Who Sets the Rules? Rethinking Global Development Indices

 

Who Sets the Rules? Rethinking Global Development Indicators

Every now and then in my home, we unplug the TV and tell the children to create their own fun. It’s always my middle daughter—quick-witted and inventive—who jumps in to create a new game. But there’s a catch: she tends to change the rules when she’s losing. If the winner was supposed to be the one with the most beads, she’ll suddenly shift the goalposts to crown herself champion.

It’s cheeky, clever, and a little frustrating. But it reminds me of something much bigger: international development.

Who Gets to Make the Rules?

When we talk about global development, who decides the rules? It often seems like those who design the indicators are always the winners. And just like in my daughter’s games, the rules are adjusted to suit the powerful.

Take economic measurements, for example. Countries are often rated by GDP or per capita income. But why not measure by the number of people meaningfully employed on the land, instead of machines per square kilometer? Why is women’s contribution in agriculture overlooked in favor of non-agricultural jobs?

These questions matter because they reveal a deep cultural bias in global metrics. They’re built around Western models that don’t always reflect the reality in places like Africa.

What We Don’t Measure—But Should

Health indicators are another example. The focus is almost entirely on modern medicine. Yet, many communities rely on herbal remedies, traditional healers, and breastfeeding for natural immunization. Shouldn’t these count too?

Childbirth attended by a doula or traditional midwife isn’t acknowledged under “skilled health personnel.” Natural contraception is largely ignored in favor of commercial, pharmaceutical methods. It’s clear: if a practice doesn’t feed into global markets, it often doesn’t count.

The same bias is present in environmental and social development indicators. Rather than just measuring government policies, how about evaluating ecological harmony, family structures, or community care for the elderly?

Poverty by Whose Standards?

Let’s get specific. The United Nations is developing indicators to measure the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For SDG 1, which aims to end poverty, the key metric is the proportion of people living under $1.25 a day.

That number used to be 70 cents, then $1, now $1.25. But the benchmark is tied to the US dollar, which shifts over time. When the dollar loses value, the poverty line moves—just to keep more Americans above it. Meanwhile, African currencies may have lost 50% of their value, but this isn’t reflected in the metrics.

And how is $1.25 per day even calculated? Does it include barter systems, homegrown food, or childcare offered by a grandmother? A farm-sourced meal of yam, vegetables, and snails has real value, even if it’s never bought or sold. But the global system often ignores this reality.

Redefining Progress

What about social protection? Current indicators only count state-provided support, ignoring family care. A grandmother living with her grandchildren in a happy, multigenerational home might have a better quality of life than someone in a costly government-run facility. But the global metrics don’t reflect that.

These indicators aren’t neutral. They push countries into cookie-cutter solutions and often discredit traditional systems. Over time, they erode cultural responses and hand control to centralized, Western-style institutions.

We must ask: What happens when childrearing, elder care, and moral education shift from families to the State?

The Time to Act Is Now

The world is finalizing how to measure progress on the SDGs. This is our chance to speak up. If we don’t challenge the indicators now, we already know who will end up at the bottom of the global rankings—again.

It’s time to change the game. Not by cheating, but by demanding fair rules that respect all cultures.

After all, development shouldn’t just be about who can play the Western game best. It should be about who thrives, on their own terms.

This might also interest you

This post was originally published in 2014. Some of the data might be obsolete.