The birth rate is another simple indicator and easy to understand. It represents the number of people born per thousand per year. Referring to the Demographic Transition Model, a high birth rate represents a country in the first two stages of the model such as Bangladesh, Peru and Kenya, indicating a low level of development due to no birth control or family planning. Families tend to produce more children as many do not survive and children are also needed to work on the land and look after the adults when they grow old. Some religious beliefs such as Roman Catholic, Islam and Hinduism encourage large families. A low birth rate indicates a country in stage 4 of the demographic transition model such as Canada, Japan and the USA because of availability of contraceptives and family planning and the option of abortion and sterilisation. This indicates a high level of development.
Although the birth rate can be considered as a clear indicator, again, it can be affected by population policies in countries such as China and figures in less developed countries are not necessarily accurate. However, it can be useful in predicting the future situation and planning accordingly as China did in deciding to take action in the form of the one child policy. Looking again at the Demographic Transition Model, the birth rate can be used to support the possibility of a stage 5 where the birth rate may be falling below the death rate to give a declining population in several Western European countries. This is due to people deciding to get married later in life, increasing career opportunities for women and the ability to control the number of children in a family and be able to spend money on luxuries such as cars, bigger homes and holidays and therefore have a more comfortable life.
The death rate is the number of people who die per thousand per year. This can give us a good idea of the level of health care, availability of hospitals and treatment, quality of water, sanitation, accommodation and food supply. Again, it is useful to refer to the Demographic Transition Model. A high death rate would represent countries in the first stage such as Ethiopia, Bangladesh and rainforest tribes where people are exposed to disease, and famine constantly threatens those who live there due to their dependence on crops and the climate. South East Asia for example relies on monsoons for the production of their food crops such as rice. If the monsoon rains are early or late, their food supply could be very limited for that year. They could also suffer from poor hygiene due to lack of piped, clean water and no sewage disposal and it is likely there are few doctors, hospitals or drugs. This would indicate a low level of development. A low death rate would include countries in stage 3 and 4 of the model such as Australia, Cuba, Japan and the USA where there are plenty of hospitals, vaccinations, new drugs, scientific inventions and care for those who need it. This indicates a high level of development. However, countries in the second stage of the model have a rapidly decreasing death rate due to improved sanitation and improvements in both the quality and quantity of the food supply but they still have a high birth rate suggesting that the level of development is not as high as countries with both a low birth rate and death rate.
The death rate in general indicates the level of health care, sanitation and living conditions of a country. As with the birth rate, figures for this indicator are not always accurate for less developed countries and it does not tell us what is responsible for a high death rate. Japan for example has an extremely high GDP so a high death rate in this country would more likely be due to a natural disaster as Japan is very close to a destructive plate margin. Likewise, San Francisco is on the San Andreas Fault where the North American and Pacific plate occasionally stick when sliding past each other and release pressure in the form of earthquakes. This was the case in 1989 when 60 people were killed as a result of collapsing flyovers in an suburban district of San Francisco. Another situation in which the death rate was extremely high for a highly developed country was the terrorist attack on America in 2001, when approx 2800 people were killed on September 11th. These unpredictable events have to be taken into consideration when comparing figures. If we did not know a country was well developed and looked at a table of figures for the death rate, we would assume that countries with a high death rate are less developed than those with a lower death rate.
Literacy rates are another indicator. This is the percentage of people that can read and write. This clearly indicates the availability of education and the extent to which children can get into education. In India for example, many children have to work to help support their families and so do not have the choice. This indicator tells us the amount of education on offer but does not tell us of other skills people might have that are equally useful in their situation. An accountant in London would not have the knowledge of farming techniques to provide food for his/her family to survive in India and ,vice versa, a farmer in India would not be educated enough to get a job in London and earn money to buy food. In less developed countries, this indicator shows us how many children can or cant attend school but it fails to tell us whether or not this figure is a consequence of too few schools or the fact that children are having to work.
Out of interest, one of the latest indicators used is the Big Mac indicator! Countries are ranked according to how long an average waged worker must work to be able to afford a Big Mac. We would expect this to show that highly developed countries earn more than those that are less developed. Considerations with this indicator would be the type of work the majority of people do in a country, the amount of money people need to afford food etc. (inflation) and political issues.
There are advantages and disadvantages for the indicators mentioned. Composite indicators have been developed to minimise the disadvantages and give a better idea of the level of development in a country. Examples of these include the “Human Suffering Index” and the “Human Development Index”. They both use several indicators.
For the Human Suffering Index, the country is ranked from 0 to 10 for each of the following indicators (0 is very good, 10 is very bad): Life expectancy, Daily calorie supply, Access to clean water, Per capital income, Civil rights, Political freedom, Inflation, Communications, Percentage of children in secondary school and Immunisation of infants. The ten indicators mentioned minimise the disadvantages of one. The countries scores are totalled and then ranked accordingly. The worst score a country could have is 100, the best 0. Currently, the worst countries using this index are Mozambique, Somalia and Afghanistan and the best countries are Denmark, The Netherlands and Belgium. This is interesting because the best countries using this score are not those with the highest GDP, which shows that even the most widely used indicator may not be very accurate and that some factors of highly developed countries are not directly linked to a country’s wealth.
The Human Development Index (HDI) uses fewer indicators than the one above, only using wealth, health and education and is calculated each year. The best score is “1” and the worst score “0”. This score can then be compared to GDP tables. If a country is higher up the HDI table than the GDP table, then it must be successfully investing in health and education. If it is below the GDP then it is not as successful. This is useful for countries to see if they should invest more money in services. Interestingly, Pakistan, Vietnam and Cuba are doing well using this index whilst Namibia, Morocco and Algeria are not. Again, the countries that are doing well at investing in health and education are not necessarily those with the highest GDP. The wealthiest countries might well be investing money in other areas, and have different priorities.
Understanding levels of development is important. It enables us to get an idea of what a country is like and to compare different countries. Indicators can be used on different levels. Locally, indicators such as the distance to the nearest bus stop, convenience shop, post office or the town centre could compare different villages. Nationally, crime rates or population densities could be compared in different cities. When moving from Reading to Boston in 2001, indicators on the internet showed that Boston had a relatively low crime rate and a low level of air pollution. Internationally, as well as the indicators mentioned in detail earlier, the number of people working in primary, secondary and tertiary industries could be compared in different countries. From this we could assume that the country with the highest percentage of people working in tertiary industries is most developed, although there would be other factors to be taken into consideration.
Indicators could be used to measure how many cities in a country there are, assuming that the more cities there are in a country, the more developed it would be. The GDP shows that the UK, USA & Japan are the wealthiest countries and this agrees with the assumption as these countries have many cities. Cities are urbanised areas with lots of industries and high population densities, therefore it would be expected that the GDP of these areas would be high with lots of employment and a generally wealthy economy. However there are exceptions. India is a very large country with many cities but its GDP is not particularly high, largely due to minimal government investment in commerce and infrastructure. On the other hand, Middle East oil countries such as Saudi Arabia are developed but do not have a large number of cities, despite having all the characteristics of a city in the UK, although the oil reserves have undoubtedly been an advantage in speeding up the country’s development. Therefore, the number of cities in a country is not necessarily an accurate way of measuring a country’s development.
All of the indicators mentioned tell us information about a country’s state of development. Separately they do not give us a very accurate overall picture but together we can get a good idea of what the country is like. They all have advantages and disadvantage so general knowledge is important when looking at statistics in a table, as natural disasters, war & epidemics of disease cannot be explained by a value. The more you learn about a place, the less biased you will be when looking at general figures. All of these indicators come from a very Western point of view. The most widely used indicator, the GDP, is directly linked to money and this is worth taking into consideration as it could be argued that it is not fair to value all societies by this. A high GDP does not necessarily mean there is a fair distribution throughout the country. For some people, gold has no value and material possessions are not as important as they are in our modern society. The need for hospitals and doctors in developing countries is perhaps less than developed countries. Stress seems to come with economic development as cancer and heart disease are two of the biggest killers in the Western World, yet they are very rare in the developing world. Development also leads to the destruction and pollution of our natural environment which could also be a contributory factor to common health problems in developed countries. In a way, developed and developing countries can not be compared as two extreme lifestyles have both benefits and disadvantages. However, we can still learn a lot by looking at indicators of a country’s state of development.
