This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/01/we-must-end-the-worlds-data-divide
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| We must end the world's data divide | We must end the world's data divide |
| (3 days later) | |
| This week the Open Knowledge Foundation published a report saying that governments are failing to provide "enough information in an accessible form to their citizens and businesses". | This week the Open Knowledge Foundation published a report saying that governments are failing to provide "enough information in an accessible form to their citizens and businesses". |
Just this month, the chancellor visited China one of the purposes of which was to entice the emerging middle classes to spend their | This problem of how much and which data is measured and made publicly available is related to its sister problem: how to measure the 'progress' of countries, particularly as they journey from developing through to developed societies. Just this month, the chancellor visited China one of the purposes of which was to entice the emerging middle classes to spend their renminbi shopping in London. It begs an interesting question: should we think of China as a member of the rich 'north' or the poor 'south'? |
| The trouble is, it's neither, and it's the reason terms such as 'emerging economies' and the 'BRICs' have come into common vernacular – an attempt to define the way that the global poverty gap has narrowed over the last 20 years. Yet, despite this change, the north/south framing persists in the language of international development and, crucially, the way we measure the world. This is the development data apartheid: we have one set of statistics for poor countries - the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - while rich countries compare themselves through measures created by the OECD. Middle income countries like China, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia find themselves in no-man's land: developed enough so that the MDG targets are less and less relevant but not rich enough to join the OECD. As a result we end up relying on the flawed measure of GDP as the only yardstick against which countries - rich and poor - can be measured. | The trouble is, it's neither, and it's the reason terms such as 'emerging economies' and the 'BRICs' have come into common vernacular – an attempt to define the way that the global poverty gap has narrowed over the last 20 years. Yet, despite this change, the north/south framing persists in the language of international development and, crucially, the way we measure the world. This is the development data apartheid: we have one set of statistics for poor countries - the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - while rich countries compare themselves through measures created by the OECD. Middle income countries like China, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia find themselves in no-man's land: developed enough so that the MDG targets are less and less relevant but not rich enough to join the OECD. As a result we end up relying on the flawed measure of GDP as the only yardstick against which countries - rich and poor - can be measured. |
| Poor data collection: the consequences | Poor data collection: the consequences |
| One result of this data apartheid is that we end up looking at the world through two different lenses. The OECD, for example, produces rigorous comparative data on educational outcomes in member countries. For poorer countries we have to rely on the flawed measure of school enrolment, since there are no consistent, comparable studies of educational attainment in these non-OECD countries. Another outcome is that crucial issues for human development in the future are going unreported (and, we fear, unaddressed) because of the lack of internationally comparable data. Mental illness, for example, carries a huge morbidity burden but there are no reliable statistics to compare the performance of all countries because mental health has never been a priority for development agencies. This is not just an issue for statisticians and geeks. Data is a tool that helps governments, and increasingly businesses, to identify and find solutions to social problems. What we don't measure, we won't address. The Social Progress index is an effort to measure and compare the performance of countries in terms of the real things that matter to real people, not just income alone. But to do that we need reliable statistics for countries at all levels of income on things like educational attainment, shelter and housing, mental health, and violence against women that make up social progress. The Open Knowledge Foundation's 2013 index was released ahead of the annual summit for the Open Government Partnership in London. This presents an opportunity for policymakers to agree the need for more investment in metrics to tackle this data apartheid. | One result of this data apartheid is that we end up looking at the world through two different lenses. The OECD, for example, produces rigorous comparative data on educational outcomes in member countries. For poorer countries we have to rely on the flawed measure of school enrolment, since there are no consistent, comparable studies of educational attainment in these non-OECD countries. Another outcome is that crucial issues for human development in the future are going unreported (and, we fear, unaddressed) because of the lack of internationally comparable data. Mental illness, for example, carries a huge morbidity burden but there are no reliable statistics to compare the performance of all countries because mental health has never been a priority for development agencies. This is not just an issue for statisticians and geeks. Data is a tool that helps governments, and increasingly businesses, to identify and find solutions to social problems. What we don't measure, we won't address. The Social Progress index is an effort to measure and compare the performance of countries in terms of the real things that matter to real people, not just income alone. But to do that we need reliable statistics for countries at all levels of income on things like educational attainment, shelter and housing, mental health, and violence against women that make up social progress. The Open Knowledge Foundation's 2013 index was released ahead of the annual summit for the Open Government Partnership in London. This presents an opportunity for policymakers to agree the need for more investment in metrics to tackle this data apartheid. |
| Whether – at a time of global austerity – this will happen is debatable, but the very fact that the Open Knowledge Foundation was unable to include 30 of the Open Government Partnership's own member countries on its 2013 index, because of a lack of suitable data, illustrates just how urgently policymakers need to tackle this data apartheid. | Whether – at a time of global austerity – this will happen is debatable, but the very fact that the Open Knowledge Foundation was unable to include 30 of the Open Government Partnership's own member countries on its 2013 index, because of a lack of suitable data, illustrates just how urgently policymakers need to tackle this data apartheid. |
| Michael Green is the Executive Director of the Social Progress Imperative. He is an independent writer and consultant. He is author, with Matthew Bishop, of Philanthrocapitalism, published by Bloomsbury. | Michael Green is the Executive Director of the Social Progress Imperative. He is an independent writer and consultant. He is author, with Matthew Bishop, of Philanthrocapitalism, published by Bloomsbury. |
| Find out more | Find out more |
| • Contact us at data@theguardian.com • Follow us on Twitter • Like us on Facebook • Get the A-Z of data | • Contact us at data@theguardian.com • Follow us on Twitter • Like us on Facebook • Get the A-Z of data |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version