The UNDP uses the Human Development Index (HDI) rather than per capita income alone to compare countries. Why is a composite index considered a more meaningful measure of development than income alone? Support your answer with any two dimensions that HDI captures beyond income.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:23 · grounding rag
Model Answer
Per capita income alone is an inadequate measure of development because it hides inequalities in distribution and ignores other aspects of human well-being. A composite index like HDI is more meaningful as it considers multiple dimensions of a person's life.
Two dimensions HDI captures beyond income:
- Health status – measured by Life Expectancy at birth. For example, Nepal and Bangladesh have lower per capita income than India yet have better life expectancy, showing income alone does not reflect health outcomes.
- Educational levels – measured by Mean Years of Schooling. Kerala, despite lower per capita income than Haryana, has a far better literacy rate (94%) and lower infant mortality, showing education matters as much as income.
Thus, HDI gives a more complete picture of human well-being.
Source: Chapter 1 — Development, sections "Income and Other Criteria" and "Human Development Report"
---
Explanation
- The examiner expects you to first state the limitation of per capita income (hides disparity, ignores well-being), then explain why a composite index is better, and finally name and briefly illustrate two non-income dimensions (health + education).
- Use data from the textbook (life expectancy, literacy rate, IMR) to support — this shows you've read the chapter and adds credibility.
- Avoid vague statements like "it is better overall." Be specific: name the indicators (Life Expectancy, Mean Years of Schooling/Literacy Rate) and link them to examples from Table 1.4 or 1.6.