You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
What does it mean to say that a society is "developed" or "developing"? The question sounds straightforward, yet it conceals some of the most contested arguments in the whole of sociology. Is development simply a matter of economic growth — more factories, more income, a bigger national economy? Or is it about something broader: the length and quality of people's lives, their health, their education, their freedom to live as they choose? And who decides what "development" should look like in the first place? When commentators in the Global North describe parts of the Global South as "backward" or "underdeveloped," whose standards are they using? This opening lesson of the Global Development option establishes the conceptual toolkit you will draw on throughout the topic. Before we can evaluate competing theories of why some societies are richer than others — modernisation theory, dependency theory, world-systems and neoliberal approaches — we must first be clear about what we mean by development and how it can be measured. As you will see, the apparently technical task of measurement is shot through with values, politics and the risk of ethnocentrism.
Key Definition: Development refers to the process by which a society improves the well-being of its members. Sociologists disagree about whether this is best understood narrowly, as economic growth, or broadly, as human development — the expansion of people's capabilities, freedoms and quality of life.
This lesson addresses the foundational specification content for the Global Development option:
Paper 2 is a single essay paper (2 hours, 80 marks across two options). In the Global Development option you will answer one 10-mark "applying material from the Item, analyse two…" question and one 20-mark "applying material from the Item, evaluate…" essay. Note: Paper 2 essays are worth 20 marks, not 30 — only Paper 1 and Paper 3 carry the longer essays.
The AQA specification rewards candidates who connect material across the course. The concept of development links to:
The single most important distinction in this topic is between an economic and a human conception of development.
The economic conception equates development with economic growth — the expansion of a country's production of goods and services, usually measured by national income. On this view, a society develops as it industrialises, raises productivity and increases the wealth available to its citizens. This was the dominant post-war understanding, and it underpins modernisation theory (which sees industrialisation as the engine of progress) and neoliberalism (which sees free-market growth as the route to prosperity).
The human conception rejects the assumption that growth automatically improves people's lives. It points out that a country can grow richer in aggregate while most of its people remain poor, sick or oppressed — if the gains are captured by a small elite, or spent on prestige projects rather than health and education. On this view, development should be measured by outcomes for human beings: how long people live, whether they can read, whether children survive infancy, whether women have the same opportunities as men. This broader conception underpins the Human Development Index and the work of Amartya Sen.
| Dimension | Economic conception | Human conception |
|---|---|---|
| What is development? | Economic growth — rising national output and income | Expansion of human well-being, capabilities and freedom |
| Key indicator | GDP / GNI per capita | Human Development Index; literacy; life expectancy |
| Associated theory | Modernisation theory; neoliberalism | Sen's capability approach; the SDGs |
| Assumption | Growth "trickles down" to improve lives | Growth is a means, not an end; distribution matters |
| Main criticism | Ignores inequality, well-being and sustainability | Composite measures involve value judgements and are harder to compare |
The most widely used economic indicators are Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI).
To compare living standards, economists usually divide these totals by population to give a per capita figure, and adjust for purchasing power parity (PPP) so that the same sum of money reflects what it can actually buy in different countries. These adjustments matter, but even a refined GDP-per-capita figure has well-rehearsed limitations:
For all these reasons, sociologists treat economic indicators as necessary but insufficient. They are useful, comparable and quantitative, but they measure the means of development rather than its ends.
In response to the limits of purely economic measures, the United Nations Development Programme introduced the Human Development Index (HDI) in its first Human Development Report in 1990. The intellectual architecture owes a great deal to the economist Mahbub ul Haq and to Amartya Sen.
The HDI is a composite index combining three dimensions, each intended to capture an essential aspect of a decent life:
These are combined into a single score between 0 and 1, allowing countries to be ranked. The point of the HDI is explicitly normative: it was designed to shift attention away from national wealth and towards the question of whether growth was actually improving people's lives.
The HDI is a major advance, but it is not above criticism:
The relationship between these conceptions and measures can be summarised as a branching tree:
flowchart TD
A["How should we define and measure development?"] --> B["Economic conception"]
A --> C["Human conception"]
B --> D["GDP / GNI per capita (PPP-adjusted)"]
D --> E["Strength: comparable, quantitative"]
D --> F["Weakness: hides inequality, ignores well-being"]
C --> G["Human Development Index"]
C --> H["Sen: development as freedom"]
G --> I["Combines life expectancy, schooling, income"]
H --> J["Capabilities and substantive freedoms"]
International efforts to define and measure development have been crystallised in two sets of global targets.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted by United Nations member states in 2000, set eight broad goals to be achieved by 2015 — including eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The MDGs were significant because they expressed an explicitly human conception of development: their indicators were health, education and gender, not simply national income.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) succeeded the MDGs in 2015, with a broader set of seventeen goals to be pursued to 2030. Crucially, the SDGs apply to all countries, rich and poor, and add a strong emphasis on environmental sustainability, inequality and decent work — implicitly conceding the criticism that earlier conceptions of development ignored ecological limits and treated development as something only poorer countries needed to undergo.
For the exam, the goals matter less as a list to memorise and more as evidence of a shift in how the international community defines development: away from growth alone and towards a multi-dimensional, human and increasingly environmental conception.
A recurring sociological critique is that the very concept of development is ethnocentric — that is, it judges all societies against the standards of the wealthy, industrialised West and treats the Western path as the natural destination for everyone.
This critique has several strands:
Writing about global development therefore requires care. The respectful register is to describe societies in terms of their circumstances (lower-income, formerly colonised, industrialising) rather than as deficient versions of the West, and to recognise the agency, knowledge and diversity of people across the Global South.
The recognition that single indicators are inadequate has driven the development of a wider family of measures, each capturing a dimension that GDP and even the basic HDI omit. You do not need to memorise technical detail, but you should appreciate the range of things "development" might be taken to include:
The proliferation of measures makes an important sociological point: there is no single, agreed yardstick for development because there is no single, agreed conception of what a good society is. Each new index is, in effect, an argument about what ought to count.
It is easy to treat development statistics as hard facts, but they are secondary quantitative data with all the validity problems that implies — an excellent applied example for Theory and Methods. Several difficulties recur:
The methodological upshot is that development indicators should be handled critically. They are useful comparative tools, but their reliability and validity vary, and treating them as neutral, exact measurements is itself a mistake — exactly the kind of source-evaluation that strengthens a sociological answer.
The most influential reconceptualisation of development is associated with the economist and philosopher Amartya Sen, whose work Development as Freedom reframed the whole debate.
Sen argued that development should be understood as the expansion of substantive freedoms — the real opportunities people have to live lives they have reason to value. Income, on this view, is merely a means; what matters is what people are actually able to do and be — to be nourished, healthy, educated, to participate in their community, to move freely.
Sen's framework is usually called the capability approach. Two ideas are central:
A society is developed, for Sen, to the extent that it expands people's capabilities. This explains why two countries with similar incomes can differ enormously in well-being: one may convert its resources into health, education and freedom far more effectively than the other. Sen's approach also reframes phenomena such as famine: he argued that famines are rarely caused by a sheer absence of food, but by the collapse of people's entitlements — their ability to command food — which is a question of freedom and distribution, not merely of agricultural output.
Sen's influence is enormous: the capability approach is the intellectual foundation of the HDI and a powerful articulation of the human conception of development. For evaluation, you should note both its strength (it captures what economic measures miss) and the practical difficulty it raises — capabilities and freedoms are far harder to measure and compare than income.
Crucially, Sen does not dismiss economic growth; he reframes its role. Income and growth remain important, but as means to the expansion of freedom rather than as ends in themselves. This is a more subtle position than a simple "human good, economic bad" contrast, and it is worth stating carefully in an essay: the disagreement between the economic and human conceptions is less about whether growth matters than about what growth is for. For Sen, a society that converts modest resources efficiently into health, education and freedom is more developed than a richer society that fails to do so — a judgement that explains why countries with similar incomes can differ so sharply in human outcomes.
A top-band answer does not merely list indicators — it argues a sustained line about how development should be defined and measured. A useful spine runs as follows:
Item A
For most of the twentieth century, development was measured almost entirely by economic growth, using indicators such as Gross Domestic Product. A country was judged "developed" if its national income was high. More recently, sociologists and international agencies have argued that this approach is far too narrow. They point out that a country can grow richer while most of its people remain poor, poorly educated and short-lived, and that measures of development should capture human well-being and freedom rather than national wealth alone.
Question 1 (10 marks): Applying material from Item A, analyse two limitations of using economic growth alone to measure development.
Question 2 (20 marks): Applying material from Item A and elsewhere, evaluate the view that development is best understood as the expansion of human well-being rather than economic growth.
AO breakdown (20-mark essay): AO1 (Knowledge and understanding) ≈ 8 marks; AO2 (Application — using the Item and applying concepts to the question) ≈ 4 marks; AO3 (Analysis and evaluation) ≈ 8 marks. The 10-mark question is marked AO1 (≈ 4), AO2 (≈ 2/3 — explicit use of the Item) and AO3 (≈ 3/4 — developing each limitation analytically).
One limitation in the Item is that a country can grow richer "while most of its people remain poor." This is because GDP is an average and does not show inequality. So the wealth might just go to a few rich people. Another limitation is that economic growth does not measure things like education and health, which the Item says matter. The Human Development Index was made to measure those things instead, so it is better than just using GDP.
The first limitation drawn from Item A is that a country can grow richer "while most of its people remain poor." This exposes the central weakness of GDP per capita: it is an average that conceals distribution. A rising national income tells us nothing about who receives it, so growth captured by a small elite registers as development even though the majority gain nothing. This matters because the economic conception assumes growth automatically improves lives, an assumption the Item directly challenges.
The second limitation is that economic measures ignore "education and well-being," which the Item identifies as central to development. This reflects the distinction between the economic and human conceptions of development. Amartya Sen argued that income is only a means; what matters is the expansion of people's capabilities — their real freedom to be educated, healthy and to participate in society. Because GDP measures output rather than these outcomes, it can rate a country highly even where life expectancy and literacy are low — which is precisely why the UN developed the Human Development Index to combine life expectancy, schooling and income into a fuller measure.
Examiner-style commentary: The Mid-band response identifies two valid limitations and correctly links them to the Item and to the HDI, but the analysis is thin — the points are asserted rather than developed, and no sociologist is named. The Top-band response explicitly anchors each limitation in the Item, names and explains the relevant concept (averages concealing distribution; Sen's capability approach), and analyses the implication for the economic conception of development (the false assumption that growth improves lives; output versus outcomes). This analytical development of two distinct, well-applied points is what lifts a 10-mark answer into the top band.
The view that development is about human well-being rather than economic growth reflects a shift from an economic to a human conception of development. The economic conception, associated with modernisation theory, equates development with rising GDP. But as the Item notes, a country can grow richer while its people stay poor, because GDP is an average that hides inequality and ignores the informal economy. Amartya Sen argued that income is only a means and that development should be measured by capabilities — people's real freedom to be healthy, educated and to participate in society. The Human Development Index, which combines life expectancy, schooling and income, reflects this human conception.
However, economic growth cannot simply be dismissed. Without resources, a country cannot fund the schools and hospitals that human development requires, so growth is at least a necessary means. There is also a problem with measuring well-being: composite indices like the HDI involve value judgements about what to include. Overall, while economic growth is necessary, it is not sufficient, so the human conception — development as the expansion of well-being and freedom — is the more convincing way to understand development, provided we remember that all such measures embed value judgements.
Examiner-style commentary: This is a competent Stronger-band essay: an accurate contrast of economic and human conceptions, well-applied use of the Item, Sen and the HDI deployed correctly, and a clear evaluative judgement. To reach the very top band it would need wider range — explicit treatment of the ethnocentrism critique, the MDGs/SDGs as evidence of the shift, and the link to dependency theory's claim that the wealth gap has colonial origins — and a more sustained analytical thread weaving these together rather than a two-sided list. The judgement is sound and the closing acknowledgement that measurement is value-laden is exactly the kind of nuance examiners reward.
This content is aligned with the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) specification.