Development

What development means: standard of living and quality of life

Development is the process by which a country's economy grows and its people's lives improve. It is not just about money. A country can have a rising national income while most of its people still lack clean water, schooling or a say in how they are governed, which is why geographers measure development with both economic and social indicators.

Two terms sit at the centre of this topic and you must keep them apart. Standard of living is the level of material goods, income and services a person or household has: wages, housing quality, food, clothing, appliances, and access to water, sanitation, electricity and health care. It can be measured, and it can be compared between countries. Quality of life is broader and includes everything that makes life worth living, much of which cannot be counted in money: health, safety, freedom, education, family and community, leisure, a clean environment and the chance to influence decisions that affect you.

The difference matters because two people with the same standard of living can have very different qualities of life. A well-paid worker in a polluted city with a long commute and no time with their family may have a higher standard of living than a farmer on modest means who lives in a safe community with clean air and time to spare. So when a question asks you about development, decide first whether it is asking about what people have (standard of living) or about how well they live (quality of life), and use the indicators that fit.

Economic indicators: GNP, GDP and GNI

The economic indicators measure the size and the value of a country's economy, and the syllabus names three that you must be able to distinguish. Gross domestic product (GDP) is the total value of all goods and services produced inside a country in a year, whoever owns the businesses. Gross national product (GNP) is the total value of goods and services produced by a country's citizens and companies, whether they are at home or abroad. Gross national income (GNI) is the total income earned by a country's residents and businesses, again including income earned abroad.

In practice, GDP and GNI are close to each other and GNP and GNI are almost the same measure under different names, but the distinction is what matters in an exam. GDP counts what is produced inside the country's borders. GNP and GNI count what is earned by the country's people, so a country with a large foreign-owned factory has a high GDP but the profits belong abroad, while a country whose citizens work overseas and send money home has a higher GNI than its GDP alone would suggest.

Total figures are almost useless for comparison because big countries produce more than small ones. What you compare is the figure per person, which is the total divided by the population, and it is written in US dollars so that countries can be compared in the same currency. GNI per person is the measure the World Bank uses to group countries into low-income, middle-income and high-income countries.

Economic indicators have two obvious weaknesses, and using them well means saying so. First, they are averages, so they say nothing about how income is shared out: a country with a high average income can contain very wealthy districts and very poor ones, and the average is pulled up by the richest people. Second, they measure money, not wellbeing: they ignore unpaid work such as farming for your own family or caring for relatives, they ignore whether the money is spent on health and education or on weapons, and they say nothing about pollution, safety or freedom.

Social indicators: literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, calorie intake and doctors per person

The social indicators describe people's lives rather than the size of the economy, and they are usually better at showing what development means for an ordinary family.

Literacy rate is the percentage of adults who can read and write. It reflects the reach of the school system and it matters for development because literacy is needed for most paid work, for understanding health advice and for taking part in decisions. Life expectancy is the average number of years a baby born today can expect to live, and it summarises the whole range of health conditions in a country: food, clean water, sanitation, medicine, safety and the risk of war. Infant mortality rate is the number of babies who die before their first birthday per 1,000 live births, and it is one of the most sensitive indicators of development because babies are the most vulnerable to dirty water, poor nutrition and a lack of health care.

Calorie intake is the average number of calories eaten per person per day, which shows whether people have enough food. Below a certain level, people are undernourished and cannot work or learn properly. Doctors per person measures how much medical care is available, usually written as the number of doctors per 1,000 or per 100,000 people. A country can have modern hospitals in its capital and almost none in its rural areas, so this indicator describes an average availability rather than what any particular family can actually reach.

These indicators are useful because they measure outcomes, not money. A country can raise its GNI by exporting oil while its literacy rate and life expectancy stay low, because the income went to a small group or to foreign companies. Conversely, a country can improve life expectancy quickly with clean water, vaccination and basic health care even before its income rises much. That is why the social indicators are used alongside the economic ones, and why a good answer always mentions both types.

The Human Development Index, and how useful indicators really are

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index: a single number that combines several indicators so that health, education and income are all counted at once. It is built from three parts: health, measured by life expectancy; education, measured by years of schooling; and income, measured by GNI per person. Each country's score is placed between 0 and 1, and countries are then grouped as having very high, high, medium or low human development.

The HDI exists because no single indicator is enough. GNI per person tells you about income but nothing about health or education, and life expectancy tells you about health but nothing about income. By combining them, the HDI gives a fuller picture of development, and it can show up countries that earn a lot from one resource but do not turn it into better lives for their people.

How useful is it? The HDI is useful because it combines economic and social measures, so it compares countries more fairly than income alone; because it is calculated the same way for every country, so comparisons are consistent; and because it is updated every year, so you can see whether a country is improving. It is limited because it is still an average that hides inequality within a country; because it ignores important parts of quality of life such as political freedom, safety, the environment and inequality between men and women; because it depends on data that some low-income countries cannot collect accurately, so the figures are estimates; and because it says nothing about how sustainable a country's development is, since a country can score well while using up its forests, soil or groundwater.

• Composite index: one figure built from several indicators, here health, education and income.
• Health: life expectancy. Education: years of schooling. Income: GNI per person.
• Scores run from 0 to 1, and countries are grouped as very high, high, medium or low human development.
• Useful because it combines economic and social measures, uses the same method for every country, and is updated each year so progress can be tracked.
• Limited because it is an average that hides inequality, ignores political freedom, safety and the environment, relies on data that may be incomplete, and says nothing about sustainability.

Factors affecting quality of life and standard of living

A country's level of development is not the only thing that decides how well an individual lives, and questions often ask you to explain what else matters.

Income and employment come first, because income buys food, housing, clothing, health care and education. Secure, formal employment with a contract and a pension supports a much better standard of living than casual work with no security, even at the same daily wage, because the household can plan and can borrow. Education and skills then decide what income is possible: a literate, trained population earns more, understands health advice, and can use technology and take part in decisions.

Health and access to services affect quality of life directly and are themselves affected by income. Clean water, sanitation, electricity, a clinic within reach and a school within reach change daily life more than a small rise in average income does. So does housing: secure, well-built housing with piped water and a drain is safer, healthier and less stressful than an insecure home on marginal land, whatever the household earns.

Government and political factors decide how far national income turns into better lives. Where the state provides schools, clinics, clean water and social security, and where people can hold it to account, development reaches further down the income scale. Where money is lost to corruption, spent on conflict or concentrated in one favoured region, a rising national income can leave most people where they were. Conflict and insecurity destroy quality of life directly, by killing and displacing people, and indirectly, by stopping children going to school and farmers planting crops.

Environment and location matter too. Air and water pollution, and the risk of floods, droughts and landslides, damage health and livelihoods, and these risks fall hardest on the poorest households, who cannot afford to move or to buy their way out. Social and cultural factors complete the picture: whether girls and boys are educated equally, whether a family belongs to a group that faces discrimination, and whether women can take paid work all change the quality of life of a whole household, not just of one person.

The world is developing unevenly: LICs, MICs, HICs and the development gap

The World Bank groups the world's economies by income, using GNI per person in US dollars as its measure. Low-income countries (LICs) have the lowest income per person. Middle-income countries (MICs) sit between the other two groups and are split into lower middle income and upper middle income. High-income countries (HICs) have the highest income per person. The thresholds are revised each year, so countries move between the groups as their economies change, and the labels are a starting description rather than a fixed property of a country.

The global pattern follows the groups closely. Most HICs are in Europe, North America and East Asia, together with Australia and New Zealand. Most MICs are in Latin America, eastern Europe, South-East Asia, North Africa and parts of the Middle East, and they contain a large share of the world's people. Most LICs are in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Within that broad pattern there are sharp contrasts: a country can be a MIC overall while containing regions as poor as any LIC, and a single city in a MIC can be as wealthy as an HIC.

The difference between the richest and the poorest countries is called the development gap, and the syllabus asks for the reasons for it, sorted into social, economic and environmental factors. It is worth remembering that these factors reinforce each other: a country with few schools has a less skilled workforce, which attracts less investment, which means less tax revenue for schools.

• Social factors: levels of education and literacy, health and access to clean water, population growth rates, the position of women and girls in society, and the effects of conflict and displacement.
• Economic factors: the structure of the economy, so dependence on one or two primary products such as a single crop or mineral rather than manufacturing and services; the prices paid for those exports; the cost of borrowing and the burden of debt; the level of investment and the quality of infrastructure such as roads, ports and electricity.
• Environmental factors: climate, especially drought, unreliable rainfall and tropical disease; soil quality and the risk of soil erosion and desertification; the frequency of floods, cyclones and other hazards; and being landlocked, which raises the cost of exporting and importing.
• Historical and political factors: colonial economies that were organised to export raw materials rather than to develop local industry; war and political instability; corruption; and government decisions about how revenue is spent.
• Trade and global systems: tariffs and subsidies that make it hard for poorer countries to sell processed goods, and the share of the final price that goes to the processors, shippers and retailers rather than to the producer.

Achieving sustainable development: strategies, techniques and evaluation

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of people today without preventing future generations from meeting their own needs. That definition comes from the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future, published in 1987, and it contains two ideas you must separate in an answer: meeting present needs, which includes reducing poverty and providing food, water, housing and health care, and not damaging the resources and environment that future generations will depend on.

Social strategies try to improve people's lives directly. Primary education and adult literacy programmes, especially for girls, raise the skills of the whole workforce. Basic health care, clean water and sanitation cut disease and infant deaths quickly. Family planning services and women's employment reduce birth rates and slow population growth. Land reform gives small farmers secure title, which encourages them to invest in the soil. Microfinance provides small loans to people too poor to borrow from a bank, which is how the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh helped people start small businesses.

Economic strategies try to raise income in ways that last. Investing in education, roads, ports, electricity and reliable communications makes a country more attractive to business. Developing manufacturing and services rather than relying on one or two raw materials makes an economy less vulnerable to price falls. Fair trade schemes guarantee farmers a minimum price and a premium for community projects. Regional development, such as building infrastructure and industry outside the capital, spreads growth. Debt relief reduces the repayments that would otherwise take a large share of government revenue, under schemes such as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative, in return for spending the savings on health and education.

Environmental strategies try to protect the resources that development depends on. Sustainable farming techniques such as terracing, contour ploughing, crop rotation and agroforestry reduce soil erosion and keep yields up. Reforestation, protected areas and community forest management protect forests and the water supply. Renewable energy such as solar and hydroelectric power provides electricity without the pollution and fuel imports of coal and oil. Sustainable urban management, with piped water, sanitation, drainage and waste collection, makes cities healthier and reduces flood risk.

International aid is the fourth strand, and it comes in several forms that must not be confused. Bilateral aid is given by one government directly to another. Multilateral aid is given by governments to international organisations such as the World Bank or United Nations agencies, which then distribute it. Non-governmental organisation (NGO) aid is raised by charities such as Oxfam and delivered through local partners. Emergency or humanitarian aid responds to disasters with food, water, shelter and medicine. Long-term or development aid funds schools, clinics, roads, irrigation and training, and it is the kind that can raise a country's level of development rather than just saving lives in a crisis.

Evaluate the strategies honestly, because this is where the top marks are. Trade can raise income far more than aid ever could, because it is earned year after year and it is controlled by the country itself; but world prices for primary products fluctuate, richer countries protect their own farmers with tariffs and subsidies, and producers receive only a small share of the final price of a product such as coffee or cocoa, so trade can leave a country dependent and vulnerable. Aid saves lives quickly in an emergency and can fund schools, clinics and infrastructure that a poor government could not afford alone; but it can be tied to buying goods from the donor country, it can be lost to corruption or to a conflict, it can undercut local producers and traders, and long-term dependence on it can weaken a government's accountability to its own citizens. Debt relief frees government revenue immediately and, where it is tied to spending on health and education, it improves people's lives directly; but it only helps countries that already qualify, it requires reforms that can be unpopular, and relief does not stop new debt being taken on. Microfinance reaches people no bank will serve, but the loans are small and can leave borrowers in debt if the business fails. Fair trade raises and stabilises farmers' incomes, but it covers only a small share of world trade and the certification costs can be hard for the smallest farmers to meet.

A strong evaluation ends with a judgement. The strategies that do most to reduce uneven development are usually those that build a country's own capacity: education, health, infrastructure and the chance to sell processed and manufactured goods rather than raw materials. Aid and debt relief matter most where they are predictable, untied, and spent through the country's own systems on health, education and infrastructure, and they work best when they are combined with trade rules that let poorer countries sell what they produce.