On some problems of using the Human Development Index in economic history.

This article critically examines the Human Development Index (HDI) as used in economic history, arguing that the HDI functions as a paternalistic social welfare function (PSWF) rather than a measure derived from individual preferences. It demonstrates that the choice of HDI components, weighting schemes, and especially the elasticity of substitution parameter—which governs how dimensions like income, education, and life expectancy trade off—is inherently subjective and reflects the ethical judgments of the analyst. Using Italy (1861–2016) as a case study, the authors show that varying this parameter can produce widely divergent historical interpretations of well-being, including contradictory assessments of periods such as the Fascist regime. The paper concludes that while the HDI can rank countries or periods ordinally, it is unsuitable for cardinal comparisons like growth rates or convergence analysis, and suggests alternatives including consensus-building on HDI specifications, sensitivity analyses, or returning to a multidimensional "dashboard" approach without aggregation.