Indigenous well-being in four countries: an application of the UNDP'S human development index to indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.

Department of Sociology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Drive W, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
BMC International Health and Human Rights (Impact Factor: 1.44). 02/2007; 7:9. DOI: 10.1186/1472-698X-7-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand consistently place near the top of the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index (HDI) rankings, yet all have minority Indigenous populations with much poorer health and social conditions than non-Indigenous peoples. It is unclear just how the socioeconomic and health status of Indigenous peoples in these countries has changed in recent decades, and it remains generally unknown whether the overall conditions of Indigenous peoples are improving and whether the gaps between Indigenous peoples and other citizens have indeed narrowed. There is unsettling evidence that they may not have. It was the purpose of this study to determine how these gaps have narrowed or widened during the decade 1990 to 2000.
Census data and life expectancy estimates from government sources were used to adapt the Human Development Index (HDI) to examine how the broad social, economic, and health status of Indigenous populations in these countries have changed since 1990. Three indices - life expectancy, educational attainment, and income - were combined into a single HDI measure.
Between 1990 and 2000, the HDI scores of Indigenous peoples in North America and New Zealand improved at a faster rate than the general populations, closing the gap in human development. In Australia, the HDI scores of Indigenous peoples decreased while the general populations improved, widening the gap in human development. While these countries are considered to have high human development according to the UNDP, the Indigenous populations that reside within them have only medium levels of human development.
The inconsistent progress in the health and well-being of Indigenous populations over time, and relative to non-Indigenous populations, points to the need for further efforts to improve the social, economic, and physical health of Indigenous peoples.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Indigenous people globally remain resilient yet vulnerable to the threats of HIV. Although Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience the worst health status of any identifiable group in Australia, with a standardized morbidity rate three times that of non-Indigenous Australians, the Australian response to HIV has resulted in relatively low and stable rates of HIV infection among Australia's Indigenous peoples. This paper examines the reasons for the success of HIV prevention efforts. These include early recognition by Indigenous peoples of the potential effect that HIV could have on their communities; the supply of health hardware (needle and syringe programs and condoms); the development and implementation of culturally-appropriate health promotion messages such as the internationally-recognized Condoman campaign; the inclusion of dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sexual Health Workers in communities; and an inclusive policy and partnership approach. Furthermore, the efforts of peak Aboriginal health organizations including NACCHO and its member services and Indigenous programs in peak mainstream organizations like AFAO and its member organizations, have all contributed to prevention success. Efforts need to be maintained however to ensure an escalated epidemic does not occur, particularly among heterosexual people, especially women, and people who inject drugs. New ideas are required as we enter a new era of HIV prevention within the context of the new paradigm of treatment as prevention, and getting to zero new infections.
    AIDS education and prevention: official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education 06/2014; 26(3):267-79. · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research on differences and similarities in self-concept of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian students did not consider the possible differentiation between competence and affect components. As a result, it is unknown whether previously found differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students' self-concepts are the result of their beliefs about their abilities or their feelings about specific domains. Thus, the present study aims to examine and compare the structure, the mean levels, and the relations to achievement measures of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian students' self-concepts in academic and non-academic domains when taking the competence–affect separation into account. Self-concepts in math, English, school, physical ability, and art were measured with 1809 secondary school students including 343 Indigenous students. For Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that all self-concept facets measured could be separated into competence and affect components although the correlations between competence and affect components were high, particularly for art and physical ability self-concepts. Non-Indigenous students demonstrated higher levels of school competence, English competence, English affect, and math competence self-concepts. Indigenous students displayed higher levels of physical ability competence self-concepts while no group differences could be found for school affect, math affect, physical ability affect, and art competence and affect self-concepts. Invariance tests revealed an invariant factor structure and invariant relations between the multiple self-concept facets and achievement factors across Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. Hence, the present study adds to our understanding of the similarities and differences regarding Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian students' self-concepts.
    Learning and Individual Differences 05/2014; · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 05/2014; 15(4):320-334. · 0.88 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014