrategies, improving statistical capacityof the country, etc.

n Sustainability—in terms of promotinglasting changes

n Efficiency—in terms of catalyticimpact and mobilizing partnerships

n Creativity and innovation—in terms ofgenerating new ideas and instruments toadvance the ideals of human development.

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The terms of reference for the evaluationwas prepared in consultation with a focusgroup at Headquarters, regional centresand human development activists worldwidethat are part of the Human DevelopmentNetwork. The team leader then developeda conceptual framework in close collaborationwith an expert panel. This framework wasdiscussed by the team members via email.Following this, an inception/methodologymeeting was held, where the teammembers were briefed by the EvaluationOffice and other Headquarters units. Theteam developed a detailed methodologicalframework and a work plan.

The assessment will begin with a preparatoryphase to take stock of available information,followed by a pilot phase to fine-tune theproposed methodology. This will be followedby country missions to conduct in-depthcountry studies in each region, and anassessment of the mutual influence betweenNHDRs and Headquarters programmingand policies.

Preparatory phase and desk review

With the help of the Evaluation Office,the team will carry out a scoping exercise to‘map’ the NHDR system of reports interms of their historical interventions,their reported influence in the programmecountries, and reviews by partners, includingcivil society organizations. To this end, theteam will undertake the following:

n desk reviews of NHDRs and scrutinyof relevant discussions in the HDRnetworks11

n analysis of NHDR evaluationsconducted thus far

n surveys to gather primary information(country offices and selectedHeadquarters units).

A background document will be preparedbased on this study. The evaluation teamwill utilize this report in addition tomaterial collected during the country visits.

Framework for evaluation methodology

A framework for methodology is to beconducted in three stages. An internationalexpert panel in collaboration with the teamleader and task manager developed apreliminary conceptual framework for theevaluation. This was discussed by theevaluation team in a workshop and receivedinputs from UNDP Headquarters units,which helped develop a methodologicalframework (see Inception Report, which isavailable through the online version of thisreport at www.undp.org/eo). The pilotstudies will operationalize this frame-workand lessons from pilot exercises will helprefine the methodology further.

Headquarters study

To analyse UNDP policies and practicestowards NHDRs and the influence ofNHDRs on UNDP’s policies andprogramming, the evaluation team willconduct desk studies and a series ofinterviews at Headquarters. RelevantHeadquarters stakeholders (from theregional bureaus, Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy, HDRO and the Bureau for CrisisPrevention and Recovery) will be interviewedusing a semi-structured approach in aneffort to track the policies, incentives,guidance, etc. of Headquarters unitstowards NHDRs since their inception.A comprehensive desk review of relevantdocuments (including policy documents in the Bureau for Development Policy,Multi-Year Funding Framework reports,

various evaluation reports, Reports of theAdministrator, etc.) will be conducted.Results from the Headquarters study willinform the country missions and other in-depth studies of country case studies.

Preliminary assessments at the country level

Prior to pilot and country missions, a briefreport will be prepared to operationalizethe methodological framework (seeInception Report) to the country context.To this end, desk research will beconducted that documents the key issuesdiscussed in the framework that includes,but is not restricted to, the following i)country context as analysed in the CountryCooperation Framework/UN DevelopmentAssistance Framework and in terms ofreceptiveness to human developmentapproaches, civil society mobilization andparticipation, state of public debates ofdevelopment agenda, etc.; ii) history ofNHDRs; iii) processes followed in authoringthe report and dissemination practiceswithin UNDP; iv) mapping of outcomes inthe policy arena, intellectual thinking,government and civil society capacity, andstatistical capacity; and v) possible evaluationinstruments and indicators. In order tocontextualize the NHDRs within the activitiesof UNDP, the report should familiarizereaders with the relevant UNDP/UNdocuments such as the Country ProgrammeDocuments, Project Documents, etc.

This report will provide the basis for theactivities of the country mission.

In-depth studies: pilot phase

The pilot countries as well as countries forin-depth study were selected based on thepreparatory work and consultations withHeadquarters units and regional centres.Brazil and India were chosen as the pilotcountry studies. Lessons learned from thepilot phase will be shared with the entireevaluation team and will help refine themethodology. Brazil has been chosen as apilot country based on the influence ofNHDRs at national, regional and local levels

T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 3 9

11 HDR Network and HDR Statistics Network.

A N N E X 14 0

in resource allocation, and for its innovativeuse of human development instruments.

In-depth country case studies

Detailed country case studies will be carriedout with logistical support from the EvaluationOffice. Country visits, field studies anddesk research will be used to operationalizethe methodologies and to assess theinfluence of NHDRs at the country level.

Based on consultations at Headquartersand the regional centre, five to eightcountries will be selected for in-depthstudy through country missions and 12 to13 countries for in-depth desk research.These studies will also be used to identifybest practices and lessons learned.

At least one week prior to the country visit,mission leaders shall submit the work-plan/terms of reference for the intended activitiesin the country. This brief note shall mapout a strategy to operationalize the evaluationterms of reference in the context of thecountry studied. To this end, the report shallidentify the key evaluation instruments andindicators, as well as a preliminary map ofstakeholders, beneficiaries and informants.

Each country mission will take no morethan 10 days and will be supported by anational consultant, if needed. In eachcountry, the team will meet with keybeneficiaries and stakeholders—government,NGOs, civil society organizations, UNDPstaff and the country team that producedthe NHDR.

Each country-level study should providethe means to assess the questions posed in the methodological framework (seeInception Report).

Peer review process

The methodological framework will besubjected to review by an expert advisorypanel. Recommendations will be incorporatedinto the pilot exercises. Upon completionof pilot exercises there will be an advisorypanel review of the interim report.

EVALUATION TEAM

The evaluation team shall be composed ofa team leader, principal consultant andother consultants. All members will workin close collaboration with each other andthe task manager. Each member will performin-depth country analyses for countriesassigned to him/her. The final report willbe prepared by the team leader and theprincipal consultant in close collaborationwith other team members and in consultationwith the task manager.

TASKS

The tasks of the team will include:i) developing a methodological frameworkfor the exercise; ii) conducting a Headquartersstudy to document and assess the mutualinfluence between the NHDRs and thecorporate policies and practices of UNDP(the framework shall be developed andoperationalized by developing instrumentsto conduct the study, such as semi-structured interviews, and through analysisof pertinent documentation); iii) conductingcountry missions (including pilot study)and desk reviews and preparing reports thatpresent context, findings, lessons learnedand recommendations; iv) preparing regionalreports based on country assessments; andv) preparing a global assessment reportbased on the regional experiences.

OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLES

1. Methodology for the assessment of NHDR

The evaluation team shall develop anappropriate methodology in collaborationwith the task manager. To operationalizethe methodology, the evaluation team shalldevelop appropriate indicators and surveys:

n Indicators for performance assess-ment.A set of country specific indicatorswill be developed by the evaluationteam.This analysis will be supplementedand validated by targeted surveys.

n Design and implementation ofsurveys. Surveys will be conducted toobtain viewpoints regarding the

influence of NHDRs from UNDPofficials, the country team thatproduced the NHDRs, decision makers,line-agency officials, local officials,participating civil society organizationsand academics in the programme countryor region. Web-based discussions willalso take place during this time.Specific questions related to theevaluation will be posted on selectednetworks to gather data and inputfrom UNDP country offices and staffglobally. With assistance from theEvaluation Office, the evaluation teamwill manage and collate data from thesurveys and web-based discussions.

2.Report on the Headquarters-based study

This study has two distinct purposes. Thefirst is to map the universe of NHDRprocesses and outcomes in all countriesthat produced NHDRs. The second is toasses the mutual influence, if any, betweenNHDRs and policies and practices ofUNDP. With support from the evaluationteam and in close collaboration with thetask manager, the principal consultant willprepare a report detailing the evaluationinstruments used, findings, lessons learnedand recommendations.

3. Country & regional report(s)

Upon completion of each country mission,the team and/or consultant shall prepareand submit a country report. These reportsshall highlight the country context as wellas the issues and challenges faced by theNHDR system and shall be gendersensitive. They will assess the performanceof the NHDR system in the country basedon the outcomes and a detailed narration ofthe evaluation instruments and indicatorsused. They must present, among other things,findings supported by evidence and clearrecommendations.

The principal consultant and the teamleader shall ensure that the final countryreports incorporate necessary changesrecommended by the review processes.The country report shall be consideredcompleted only after it has been approvedby the task manager.

4. The global assessment report

The principal consultant and the teamleader will be jointly responsible forpreparing the global report synthesizingthe findings of the country reports.They shall do so in close collaboration withother team members and the EvaluationOffice. The report, in reflecting thecountry studies, must be gender sensitive.It must present, among other things,findings supported by evidence and clearrecommendations.

The global report will be subject to UNDPreview as well as to an independent peerreview process involving internal andexternal readers (Advisory Board). Theprincipal consultant will be responsible forincorporating the required changesrecommended by the reviewers. The reportmust be approved by the Evaluation Officeto be deemed completed.

The findings from the finalized report will be presented in stakeholder meetingswith the key partners at Headquarters—senior management, HDRO, Bureau forDevelopment Policy and regional bureaus.The final printed report should be available forthe Executive Board session of January 2006.

TIME FRAME

The assessment exercise is expected tocommence in June 2005 and the finalreport is expected by December 2005.

Evaluation OfficeMay 2005

EVALUATION TEAM

The team members for this evaluationwere as follows:

Ha-Joon Chang is a reader in the facultyof Economics, University of Cambridge,where he has taught since 1990. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including the award-winning (MyrdalPrize, 2003) Kicking Away the Ladder—Development Strategy in Historical Perspective

T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 4 1

A N N E X 14 2

(2002). He has worked as a consultant formany international organizations, includingUN agencies, the World Bank and theAsian Development Bank. He has been amember of UNDP’s Asia-Pacific AdvisoryPanel on Democratic Governance since 2005.He was the team leader for this evaluationand led the efforts to develop the method-ology used in it. He is also the lead authorof this report.

Carl Riskin is distinguished professor ofeconomics at Queens College, City Universityof New York, and senior research scholar atthe Weatherhead East Asian Institute,Columbia University. He is the author ofChina’s Political Economy (Oxford UniversityPress, 1987) and Inequality and Poverty inChina in the Era of Globalization (withA.R. Khan, Oxford University Press, 2001),and principal editor of China’s Retreat fromEquality (M.E. Sharpe, 2001). During thepast five years he has had no affiliationswith NHDRs, but has performed variousconsultancies for UNDP China. As theprincipal consultant for this evaluation, heled the pilot mission to India, participatedin the pilot mission to Brazil and co-authored this report.

Celina Souza is currently a research fellowat the Centre for Human Resources at theFederal University of Bahia, Brazil, whereshe has also been a professor in theDepartment of Finance and Public Policies.She is the author of Constitutional Engineeringin Brazil: The Politics of Federalism andDecentralization (1997) and has authored anumber of journal articles on Brazilianfederalism, public policies and publicfinance. She has no prior links withUNDP. She led the pilot mission to Brazil,conducted desk studies on Bolivia andColombia, and co-authored this report.

Sam Moyo is the executive director of theAfrican Institute for Agrarian Studiesbased in Harare (Zimbabwe) and has morethan 25 years of research experience inrural development. His list of publishedbooks include: The Land Question inZimbabwe (1995, Sapes Books, Harare)and Land Reform under Structural Adjustment

in Zimbabwe (2000, Nordic Africa Institute,Uppsala). He carried out consultancies for UNDP in 1997/1998 and in 2004,including a regional background paper forthe HDR 2004 on ‘Cultural Liberty inToday’s Diverse World’. He led the missionto Zambia and conducted the desk reviewsfor Botswana and the United Republic of Tanzania.

Mohamed Ould Maouloud, fromMauritania, is active in that country’s civilsociety. He is a professor of history at the University of Nouakchott and hasproduced a report on ethnic conflict in theWest African subregion (Mauritania, Senegaland Guinea-Bissau). He is a foundingmember of the vigil for peace in WestAfrica. He has no links to UNDP. He ledthe mission to Senegal.

George Kossaifi is director of Dar alTanmiya (Consultants in Development) inBeirut, Lebanon. For 30 years prior heworked for the United Nations Economicand Social Commission for Western Asia,and spent the last decade of his career thereas chief of Human Development Section.He has published several articles and studieson labour migration and labour markets,human development, poverty eradication andPalestinian issues. He has no prior links toUNDP. He led the mission to Egypt.

Oscar Yujnovsky, an Argentinean citizen,has been a development consultant since2000. He was undersecretary of state forinternational cooperation and ambassadorat the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofArgentina, and director of the Center forUrban and Regional Studies, an NGO inBuenos Aires, before joining UNDP in1990. He worked for UNDP as a senioradviser in the Regional Bureau for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean in New Yorkfor 10 years before retiring in 2000. He haspublished several books and journal articleson human development, social and economicdevelopment and urban development. Hehas undertaken a number of consultanciesfor UNDP. He led the missions to Albaniaand Armenia.

BRAZIL

Melo, Luiz and Mombert Hoppe. 2005.‘Education Attainment in Brazil: TheExperience of FUNDEF’. Organisationfor Economic Co-operation andDevelopment document ECO/WKP (2005)11. Available at:www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/linkto/eco-wkp(2005)112005

Reis, Elisa. 2000. ‘Percepções da elitesobre pobreza e desigualdade’. RevistaBrasileira de Ciências Sociais 15(42):143-152. Available at: www.scielo.br

Snyder, James and Irene Yackovlev. 2000.‘Political and Economic Determinantsof Government Spending on SocialProtection Programs’. MassachusettsInstitute of Technology WorkingPapers. Available at: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/snyder/files/lac_social_spending.pdf

Souza, Celina. February 2005. ‘Brazil’sTax System: The Dilemmas of PolicyReform’. Canadian Foundation for theAmericas (FOCAL) Policy Papers.Available at: www.focal.ca

Tendler, Judith. 1997. Good Government inthe Tropics. Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

EGYPT

Al-Foudery, Mariam Ali. August 2001.‘Review of National HumanDevelopment Reports from ArabStates’. Prepared for UNDP’sRegional Bureau for Arab States,Country Operations Division.

Doraid, Moez, Neville Edirisnghe andNimal Hittiaratchy. 1999. ‘EvaluationReport for Human DevelopmentStrategy and Profile for Egypt(EHDR –EGY/96/012)’.

Issawi, Ibrahim. 1995. ‘HumanDevelopment in Egypt: Notes basedon the Egyptian 1994 Report.Egyptian Review for Development and Planning III (1).

Kansouh-Habib, Seheir. 1997.‘Sustainable Human Development:From Concept to Programs’. SocialDevelopment Issues 19(2/3).

Namazi, Baquer. 1998. ‘Assessment ofHuman Development AdvocacyInitiatives supported by UNDP’.

UNDP. 1995. ‘The Experience of Egypt’.UNDP series on Sustainable HumanDevelopment, Country Strategies forSocial Development.

INDIA

Government of India. ‘StrengtheningState Plans for Human Development’.Available at: http://www.undp.org.in/hdrc/SSPHD.htm

Human Development Resource Centre(HDRC), UNDP-India. Decentralisationin India: Challenges & Opportunities.HDRC discussion paper. Available at: http://www.undp. org.in/hdrc/resources/dis-srs/Challenges/

Human Development Resource Centre,UNDP-India. Estimating InformalEmployment and Poverty in India.HDRC discussion paper. Available at:http://www.undp.org.in/hdrc/resources/dis-srs/Challenges/

Saxena, Naresh C. July 2005. ‘StateHDRs and Social Development inIndia’. Preparatory report for Indiamission of NHDR evaluation team.

UNDP and Government of India. 1999.‘Capacity Building for Preparation ofState Human Development Reports’.Project document no. IND98/444/01/A/99. Available at:http://www.undp.org.in/hdrc/shdr/

S E L E C T B I B L I O G R A P H Y 4 3

Annex 2

Select Bibliography

A N N E X 24 4

UNDP. UNDP Corporate Policy on NHDRs. Available at:http://hdr.undp.org/docs/nhdr/corporate_policy/nhdr_cp_english.pdf

ZAMBIA

Civil Society for Poverty Reduction.‘Civil Society’s Engagement in the5th National Development Plan forZambia. Poverty Eradication Must be the Number One Priority on the National Agenda’. Pamphletproduced by the Civil Society forPoverty Reduction.

Civil Society for Poverty Reduction.‘The Path Away from Poverty:An Easy Look at Zambia’s PovertyReduction Strategy Paper 2002-2004’.

Civil Society for Poverty Reduction.July 2004. Understanding the Letterof Intent. Popularizing the Agreementbetween the Government of theRepublic of Zambia and theInternational Monetary Fund.

Civil Society for Poverty Reduction.June 2005. Poverty Eradication

Newsletter (PEN). Issue No. 5.

‘Enhancing the Capacity of Householdsto Fight Against HIV/AIDS’.Concept paper for the 2005 ZambiaHuman Development Report.

Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.‘15 years (1988-2003)’. Publicationproduced by the Jesuit Centre forTheological Reflection.

Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.2003. ‘Promotion of Social Justice andConcern for the Poor. Zambia’sPoverty Eradication: Why and WhatSet of Principles?’ Policy briefprepared by the Social ConditionsResearch Project.

Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.March 2003. ‘Is There Health Equityin Zambia? A Case Study’.

Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.July 2005. Basic Needs Basket Surveysfor Kabwe, Kitwe, Livingstone,Luanshya, Lusaka and Ndola.

Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.4 August 2005. ‘JCTR Asks: WhyHave We Not Realized the Value ofEducation and Health All the Time?’Press release.

Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.February 2005. ‘Basic Needs BasketSurvey: A Comprehensive Overview’.Report prepared for the SocialConditions Research Project.

Jubilee Zambia. ‘Debt Cancellation forPoverty Eradication. Report on Why the Jubilee Debt CampaignContinues in Zambia’. April 2003.

Lewanika, Mbikusita Akashambatwa.2005. ‘A Mulungushi Experience:2005 MMD, 5th NationalConvention’. Published by AfricanLineki Courier.

Magande, (Hon.) N. P., Member ofParliament, Minister of Finance andNational Planning. 2005. OpeningRemarks made at the UNDPRegional Conference on NationalHuman Development Reports,18-20October 2005, Lusaka, Zambia.

Mphuka, Chrispin. 2005. ‘The Cost ofMeeting the MDGs in Zambia’.A Research Report Commissioned by the Civil Society for PovertyReduction (CSPR), Jesuit Centre forTheological Reflection ( JCTR) andthe Catholic Centre for JusticeDevelopment and Peace (CCJDP).October 2005. Funded by the Agency for Overseas Development(UK) and CIDSE.

Mwase, Ngila. 2005. ‘Coherence BetweenGlobal and National HumanDevelopment Reports’. Presentationto the UNDP Regional Conferenceon National Human DevelopmentReports, 18-20 October 2005.Lusaka, Zambia.

National AIDS Council 2004. ‘NationalGuidelines on Management and Careof Patients with HIV/AIDS. Republicof Zambia, Central Board of Health.

Petrauskis, Chris. 26 September 2005.Restoring Dignity to Employment inZambia: Legal and Moral Motivationto Promote the Common Good.Preliminary reaction. Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

Republic of Zambia and the UnitedNations System in Zambia.‘Millennium Development GoalsProgress Report 2003’. Zambia.

Republic of Zambia, Ministry of Financeand National Planning. May 2002.‘Zambia: Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper, 2002-2004’.

Serpell, Robert. 2005. ‘The HumanDevelopment Index as a Resource for National Planning in Zambia’.Presentation to the UNDP RegionalConference on National HumanDevelopment Reports, 18-20 October2005, Lusaka, Zambia.

Sireh-Jallow, Abdoulie. 2005. ‘NationalOwnership, Participatory Process:Zambia Country Experience’.Presentation to the UNDP RegionalConference on National HumanDevelopment Reports, 18-20 October2005, Lusaka, Zambia.

The Post (Zambia). ‘Issue of Rich Nations’Subsidies to Farmers RemainsUnresolved (29 August 2002),‘UNDP to launch new logo’ (no date provided), ‘Zambia Falls onUNDP’s Human Development Index (no date provided).

Times of Zambia. ‘Kaunda ChallengesBusiness Houses’ ( 9 February 2002),‘UNDP Pledges Continued Support(3 November 2002), ‘UNDP toPublish Report on HIV/AIDS Fight’(19 October 2005).

United Nations Country Team, Zambia.2005. ‘Making it Possible. How theUN is Helping Zambia Towards theMillennium Development Goals’.

United Nations Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF) for Zambia,2002-2006. October 2001.

UNDP Côte d’Ivoire. National HumanDevelopment Report 2004: SocialCohesion and National Reconstruction.

USAID/Zambia. May 2003. ‘Prosperity,Hope and Better Health forZambians’. Country Strategic Plan2004-2010.

USAID/Zambia. October 2005. AnnualReport 2005.

Zambia Daily Mail. ‘UN AgencyAnnounces Investment Plan’ (22April 2002), ‘UNDP Pumps $4m intoAIDS Initiative’ (22 April 2002),‘UNDP Funds Small-scale LegumeFarming’, (21 Februray 2002).

Zambia Human Development Reports forthe years 1997 (‘Poverty’), 1998,(‘Provision of Basic Social Services’),1999/2000 (‘Employment andSustainable Livelihoods’), and 2003(‘Eradication of Extreme Poverty andHunger in Zambia: An Agenda forEnhancing the Achievement of theMillennium Development Goals’).

S E L E C T B I B L I O G R A P H Y 4 5

ALBANIA

Government

Mr. Besnik Aliaj, Adviser to the Prime Minister

Prof. Adrian Civici, Director,National Strategy for Socio-Economic Development (NSSED)Department, Ministry of Finance

Ms. Milva Ekonomi, Director, NationalInstitute for Statistics (INSTAT)

Ms. Ermelinda Meksi, Member ofParliament, former Minister of EU Integration

Mr. Ferdinand Poni, Deputy Minister of Interior

Ms. Jozefina Topalli, Speaker of Parliament

Civil society

Mr. Ylli Cabiri, Director, HumanDevelopment Promotion Centre

Dr. Ilir Gedeshi, Director, Centre forEconomic and Social Studies (CESS)

Ms. Eglantina Gjermeni, ExecutiveDirector, Gender Alliance forDevelopment Centre

Mr. Remzi Lani, Executive Director,Albanian Media Institute

Ms. Nora Malaj, former head of EqualOpportunities Committee andAlbanian Society for All Ages

Mr. Gene Myftiu, Sustainable EconomicDevelopment Agency

Mr. Engjell Skreli, Institute of PublicPolicies and former Deputy Ministerof Trade

Ms. Zana Vokopola, Executive Director,Urban Research Institute

UNDP

Ms. Nora Kushti, UNDP PublicRelations Manager

Mr. Vladimir Malkaj, Cluster Manager,MDGSP Unit

Mr. Eno Ngela, NHDR Focal PointMs. Elzira Sagynbaeva, UNDP Deputy

Resident Representative

L I S T O F P E R S O N S C O N S U L T E D 4 7

Annex 3

List of Persons Consulted

TABLE 1. NHDR EVALUATION STUDIES

UNDP UN agencies Donors Civil societyorganizations

Government Total

Albania 4 8 6 18

Armenia 5 18 4 27

Brazil 2 2 1 15 16 36

Egypt 5 1 4 5 7 22

India 4 17 18 39

Senegal 4 6 8 18

Zambia 4 4 3 14 7 32

Total 28 7 8 83 66 192

A N N E X 34 8

ARMENIA

Government

Mr. Hovhannes Azisyan, Coordinator ofPRSP, Ministry of Finance and Economy

Mr. Astghik Minasyan, Head ofDepartment, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

Mr. Yuri Poghosyan, Member of StateCouncil of Statistics

Ashot Yesayan, Former Deputy Ministerof Labour and Social Affairs

Civil society

Focus group 1Ms. Tamara Abrahamian, President

of ArazaMr. Movses Aristakesyan, Centre of

Economic RightsMs. Alla Gadzoeva, Labour and Social

Research National InstituteMs. Anahit Harutunian, President of

Spiritual ArmeniaMr. Narine Mayilian, Small and Medium

Business FoundationMr. Hamlet Petrossyan, President of

Hazaarashen, Armenian Centre ofEthnological Studies

Mr. Nelson Shakhnazarian, President,Economic Research Institute

Focus group 2Mr. Mikayel Aramyan, President, The

Fund Against Violation of LawMr. Khachatur Bezirchyan, Consultant to

the President of Civil Service Counciland former Director of the School ofPublic Administration

Ms. Marietta Danagulyan, BranchChairman, Head of ProjectDepartment, Astghik Aid Union tothe Disabled Children

Mr. Aram Ivanyan, member of AstghikAid Union to the Disabled Children

Mrs. Aghavni Karakhanyan, FoundingDirector, Institute for Civil Societyand Regional Development andformer Professor of the School ofPublic Administration

Dr. Heghine Manasyan, Director,Caucasus Research Resource Centres—Armenia, Eurasia Foundation

Mr. Harutyun Marzpanyan, Deputy Dean of Department of Economics, Yerevan State University

Mr. Ani Stepanyan, Member of Mission Armenia

Ms. Rima Ter-Minasyan, DeputyChairman, Women’s Republican Council

Mrs. Nune Yeghiazaryan, NHDR Project Coordinator

Focus group 3 Seven students of the Department of

Economics, Yerevan State University

UNDP

Mr. Alexander Avanessov, UNDP DeputyResident Representative

Mr. Aghassi Mkrtchyan, NHDR Focal Point

Mr. Astghik Mirzakhanyan, ChiefTechnical Adviser

Mr. Narine Shakyan, Portfolio ManagerMr. Consuelo Vidal, UN Resident

Coordinator and UNDP ResidentRepresentative

BRAZIL

Brasilia

Government

Mr. Luiz Alberto, Member of the House of Representatives

Senator Christovam Buarque, formerGovernor of the Federal District

Mr. Líscio Camargo, Finance Ministry Ms. Yeda Crucius, Member of the House

of Representative Ms. Maria das Graças Paiva, HDIs of Recife Senator Heráclito Fortes Mr. Ricardo Henriques, Ministry

of Education Senator Tasso Jereissati, former Governor

of Ceará Senator Antônio Carlos Magalhães,

former Governor of Bahia Mr. Rômulo Paes de Sousa, Ministry for

Social Development Mr. Ariel Garces Pares, Ministry of

Planning and Budgeting Ms. Ana Peliano, Director, Instituto de

Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada

Mrs. Matilde Ribeiro, Minister for RacialEquality Policies

Mr. Rodrigo Rollemberg, Ministry ofScience & Technology

Civil society

Mr. Paulo Lustosa, Brazilian Institute for Development Administration(IBRADE)

Mr. Inácio Muzzi, CDN (news agency)/Fleishman-Hillard

Mr. Veet Vivarta, ANDI (NGO)

UNDP & UN agencies

Mr. José Carlos Ferreira, International Labour Organization

Mr. Carlos Lopez, ResidentRepresentative, UNDP

Mr. José Carlos Libânio, NHDR FocalPoint, UNDP

Mr. Antônio Magalhães, World BankMr. Carlos Mussi, Economic Commission

for Latin America and the Caribbean

Belo Horizonte

Civil society

Ms. Maria Beatriz Gonçalves,Director, Institute for SustainableHuman Development

Ms. Maria Luiza Marques, Director, JoãoPinheiro Foundation

Mr. Roberto Martins, former President of the Instituto de PesquisaEconômica Aplicada and of the João Pinheiro Foundation

Mr. Eduardo Rios Neto, Researcher,Development and Regional PlanningCenter of the Federal University ofMinas Gerais (CEDEPLAR)

Rio de Janeiro

Government

Mr. César Maia, Mayor of Rio de Janeiro

Civil society

Mr. Candido Grzybowski, Researcher,Brazilian Institute for Social andEconomic Analyses (IBASE)

Mr. Marcelo Néri, Researcher, Getulio Vargas Foundation

Ms. Flávia Oliveira, Globo newspaper Mr. Marcelo Paixão, Researcher, Federal

University of Rio de JaneiroMr. João Paulo Reis Veloso, former

Minister of Planning

São Paulo

Government

Mr. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, formerPresident of Brazil

Civil society

Ms. Viviane Senna, Institute AyrtonSenna (NGO)

Mr. José Roberto Toledo, Terra internet news

Mr. Haroldo Torres, Researcher,Brazilian Center for Analysis andPlanning/State Foundation for DataAnalysis (CEBRAP/SEADE)

EGYPT

Government

Mr. Mahmoud Abdel Hai, Director,Institute of National Planning

Dr. Hamed Mobarek, Project Director,Municipal Initiative for StrategicRecovery Programme

Dr. Ibrahim Moharam, National ProjectDirector for the Governorate HDRsand the Working Team of theQulyoubia and Beheria reports

Dr. Saad Nassar, former Governor of Fayoum

Dr. Maguid Osman, Director, Information,Decision and Support Centre

H.E. Dr. Osman M. Osman, Minister of Planning

H.E. Dr. Abdel Rehim Shehata, Ministerof Local Development

Civil society

Dr. Ibrahim El Essawy, Professor,Institute of National Planning, incharge of Egypt 2020

Dr. Heba Handoussa, NHDR lead authorDr. Osama Ghazali Harb, Editor-in-

Chief , Siyassa El Dawlia magazineDr. Mahmoud El Sherif, Head,

Federation (NGO)

L I S T O F P E R S O N S C O N S U L T E D 4 9

A N N E X 35 0

Bilateral agencies

Mr. Rick Gold, Head of the Development Unit, US Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)

Ms. Deborah Gomez, Second SecretaryDevelopment, Canadian Embassy

Mr. Carel Richter, First Secretary,Dutch Embassy

Mr. Georges Tsitsopoulos, Head, DonorAssistance Group

UNDP & UN agencies

Dr. Emad Adly, Global EnvironmentFacility Small Grants Coordinator

Ms. Soheir Habib, UNDP NHDR Focal Point

Ms. Amany Nakhla, Programme Officer,UNDP

Ms. Elissar Sarrouh, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative

Mr. Noeman Al Sayyed, Head, UNDPInformation, Communication and Reporting Unit

Dr. Sherin El Shawarby, Senior CountryEconomist, World Bank

Mr. Antonio Vigilante, UNDP ResidentRepresentative

INDIA

Government

Mr. Gautam Basu, Principal Secretary,Planning, Government of Karnataka

Mr. Pradip Bhattacharya, PrincipalSecretary (Planning), Planning andDevelopment Department,Government of West Bengal

Mr. P.R. Bindhumadhavan, Member-Secretary, Tamil Nadu State PlanningCommission, Government of Tamil Nadu

Mr. Sumit Bose, Principal Secretary(Finance), Government of Madhya Pradesh

Dr. Malati Das, Additional ChiefSecretary, Government of Karnataka

Mr. Sandeep Dikshit, Member of Parliament

Mr. Naresh Gupta, Chief ElectoralOfficer, Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr. Rajan Katoch, Resident Commissioner,Government of Madhya Pradesh(former Joint Secretary, State PlanningDivision, Planning Commission ,Government of India and ProjectDirector of first subnational HDR—for Madhya Pradesh)

Mr. Ashok Lahiri, Chief Economic Adviser,Department of Economic Affairs

Dr. B.L. Mungekar, Member of thePlanning Commission, Governmentof India

Mr. B.N. Nanda, Economic Adviser,Department of Economic Affairs

Dr. Rohini Nayyar, Senior Consultant(RD), Planning Commission

Mr. Shankar Rao, Director, HumanDevelopment Division, PlanningDepartment, Government of Karnataka

Mr. Raghavji Sanwla, Minister forFinance & Planning

Dr. Abhijit Sen, Member of PlanningCommission, Government of India

Mr. Nirupam Sen, Deputy Chief Ministerand Minister-in-charge of Planningand Development and Industry,Government of West Bengal with theState Planning Board

Dr. Madhura Swaminathan, Indian Statistical Institute

Mr. L.N. Vijayaraghavan, PrincipalSecretary, Social Welfare, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, principal author &coordinator of Tamil Nadu HDR

Civil society

Prof. Ahalya Bhat, Singamma Srinivasan Foundation

Prof. Ashish Bose, Professor EmeritusDr. Jayati Ghosh, principal author and

coordinator, West Bengal HDRMr. Anwar Jafri, Eklavya/Samavesh (NGO)Dr. Devaki Jain, Singamma

Srinivasan FoundationDr. Gopal Kadekodi, Director, Institute of

Social and Economic Change Mr. Manish Kumar, SanketProf. Amitabh Kundu, Jawaharlal

Nehru University Prof. Mahendra Lama, Jawaharlal

Nehru University

Ms. Seetha Parthasarathy,freelance journalist

Mr. Samuel Paul, Director, Public AffairsCentre, Bangalore, Karnataka

Mr. Digvijay Singh, former ChiefMinister of Madhya Pradesh

Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, Chairman, M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation

Ms. Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh,consultant, UNDP

Prof. N. Shantha Mohan, NationalInstitute of Advanced Studies

Prof. S.K. Thorat, Director, IndianInstitute of Dalit Studies, New Delhi

Prof. A.K. Vaidyanathan, Professor Emeritus

UNDP

Dr. Suraj Kumar, Programme Officer,UNDP-India

Dr. Maxine Olson, ResidentRepresentative, UNDP-India

Dr. Seeta Prabhu, Head, HumanDevelopment Resource Centre,UNDP-India (NHDR Focal Point)

Mr. Jo Scheuer, Senior Deputy ResidentRepresentative, UNDP-India

SENEGAL

Government

Ms. Ibrahima Ba, PAREP (Ministry incharge of Women’s and Family Affairsand Social Development)

Mr. Sogue Diarisso, Director of Statistics and Forecasting

Mr. Ousmane Kâ, Chief Coordinator,PAREP

Mr. Thierno Seydou Niane, NationalCoordinator of the Poverty ReductionProgramme, Ministry of Finance andthe Economy

Mrs. Awa Diallo Seck, Gender Specialist,PAREP

Mr. Mamadou Sidibé, Minister ofPlanning and Sustainable Development

Mr. Jibril Sow, Economist, PAREPMr. Wane Waldiodio, PAREP

Civil society

Mr. Babacar Diop dit Buuba, President of the Council of Development Support NGOs (CONGAD)

Mr. Fassory Diawara, President of theNational Civil Society Forum for theFight against Poverty in Senegal(COLUPAS)

Mr. Amacodou Diouf, Vice President,CONGAD

Mr. Alioune Tine, President, Raddho(human rights NGO)

UNDP and NHDR team

Mr. Taïb Diallo, UNDP Focal Point forthe NHDR

Mr. Luc Grégoire, Chief Economist,UNDP

Mr. Albéric Kacou, UNDP ResidentRepresentative in Senegal

Prof. Moustapha Kassé, Coordinator ofthe NHDR Technical Committee

Mrs. Diene Keita, UNDP Mrs. Marie Angélique Savané,

Chairperson of the National SteeringCommittee of the NHDR

ZAMBIA

Government

Mr. D. Chimfwembe, Director, Planning,Ministry of Health

Mr. Eliko Kalaba, Planner, Ministry ofAgriculture and Cooperatives

Mr. Akashambatwa M. Lewanika,politician, National EconomicAdvisory Council

Ms. Josephine Mwenda, Senior Planner,Ministry of Finance and National Planning

Mr. Hibeene Mwiinga, Principal Planner,Ministry of Finance and National Planning

Dr. Buleti Nsemukila, Director, Central Statistical Office

Hon. Robert Sichinga, politician

Civil society

Dr. Dennis Chiwele, RuralNet Associates Limited

Mr. Muna Hantuba, President,Economics Association of Zambia

Father Peter Henriot, Director, JesuitCentre for Theological Reflection

L I S T O F P E R S O N S C O N S U L T E D 5 1

A N N E X 35 2

Dr. Augustus Kapungwe, Lecturer,Department of Social DevelopmentStudies, University of Zambia

Dr. Christine M. Kaseba, President,Medical Women’s Association of Zambia

Geoffrey Lungwangwa, Deputy ViceChancellor

Ms. Besinati Mpepo, Coordinator, CivilSociety for Poverty Reduction

Mr. Muweme Muweme, Coordinator,Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection

Professor Muyunda Mwanalushi, ViceChancellor, Copperbelt University

Dr. Anthony Mwanaumo, ProjectCoordinator, Food Security Research Project

Professor Robert Serpell, Vice Chancellor,University of Zambia

Professor V. Seshamani, Lecturer,Economics Department, University of Zambia

Ms. Matondo Monde Yeta, Pact Zambia

Bilateral agencies

Mr. James Bednar, Mission Director, USAIDMr. Eiji Inui, Resident Representative,

Japan International Cooperation Agency Dr. Mushiba Nyamazana, Economist,

World Bank Mr. Bill Penoyar, Programme Officer, USAID

UNDP & UN agencies

Ms. E. Chirwa, UNDP National EconomistMr. Aeneas C. Chuma, UNDP

Resident RepresentativeMs. Jennier Kargbo, Director, Economic

Commission for AfricaMs. Sibi Lawson, Head, Policy &

Partnerships & Vulnerability AssessmentUnit, World Food Programme

Mr. Oladeji Popoola, UNFPARepresentative

Ms. Bergitte Poulsen, Officer-in-Charge,International Labour Organization

Mr. Abdoulie Sireh-Jallow, UNDP Economic Adviser

ALBANIA

1995: Transition and sustainable humandevelopment

1996: Concept of sustainable humandevelopment, general trends andachievements; social and economicdisparities

1998: The year of crisis: 1997; theeconomy, social cohesion and thetransition process

2000: Economic and social insecurity;emigration and internal migration

2002: Local government and regionaldevelopment

2005: Pro-poor & pro-women policiesand development in Albania;approaches to operationalizing the MDGs in Albania

ARMENIA

1995: Social cost of transition 1996: Poverty, introduction of a sustainable

human development index, whichincludes environmental factors

1997: Social cohesion 1998: Role of the State and democratization1999: Five years of human development; an

evaluation of the transition process2000: Human rights and human

development: action for progress 2001: Ten years of independence and

transition

BOLIVIA

1995: Human security1998: Competition, equity and human

development2000: Values and aspirations for development 2002: Political capacity for development2003: Gender2004: The HDI in Bolivian municipalities

2004: Interculturalism and humandevelopment: a possible Bolivia

2005: Economics beyond gasThere have also been nine regional/urban

reports in Bolivia

BOTSWANA

1993: Planning for people 1997: Challenges of sustainable development

in the long term 2000: Towards an AIDS-free generation 2005: Harnessing science and technology

for human development

BRAZIL

1996: Human development (general)2005: Racism, poverty and violenceSeveral indexes and atlases of human

development have been producedbetween these two reports (seechapter 3.1.2)

BULGARIA

1995: Transition to a modern and opensociety and sustainable humandevelopment

1996: Identifying vulnerable groups 1997: Economic development, social

cohesion and the transition process 1997: Sofia, the capital city1998: State of transition and transition of

the State 1999: Trends and opportunities for

regional human development2000: Analysis of disparities among

municipalities 2001: Citizen participation in governance 2002: Human development at municipal

and district levels 2003: Overcoming rural disparities

N H D R T H E M E S I N C A S E - S T U D Y C O U N T R I E S 5 3

Annex 4

NHDR Themes in Case-study Countries

A N N E X 45 4

COLOMBIA

1998: Poverty and conflict1999: Violence and human development2000: Human rights 2003: The conflict: deadlock with a

way out (English version titled:‘A cul-de-sac with ways out’)

EGYPT

1994: Concept and measurement ofhuman development as a participatory process

1995: Participation and gender1996: Poverty1997: Public spending1999: Education2000/2001: Globalization2002/2003: HDI at the local level2004: Decentralization for good governance2005: Choosing our future: towards a new

social contract

INDIA

India’s 25 state HDRs deal with a widerange of issues, including the record ofhuman development in a particular state,sustainable livelihoods, health and education,poverty eradication, women’s empowerment,democracy and development

KAZAKHSTAN

1995: Human development in the transition period

1996: Problems of socio-economicdevelopment

1997: Human development index and itscomponent development trends

1998: Social integration and the role ofthe State in the transition period

1999: Challenges for 2000—the human poverty index

2000: Fighting poverty for a better future2002: Rural development in Kazakhstan2003: Water as a key factor in development

in Kazakhstan2004: Education

SENEGAL

1998: Human security in Senegal

2001: Governance and human development2004: Sustainable local development

(forthcoming in 2006)

SLOVAKIA

1995: Human development; environment,human settlements and housing

1996: Human development (general NHDR)1997: Efficiency of government

socio-economic policies1998: Human rights and minorities1999: Labour market, education and

environment2000: Poverty, social exclusion and

marginalization2001: Labour market, education and

environment2002: Human health

UKRAINE

1995: Human development (general)1996: Relationship between economic

growth and human development1997: Human development (general)1998: HDI by regions1999: Development and human security,

economic well-being, democracyand governance

2001: Citizen participation and methodsto promote participation

2003: Decentralization

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

1997: Human development (general) 1999: Progress in human resource

development2002: Anti-poverty strategies2005: Poverty levels and trends, rural

growth and agriculture

ZAMBIA

1997: Poverty1998: Provision of basic social services2000: Employment, sustainable livelihoods2003: Reducing poverty and hunger,

achieving the MDGs

REPORTS PUBLISHED UNDER STRATEGIC AND THEMATIC EVALUATION SERIES

n Tsunami Evaluation Coalition: Joint Evaluation of the Impact of International Tsunami Response on Local and National Capacities, 2006

n Evaluation of UNDP’s Role and Contributions in the HIV/AIDS Response in Southern Africa and Ethiopia, 2006

n Evaluation of Gender Mainstreaming in UNDP, 2006n Institutional Flexibility in Crises and Post-conflict Situations: Best Practices from the Field, 2004n Evaluation of UNDP’s Role in the PRSP Process, 2003n Assessment of Micro-Macro Linkages in Poverty Alleviation: South Asia Region, 2003n Assessment of Millennium Development Goals Reports, 2003n Evaluation of Non-core Resources, 2001n Evaluation of Direct Execution, 2000n Sharing New Ground in Post-conflict Situations, 2000n The UNDP Role in Decentralization and Local Governance, 1999

FORTHCOMING EVALUATIONS IN THE SERIES

n Evaluation of UNDP Assistance to Conflict-affected Countriesn Evaluation of Results Based Management at UNDPn Evaluation of Mainstreaming Environment and Energy in Poverty and Governance Programmes

United Nations Development ProgrammeEvaluation OfficeOne United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017, USATel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008Internet: http://www.undp.org/eo