Suchergebnisse

The paper analyzes how the UNDP, the World Bank, and the IMF classify countries based on their level of development. These systems are found lacking in clarity with regard to their underlying rationale. The paper argues that a country classification system based on a transparent, data-driven methodology is preferable to one based on judgment or ad hoc rules. Such an alternative methodology is developed and used to construct classification systems using a variety of proxies for development attainment

Cross-country growth regressions have become an increasingly common tool in empirical development research. But these regressions typically do not attempt to distinguish among countries in different stages of development. Two empirical methods are used to test for such differences. Several of the factors known to affect economic growth are shown to operate differently for countries in different portions of the global income distribution. The results have implications for the role of financial markets, openness and human capital in promoting growth.

The hypothesis that countries pass through 3 successive phases of development--an initial phase of stationary or slow growth, a phase when the growth rate is increasing, & a phase of decreasing growth--was confirmed using regression on 2 equations for growth acceleration. The sample consisted of 48 less developed countries & 25 developed countries which meet the following tests: at least a 7 year data sample, gross domestic product greater than .5 billion, population larger than 2,000,000, & political stability. Data were taken from the UN Statistical Yearbook, when available, & covered 2 periods: 1953-1963 & 1958-1968. Results are explained & deviant cases are discussed. 3 levels of countries were identified: less developed, developing, & developed. Less developed countries are lagging while the gap between developing & developed countries is closing. Additional calculations were presented substituting percentage of agricultural population for per capita product; the statistical fit was not as good as with the earlier calculations. 5 Figures. Modified HA.

WITH A GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT (GNP) OF 355 MILLION DOLLARS, I.E. 4 PERCENT OF THE WORLD GNP, THE AFRICAN CONTINENT IS ECONOMICALLY THE LEAST DEVELOPED REGION. DURING THE 1980S AFRICA UNDERWENT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DECLINE COMBINED WITH WORSENING EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FINANCIAL IMBALANCES. THE MAGHRED, SOUTHERN AFRICA, AND NIGERIA CONSTITUTE AREAS THAT HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT WITH MUCH POTENTIAL.

The paper deals with evaluation of development level of new European Union members and 3 acceding counties. Authors elaborate existing systems of indicators and modern ranking methods used for indicated purpose. Presented analysis argues for superiority of statistical methods over qualitative ones in process of qualified evaluation of development level achieved by particular countries. New system comprising 12 indicators has been presented. The chosen set of indicators have emphasized three the most important dimensions, which provide stability of countries: economical, social and environmental. Evaluation of development tendencies during the last years of new the EU members and ascending countries has been done. Closer look at development level achieved by chosen countries comparing to that of EU‐15 has been taken. First published online: 14 Oct 2010

The paper deals with evaluation of development level of new European Union members and 3 acceding counties. Authors elaborate existing systems of indicators and modern ranking methods used for indicated purpose. Presented analysis argues for superiority of statistical methods over qualitative ones in process of qualified evaluation of development level achieved by particular countries. New system comprising 12 indicators has been presented. The chosen set of indicators have emphasized three the most important dimensions, which provide stability of countries: economical, social and environmental. Evaluation of development tendencies during the last years of new the EU members and ascending countries has been done. Closer look at development level achieved by chosen countries comparing to that of EU‐15 has been taken. First Published Online: 14 Oct 2010