Hdr03-11 Biblios 051903.Qxd 26/05/03 13:44 Side 163
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
hdr03-11 biblios 051903.qxd 26/05/03 13:44 Side 163 Notes Chapter 1 Delamonica 2003). 1. UN 2000a. 25. Minujin and Delamonica 2003. 2. UN 2000a. 26. Watkins 2000. 3. UN 2001b. 27. Watkins 2000. 4. See for example Khor 2000. 28. Sahn and Stifel 2003. 5. UN 2002d. 29. Minujin and Delamonica 2003. 6. Jolly 2003; Foster 2002; Bissio 2003; White and Black 2002. 30. Watkins 2000. 7. World Bank 2003i. 31. Klasen and Wink 2002. 8. UNICEF 2003b. 32. UNDP 2003c. 9. World Bank 2003i. 33. Minujin and Delamonica 2003. 10. UNICEF 2003b. 34. UNAIDS 2002b. 11. WFUNA and North-South Institute 2002. 35. Chapter 5 provides a more conceptual and systematic dis- cussion of gender discrimination. Chapter 2 1. Except for income, reversals do not include countries with Chapter 3 low levels of human poverty in the relevant indicator. For de- 1. The Dominican Republic is a top-priority country in hunger finitions of the human poverty levels, see technical note 2. and sanitation. Mozambique is a top-priority country in pri- 2. Measured using the $2 a day poverty line, considered a mary education and gender equality. See feature 2.1 for fur- more appropriate extreme poverty line for Central and East- ther information. ern Europe and the CIS (UNDP 2003c). 2. Commission on Macroeconomics and Health 2001. 3. Human Development Report Office calculations based on 3. Commission on Macroeconomics and Health 2001. indicator table 27. 4. Sen 1999. 4. Human Development Report Office calculations based on 5. Mehrotra and Jolly 2000. Alvarez and others 2002. 6. UNICEF 2000. 5. World Bank 2003i. 7. Based on Human Development Report Office calculations 6. Birdsall and Clemens 2003b. using Maddison 2001 and World Bank 2003i. 7. World Bank 2002f. 8. Based on Human Development Report Office calculations 8. World Bank 2002f. using Maddison 2001 and World Bank 2003i. 9. Covers different periods between 1990 and the mid- to late 9. Excludes transition countries and fuel exporters and includes 1990s for countries with data on national poverty trends. only countries with a population of at least 1 million and for 10. Data are from World Bank 2000a and 2003i, ECLAC which data on the export structure are available. 2002, UNCTAD 2002a and Milanovic 1998. 10. Prosterman and Hansted 2000. 11. Measured using the $2 a day poverty line, considered a more 11. The distribution of social and cultural power adds an im- appropriate extreme poverty line for Central and Eastern Eu- portant caveat to this ability. Many microfinance schemes rope and the CIS (UNDP 2003c). have failed to prevent the funds from eventually reaching and 12. UNAIDS 2000. being controlled by male heads of household. 13. FAO 2001b. 12. Daley-Harris 2003. 14. UNAIDS 2000. 13. World Bank 1998b. 15. UN 2002g. 16. UNAIDS 2002b. Chapter 4 17. Eberstadt 2002. 1 Caldwell 1979. 18. See technical note 2 for more details on the categorization 2. Carnoy 1992. of top priority and high priority countries. 3. Caldwell 1986. 19. Refers to a score of 4 or greater from Marshall 2000. 4. Caldwell 1986. 20. UNAIDS 2002b. 5. Mehrotra 2000c; UNESCO 1999. 21. Gwatkin 2002. 6. UNICEF 2001b. 22. Vandemoortele 2001. 7. UN 2002b. 23. Filmer and Pritchett 1999; Watkins 2000. 8. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 24. Data are from demographic and social surveys. Data on 9. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. wealth are based on household characteristics and posses- 10. Pinstrup-Andersen, Pandya-Lorch and Rosegrant 1999; Mil- sions. The “wealthy” class is the top fifth of the distribution, lennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. determined after ranking households by wealth (Minujin and 11. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. NOTES 163 hdr03-11 biblios 051903.qxd 26/05/03 13:44 Side 164 12. UN 2002b. 68. Mehrotra 1999. 13. Panos Institute 2001. 69. Mehrotra and Jolly 2000. 14. MDG indicator table 1. 70. Mehrotra 1998. 15. FAO 2002b. 71. Mehrotra and Biggeri 2002. 16. MDG indicator table 1. 72. Mehrotra and Delamonica 1998. 17. MDG indicator table 1. 73. Mehrotra and others forthcoming. 18. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 74. Tilak 1997. 19. FAO 2002b; MDG indicator table 1. 75. Mehrotra 1998. 20. World Bank 2003i. 76. Mehrotra 1998. 21. Seventeen countries, including some of the most populous, 77. UNICEF 1999. have achieved reductions of 25% or more over the decade. 78. In many African countries at the junior secondary level and 22. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. beyond, the phenomenon of teachers becoming “sugar daddies” 23. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. is seen as a disincentive for sending postpuberty girls to school. 24. Human Development Report Office calculations based on 79. Heng and Hoey 2000; Loewenson and Chisvo 2000. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003a. 80. Alidou and Jung 2002. 25. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 81. Delamonica, Mehrotra and VandeMoortele 2001. 26. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 82. World Bank 1996. 27. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 83. Mehrotra 1998. 28. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 84. At the secondary level in developing countries the share 29. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. of teacher costs is about 80%, while at the higher level it is about 30. Drèze and Sen 1995. 60% (Mehrotra and Buckland 1998). 31. World Bank 2002d. 85. Mehrotra 1998. 32. Panos Institute 2001. 86. UNESCO Institute for Statistics and OECD 2002. 33. Panos Institute 2001. 87. UNESCO and ILO 1966. 34. Panos Institute 2001. 88. UNESCO and ILO 1966. 35. IFAD 2001. 89. Buckland, Hofmeyr and Meyer 1993. 36. Agarwal 1994. 90. Watkins 2000. 37. FAO 2002a. 91. Human Development Report Office calculations based on 38. Swaminathan 2001. feature 2.1 in chapter 2. 39. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 92. UNICEF 2001b. 40. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003b. 93. Millennium Project Task Force 4 2003. 41. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003a. 94. UN 2003g; UNDP 2002e. 42. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003a. 95. Millennium Project Task Force 5 2003b. 43. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003a. 96. Millennium Project Task Force 5 2003d. 44. Pretty and Hine 2000; Millennium Project Task Force 2 97. UNICEF 2001b. 2003a. 98. Carlsson and Valdivieso 2003. 45. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003a. 99. International Institute of Population Sciences 2000. 46. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003a. 100. According to estimates by the World Health Organiza- 47. Millennium Project Task Force 2 2003a. tion’s Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, the min- 48. Scherr, White and Kaimowitz 2002. imum financing needed to cover essential interventions, 49. OECD, Development Assistance Committee 2003c. including those for fighting the AIDS pandemic, is about $30- 50. MDG indicator table 1. 40 a person per year. Actual health spending in the least de- 51. MDG indicator table 1. veloped countries is around $13 a person per year, of which 52. MDG indicator table 1. $7 is from budgetary outlays. Other low-income countries 53. India, Planning Commission 2002. spend around $24 a person per year, of which $13 is from bud- 54. Human Development Report Office calculations. getary outlays (Commission on Macroeconomics and Health 55. Indicator table 10. 2001). Clearly, health spending needs to be substantially in- 56. UNESCO 2002a. creased. 57. UNESCO 2002a. 101. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. 58. Includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Is- 102. Multilateral here refers to the African Development Bank, lamic Republic of Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank Lanka. (Special Fund), European Development Fund of the European 59. Flug, Spilimbergo and Wachtenheim 1998; World Bank Community, International Development Association (of the forthcoming. World Bank Group), United Nations Development Pro- 60. See for example Gupta, Verhoeven and Tiongson 2002 and gramme and United Nations Children’s Fund. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. 103. OECD, Development Assistance Committee 2003c. 61. Delamonica, Mehrotra and VandeMoortele 2001. 104. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. 62. Millennium Project Task Force 3 2003. 105. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. 63. Hanmer and Naschold 2001. 106. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. 64. Millennium Project Task Force 3 2003. 107. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. 65. UNESCO 2002a. 108. WHO 2000. 66. Multilateral here refers to the African Development Bank, 109. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank 110. World Bank 1993. (Special Fund), European Development Fund of the European 111. WHO 2000. Community, International Development Association (of the 112. Millennium Project Task Force 7 2003. World Bank Group), United Nations Development Pro- 113. Millennium Project Task Force 7 2003; UN 2002c. gramme and United Nations Children’s Fund (OECD, De- 114. WHO, UNICEF and WSSCC 2000. velopment Assistance Committee 2003c). 115. WHO, UNICEF and WSSCC 2000. 67. Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming. 116. UN 2000b. 164 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 hdr03-11 biblios 051903.qxd 26/05/03 13:44 Side 165 117. WSSCC 2002. 38. Bayliss 2002b. 118. World Bank 2003i; UN 2002c. 39. World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure 2003. 119. Indicator table 6. 40. Bayliss 2002b. 120. UN 2002c. 41. Bayliss 2002b. 121. World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure 2003. 42. Leipziger and Foster 2003. 122. According to the World Bank Operations Evaluation 43. Garnier and others 2000; Duncan, Jefferis and Molutsi 2000; Department. Loewenson and Chisvo 2000. 123. World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure 2003. 44. Alailama and Sanderante 2000; Krishnan 2000. 124. OECD 2003b. 45. Mehrotra and Jarrett 2002. 125. This includes aid for water resources development, water 46. UNESCO 1996. resources protection, water supply and use, water legislation 47. Rohde and Vishwanathan 1995. and management, sanitation (including solid waste manage- 48. Mills 1997.