A country's per capita income rises steadily for a decade, but over the same period its public distribution s…

Question

A country's per capita income rises steadily for a decade, but over the same period its public distribution system weakens, rural school attendance drops, and more children die before their first birthday. Is it accurate to call this country 'more developed' at the end of the decade? Justify your answer by examining what development should actually measure, and connect this to how organisations like the UNDP approach the question differently from a purely income-based measure.

Accepted Answer

## Model Answer No, it is not accurate to call this country 'more developed' simply because per capita income has risen. **Income alone is an inadequate measure.** As the textbook states, "even though the level of income is important, yet it is an inadequate measure of the level of development." A weakening public distribution system, falling school attendance, and rising infant mortality all indicate that citizens' actual well-being has worsened despite higher average income. **Averages hide disparities.** Rising per capita income may benefit only the wealthy, while the poor face worse health and education outcomes — exactly the problem illustrated by Country B in Table 1.2. **Development must measure human well-being.** The UNDP's Human Development Index (HDI) compares countries on **per capita income + life expectancy + educational levels** together. As the passage states, "it is people, their health, their well-being, that is most important." The example of Sri Lanka — lower incom…

Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question