Human Development Report 2019

Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century

Briefing note for countries on the 2019 Human Development Report

Myanmar

Introduction

The main premise of the human development approach is that expanding peoples’ freedoms is both the
main aim of, and the principal means for sustainable development. If inequalities in human development
persist and grow, the aspirations of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will remain unfulfilled.
But there are no pre-ordained paths. Gaps are narrowing in key dimensions of human development, while
others are only now emerging. Policy choices determine inequality outcomes – as they do the evolution
and impact of climate change or the direction of technology, both of which will shape inequalities over the
next few decades. The future of inequalities in human development in the 21st century is, thus, in our hands.
But we cannot be complacent. The climate crisis shows that the price of inaction compounds over time as
it feeds further inequality, which, in turn, makes action more difficult. We are approaching a precipice
beyond which it will be difficult to recover. While we do have a choice, we must exercise it now.

Inequalities in human development hurt societies and weaken social cohesion and people’s trust in
government, institutions and each other. They hurt economies, wastefully preventing people from reaching
their full potential at work and in life. They make it harder for political decisions to reflect the aspirations of
the whole society and to protect our planet, as the few pulling ahead flex their power to shape decisions
primarily in their interests. Inequalities in human development are a defining bottleneck in achieving the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Inequalities in human development are not just about disparities in income and wealth. The 2019 Human
Development Report (HDR) explores inequalities in human development by going beyond income, beyond
averages, and beyond today. The proposed approach sets policies to redress these inequalities within a
framework that links the formation of capabilities with the broader context in which markets and
governments function.

Policies matter for inequalities. And inequalities matter for policies. The human development lens is central
to approaching inequality and asking why it matters, how it manifests itself and how best to tackle it.
Imbalances in economic power are eventually translated into political dominance. And that, in turn, can lead
to greater inequality and environmental disasters. Action at the start of this chain is far easier than relying
on interventions farther down the track. The 2019 HDR contributes to that debate by presenting the facts
on inequalities in human development and proposing ideas to act on them over the course of the 21st
century.

This briefing note is organized into seven sections. The first section presents information on the country
coverage and methodology for the 2019 Human Development Report. The next five sections provide
information about key composite indices of human development: the Human Development Index (HDI), the
Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), the Gender Development Index (GDI), the Gender
Inequality Index (GII), and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). The final section covers five
dashboards: quality of human development, life-course gender gap, women’s empowerment,
environmental sustainability, and socioeconomic sustainability.

1
It is important to note that national and international data can differ because international agencies
standardize national data to allow comparability across countries and in some cases may not have access
to the most recent national data.

1- Country coverage and the methodology of the 2019 Human Development Report

The 2019 Human Development Report presents the 2018 HDI (values and ranks) for 189 countries and
UN-recognized territories, along with the IHDI for 150 countries, the GDI for 166 countries, the GII for 162
countries, and the MPI for 101 countries.

It is misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports, because of
revisions and updates of the underlying data and adjustments to goalposts. Readers are advised to assess
progress in HDI values by referring to Table 2 (‘Human Development Index Trends’) in the 2019 Human
Development Report. Table 2 is based on consistent indicators, methodology and time-series data and,
thus, shows real changes in values and ranks over time, reflecting the actual progress countries have made.
Small changes in values should be interpreted with caution as they may not be statistically significant due
to sampling variation. Generally speaking, changes at the level of the third decimal place in any of the
composite indices are considered insignificant.

Unless otherwise specified in the source, tables use data available to the Human Development Report
Office (HDRO) as of 15 July 2019. All indices and indicators, along with technical notes on the calculation
of composite indices, and additional source information are available online at http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

For further details on how each index is calculated please refer to Technical Notes 1-6 and the associated
background papers available on the Human Development Report website: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

2- Human Development Index (HDI)

The HDI is a summary measure for assessing long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human
development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. A long and
healthy life is measured by life expectancy. Knowledge level is measured by mean years of schooling
among the adult population, which is the average number of years of schooling received in a life-time by
people aged 25 years and older; and access to learning and knowledge by expected years of schooling for
children of school-entry age, which is the total number of years of schooling a child of school-entry age can
expect to receive if prevailing patterns of age-specific enrolment rates stay the same throughout the child's
life. Standard of living is measured by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita expressed in constant 2011
international dollars converted using purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion rates. For more details see
Technical Note 1.

To ensure as much cross-country comparability as possible, the HDI is based primarily on international
data from the United Nations Population Division (the life expectancy data), the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics (the mean years of schooling and expected years
of schooling data) and the World Bank (the GNI per capita data). As stated in the introduction, the HDI
values and ranks in this year’s report are not comparable to those in past reports because of some revisions
to the component indicators. To allow for assessment of progress in HDIs, the 2019 Human Development
Report includes recalculated HDIs from 1990 to 2018 using consistent series of data.

2.1- Myanmar’s HDI value and rank

Myanmar’s HDI value for 2018 is 0.584— which put the country in the medium human development
category—positioning it at 145 out of 189 countries and territories.

2
Between 1990 and 2018, Myanmar’s HDI value increased from 0.349 to 0.584, an increase of 67.2 percent.
Table A reviews Myanmar’s progress in each of the HDI indicators. Between 1990 and 2018, Myanmar’s
life expectancy at birth increased by 10.0 years, mean years of schooling increased by 2.5 years and
expected years of schooling increased by 4.2 years. Myanmar’s GNI per capita increased by about 689.1
percent between 1990 and 2018.

Table A: Myanmar’s HDI trends based on consistent time series data and new goalposts
Life expectancy Expected years Mean years of GNI per capita
HDI value
at birth of schooling schooling (2011 PPP$)
1990 56.8 6.1 2.4 730 0.349
1995 58.5 7.4 2.7 912 0.388
2000 60.1 7.8 3.1 1,289 0.424
2005 61.6 8.1 3.6 2,252 0.470
2010 63.5 9.2 4.1 3,688 0.523
2015 65.8 9.9 4.9 4,863 0.565
2016 66.2 10.0 4.9 5,155 0.571
2017 66.6 10.0 5.0 5,443 0.577
2018 66.9 10.3 5.0 5,764 0.584

Figure 1 below shows the contribution of each component index to Myanmar’s HDI since 1990.

Figure 1: Trends in Myanmar’s HDI component indices 1990-2018

2.2- Assessing progress relative to other countries

Human development progress, as measured by the HDI, is useful for comparison between two or more
countries. For instance, during the period between 1990 and 2018 Myanmar, Papua New Guinea and
Cambodia experienced different degrees of progress toward increasing their HDIs (see Figure 2).

3
 Figure 2: HDI trends for Myanmar, Papua New Guinea and Cambodia, 1990-2018

Myanmar’s 2018 HDI of 0.584 is below the average of 0.634 for countries in the medium human development
group and below the average of 0.741 for countries in East Asia and the Pacific. From East Asia and the
Pacific, countries which are close to Myanmar in 2018 HDI rank and to some extent in population size are
Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic, which have HDIs ranked 146 and 140 respectively (see
Table B).

Table B: Myanmar’s HDI and component indicators for 2018 relative to selected countries and
groups
GNI per
Life Expected
Mean years capita
HDI value HDI rank expectancy years of
of schooling (2011 PPP
at birth schooling
US$)
Myanmar 0.584 145 66.9 10.3 5.0 5,764
Cambodia 0.581 146 69.6 11.3 4.8 3,597
Lao People's
0.604 140 67.6 11.1 5.2 6,317
Democratic Republic
East Asia and the
0.741 — 75.3 13.4 7.9 14,611
Pacific
Medium HDI 0.634 — 69.3 11.7 6.4 6,240

3- Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI)

The HDI is an average measure of basic human development achievements in a country. Like all averages,
the HDI masks inequality in the distribution of human development across the population at the country
level. The 2010 HDR introduced the IHDI, which takes into account inequality in all three dimensions of the
HDI by ‘discounting’ each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The IHDI is
basically the HDI discounted for inequalities. The ‘loss’ in human development due to inequality is given by
the difference between the HDI and the IHDI, and can be expressed as a percentage. As the inequality in
a country increases, the loss in human development also increases. We also present the coefficient of

4
 human inequality as a direct measure of inequality which is an unweighted average of inequalities in three
dimensions. The IHDI is calculated for 150 countries. For more details see Technical Note 2.

Myanmar’s HDI for 2018 is 0.584. However, when the value is discounted for inequality, the HDI falls to
0.448, a loss of 23.2 percent due to inequality in the distribution of the HDI dimension indices. Cambodia
and Lao People's Democratic Republic show losses due to inequality of 20.1 percent and 24.9 percent
respectively. The average loss due to inequality for medium HDI countries is 25.9 percent and for East Asia
and the Pacific it is 16.6 percent. The Human inequality coefficient for Myanmar is equal to 23.2 percent
(see Table C).

Table C: Myanmar’s IHDI for 2018 relative to selected countries and groups
Human Inequality in life Inequality
IHDI Overall Inequality in
inequality expectancy at in income
value loss (%) education (%)
coefficient (%) birth (%) (%)
Myanmar 0.448 23.2 23.2 22.8 26.9 19.9
Cambodia 0.465 20.1 19.9 18.1 27.3 14.3
Lao People's
0.454 24.9 24.7 22.6 31.3 20.3
Democratic Republic
East Asia and the
0.618 16.6 16.3 9.8 13.5 25.6
Pacific
Medium HDI 0.470 25.9 25.4 20.5 36.3 19.6

4- Gender Development Index (GDI)

In the 2014 HDR, HDRO introduced a new measure, the GDI, based on the sex-disaggregated Human
Development Index, defined as a ratio of the female to the male HDI. The GDI measures gender inequalities
in achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: health (measured by female and male
life expectancy at birth), education (measured by female and male expected years of schooling for children
and mean years for adults aged 25 years and older) and command over economic resources (measured
by female and male estimated GNI per capita). For details on how the index is constructed refer to Technical
Note 3. Country groups are based on absolute deviation from gender parity in HDI. This means that the
grouping takes into consideration inequality in favour of men or women equally.

The GDI is calculated for 166 countries. The 2018 female HDI value for Myanmar is 0.566 in contrast with
0.594 for males, resulting in a GDI value of 0.953, placing it into Group 2. In comparison, GDI values for
Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic are 0.919 and 0.929 respectively (see Table D).

Table D: Myanmar’s GDI for 2018 relative to selected countries and groups
Life expectancy at Expected years Mean years of
F-M ratio HDI values GNI per capita
birth of schooling schooling
GDI value Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Myanmar 0.953 0.566 0.594 69.9 63.8 10.5 10.1 5.0 4.9 3,613 8,076
Cambodia 0.919 0.557 0.606 71.6 67.3 10.9 11.8 4.1 5.7 3,129 4,089
Lao People's
Democratic 0.929 0.581 0.625 69.4 65.8 10.8 11.3 4.8 5.6 5,027 7,595
Republic
East Asia and
0.962 0.725 0.754 77.8 72.9 13.5 13.3 7.5 8.3 11,385 17,728
the Pacific
Medium HDI 0.845 0.571 0.676 70.9 67.8 11.9 11.5 5.0 7.8 2,787 9,528

5- Gender Inequality Index (GII)

The 2010 HDR introduced the GII, which reflects gender-based inequalities in three dimensions –
reproductive health, empowerment, and economic activity. Reproductive health is measured by maternal
mortality and adolescent birth rates; empowerment is measured by the share of parliamentary seats held

5
by women and attainment in secondary and higher education by each gender; and economic activity is
measured by the labour market participation rate for women and men. The GII can be interpreted as the
loss in human development due to inequality between female and male achievements in the three GII
dimensions. For more details on GII please see Technical Note 4.

Myanmar has a GII value of 0.458, ranking it 106 out of 162 countries in the 2018 index. In Myanmar, 10.2
percent of parliamentary seats are held by women, and 28.7 percent of adult women have reached at least
a secondary level of education compared to 22.3 percent of their male counterparts. For every 100,000 live
births, 178.0 women die from pregnancy related causes; and the adolescent birth rate is 28.5 births per
1,000 women of ages 15-19. Female participation in the labour market is 47.7 percent compared to 77.3 for
men (see Table E).

In comparison, Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic are ranked at 114 and 110 respectively
on this index.

Table E: Myanmar’s GII for 2018 relative to selected countries and groups
Female Population with at
Maternal Labour force
GII GII Adolescent seats in least some
mortality participation rate
value Rank birth rate parliament secondary
ratio (%)
(%) education (%)
Female Male Female Male
Myanmar 0.458 106 178.0 28.5 10.2 28.7 22.3 47.7 77.3
Cambodia 0.474 114 161.0 50.2 19.3 15.1 28.1 75.2 87.6
Lao People's
Democratic 0.463 110 197.0 65.4 27.5 35.0 46.0 76.8 79.7
Republic
East Asia and the
0.310 — 62.0 22.0 20.3 68.8 76.2 59.7 77.0
Pacific
Medium HDI 0.501 — 198.0 34.3 20.8 39.5 58.7 32.3 78.9
Maternal mortality ratio is expressed in number of deaths per 100,000 live births and adolescent birth rate is expressed in number of births per
1,000 women ages 15-19.

6- Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)

The 2010 HDR introduced the MPI, which identifies multiple overlapping deprivations suffered by individuals
in 3 dimensions: health, education and standard of living. The health and education dimensions are based
on two indicators each, while standard of living is based on six indicators. All the indicators needed to
construct the MPI for a country are taken from the same household survey. The indicators are weighted to
create a deprivation score, and the deprivation scores are computed for each individual in the survey. A
deprivation score of 33.3 percent (one-third of the weighted indicators) is used to distinguish between the
poor and nonpoor. If the deprivation score is 33.3 percent or greater, the household (and everyone in it) is
classified as multidimensionally poor. Individuals with a deprivation score greater than or equal to 20
percent but less than 33.3 percent are classified as vulnerable to multidimensional poverty. Finally,
individuals with a deprivation score greater than or equal to 50 percent live in severe multidimensional
poverty. The MPI is calculated for 101 developing countries in the 2019 HDR. Definitions of deprivations in
each indicator, as well as methodology of the MPI are given in Technical Note 5.

The most recent survey data that were publicly available for Myanmar’s MPI estimation refer to 2015/2016.
In Myanmar, 38.3 percent of the population (20,449 thousand people) are multidimensionally poor while an
additional 21.9 percent are classified as vulnerable to multidimensional poverty ( 11,697 thousand people).
The breadth of deprivation (intensity) in Myanmar, which is the average deprivation score experienced by
people in multidimensional poverty, is 45.9 percent. The MPI, which is the share of the population that is
multidimensionally poor, adjusted by the intensity of the deprivations, is 0.176. Cambodia and Lao People's
Democratic Republic have MPIs of 0.170 and 0.108 respectively.

6
 Table F compares multidimensional poverty with income poverty, measured by the percentage of the
population living below PPP US$1.90 per day. It shows that income poverty only tells part of the story. The
multidimensional poverty headcount is 32.1 percentage points higher than income poverty. This implies that
individuals living above the income poverty line may still suffer deprivations in health, education and/or
satandard of living. Table F also shows the percentage of Myanmar’s population that lives in severe
multidimensional poverty. The contributions of deprivations in each dimension to overall poverty complete
a comprehensive picture of people living in multidimensional poverty in Myanmar. Figures for Cambodia
and Lao People's Democratic Republic are also shown in the table for comparison.

Table F: The most recent MPI for Myanmar relative to selected countries

Contribution to overall poverty of

Population share (%)
deprivations in (%)
Headc Intensity of
Survey MPI
ount deprivations Vulnera In
year value Below
(%) (%) ble to severe
income Standard
multidim multidim Health Education
poverty of living
ensional ensional
line
poverty poverty
Myanmar 2015/2016 0.176 38.3 45.9 21.9 13.8 6.2 18.5 32.3 49.2
Cambodia 2014 0.170 37.2 45.8 21.1 13.2 .. 21.8 31.7 46.6
Lao People's
Democratic 2017 0.108 23.1 47.0 21.2 9.6 22.7 21.5 39.7 38.8
Republic

7- Dashboards 1-5

Countries are grouped partially by their performance in each indicator into three groups of approximately
equal size (terciles), thus, there is the top third, the middle third and the bottom third. The intention is not to
suggest the thresholds or target values for these indicators but to allow a crude assessment of country’s
performance relative to others. Three-colour coding visualizes a partial grouping of countries by indicator.
It can be seen as a simple visualization tool as it helps the users to immediately picture the country’s
performance. A country that is in the top group performs better than at least two thirds of countries (i.e., it
is among the top third performers); a country that is in the middle group performs better than at least one
third but worse than at least one third (i.e., it is among the medium third performers); and a country that is
in the bottom third performs worse than at least two thirds of countries (i.e., it is among the bottom third
performers). More details about partial grouping in this table are given in Technical Note 6.

7.1- Dashboard 1: Quality of human development

This dashboard contains a selection of 14 indicators associated with the quality of health, education and
standard of living. The indicators on quality of health are lost health expectancy, number of physicians, and
number of hospital beds. The indicators on quality of education are pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools,
primary school teachers trained to teach, percentage of primary (secondary) schools with access to the
internet, and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores in mathematics, reading
and science. The indicators on quality of standard of living are the proportion of employed people engaged
in vulnerable employment, the proportion of rural population with access to electricity, the proportion of
population using improved drinking water sources, and proportion of population using improved sanitation
facilities.

A country that is in the top third group on all indicators can be considered a country with the highest quality
of human development. The dashboard shows that not all countries in the very high human development
group have the highest quality of human development and that many countries in the low human
development group are in the bottom third of all quality indicators in the table.

7
 Table G provides the number of indicators in which Myanmar performs: better than at least two thirds of
countries (i.e., it is among the top third performers); better than at least one third but worse than at least
one third (i.e., it is among the medium third performers); and worse than at least two thirds of countries (i.e.,
it is among the bottom third performers). Figures for Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic are
also shown in the table for comparison.

Table G: Summary of Myanmar’s performance on the Quality of human development indicators

relative to selected countries
Quality of standard of
Quality of health Quality of education Overall
living
(3 indicators) (7 indicators) (14 indicators)
(4 indicators)
Missing
indicators
Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom
third third third third third third third third third third third third

Number of indicators
Myanmar 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 4 2 2 7 3
Cambodi
0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 6 5
a
Lao
People's
Democrat 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 5 5
ic
Republic

7.2- Dashboard 2: Life-course gender gap

This dashboard contains a selection of 12 key indicators that display gender gaps in choices and
opportunities over the life course – childhood and youth, adulthood and older age. The indicators refer to
education, labour market and work, political representation, time use, and social protection. Three indicators
are presented only for women and the rest are given in the form of female-to-male ratio. Countries are
grouped partially by their performance in each indicator into three groups of approximately equal size
(terciles). Sex ratio at birth is an exception - countries are grouped into two groups: the natural group
(countries with a value of 1.04-1.07, inclusive) and the gender-biased group (countries with all other values).
Deviations from the natural sex ratio at birth have implications for population replacement levels, suggest
possible future social and economic problems and may indicate gender bias.

Table H provides the number of indicators in which Myanmar performs: better than at least two thirds of
countries (i.e., it is among the top third performers), better than at least one third but worse than at least
one third (i.e., it is among the medium third performers), and worse than at least two thirds of countries (i.e.,
it is among the bottom third performers). Figures for Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic are
also shown in the table for comparison.

Table H: Summary of Myanmar’s performance on the Life-course gender gap dashboard relative to
selected countries

Childhood and youth Adulthood Older age Overall

(5 indicators) (6 indicators) (1 indicator) (12 indicators)
Missing
indicators
Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom
third third third third third third third third third third third third

Number of indicators
Myanmar 1 0 4 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 7 3

8
Cambodi
1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 4 3 3
a
Lao
People's
Democrat 2 3 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 5 4 2 1
ic
Republic

7.3- Dashboard 3: Women’s empowerment

This dashboard contains a selection of 13 woman-specific empowerment indicators that allows
empowerment to be compared across three dimensions – reproductive health and family planning, violence
against girls and women, and socioeconomic empowerment. Three-color coding visualizes a partial
grouping of countries by indicator. Most countries have at least one indicator in each tercile, which implies
that women’s empowerment is unequal across indicators and countries.

Table I provides the number of indicators in which Myanmar performs: better than at least two thirds of
countries (i.e., it is among the top third performers), better than at least one third but worse than at least
one third (i.e., it is among the medium third performers), and worse than at least two thirds of countries (i.e.,
it is among the bottom third performers). Figures for Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic are
also shown in the table for comparison.
Table I: Summary of Myanmar’s performance on the Women’s empowerment dashboard relative to
selected countries
Reproductive health and Violence against girls and Socioeconomic
Overall
family planning women empowerment
(13 indicators)
(4 indicators) (4 indicators) (5 indicators)
Missing
indicators
Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom
third third third third third third third third third third third third

Number of indicators
Myanmar 0 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 3 5 3 2
Cambodi
1 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 1 6 4 2
a
Lao
People's
Democrat 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 4 2 3 7 1
ic
Republic

7.4- Dashboard 4: Environmental sustainability

This dashboard contains a selection of 11 indicators that cover environmental sustainability and
environmental threats. The environmental sustainability indicators present levels of or changes in energy
consumption, carbon-dioxide emissions, change in forest area, fresh water withdrawals, and natural
resource depletion. The environmental threats indicators are mortality rates attributed to household and
ambient air pollution, and to unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene services, percentage of land that is
degraded, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Index value, which measures
change in aggregate extinction risk across groups of species. The percentage of total land area under forest
is not coloured because it is meant to provide context for the indicator on change in forest area.

Table J provides the number of indicators in which Myanmar performs: better than at least two thirds of
countries (i.e., it is among the top third performers), better than at least one third but worse than at least
one third (i.e., it is among the medium third performers), and worse than at least two thirds of countries (i.e.,
it is among the bottom third performers). Figures for Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic are
also shown in the table for comparison.

9
Table J: Summary of Myanmar’s performance on the Environmental Sustainability dashboard
relative to selected countries

Environmental
Environmental threats Overall
sustainability
(4 indicators) (11 indicators)
(7 indicators)
Missing
indicators
Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom
third third third third third third third third third

Number of indicators
Myanmar 4 1 1 0 0 4 4 1 5 1
Cambodi
3 2 1 0 0 4 3 2 5 1
a
Lao
People's
Democrat 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 4 5
ic
Republic
7.5- Dashboard 5: Socioeconomic sustainability
This dashboard contains a selection of 11 indicators that cover economic and social sustainability. The
economic sustainability indicators are adjusted net savings, total debt service, gross capital formation,
skilled labour force, diversity of exports, and expenditure on research and development. The social
sustainability indicators are old age dependency ratio projected to 2030, the ratio of the sum of education
and health expenditure to military expenditure, changes in inequality of HDI distribution, and changes in
gender and income inequality. Military expenditure is not coloured because it is meant to provide context
for the indicator on education and health expenditure and it is not directly considered as an indicator of
socioeconomic sustainability.

Table K provides the number of indicators in which Myanmar performs: better than at least two thirds of
countries (i.e., it is among the top third performers), better than at least one third but worse than at least
one third (i.e., it is among the medium third performers), and worse than at least two thirds of countries (i.e.,
it is among the bottom third performers). Figures for Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic are
also shown in the table for comparison.

Table K: Summary of Myanmar’s performance on the Socioeconomic sustainability dashboard

relative to selected countries

Economic sustainability Social sustainability

Overall (11 indicators)
(6 indicators) (5 indicators)
Missing
indicators
Top Middle Bottom
Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom
third third third third third third third third third

Number of indicators
Myanmar 4 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 1 5
Cambodi 3 5 2
2 2 2 1 3 0 1
a
Lao 3 3 4
People's
Democrat 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
ic
Republic

10