You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Despite significant global progress, many countries remain trapped in poverty. Understanding the barriers to economic development is essential for designing effective policies. This lesson examines the key obstacles — the poverty trap (the vicious cycle of poverty), the savings gap (Harrod-Domar), primary-product dependency and the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis, the resource curse and Dutch disease, debt, capital flight, poor infrastructure and weak institutions — drawing on important economic theories and well-established real-world evidence. The unifying analytical theme is that these barriers are interconnected and frequently self-reinforcing, which is why development is so hard to ignite.
This lesson addresses AQA A-Level Economics (7136), section 4.2.6 — The international economy (the economics of development), specifically the factors that affect growth and development and the barriers to economic development.
Assessment objectives in play:
The central organising idea of this topic is the poverty trap — a self-reinforcing cycle in which poverty perpetuates poverty. Low incomes mean low saving; low saving means low investment; low investment means a small and slowly growing capital stock; and a small capital stock means low productivity and hence low incomes — closing the loop.
flowchart LR
A[Low incomes] --> B[Low saving]
B --> C[Low investment]
C --> D[Small capital stock<br/>+ poor infrastructure]
D --> E[Low productivity]
E --> A
Key Definition: The poverty trap (or vicious circle of poverty) is a self-perpetuating cycle in which low income leads to low saving and investment, which keeps productivity and therefore income low, trapping a country in poverty.
The policy implication is powerful: because the cycle is circular, breaking it usually requires an external injection — foreign aid, FDI or borrowing to fund a "big push" of investment — large enough to lift saving and the capital stock past a threshold from which growth becomes self-sustaining. This idea links directly to the Harrod-Domar model below and to the strategies-for-development lesson, and it is why the savings gap is so central to development economics.
There are, in fact, several overlapping poverty-trap mechanisms, and a strong answer recognises that the cycle operates through more than capital alone. A human-capital trap runs in parallel: poor households cannot afford education or adequate nutrition, so their children grow up with low skills and health, earn low incomes as adults, and in turn cannot invest in their children — poverty transmitted across generations. A health trap compounds it: a heavy disease burden lowers productivity and life expectancy, which shortens the horizon over which education and saving pay off, discouraging both. And at the national level, a fiscal trap operates: low incomes and a large informal economy mean a narrow tax base, so the state cannot fund the health, education and infrastructure that would raise incomes and broaden the base. Because these traps reinforce one another, the central policy insight is that piecemeal intervention often fails — a country may need a coordinated push across capital, health and education simultaneously to escape, which is the intellectual basis of the "big push" argument for aid examined in the strategies lesson.
The Harrod-Domar model (Roy Harrod 1939, Evsey Domar 1946) links growth to saving and investment through a simple relationship:
g=ks
where:
A worked illustration makes the mechanism concrete. Suppose (hypothetically) a country saves 8% of national income (s=0.08) and its capital-output ratio is 4 (k=4). Then:
g=40.08=0.02=2%
If aid or FDI raised the effective savings ratio to 16% with the same capital-output ratio, growth would double to 4%:
g=40.16=0.04=4%
This is exactly why filling the savings gap — the shortfall between the saving a country generates and the investment it needs — is treated as a route out of the poverty trap.
Key Definition: The savings gap is the difference between the level of saving in an economy and the level of investment required to achieve a target rate of growth; in poor economies low incomes keep saving below the level needed to break the poverty trap.
A useful extension is the idea of two gaps. Many developing countries face not only a savings gap but also a foreign-exchange gap — a shortage of the hard currency (dollars, euros) needed to import the capital goods, machinery and technology that domestic industry cannot yet produce. Even if a country could somehow raise its domestic saving, it would still need foreign exchange to buy imported capital equipment, and its export earnings — often dependent on a few volatile commodities — may be insufficient. This is why export earnings, FDI, aid and remittances matter so much: each supplies foreign exchange as well as (in the case of FDI and aid) capital. The two-gap framing strengthens the case for external finance over relying on domestic saving alone, and it explains why a country can be simultaneously short of saving and short of dollars — a double bind that purely domestic policy cannot resolve. It also links directly to the balance-of-payments material in the macro syllabus, since the foreign-exchange gap is, in effect, a current-account constraint on development.
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Provides a clear, logical link between saving, investment and growth | Assumes a fixed capital-output ratio; in practice technology and efficiency change it |
| Highlights the importance of capital accumulation | Ignores the quality of investment — capital can be wasted or misallocated |
| Explains why aid and FDI can accelerate growth | Omits human capital, institutions, governance and structural factors |
| Simple and intuitive | Assumes saving is automatically channelled into productive investment, but weak financial systems may not do so |
Exam Tip: Harrod-Domar is frequently tested. Explain the g=s/k relationship, apply it numerically to a context, then evaluate: it identifies a necessary condition (capital) but not a sufficient one (institutions, governance, human capital). The strongest answers note that simply raising s achieves little if k is high because investment is poorly allocated.
Many developing countries depend heavily on exports of primary products — agricultural commodities (coffee, cocoa, cotton) and minerals (oil, copper, gold).
| Problem | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Price volatility | Because both supply and demand for commodities are price-inelastic, small shifts (weather, harvests, speculation) cause large price swings, so export revenues are unstable and planning is difficult. |
| Declining terms of trade | The Prebisch-Singer hypothesis holds that the terms of trade for primary products tend to fall over time relative to manufactures, because the income elasticity of demand (YED) for manufactures exceeds that for primary products. |
| Dutch disease | A resource boom can appreciate the real exchange rate, making other exports uncompetitive and hollowing out manufacturing — named after the Netherlands' North Sea gas experience. |
| Resource curse | Paradoxically, resource-rich economies often grow more slowly than resource-poor ones; Michael Ross (2001) and others link resource wealth to corruption, authoritarianism and conflict. |
| Low value added | Exporting raw materials earns less than exporting processed or manufactured goods, limiting income gains. |
The price-volatility problem is best understood through elasticities — a direct synoptic link to microeconomics. With steeply inelastic supply (it takes years to grow new coffee trees or sink a mine) and inelastic demand (commodities are necessities or small cost shares), any shift in either curve produces a large price change but only a small quantity change. Revenue therefore lurches, undermining the stable saving and investment the Harrod-Domar model requires.
Key Definition: The Prebisch-Singer hypothesis (Raúl Prebisch and Hans Singer, 1950) states that the terms of trade for primary-commodity exporters tend to decline over the long run relative to manufactures, because the income elasticity of demand for manufactured goods exceeds that for primary products — so as world incomes rise, demand (and price) for manufactures rises faster than for commodities.
The mechanism is best seen as a long-run downward trend in the terms of trade of primary producers.
Evaluation of Prebisch-Singer. Supporting: long-run series on commodity prices relative to manufactures broadly support a declining trend, and many commodity-dependent economies (e.g., several coffee and cocoa exporters) have indeed seen their terms of trade erode. Against: some commodities — notably oil and certain minerals — have seen long-run price increases; quality improvements in manufactures are imperfectly captured in price indices; and the hypothesis lumps all primary products into one category despite their diversity. The defensible conclusion is that Prebisch-Singer identifies a real tendency for many agricultural exporters, but it is neither universal nor a law — which is itself an evaluation point about over-relying on any single commodity.
The resource curse is the empirical observation that resource-rich economies often underperform resource-poor ones. The channels are: (i) Dutch disease (appreciation crowding out other tradables); (ii) revenue volatility (commodity-price swings destabilising the budget); (iii) rent-seeking and corruption (control of resource rents becomes the prize, diverting effort from productive activity); and (iv) weak institutions and conflict (resource wealth can entrench authoritarian rule and finance violence). This is a powerful synoptic link to government failure and market failure: the curse is fundamentally an institutional failure to convert natural-capital windfalls into broad-based, sustainable development. The crucial corollary — and a strong evaluation point — is that the curse is not inevitable: resource-rich economies with strong institutions and prudent revenue management (saving windfalls in sovereign-wealth funds, investing in diversification) have avoided it, confirming that the binding factor is governance, not geology.
Capital flight is the large-scale movement of financial assets and money out of a developing country — by domestic elites moving wealth abroad, or via illicit financial flows and profit-shifting. It directly worsens the savings gap: the very savings that could fund domestic investment instead leave the country, deepening the poverty trap. Capital flight is often a symptom of the institutional weaknesses below (insecure property rights, instability, corruption), illustrating again how the barriers reinforce one another.
Key Definition: Capital flight is the rapid outflow of financial capital from a country, typically driven by economic or political instability, insecure property rights, or the desire to evade taxation — reducing the domestic funds available for investment.
Corruption — the abuse of public power for private gain — is widely regarded as one of the most significant barriers to development.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.