Most of those people hate to leave their country, but they are moving because they realized that these dimensions are essentials for their lives. In a way they are searching for a better condition in different dimensions: education, health, security, economically, etc. These are different dimensions of development; it is multidimensional.
Sometimes people have an idea of what they will found somewhere else and can find proofs that it is humanly possible to achieve higher level of development, that is a development gap, implied in migration issues. Developed countries are more similar to themselves than undeveloped ones.
[...] How to compare incomes? Local prices are different, the quality of life varies, being rich or poor somewhere means something different in Switzerland than in Portugal or Ethiopia. GDP per capita using the PPP (purchasing power parity): to correct for the price differentials, for A and B to have comparable baskets. Essentially, it defines what the `typical basket consumption' is, how much it costs, and how many mouths this income can feed (because the same good can cost in different countries). [...]
[...] In income per capita, the standard measure is the growth rate of GDP. How much will produce a country in a year, then the next year and over times. We have here a very simple comparison of six parts of the world f the average annual growth rate. It means that we started to measure GDP per capita every year that will never be huge because in a year the economic situation of a country won't change dramatically, we usually do the same thing. [...]
[...] But decline is also possible: some countries have seen their development gap widen over time Conclusion : Development is multi-dimensional. There is no single perfect way of defining it along a single dimension. Development gap is wide across many dimensions and is often correlated across multiple dimensions. Development gap is dynamic. There are countries that were able to successfully close the development gap. [...]
[...] Worldwide income distribution is unequal. Back in time it did not look like that, being rich in one part of the world you were rich in other parts of the world too, but the distribution today being as wide, this is not valid anymore. On the left, we can see that the wealth in the world is concentrated in the top percentiles. In other words, there are few very rich people who got all the money. On the right: when the population is divided regionally, we can see that 75% of rich people (the top live in rich countries, although they are everywhere. [...]
[...] Because the value added of agriculture is smaller than the value of industries. This is important because the value of agriculture is smaller than the industry. This graph is very important because it tells us something in a simpler way about how globalisation and the share of people living from agriculture are two things highly correlated. We can see a clear negative correlation which means that when countries are richer, their share of workers in labour of agriculture declines. Rich countries in terms of income per capita are countries were only but a few people are working in labour. [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee