- (i). its per capita income
- (ii). its average literacy level
- (iii). health status of its people
- (iv). all the above
Development is multidimensional and includes income, education and health.
(iv) all the above
- (i). Bangladesh
- (ii). Sri Lanka
- (iii). Nepal
- (iv). Pakistan
The chapter’s human-development comparison places Sri Lanka above India.
(ii) Sri Lanka
Total income = 4 × Rs 5000 = Rs 20,000. The known incomes total Rs 14,000, so the fourth income is Rs 20,000 − Rs 14,000 = Rs 6000.
Rs 6000
Grounded in ‘Income and Other Criteria’.
The World Bank mainly uses per capita income, calculated by dividing a country’s total income by its population. It enables comparison between differently sized populations, but an average hides how income is distributed. Countries with the same per capita income may have very different inequality, health, education, security and public services. It also does not measure sustainability or non-material goals such as dignity and freedom.
Grounded in the human-development comparison.
The World Bank classification relies chiefly on per capita income. The UNDP’s Human Development approach combines income with health and education, represented through measures such as life expectancy and schooling. It therefore asks not only how much income a country has, but whether people live long, knowledgeable and decent lives.
Sample example applying the chapter’s average-income discussion.
Averages summarise a large population in one comparable figure and adjust totals for different population sizes. Their limitation is that they conceal distribution. For example, two villages may each average Rs 10,000 per person: in one, everyone earns near that amount; in the other, one rich household earns most income while the rest are poor. Similarly, average school attendance can hide a large gender or caste gap. Averages should therefore be read with distributional and social indicators.
Balances the usefulness and insufficiency of income.
I do not agree that per capita income is useless. Income affects people’s ability to buy necessities and governments’ capacity to provide services, so it remains relevant. But Kerala’s stronger literacy, health outcomes and public facilities show that income alone is insufficient. Per capita income should be combined with education, life expectancy, nutrition, equality and access to public services to compare development fairly.
Open-ended model response consistent with the chapter’s sustainability theme.
People currently use coal-based electricity, petroleum fuels, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear energy, firewood, dung cakes and growing amounts of solar, wind and biogas. Fifty years from now, a model expectation is much greater reliance on solar and wind supported by storage, expanded grids, green hydrogen, safer nuclear power and electrified transport. Efficiency and decentralised renewable systems could reduce fossil-fuel use, though the transition depends on technology, cost and policy.
Grounded in ‘Sustainability of Development’.
Development that exhausts groundwater, minerals, forests or clean air can raise present output while reducing future wellbeing. Many resources are finite or recharge slowly, and pollution crosses state and national borders. Sustainability is therefore necessary to meet current needs without destroying the capacity of future generations to meet theirs. It requires conservation, renewable alternatives, efficient use and fair access.
Applies the quotation to equitable and sustainable development.
The statement distinguishes legitimate needs from unlimited accumulation. If development means ever-rising consumption by a few, resources are depleted, pollution grows and others lose access to basic requirements. True development should improve wellbeing broadly while using resources within ecological limits. Equity, efficiency, recycling and renewable energy allow needs to be met; greed turns development into exclusion and leaves future generations with scarcity.
Sample local response grounded in the chapter’s environmental concerns.
Possible observations include polluted drains and rivers, plastic waste in open spaces, smoke from traffic and waste burning, declining groundwater, loss of trees to construction, soil erosion, noise from vehicles and generators, and reduced local biodiversity. These examples show degradation of water, air, land and habitats.
Part (i) reads the printed data; part (ii) applies the chapter’s distinction between availability and development outcomes.
(i) Kerala has much lower undernutrition: 8.5 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women have below-normal BMI, compared with 28 per cent of both men and women in Madhya Pradesh. (ii) National food availability does not guarantee household access. Low incomes, unequal distribution, insecure work, high food prices, poor sanitation, disease, gender discrimination and weaknesses in public distribution can leave people unable to obtain or absorb a nutritious diet.