In terms of human development, South Africa ranks third in sub-Saharan Africa, writes Ann Eveleth
South Africa jumped one point on the global development scale in the first year of democracy, according to a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report released this week.
The UNDP Human Development Report 1998 ranks South Africa 89th out of 174 countries, according to the human development index, which measures average life expectancy, literacy and living standards of countries around the world. South Africa ranked 90th in last year’s report.
South Africa’s human development index ranks third in sub-Saharan Africa, after the Seychelles and Mauritius. The extensive report is based on three-year-old figures, so last year’s report reflected South Africa’s 1994 position, while the report released this week reflects the country’s standing in 1995.
During that period, South Africa’s life expectancy at birth climbed from 63,7 years to 64,1. This is significantly higher than the sub- Saharan average, which remained close to 50, but still below Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, where life expectancy has climbed to almost 70 years.
South Africa’s educational indicators reflected less improvement. The adult literacy rate climbed less than half a percentage point, from 81,4 in 1994 to 81,8 in 1995. The combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio remained stagnant at 81%.
The report reflects South Africa’s progression up the development ladder, with its overall human development index value rising from 0,716 in 1994 to 0,717 in 1995 -Canada tops the list with 0,960 and Sierra Leone tails behind the rest of the world with 0,185 – and a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita rise from $4 291 to $4 334 during the same period.
But the country ranks poorly on other indicators.
The new report lists South Africa as one of 74 countries with a lower human development index ranking than its GDP per capita ranking. This comparison, says the report, suggests the countries have “failed to translate economic prosperity into corresponding better lives for their people”.
The poorest 20% of South Africans earned a GDP per capita of only $516, compared to the richest 20%, who earned $9 897. At least 13% of South Africans are not expected to survive to the age of 40, while 35% of children would not reach grade five.
The gap between wealth and consumption levels of rich and poor formed a central theme of this year’s report. It notes that the world’s richest 225 people possess a combined wealth of more than $1-trillion – equal to the combined annual income of the world’s poorest 2,5-billion people, or 47% of the global population.
The 15 richest have assets exceeding the total GDP of sub-Saharan Africa. Only two of the world’s 225 richest people are from Africa. Both of these – with a combined wealth of $3,7- billion – are South African.
The report points out the limitations imposed by the “unequal distribution of income … unequal access to basic services and suppression of living standards” which characterised apartheid South Africa.
“In 1995 alone there was a marked increase in access to services among black households: the share with electricity increased from 37% to 51%, those with a telephone increased from 12% to 14%, those with piped water [increased] from 27% to 33%, those with a flush toilet or latrine from 46% to 51%, and those with refuse removal by the local authority from 37% to 43%.”
But the report adds that progress in service delivery had been “much slower than targeted. And where electricity has been brought to households, the consumption is low, as households are not equipped with -or do not shift to -electric appliances.
“In one survey, however, pensioners said electricity might consume up to a quarter of their income, yet they could no longer imagine living without it. And because other spending could not be cut, they sought credit.”
South Africa did score points for the improvement of gender equality. Ranked number 74 out of 163 countries surveyed according to a separate gender-related development index, South Africa’s higher gender ranking (15 places above its human development index ranking) “indicates that it performs relatively better on gender equality than on average achievements”, the report says. This is true for only 83 of the countries where the UNDP calculated a gender-related development index this year.
The gender-related development index measures the same dimensions as the human development index and uses the same variables, but measures these for women only. It aims to demonstrate inequalities in achievement between women and men.
South Africa’s female life expectancy at birth in 1995 was 67,2 years, compared to 61,2 years for men. Adult literacy rates for women were slightly lower at 81,7%, compared to 81,9% for men, but combined school enrolment stood at 82,9% of females, compared to 75,4% of males. And women occupied 23,7% of parliamentary seats, an estimated 46,6% of professional and technical posts, and an estimated 17,4% of administrative and management posts.
However, the UNDP estimates the female non-agricultural workers’ share of income earned compared poorly, at 30,9% – males earned 69,1% of the income.
South Africa also scored poor marks for pollution control, ranking fifth in an eight-country comparison of 1995 per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
South Africa followed Japan’s nine metric tons per capita level, at 7,4 metric tons annually. This placed the country well above Mexico, a country known for its pollution, which emits only 3,9 metric tons annually.