Class 10 Economics · Chapter 1 NotesDevelopment

Development or progress means different things to different people because their life situations are different. A landless rural labourer wants more days of work, better wages, a good local school and an end to social discrimination. A prosperous farmer from Punjab wants high support prices and cheap labour. A farmer who depends only on rain wants better irrigation. A girl from a rich urban family wants as much freedom as her brother and the chance to decide her own life. An adivasi from the Narmada valley may oppose a large dam that submerges his land. So, what is development for one person may be destructive for another. People seek not only higher income but also equal treatment, freedom, security and respect. These non-material goals matter a great deal and cannot always be measured in money.

• Different persons can have different developmental goals.
• What may be development for one may not be development for another; it may even be destructive.
• People seek a mix of goalsincome plus equal treatment, freedom, security and respect.

Just as individuals have different goals, different groups within a country may have different and even conflicting ideas about what national development should mean. For example, building a large dam may give more electricity to industries and cities, but it may displace tribals and farmers from their land. So, when we think of national development, we have to ask important questions: Can all ideas be treated as equally important? If there is a conflict, how should we decide? What would be a fair and just path for all? Would an idea benefit a large number of people or only a small group? National development means thinking carefully about these questions and trying to find a path that benefits the largest number of people without harming others unfairly.

• National development involves resolving conflicts between different groups.
• A fair path considers whether the idea benefits a large number of people or only a small group.

When we compare countries, income is often used as an important measure. The total income of a country is the income of all its residents, but comparing total income is not useful because countries have different populations. So, we use average income, also called per capita income, which is the total income of the country divided by its total population. The World Bank uses per capita income to classify countries. In 2024, countries with per capita income of US$ 66,500 per annum and above were called high-income or rich countries, and those with per capita income of about US$ 2,300 or less were called low-income countries. India's per capita income in 2024 was about US$ 11,000 per annum, so it is a low middle income country.

• Per capita income = total income of the country ÷ total population.
• World Bank classifies countries based on per capita income.
• High-income countriesper capita income of US$ 66,500 and above (2024).
• Low-income countriesper capita income of about US$ 2,300 or less (2024).

Average income is useful for comparison, but it hides disparities. Two countries can have the same average income, yet the distribution of income may be very different. In one country, incomes may be fairly equal, while in another, most people may be poor and one person extremely rich. The average does not tell us how income is distributed. Also, money in your pocket cannot buy all the goods and services you need to live well. It cannot buy a pollution-free environment, unadulterated medicines or protection from infectious diseases unless the whole community takes preventive steps. So, income by itself is not a completely adequate indicator of development.

• Averages hide disparities in income distribution.
• Money cannot buy a clean environment, good health or security for an individual alone.
• Income is an important but incomplete measure of development.

When we compare states, we find that per capita income alone does not tell the full story. For example, Haryana had a higher per capita income than Kerala in 2023–24, but Kerala had a much lower Infant Mortality Rate and a higher literacy rate and net attendance ratio. Kerala's low Infant Mortality Rate is because it has adequate provision of basic health and educational facilities. This shows that money in your pocket cannot buy all the goods and services you need to live well. Public facilities such as schools, health centres and the Public Distribution System (PDS) are essential. Collective provision of goods and services is often cheaper and more effective than individual provision.

• Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)number of children dying before age one per 1,000 live births.
• Literacy Rateproportion of literate population in the 7-and-above age group.
• Net Attendance Ratiopercentage of children in the 15–17 age group attending school.
• Public facilities like schools, health centres and PDS are crucial for development.

Because income alone is inadequate, we need other criteria. Health and education indicators are widely used along with income. The Human Development Report published by the UNDP compares countries based on educational levels, health status and per capita income. The Human Development Index (HDI) ranks countries. For example, in the Human Development Report 2025, Sri Lanka ranked 89th, India 130th, Myanmar 150th, Pakistan 168th, Nepal 145th and Bangladesh 130th. Though Nepal and Bangladesh have lower per capita income than India, they are better than India in life expectancy. This shows that development is about people—their health and well-being—and not just about income.

• HDI stands for Human Development Index.
• UNDP compares countries using education, health and per capita income.
• Life Expectancy at birthaverage expected length of life of a person at birth.
• Per capita income in HDI is calculated in dollars using purchasing power parity so that it can be compared across countries.

Development must be sustainable so that it can continue for future generations. Since the second half of the twentieth century, scientists have warned that present levels of development are not sustainable. Groundwater is an example of a renewable resource that is being overused in many parts of India. About 300 districts have reported a water level decline of over 4 metres in the past 20 years. Non-renewable resources like crude oil will get exhausted after a few years of use. The world's crude oil reserves will last only about 47 years if extraction continues at the present rate. Environmental degradation does not respect national boundaries, so sustainability is a global concern. We must ask where we want to go and what our goals are, keeping the future in mind.

• Renewable resources are replenished by nature, e.g., groundwater, crops.
• Non-renewable resources are exhaustible, e.g., crude oil.
• Groundwater overuse is a serious problem in many parts of India.
• Crude oil reserves are limited and will not last forever.