Introduction

In the field of development economics, various measures are used to assess and compare the

development progress of countries. These indicators provide insights into the economic and social

well-being of populations and are crucial for designing effective policies. GDP per capita is one

of the most widely used measures, reflecting the average income of a country’s population and

often used to gauge economic growth. While it provides a snapshot of economic output, it has

limitations in capturing the distribution of wealth and quality of life. To address these

shortcomings, the Human Development Index (HDI) has been developed, combining measures of

income, education, and life expectancy to offer a broader view of human well-being and

capabilities. The HDI emphasizes that development is not only about economic growth but also

about improving people's quality of life. Furthermore, the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)

provides an even deeper understanding by examining multiple factors that contribute to poverty,

such as access to education, healthcare, and living standards, rather than focusing solely on

income. Together, these measures offer a comprehensive approach to understanding development,

highlighting the importance of both economic and social factors in improving the lives of people,

particularly in low-income countries.

Concept of development

The concept of development refers to the process of improving the economic, social, and political

well-being of a population. It involves enhancing the standard of living, expanding access to basic

needs such as education, healthcare, and clean water, and promoting opportunities for economic

growth and social progress. Development is multidimensional, encompassing not only increases

in income and wealth but also improvements in human capabilities, social equality, political

freedom, and environmental sustainability. It is not just about economic growth, but about

1
fostering a more equitable and inclusive society where individuals have the opportunity to live

healthy, fulfilling, and meaningful lives. Development also emphasizes addressing the needs of

vulnerable populations, reducing poverty and inequality, and ensuring that growth benefits all

members of society, particularly in low-income and developing nations.

Development Measures

Measures of development are key indicators used to assess a country's progress across economic,

social, and political dimensions. Commonly used metrics include GDP per capita, which measures

average income but doesn't account for inequality or non-economic factors. The Human

Development Index (HDI) offers a broader perspective by combining income, life expectancy, and

education levels. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) goes further, assessing poverty

through factors like education, health, and living standards. The Gini coefficient measures income

inequality, while poverty headcount ratio shows the percentage of the population living below the

poverty line. Other indicators, such as life expectancy and education metrics, are critical for

gauging health and human capital. Lastly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a

global framework for addressing challenges like poverty, inequality, and climate change. These

measures collectively provide a comprehensive view of development, going beyond economic

growth to include social well-being and sustainability.

GDP per capita

GDP per capita is a commonly used indicator of economic development that reflects the

average economic output or income of individuals in a country. It is calculated by dividing the

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the total value of goods and services produced in a country

in a given period—by the country’s population. This gives a per-person figure, allowing

2
 comparisons of economic productivity across countries of different sizes. Despite being a

popular measure of development, GDP per capita has both advantages and limitations that need

to be considered for a more comprehensive understanding of a country's development.

To calculate GDP per capita, you simply divide the total GDP of a country by its population:

GDP per capita = GDP/ population

Strengths of GDP Per Capita:

1. Indicates Economic Productivity: GDP per capita gives a clear sense of how productive

an economy is on average. A higher GDP per capita typically suggests that a country has a

strong economy with efficient production and high-income levels.

Example: Countries like Switzerland and Norway have high GDP per capita figures,

which reflects their highly developed economies, efficient industries, and high wages.

2. Useful for Comparing Economies: GDP per capita allows for easy comparison between

countries. It adjusts for population size, so it can be used to compare both large and small

economies.

Example: Luxembourg has a very small population but one of the highest GDP per capita

in the world (around $115,000), indicating that its wealth is concentrated in high-value

industries like finance. On the other hand, India, with a much larger population, has a much

lower GDP per capita (around $2,000), reflecting lower levels of economic output per

person despite having a large economy overall.

3
 3. Benchmark for Standard of Living: A higher GDP per capita can suggest that citizens

have access to more goods, services, and infrastructure, improving the general standard of

living.

Example: The United States has a high GDP per capita, contributing to its citizens’ access

to quality healthcare, education, and a wide range of consumer goods.

Limitations of GDP Per Capita:

1. Ignores Income Inequality: GDP per capita only provides an average value and does not

account for how wealth is distributed among the population. A country may have a high

GDP per capita but still experience significant inequality, where a large proportion of the

population lives in poverty while a small elite controls most of the wealth.

Example: Brazil has a relatively high GDP per capita compared to many other countries

in Latin America, but the wealth is highly concentrated, and income inequality is extreme.

This is reflected in the country’s high Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality), which

highlights that many Brazilians still live in poverty despite the country's overall wealth.

2. Excludes Non-Market Activities: GDP per capita does not take into account non-market

activities, such as unpaid work (e.g., childcare, volunteer work) or the informal economy,

which can be significant in many developing countries.

Example: In countries with large informal sectors like India and Nigeria, many people

earn a living through informal work (street vendors, small businesses), which is not

captured in GDP per capita, leading to an incomplete picture of the economy.

4
 3. Doesn't Account for Environmental Sustainability: A high GDP per capita can

sometimes mask environmental degradation. Economic growth driven by industries that

harm the environment—such as fossil fuel extraction, mining, and deforestation—can lead

to higher GDP per capita but lower long-term sustainability.

Example: Qatar has a very high GDP per capita, largely driven by its oil and gas industry.

However, this wealth comes at the cost of environmental degradation, and the country faces

challenges related to the sustainability of its economy.

Human Development Index

Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite measure used to assess and compare the overall

development of countries by focusing on human well-being rather than just economic output.

Developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the HDI combines three key

dimensions of development: health, education, and standard of living. These dimensions are

measured using life expectancy, mean years of schooling, expected years of schooling, and

Gross National Income (GNI) per capita. The HDI ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values

indicating higher levels of human development.

The HDI is calculated by taking the geometric mean of three normalized indices: health (life

expectancy), education (mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling), and standard

of living (GNI per capita). Each dimension is scaled between 0 and 1, with higher values

representing better outcomes in each area.

Life Expectancy: Measures the average number of years a person can expect to live, reflecting

the health of the population.

5
Education: Comprised of two indicators—mean years of schooling (average number of years of

education received by people aged 25 and older) and expected years of schooling (the total

number of years of schooling a child of school-entry age is expected to receive).

Gross National Income (GNI) per Capita: Measures the income of a country’s residents and

businesses, adjusted for inflation and divided by population, reflecting the standard of living.

For example:

If Country A has a life expectancy of 80 years, an average of 12 years of schooling, and a GNI

per capita of $50,000, the HDI of Country A will be calculated by combining these values into a

composite index (scaled between 0 and 1).

If Country B has a life expectancy of 60 years, an average of 6 years of schooling, and a GNI per

capita of $5,000, its HDI will be lower, reflecting poorer health, education, and income outcomes.

Strengths of HDI:

1. Comprehensive Measure of Development: Unlike GDP per capita, which focuses solely

on economic output, the HDI incorporates key social and human factors such as health and

education. This makes it a more comprehensive measure of development.

Example: Norway, which consistently ranks high on the HDI, has a high life expectancy

(around 82 years), excellent education systems, and high-income levels. These factors

together indicate a high standard of living and human well-being.

6
2. Focus on Quality of Life: The HDI goes beyond just income and GDP, emphasizing the

quality of life by considering health and education outcomes. This approach aligns more

closely with a broader definition of development that includes human welfare.

Example: Sweden ranks highly on the HDI, benefiting from strong healthcare systems, a

high level of education, and a well-developed social welfare system, contributing to a high

quality of life.

3. Ease of Comparison: HDI provides a straightforward, easily understandable index that

allows for comparisons between countries or regions in terms of overall development. This

makes it useful for policymakers, researchers, and international organizations to track

global progress.

Example: India, with an HDI score of 0.645 (as of the latest report), is considered a

medium human development country, whereas Finland, with a score of 0.948, ranks as a

very high human development country.

4. Focus on Human Well-Being: The HDI’s emphasis on health, education, and income

highlights the importance of human capabilities, aligning with development theories that

stress the need to expand human potential for greater well-being.

Example: Costa Rica has a relatively high HDI due to its emphasis on healthcare,

environmental sustainability, and education, reflecting a focus on human well-being rather

than purely economic output.

7
Limitations of HDI:

1. Over-Simplification of Development: While the HDI is useful for broad comparisons, it

simplifies complex development issues. By focusing only on life expectancy, education,

and income, it misses other critical dimensions of well-being, such as political freedom,

inequality, and environmental sustainability.

Example: China has a relatively high HDI, but it faces significant issues such as political

repression, environmental pollution, and high inequality, which are not captured by the

index.

2. Does Not Reflect Inequality: The HDI treats all countries as if they have an equal

distribution of wealth and resources, even though inequality can vary widely within

countries. Countries with high inequality may have high HDI scores, but large portions of

their populations may not share in the benefits of development.

Example: South Africa has a relatively high HDI, but its income inequality (measured by

the Gini coefficient) is one of the highest in the world, which is not reflected in the HDI.

3. Does Not Capture Non-Market Activities: The HDI is limited in that it does not account

for non-market activities, such as unpaid labor or informal economic activities, which can

be vital to understanding a country’s development.

Example: In countries with large informal economies like India or Nigeria, much of the

economic activity (e.g., street vendors, small businesses) is not captured in the HDI, despite

contributing significantly to people's livelihoods.

8
 4. Focus on National Averages: The HDI is a national-level measure and does not reflect

disparities within countries. It does not capture regional differences or the experiences of

marginalized groups, such as women, minorities, or rural populations.

Example: In Brazil, a country with a large gap between rich and poor, the HDI might

reflect a relatively high level of development in urban centers but does not capture the

severe poverty and limited access to education and healthcare in rural areas.

Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)

The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is a comprehensive measure of poverty that goes

beyond income and economic indicators to capture various factors affecting people’s well-being.

Unlike traditional poverty measures, which focus solely on income levels (e.g., the poverty

headcount ratio), the MPI examines a range of deprivations across key dimensions of human life,

such as education, health, and living standards. Developed by the Oxford Poverty & Human

Development Initiative (OPHI) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the

MPI aims to provide a more nuanced picture of poverty by identifying multiple types of

deprivation that people experience simultaneously.

The MPI uses a multidimensional approach, measuring poverty across three key dimensions:

education, health, and living standards. Each dimension contains a set of indicators, and

individuals or households are considered multidimensionally poor if they are deprived in at least

one-third of the weighted indicators across these dimensions.

Education: This dimension includes two indicators:

9
 o Years of schooling: A household member aged 25 or older with no schooling is

considered deprived.

o Child school attendance: A child of school-going age who is not attending school

is considered deprived.

Health: This dimension includes two indicators:

o Child mortality: A household is considered deprived if a child has died in the

household.

o Nutrition: A household member is considered deprived if they are malnourished

or undernourished, as measured by indicators like BMI (Body Mass Index) or

height-for-age for children.

Living Standards: This dimension includes six indicators:

o Electricity: A household lacking electricity is considered deprived.

o Sanitation: A household without access to improved sanitation is considered

deprived.

o Drinking water: A household without access to clean drinking water is considered

deprived.

o Flooring: A household with dirt, sand, or dung flooring is considered deprived.

o Cooking fuel: A household using solid cooking fuels, such as wood or coal, is

considered deprived.

o Assets: A household without access to a telephone, radio, or vehicle is considered

deprived.

10
Strengths of MPI:

1. Holistic Measurement of Poverty: The MPI captures multiple dimensions of poverty,

providing a more comprehensive view of people’s lives than traditional income-based

poverty measures. It highlights not only the economic aspect of poverty but also social,

health, and living conditions, which are often interrelated.

Example: In India, many households may have a higher income but still experience

poverty due to inadequate access to education, healthcare, or clean drinking water. The

MPI allows for a better understanding of these complex deprivations.

2. Identifies Multiple Deprivations: By measuring various deprivations simultaneously, the

MPI provides insights into the interconnected nature of poverty. People living in

multidimensional poverty may face deprivations in several areas at once, which can

exacerbate their overall hardship. Example: In sub-Saharan Africa, many individuals

may lack access to basic healthcare, education, and sanitation. These multiple deprivations

compound the challenges they face, and the MPI can identify such individuals or

communities that might otherwise be missed using income measures alone.

3. Policy Relevance: The MPI can help policymakers target interventions in areas where

deprivations are most prevalent. It provides a detailed breakdown of the different aspects

of poverty, allowing for more effective, targeted poverty reduction strategies.

Example: Colombia used the MPI to identify regions with high rates of multidimensional

poverty, allowing the government to design targeted poverty alleviation programs that

focus on improving access to education, health services, and clean water.

11
 4. Tracking Progress in Human Development: The MPI is a useful tool for tracking

changes in poverty over time. It allows for monitoring progress in improving the living

conditions of vulnerable populations, which is essential for assessing the effectiveness of

development policies and interventions.

Example: In Bangladesh, the MPI has been used to track poverty reduction progress,

showing improvements in areas such as child mortality, nutrition, and education over the

past decade.

Limitations of MPI:

1. Complexity and Data Requirements: The MPI is more complex than traditional income-

based poverty measures, requiring detailed data across several dimensions. In countries

where data on health, education, and living standards are lacking or inconsistent,

calculating the MPI can be challenging.

Example: In countries with limited data infrastructure, such as Somalia, accurately

measuring the MPI may be difficult due to gaps in information about child mortality,

malnutrition, or school attendance.

2. Threshold for Deprivation: The MPI uses specific thresholds for each indicator (e.g., not

attending school, lacking access to electricity), which may not always reflect the full

spectrum of deprivation. This threshold approach can lead to some nuances being

overlooked, and people who are just above the cutoff may still experience significant

deprivation.

12
 Example: A household that uses solid fuels for cooking but has access to clean drinking

water may not be classified as poor under the MPI, even though it may still face significant

challenges related to indoor air pollution and health.

3. Focus on Deprivation Rather than Income: While the MPI offers a comprehensive view

of poverty, it does not incorporate income directly, which is still an important aspect of

overall well-being. Income is a fundamental aspect of economic development, and

excluding it from the MPI may limit its ability to fully capture poverty in some contexts.

Example: A household in Mexico with low income but access to education, healthcare,

and basic services may be classified as non-poor by the MPI, even though their financial

situation might still make it difficult to meet all their needs.

4. Regional Disparities Not Fully Captured: The MPI uses national data, which can obscure

regional disparities in poverty levels. Countries with large geographical and economic

differences may mask significant poverty in specific regions or communities that are

underrepresented in national averages.

Example: In Brazil, regions like the Northeast face much higher rates of

multidimensional poverty compared to wealthier regions like the South. The national MPI

may not fully reflect the severe deprivation faced by people in these poorer areas.

5. No Consideration of Subjective Well-Being: The MPI measures objective deprivations

but does not capture individuals’ subjective experiences of poverty. Factors such as

personal satisfaction, happiness, or social exclusion may be significant for understanding

poverty, but these are not included in the MPI’s framework.

13
 Example: In Nepal, people in remote mountain areas may face multiple deprivations but

still report relatively high levels of satisfaction with their lives, which the MPI cannot

capture.

The most comprehensive measures of Development

The Human Development Index (HDI) is considered the most comprehensive measure of a

country's development because it captures a broader scope of human progress than income-based

measures like GDP per capita. While GDP per capita reflects economic output, it doesn't account

for how wealth is distributed, the quality of life, or access to basic services like education and

healthcare. HDI, on the other hand, combines life expectancy (health), mean and expected years

of schooling (education), and Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (standard of living). This

multidimensional approach offers a more holistic understanding of development, highlighting not

only economic prosperity but also the quality of life and access to education and healthcare, which

are essential for human well-being.

However, HDI has limitations: it doesn't capture income inequality within a country or

environmental sustainability, two critical factors influencing development. For example, a country

with a high HDI might have significant disparities in wealth or environmental degradation that

aren't reflected in the index. To address these gaps, HDI is often used alongside other measures,

such as the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which identifies the overlapping deprivations

people face across various dimensions like education, health, and living standards. By combining

these indicators, policymakers and researchers can gain a fuller, more nuanced view of a country's

development status.

14
How Different Economic Systems Address Income Inequality and Poverty

Different economic systems—such as capitalism, socialism, and mixed economies approach

income inequality and poverty in varied ways, often with distinct theoretical foundations and

practical outcomes. Below is an analysis of how these systems address these issues, drawing on

theoretical perspectives and practical examples from selected countries.

1. Capitalism

Theoretical Approach: Capitalism, based on private ownership of the means of production,

emphasizes market forces as the primary mechanism for wealth distribution. The theory, often

associated with economists like Adam Smith, suggests that individual self-interest and

competition in free markets lead to overall economic growth, which, in theory, benefits all.

However, capitalism accepts income inequality as a natural byproduct of market dynamics, as

individuals' economic rewards are based on their contribution to the market.

Practical Outcomes:

• United States is a classic example of a capitalist economy where market-driven growth

has led to significant wealth creation. However, the wealth gap has widened, with the top

1% controlling a disproportionate share of wealth. Despite economic growth, poverty

persists in marginalized groups, especially those with limited access to education or

healthcare. This inequality can be exacerbated by limited social safety nets and minimal

wealth redistribution mechanisms.

• Theoretical Shortcoming: According to Karl Marx, capitalism leads to exploitation of

the working class (proletariat) by the capitalist class (bourgeoisie). In practice, the U.S.

15
 exhibits high income inequality, evidenced by the disparity in wages, housing, and access

to quality healthcare and education.

Addressing Inequality and Poverty: While capitalist economies have relatively low taxes and

minimal government intervention, social programs like unemployment benefits, food stamps, and

healthcare subsidies are designed to mitigate poverty. However, these measures often fall short of

addressing deep-rooted structural inequalities, leaving many at risk of persistent poverty.

2. Socialism

Theoretical Approach: Socialism advocates for collective or state ownership of the means of

production and a central role for the government in economic planning and wealth redistribution.

This system seeks to reduce income inequality by ensuring a more equal distribution of resources.

Karl Marx argued that capitalism inherently leads to class disparities and exploitation, and

socialism aims to eliminate these issues through government intervention and public ownership.

Practical Outcomes:

• Cuba is often cited as an example of a socialist state where the government controls key

sectors such as healthcare, education, and housing. Theoretically, this system ensures that

basic needs are met for all citizens, leading to lower levels of extreme poverty and near-

universal healthcare coverage. However, income inequality is still present, with disparities

between state officials and ordinary citizens, as well as challenges in economic productivity

and innovation.

• Theoretical Shortcoming: While the state may ensure equal access to basic services,

socialist economies sometimes struggle with economic inefficiencies. Cuba's central

16
 planning has led to shortages and stagnation in certain sectors, and the country has faced

challenges in providing the same standard of living as more market-oriented economies.

Addressing Inequality and Poverty: Socialist economies address poverty through

universal social services (healthcare, education, and housing) and progressive taxation.

However, issues like bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of incentives for productivity, and

centralized control can lead to resource misallocation, which, in turn, can limit overall

economic growth and prosperity.

3. Mixed Economies

Theoretical Approach: Mixed economies combine elements of both capitalism and socialism.

The government plays a regulatory and redistributive role in the market to address inequality, while

also allowing private ownership and market forces to drive growth. The goal is to balance the

benefits of free markets (efficiency, innovation) with the need for social welfare and wealth

redistribution to address poverty.

Practical Outcomes:

• Scandinavian countries (e.g., Norway, Sweden, Denmark) are examples of mixed

economies that combine a capitalist market structure with robust social welfare systems.

These countries have high taxes, but in return, citizens enjoy extensive healthcare,

education, and social security benefits. The result is relatively low levels of income

inequality, strong social mobility, and a high standard of living for most citizens.

• Theoretical Shortcoming: While mixed economies aim to strike a balance between

market efficiency and social equality, they can face challenges in maintaining

17
 sustainability, particularly as the cost of welfare programs rises. Higher taxes and

redistribution mechanisms may slow economic growth in some sectors, though the long-

term benefits in terms of equality are significant.

Addressing Inequality and Poverty: Mixed economies address income inequality and poverty

through progressive tax systems, high-quality public services, and social safety nets like

unemployment insurance, public pensions, and subsidized healthcare. For example, Sweden's

progressive tax system ensures that wealth is redistributed to provide universal access to services,

leading to low poverty rates and high living standards.

Conclusion

Measures of development, including GDP per capita, Human Development Index (HDI), and the

Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), offer distinct yet complementary views on a country's

progress. GDP per capita focuses on economic output per person, providing a snapshot of average

living standards but overlooking income inequality, non-market activities, and well-being. HDI

broadens this by incorporating health (life expectancy), education (years of schooling), and

standard of living (GNI per capita), offering a more holistic view of human development. However,

it still misses inequality and environmental sustainability. The MPI measures poverty across

multiple dimensions like education, health, and living standards, highlighting overlapping

deprivations that individuals face, but it can be data-heavy and may not reflect income-based

poverty or subjective well-being. Together, these indices help provide a more comprehensive

picture of development, though they each have their limitations in capturing the full complexity of

human progress.

18
References

Berg, A., & Ostry, J. D. (2011). Inequality and unsustainable growth: Two sides of the same
coin? IMF Staff Discussion Note. International Monetary Fund.

Dixon, P. (2017). Capitalism and poverty: The contradictions of inequality. Zed Books.

Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review,
45(1), 1-28.

Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Belknap
Press.

Oxfam. (2020). Time to care: Unpaid and undervalued care work and the global inequality
crisis. Oxfam.

Ravallion, M. (2012). The mystery of the vanishing benefits: An introduction to the economics of
poverty and inequality. Oxford University Press.

Schneider, F. (2013). The shadow economy and work in the global economy. Edward Elgar
Publishing.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future.
W.W. Norton & Company.

19