Assessment of socio-economic development of selected European countries with the use of a modified HDI

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyse the socioeconomic development of selected European countries represented by various social policies, and to verify the hypothesis of different speeds of development within the groups into which these countries divide. The following groups are considered in the analysis: Post-Communist countries (the Visegrad Group countries, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia and Estonia); Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland and Sweden); so-called welfare states and "Old Europe" countries (Germany, France, Spain and Italy along with Great Britain and Portugal); and "small but affluent" countries: (Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands). For the measurement, a modified HDI index is employed, based on a number of sources, including the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) assessment and the EHCI (Euro Health Consumer Index). The period of analysis covers the years 2006-2015. The analysis shows that GDP dynamics of Post-Communist countries is significantly higher than the other countries' dynamics. Dynamics of social development measured by HDI is also more rapid compared to the other groups. However, dynamics measured by the modified HDI does not give a clear indication. Affluent and large European countries are not those with the most prominent socioeconomic development. Speaking the language of physics, these countries have a big momentum, equal to the product of mass and speed, compared to other European countries.

Application of the Free Tangent Law in Quantification of Household Satisfaction from Durable Consumer Goods

“…The human development index (HDI) is designed to reflect the level of income, education, and health in the general population. Biernacki and [ 3 ] provide evidence to confirm the observation that the dynamics of quality of life development in the years 2006–2015, measured by a modified HDI index for the EU area, was significantly more pronounced in the segment of developing economies (compared to that in mature and decidedly more affluent economies).…”

Impact of Expenses on Human Capital on the Economic Growth of the Country: Case Study of the Republic of Kazakhstan

“…In line with orthodox theory, a positive relationship was found between the labour force's level of educational attainment and competitiveness. While in the European Economic Area (EEA17), tertiary education is the only significant education-based determinant of the export market share, in EECs both the shares of the workforce with secondary and tertiary education are significant with the former having a greater impact (Biernacki & Guzek, 2019;Fomina, Sizikova, Shimanovskaya, Kozlovskaya, & Karpunina, 2019). This conclusion regarding the Eastern European countries is not consistent with our finding that in Kazakhstan no relationship is found between the economic growth and the expenditures on secondary and higher professional education.…”

“…To analyse the socio-economic development of 20 European countries with varied social policies, Biernacki and Guzek (2019) used a modified Human Development Index (HDI) based on several sources (including EHCI (Euro Health Consumer Index) and PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), and GDP for 2006-2015. The results of the study showed that the dynamics of HDI of countries corresponds to the dynamics of GDP: the more rapid is the dynamics of HDI growth of a country, the more rapid is the dynamics of GDP growth (Biernacki & Guzek, 2019). The research of Roopchund (2017) also found a direct link and correlation between the HDI and the economic growth of a country.…”

Socio-Economic Policy of Latvia: Assessment of Efficiency and Effectiveness

“…Studies to analyse the effectiveness of the implementation of SEP as a whole or of its individual indicators are regularly conducted both in Europe (Biernacki and Guzek, 2019;Cordero, Karkazis, and Thanassoulis, 1998;Kulakov and Lysunets 2017;Pedraja-Chaparro, Pisaflores, and Polo, 2017;Stanković, Marjanović, and Stojković, 2021;Večerník, 2009) as well as worldwide (Zhang, Hara, Yabar, Yamaguchi, Uwasu, and Morioka, 2009). Similar studies conducted in Latvia are usually related to the analysis of a limited range of key indicators of social policy (Bikava and Skride, 2018;Corazza, Kļaviņa, Lepiksone, and Nuti, 2019;Shtals, Tsaurkubule, Konstante, and Alksnis, 2020).…”