You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 12 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson introduces the concept of human development and the various ways it is defined, measured and compared across countries. It forms the foundation for Edexcel A-Level Geography, Paper 2 (9GE0), Topic 8A: Health, Human Rights and Intervention. This lesson addresses the Edexcel Enquiry Question: "What is human development and how does it vary globally?"
Understanding how development is measured matters because the indicators we choose shape the policies we pursue. A country that defines development purely as economic growth will invest in different things than one that prioritises health, education and equality. As Amartya Sen argued, the purpose of development is to expand human freedoms — not simply to grow national income.
Development is the process of improvement in the quality of life and the economic, social and political conditions of a society. However, development is a contested concept — different theorists, governments and organisations define it in fundamentally different ways.
The traditional approach defines development in purely economic terms:
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), established in 1990, championed a broader view of development based on the work of economists Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq. Sen's capability approach argues that development should be measured not by income alone but by the freedoms and capabilities people have — their ability to live long, healthy lives, to be educated, and to enjoy a decent standard of living.
Mahbub ul Haq, a Pakistani economist who founded the Human Development Report, famously stated: "The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choices." This philosophical shift — from measuring what a country produces to measuring what its people can do and become — was revolutionary and remains the foundation of the UNDP's approach.
Exam Tip: When discussing development, always acknowledge that it is a contested concept. Examiners reward answers that show awareness of the debate between economic and human-centred definitions. Referencing Sen's capability approach demonstrates theoretical sophistication.
| Indicator | Definition | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| GDP (Gross Domestic Product) | Total value of goods and services produced within a country's borders | Simple, widely available, allows international comparison | Ignores income distribution, informal economy, environmental costs |
| GNI (Gross National Income) | GDP plus net income received from abroad (remittances, investments) | Better captures income flowing to citizens, not just production | Still an average — masks inequality; does not measure wellbeing |
| GDP per capita (PPP) | GDP divided by population, adjusted for purchasing power parity | Accounts for different price levels between countries | Still ignores distribution; PPP calculations can be unreliable |
| GNI per capita (Atlas method) | GNI divided by population using World Bank Atlas exchange rates | Used for official country classifications; smooths exchange rate fluctuations | Does not account for purchasing power differences |
Key data examples:
Economic indicators alone fail to capture development because:
Exam Tip: The Edexcel specification expects you to evaluate measures of development. Always discuss at least two limitations of any measure you introduce, and suggest what alternative measures could address those gaps.
The HDI was developed by the UNDP in 1990 and is published annually in the Human Development Report. It was designed to shift the focus of development from national income to people-centred policies.
The HDI is a composite index combining three dimensions of human development:
graph LR
A["HDI<br/>(composite index<br/>0 to 1)"] --> B["HEALTH<br/>Life expectancy<br/>at birth"]
A --> C["EDUCATION<br/>Mean years of schooling<br/>+ Expected years of schooling"]
A --> D["STANDARD OF LIVING<br/>GNI per capita<br/>(PPP $)"]
style A fill:#1565c0,color:#fff
style B fill:#c62828,color:#fff
style C fill:#2e7d32,color:#fff
style D fill:#f57f17,color:#000
Each dimension is normalised to a value between 0 and 1, and the HDI is the geometric mean of the three dimension indices (not the arithmetic mean — the geometric mean penalises imbalance between dimensions). Countries are classified as:
| HDI Category | HDI Value | Examples (2024 Report, 2023 data) |
|---|---|---|
| Very high human development | 0.800 and above | Switzerland (0.967), Norway (0.966), UK (0.940), USA (0.927) |
| High human development | 0.700–0.799 | Brazil (0.760), China (0.788), Mexico (0.781) |
| Medium human development | 0.550–0.699 | India (0.644), Bangladesh (0.620), Kenya (0.601) |
| Low human development | Below 0.550 | Chad (0.394), South Sudan (0.381), Somalia (0.380) |
The IHDI adjusts the HDI for inequality in each of its three dimensions. If there were perfect equality within a country, the IHDI would equal the HDI. The greater the inequality, the lower the IHDI falls below the HDI. The difference between the HDI and the IHDI, expressed as a percentage, represents the "loss" in human development due to inequality.
Key examples:
Exam Tip: The IHDI is an excellent indicator to reference when evaluating the HDI. It demonstrates that you understand the limitation of national averages and can apply a more nuanced measure.
The GDI measures gender gaps in human development by calculating separate male and female HDI values and comparing them. It uses the same three dimensions as the HDI (health, education, income) but disaggregated by sex. The GDI is the ratio of female HDI to male HDI.
The MPI, developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and the UNDP, identifies the simultaneously disadvantaged — people who are deprived across multiple dimensions at the same time. It measures ten indicators across three dimensions:
graph TB
A["Multidimensional<br/>Poverty Index (MPI)"] --> B["HEALTH<br/>(1/3 weight)"]
A --> C["EDUCATION<br/>(1/3 weight)"]
A --> D["LIVING STANDARDS<br/>(1/3 weight)"]
B --> B1["Nutrition"]
B --> B2["Child mortality"]
C --> C1["Years of schooling"]
C --> C2["School attendance"]
D --> D1["Cooking fuel"]
D --> D2["Sanitation"]
D --> D3["Drinking water"]
D --> D4["Electricity"]
D --> D5["Housing"]
D --> D6["Assets"]
style A fill:#6a1b9a,color:#fff
style B fill:#c62828,color:#fff
style C fill:#2e7d32,color:#fff
style D fill:#e65100,color:#fff
A person is identified as multidimensionally poor if they are deprived in at least one-third of the weighted indicators. As of 2024, approximately 1.1 billion people across 110 countries are multidimensionally poor. Critically, approximately 83% of multidimensionally poor people live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The MPI reveals that approximately 593 million of these live in sub-Saharan Africa and approximately 389 million in South Asia.
The MPI's strength is that it shows who is poor, how they are poor and where they are poor — allowing targeted policy interventions. For example, if a region's MPI is driven primarily by lack of sanitation and clean water rather than lack of education, policy can be tailored accordingly.
The Gini coefficient measures income inequality within a country on a scale from 0 (perfect equality — everyone has the same income) to 1 (perfect inequality — one person has all the income). It is often expressed as a percentage (0–100). It is derived from the Lorenz Curve, which plots the cumulative share of income against the cumulative share of the population.
| Country | Gini Coefficient | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 0.63 | Extremely unequal — legacy of apartheid |
| Brazil | 0.53 | Very unequal — deep racial and regional divides |
| USA | 0.39 | Relatively unequal for a HIC |
| UK | 0.35 | Moderate inequality |
| Norway | 0.27 | Relatively equal |
| Slovakia | 0.23 | One of the most equal countries |
The Gini coefficient is valuable because it focuses specifically on distribution — something the HDI and GDP miss. However, it only measures income inequality, not wealth inequality (which is typically much greater), and it does not reveal where in the distribution the inequality lies (top vs bottom, middle vs extremes). Two countries can have the same Gini coefficient but very different distributions — one might have a small ultra-rich elite and a large very poor population, while another might have a more gradual gradient. Additionally, the Gini does not capture access to public services — two countries with identical Gini coefficients might differ enormously in healthcare and education provision, which effectively redistribute resources even if income is unequal.
The choice of development indicator shapes what policies governments pursue:
Case study — Kerala, India: Kerala has a GDP per capita well below the Indian average, yet its HDI (0.782 in 2021) is comparable to some upper-middle-income countries. Life expectancy is 75.6 years (compared to India's national average of 70.8), the literacy rate is 96.2% (India average: 77.7%), and the total fertility rate is 1.5 (below replacement level). Kerala achieved this through sustained investment in public health and education, land reform in the 1960s and 1970s, and strong local government. The Kerala model demonstrates that human development does not require high income — it requires political will and equitable investment.
Case study — Equatorial Guinea: This small Central African nation has a GNI per capita (PPP) of approximately **16,410∗∗(2022)—anupper−middle−incomecountrybyWorldBankclassification.YetitsHDIisonly∗∗0.596∗∗(mediumhumandevelopment),lifeexpectancyis∗∗60.6years∗∗,andonly∗∗3035 million mansion in Malibu while most citizens lack basic services. This dramatically illustrates why economic measures alone are insufficient and why the resource curse (also known as the paradox of plenty) is a central concept in development geography.
Walt Rostow's (1960) Stages of Economic Growth model proposes that development follows a linear path through five stages: traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, drive to maturity, and age of high mass consumption. This theory views development as essentially economic growth and industrialisation, with Western countries as the model for all others.
Criticism: Rostow's model assumes a single pathway to development, ignores the role of colonialism in creating underdevelopment, and has been criticised as Eurocentric and ideologically motivated (Rostow subtitled his book "A Non-Communist Manifesto"). It fails to explain why some countries have experienced prolonged stagnation or regression, and it ignores the structural barriers (unfair trade rules, debt, brain drain) that prevent many LICs from following the Western trajectory.
Andre Gunder Frank (1966) argued that underdevelopment is not a natural starting point but a condition created by the exploitation of peripheral countries by core countries. Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin — the wealth of rich countries is built on the poverty of poor ones through colonial extraction, unfair trade terms and debt. Dependency theorists argue that the global economic system is structurally rigged to benefit the core at the expense of the periphery, and that integration into the global capitalist economy perpetuates rather than resolves inequality.
Wallerstein's world-systems theory extends this analysis, dividing the global economy into core (wealthy, industrialised), semi-periphery (intermediate) and periphery (poor, exploited) zones. The periphery provides raw materials and cheap labour to the core, which retains the high-value manufacturing and services.
Amartya Sen (1999) argued in Development as Freedom that development should be understood as the expansion of substantive freedoms — the capabilities people have to live the lives they value. Poverty is not just low income but the deprivation of basic capabilities: the ability to be well-nourished, to be educated, to participate in community life, to live without shame. Sen identified five types of freedom: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security.
Exam Tip: Theoretical frameworks are essential for achieving the highest marks on Edexcel 20-mark essays. Sen's capability approach is particularly useful because it connects development measurement to the broader themes of health and human rights that run through Topic 8A.
Development is a multidimensional concept that cannot be captured by any single indicator. Economic measures like GDP and GNI provide important information about a country's productive capacity but fail to capture distribution, wellbeing, health, education or freedom. The HDI offers a broader picture but still masks internal inequalities. Newer measures — the IHDI, GDI, MPI and Gini coefficient — each address specific limitations but introduce their own. Understanding why we measure development and what our chosen measures reveal (and conceal) is the essential foundation for the rest of this topic. As the case studies of Kerala and Equatorial Guinea demonstrate, the relationship between economic wealth and human development is not automatic — it depends on governance, policy choices and the distribution of resources.