CBSE Class 10 Social Science Development NCERT Solutions

Solution: The correct option is (iv) all the above.

Development is a multifaceted concept. While per capita income (average income per person) is an important economic indicator, it doesn't provide a complete picture. To truly assess a country's development, we must also consider the average literacy level of its population and the health status of its people. Organizations like the UNDP use a composite index that includes these factors to compare development levels across nations.

Solution: The correct option is (ii) Sri Lanka.

When comparing human development, Sri Lanka consistently ranks higher than India and other neighboring countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. This is reflected in its Human Development Index (HDI) score, which indicates better achievements in education, health, and standard of living for its citizens compared to India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan.

Solution: The correct option is (iv) Rs 6000.

To find the income of the fourth family, we can use the formula for average per capita income:

$$Average\; \backslash ;\; per\; \backslash ;\; capita\; \backslash ;\; income\; =\; \backslash frac\{sum\; \backslash ;\; of\; \backslash ;\; income\; \backslash ;\; of\; \backslash ;\; all\; \backslash ;\; the\; \backslash ;\; families\}\{number\; \backslash ;\; of\; \backslash ;\; families\}$$

We are given:

• Average per capita income = Rs 5000
• Number of families = 4
• Income of three families = Rs 4000, Rs 7000, Rs 3000

Let the income of the fourth family be 'x'.

So, the sum of incomes of all four families = 4000 + 7000 + 3000 + x = 14000 + x.

Using the formula:

$$5000\; =\; \backslash frac\{14000\; +\; x\}\{4\}$$

Multiply both sides by 4:

$$5000\; \backslash times\; 4\; =\; 14000\; +\; x$$

$$20000\; =\; 14000\; +\; x$$

Now, solve for x:

$$x\; =\; 20000\; -\; 14000$$

$$x\; =\; 6000$$

Therefore, the income of the fourth family is Rs 6000.

Solution: The main criterion used by the World Bank for classifying countries is Per Capita Income (PCI).

Countries are categorized based on their PCI, typically as low-income, middle-income, and high-income economies. However, this criterion has significant limitations:

• Ignores Income Distribution: PCI is an average and does not reveal how income is distributed among the population. A country might have a high PCI, but this could be due to a few very wealthy individuals, while the majority of the population remains poor. This disparity is not captured by PCI alone.
• Excludes Non-Income Factors: Development is more than just income. PCI does not account for other crucial aspects of human well-being, such as the level of education, access to healthcare, infant mortality rates, environmental quality, and social freedoms. These factors significantly contribute to the overall development and quality of life in a country.
• Includes Non-Earners in Average: PCI is calculated by dividing the national income by the total population. This includes children, the elderly, and unemployed individuals who do not earn an income. Their inclusion in the denominator can lower the per capita income, even if the working population is earning well.

In essence, while PCI provides a useful starting point for comparison, it fails to provide a comprehensive or equitable picture of a country's development.

Solution: The criterion used by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for measuring development differs significantly from the World Bank's approach in the following respects:

• Scope of Measurement: The World Bank primarily uses Per Capita Income (PCI) as its main criterion for classifying countries. In contrast, the UNDP uses the Human Development Index (HDI), which is a more comprehensive measure.
• Indicators Used:
  • World Bank: Focuses solely on the economic aspect, specifically the average income of a country's citizens.
  • UNDP: Considers a broader range of factors that contribute to human well-being and development. These include:
    • Health: Measured by life expectancy at birth.
    • Education: Measured by indicators like the mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling.
    • Standard of Living: Measured by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (in Purchasing Power Parity terms).
• Focus: The World Bank's criterion emphasizes economic wealth, while the UNDP's HDI focuses on the capabilities and opportunities available to people, aiming to measure the quality of life and human potential.
• Classification: Based on HDI, countries are ranked and classified into different categories of human development (e.g., very high, high, medium, low). The World Bank classifies countries based on income levels (low, middle, high).

For example, as per HDI data, India's rank might be 135, indicating areas where development in health and education can be improved, even if its PCI places it in a different category according to the World Bank. The HDI provides a more nuanced understanding of development by looking beyond just economic output.

Solution: We use averages because they provide a simple and convenient way to summarize and compare large sets of data. Averages help us to understand the general trend or typical value within a group, making it easier to compare different entities.

Usefulness of Averages:

• Simplification: Averages condense complex data into a single, understandable figure. For instance, comparing the per capita income of two countries gives a quick idea of their relative economic standing.
• Comparison: They allow for straightforward comparisons between different groups or over time. For example, we can compare the average literacy rate of India in 2011 with that of 2021 to see progress.

Limitations of Averages:

Despite their usefulness, averages have significant limitations, especially when used to represent development:

• Hiding Disparities: An average can mask wide variations within the data. For example, if a country's average per capita income is high (say, Rs 1,00,000), it doesn't tell us if this income is evenly distributed. It's possible that a small portion of the population earns a very high income, while the majority earns much less, leading to poverty and inequality.
• Not Reflecting Distribution: Averages do not show how resources or income are distributed. Consider two states, A and B, both with a per capita income of Rs 50,000. State A might have 90% of its population earning between Rs 45,000 and Rs 55,000, indicating relative equity. State B, however, might have 10% of its population earning Rs 5,00,000 each, while the remaining 90% earns only Rs 15,000 each. Both have the same average, but State A offers a much better quality of life for the majority.
• Ignoring Non-Monetary Factors: Averages based solely on income (like PCI) ignore other vital aspects of development such as access to healthcare, quality of education, environmental sustainability, and social justice. A country might have a high average income but poor health facilities or high pollution levels, which are not reflected in the average income figure.

Example related to development:

Imagine two villages, Village X and Village Y. Both have an average monthly income of Rs 10,000 per household. However, in Village X, 80% of the households earn between Rs 8,000 and Rs 12,000, and the remaining 20% earn Rs 15,000. In Village Y, 10% of the households earn Rs 50,000 per month, while the other 90% earn only Rs 5,000 per month. While both villages have the same average income, Village X demonstrates a more equitable distribution and a better standard of living for a larger portion of its population, making it arguably more 'developed' in terms of social well-being than Village Y, despite the identical average.