1. A draft of this paper was presented in Paris at the Human Development–Capability Association (HD‐CA) conference 2005.

2. The quote is from a paper written by J. Schumpeter in 1932, but only recently translated into English. The term he is referring to here is not human development, but ‘evolutionism’.

3. He was trained at Lahore, Pakistan, at Cambridge, England, and at Yale, USA. He was Chief Economist of Pakistan Planning Commission (1957–1970), was Director of World Bank Policy Planning Department (1970–1982), was Planning and Finance Minister of Pakistan (1970–1982), before his appointment as Special Adviser to UNDP Administrator.

4. The first (written) explicit mention of ‘human development’ in this process was apparently in 1986, in a publication co‐edited by ul Haq's wife, Khadija (Haq and Kirdar, 1986 Haq, K. and Kirdar, U. 1986. Human Development: The Neglected Dimension, Islamabad, , Pakistan: North South Roundtable.  [Google Scholar]) based on the Islamabad North South Roundtable in September 1985 (St Clair, 2004 St Clair, A. 2004. “‘The role of ideas in the UNDP’”. In Global Institutions and Development: Framing the World?, Edited by: Bøås, M and McNeill. London: Routledge Press.  [Google Scholar]).

5. According to Mahbub ul Haq's account of the HDI: “Those who made significant contributions at an initial stage to the evolution of the HDI include Amartya Sen, and Meghnad Desai, later joined by Gustav Ranis, Frances Stewart, Paul Streeten, Inge Kaul and Sudhir Anand” (Haq, 1995 Haq, M. ul. 1995. Reflections on Human Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar], p. 61).

6. “The academic reaches agreement by clarifying his meaning, by heightening distinctions, so that he knows what the difference is about. It is partly the lack of clarity, the lack of sharpness, that the UN documents suffer from that has the virtue that they can lead to action” (Streeten, 2001 Streeten, P. 2001. Interview with Richard Jolly, 28–29 May 2001, United Nations Intellectual History Project [Google Scholar]).

7. He notes that this is “about as many pages as when you search for the Beatles — Variety magazine's ‘icons of the century’ (Murphy, 2006 Murphy, C. 2006. The UN Development Programme: A Better Way?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). In his account of human development, Murphy emphasizes the important role that the then Administrator William Draper played in promoting the idea.

8. Co‐directors Louis Emmerij, Richard Jolly, and Thomas G. Weiss. [See http://www.unhistory.org/]

9. In an interview under the auspices of the UN Intellectual History Project, Dharam Ghai, former director of UNRISD, gives a slightly more elaborated argument along the same lines (about ideas in general, not ‘human development’ specifically): “The idea has to have some power. It must be relevant. And it should fit the time … A lot of the time these things are in the air … A concept emerges which captures this … Then it spreads very rapidly” (Weiss and Carayannis, 2005 Weiss, T. and Carayannis, T. 2005. ‘Ideas matter: voices from the United Nations’. Forum for Development Studies, 32(1): 243–274. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], p. 252)

10. Richard Jolly was Principal Coordinator of HDR for several years from 1996, and played a key role in earlier very relevant activities: in the RwG debate (while at IDS Sussex), and at UNICEF.

11. The book Adjustment with a Human Face, edited by G. Cornia, R. Jolly, and F. Stewart, was published in 1987 (Cornia et al., 1987 Cornia, G., Jolly, R. and Stewart, F. 1987. Adjustment with a Human Face, Oxford: Clarendon Press.  [Google Scholar]), although the ideas were promoted by UNICEF from 1985.

12. For a review of the role of ideas in the UNDP, see Asun Lera St Clair, who describes how the organization moved “from endorsing an economic view of poverty and development to increasingly include an ethically formulated perspective” (St Clair, 2004 St Clair, A. 2004. “‘The role of ideas in the UNDP’”. In Global Institutions and Development: Framing the World?, Edited by: Bøås, M and McNeill. London: Routledge Press.  [Google Scholar], p. 178).

13. For example, in 2004: “Like all Human Development Reports this is an independent study … not a statement of United Nations or UNDP policy. However, by taking up an issue often neglected by development economists … it presents important arguments for UNDP and its partners …” (UNDP, 2004 United Nations Development Programme. 2004. Human Development Report. Cultural Liberty in Todays' Diverse World, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar] p. vi; emphasis added).

14. Personal communication, 19 September 2005.

15. Sakiko Fukuda‐Parr, who also emphasizes the role that Sen played, notes that: “It is unclear why the term ‘choices’ replaced ‘capabilities’ in the HDRs” (Fukuda‐Parr, 2003 Fukuda‐Parr, S. 2003. ‘The human development paradigm: operationalizing Sen's ideas on capabilities’. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3): 301–317.  [Google Scholar], p. 315) This is an interesting point that I do not have the space to elaborate here. Fukuda‐Parr took over from Richard Jolly at the UNDP. She had earlier headed the UNDP Team, a position she took over from Inge Kaul, who had been there since the first HDR in 1990.

16. According to information received from the UNDP Human Development Report Office (October 2006), the English‐language 2006 global HDR will be translated into Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

17. It may be relevant to record that Sen wrote Development as Freedom at the invitation of the World Bank.

18. The Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre (Pakistan) has also produced a series of South Asia Human Development Reports since 1997. [See http://www.undp.org.in/hdrc]

19. “One of the most important decisions was to keep the coverage and methodology of HDI quite flexible — subject to gradual refinements as analytical critiques emerged and better data became available” (Haq, 1995 Haq, M. ul. 1995. Reflections on Human Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar], p.48).

20. See Journal of Human Development (2006), volume 7(2) — ‘Special Issue: Revisiting the Gender‐related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)’.

21. For further elaboration of the ‘economic‐technocratic nexus’, see Bøås and McNeill (2004 Bøås, M and McNeill, D, eds. 2004. Global Institutions and Development: Framing the World?, London: Routledge Press.  [Google Scholar]).