Activity Term 1 – Development Economics

World Bank Indicators (2014 vs 2018)

Author

Mauricio Bustos, Karen Aldana y Jeferson Velandia

Published

February 20, 2026

1 Point 1 — Richest, Poorest, and Ratio (GDP per capita & PPP)

indicator year richest_country richest_value poorest_country poorest_value ratio_richest_to_poorest
GDP per capita (current US\() | 2014|Monaco | 195693.6|Burundi | 250.54| 781.07| |GDP per capita (current US\)) 2018 Monaco 188298.3 Burundi 245.66 766.49
GDP per capita, PPP (current int\() | 2014|Qatar | 148389.2|Central African Republic | 698.96| 212.30| |GDP per capita, PPP (current int\)) 2018 Luxembourg 116638.4 Burundi 823.01 141.72

#Point 1 Richest, Poorest and Ratio GDP per capita and PPP

The objective of this exercise is to compare global inequality using two measures of income per capita, GDP per capita in current US dollars and GDP per capita adjusted by purchasing power parity PPP, for the years 2014 and 2018.

2014 GDP per capita current US dollars The richest country is Monaco with approximately 195693.6 dollars per capita. The poorest country is Burundi with approximately 250.54 dollars per capita. The ratio between the richest and the poorest country is approximately 781.07.

Interpretation In nominal terms, the income gap is extremely large. The richest country has an income per capita hundreds of times higher than the poorest country. This reflects extreme global inequality as well as differences in price levels, economic structure, productivity and access to capital.

2014 GDP per capita PPP current international dollars The richest country is Qatar with approximately 148389.2 international dollars per capita. The poorest country is the Central African Republic with approximately 698.96 international dollars per capita. The ratio between the richest and the poorest country is approximately 212.30.

Interpretation When adjusting for PPP, the gap decreases significantly compared to the nominal measure. This happens because prices in poorer countries are usually lower, so their real purchasing power is higher than what nominal income suggests. PPP therefore reduces the measured inequality but the gap remains very large.

2018 GDP per capita current US dollars The richest country remains Monaco. The poorest country remains Burundi.

Interpretation The pattern of global inequality remains persistent over time. Very high income small economies remain at the top, while fragile low income countries remain at the bottom.

2018 GDP per capita PPP current international dollars The richest country is Luxembourg.

Interpretation Under PPP, the richest countries are typically those with very high productivity, strong financial sectors, advanced services or large natural resource rents.

2 Point 2 — Complementary indicators (Best/Worst) + Composite score

indicator year best_country best_value worst_country worst_value ratio_best_to_worst
Life expectancy at birth (years) 2014 Monaco 85.093 Central African Republic 40.265 2.113
Life expectancy at birth (years) 2018 Monaco 86.084 South Sudan 51.905 1.658
Literacy rate (% ages 15+) 2014 Uzbekistan 99.980 Niger 28.970 3.451
Literacy rate (% ages 15+) 2018 Uzbekistan 99.990 Niger 33.050 3.025
Poverty headcount at societal poverty line (%) 2014 Czechia 7.600 Mozambique 74.400 0.102
Poverty headcount at societal poverty line (%) 2014 Denmark 7.600 Mozambique 74.400 0.102
Poverty headcount at societal poverty line (%) 2014 Iceland 7.600 Mozambique 74.400 0.102
Poverty headcount at societal poverty line (%) 2018 Czechia 6.200 Niger 59.000 0.105
year best_country best_score worst_country worst_score
2014 Spain 0.946 Niger 0.005
2018 Spain 0.994 Niger 0.012

#Point 2 Complementary indicators and composite score

Three additional indicators were selected to complement GDP measures Life expectancy at birth in years Literacy rate percent of population ages 15 and above Poverty headcount at societal poverty line percent of population

Life expectancy

2014 Best country Monaco 85.093 years Worst country Central African Republic 40.265 years Ratio approximately 2.113

2018 Best country Monaco 86.084 years Worst country South Sudan 51.905 years Ratio approximately 1.658

Interpretation There is a very large difference in years of life between the best and worst performing countries. Conflicts, weak institutions and poor health systems strongly affect life expectancy. Although there is slight improvement over time, large disparities persist.

Literacy rate

2014 Best country Uzbekistan 99.980 percent Worst country Niger 28.970 percent Ratio approximately 3.451

2018 Best country Uzbekistan 99.990 percent Worst country Niger 33.050 percent Ratio approximately 3.025

Interpretation Basic education shows persistent inequality. Some countries have almost universal literacy, while others remain far behind. There is slight improvement for the worst performing country between 2014 and 2018, but the gap remains large.

Poverty headcount

2014 Lowest poverty rate 7.6 percent Highest poverty rate Mozambique 74.4 percent Ratio approximately 0.102

2018 Lowest poverty rate Czechia 6.2 percent Highest poverty rate Niger 59.0 percent Ratio approximately 0.105

Interpretation Some countries have very low poverty rates while others have more than half of their population living in poverty. Although there are improvements in some cases, poverty remains highly concentrated in certain low income countries.

Composite score

2014 Best country Spain 0.946 Worst country Niger 0.005

2018 Best country Spain 0.994 Worst country Niger 0.012

Interpretation The composite index confirms that development is multidimensional. Countries with strong performance in health, education and low poverty rank higher even if they are not the richest in GDP terms. Niger remains consistently at the bottom due to multiple structural disadvantages.

3 Point 3 — Distributions (PDF and CDF)

#Point 3 Distribution analysis PDF and CDF

GDP per capita nominal

The probability density function shows a highly right skewed distribution. Most countries are concentrated at low and middle income levels, while a few countries have extremely high incomes. The cumulative distribution functions for 2014 and 2018 are very similar, suggesting that the overall global distribution does not change dramatically in this short period.

GDP per capita PPP

When adjusted by PPP, the distribution becomes slightly less extreme. The inequality is somewhat compressed compared to nominal GDP, but the right tail remains visible. The cumulative distributions suggest small improvements but persistent inequality.

Literacy rate

The density is concentrated at high values, meaning that many countries have literacy rates above 80 percent. However, a group of countries still shows very low literacy levels. Between 2014 and 2018 there is a small shift toward higher literacy.

Poverty headcount

The density shows that many countries have moderate to low poverty, but a group remains with extremely high poverty levels. The cumulative distributions suggest limited changes over time.

Life expectancy

The distribution is concentrated between 70 and 80 years for many countries. However, a small group of fragile countries remains at much lower levels. There is a slight improvement between 2014 and 2018 but large gaps persist.

4 Point 4 — PPP Price Level Index (5 countries)

year country_name nominal ppp ppp_price_level_index
2014 United States 54973.421 55153.394 0.9967
2014 Germany 48959.599 47938.797 1.0213
2014 Japan 38475.395 39555.412 0.9727
2014 China 7781.066 12941.596 0.6012
2014 India 1553.884 5191.592 0.2993
2018 United States 62499.874 62875.666 0.9940
2018 Germany 48916.169 56273.041 0.8693
2018 Japan 39751.133 42141.935 0.9433
2018 China 10085.664 16298.205 0.6188
2018 India 1966.255 6714.966 0.2928

#Point 4 PPP price level index

The PPP price level index was calculated for the United States, Germany, Japan, China and India for 2014 and 2018.

United States approximately 0.997 in 2014 and 0.994 in 2018 Germany 1.021 in 2014 and 0.869 in 2018 Japan 0.973 in 2014 and 0.943 in 2018 China 0.601 in 2014 and 0.619 in 2018 India 0.299 in 2014 and 0.293 in 2018

Interpretation If the index is close to 1, domestic prices are similar to those in the United States. If the index is below 1, prices are lower than in the United States. This explains why PPP income is much higher than nominal income in developing countries such as China and India. In advanced economies the difference between nominal and PPP income is smaller.

5 Point 5 — 5 Poorest / 5 Richest (PPP) + Summary stats

year group mean median min max
2014 5 Poorest (PPP) 914.35 859.36 698.96 1161.33
2014 5 Richest (PPP) 98290.96 84555.24 71988.54 148389.20
2018 5 Poorest (PPP) 1075.86 1048.87 823.01 1325.59
2018 5 Richest (PPP) 100582.44 103963.36 85978.22 116638.41
country ppp year group
Central African Republic 698.96 2014 5 Poorest
Burundi 724.37 2014 5 Poorest
Congo, Dem. Rep. 859.36 2014 5 Poorest
Somalia, Fed. Rep. 1127.72 2014 5 Poorest
Niger 1161.33 2014 5 Poorest
Bermuda 71988.54 2014 5 Richest
Brunei Darussalam 81225.55 2014 5 Richest
Singapore 84555.24 2014 5 Richest
Luxembourg 105296.28 2014 5 Richest
Qatar 148389.20 2014 5 Richest
Burundi 823.01 2018 5 Poorest
Central African Republic 905.82 2018 5 Poorest
Congo, Dem. Rep. 1048.87 2018 5 Poorest
Niger 1276.00 2018 5 Poorest
Mozambique 1325.59 2018 5 Poorest
Bermuda 85978.22 2018 5 Richest
Ireland 86299.34 2018 5 Richest
Singapore 103963.36 2018 5 Richest
Qatar 110032.84 2018 5 Richest
Luxembourg 116638.41 2018 5 Richest

###Point 5 Five poorest and five richest countries PPP

2014

Five poorest PPP Mean 914.35 Median 859.36 Minimum 698.96 Maximum 1161.33

Five richest PPP Mean 98290.96 Median 84555.24 Minimum 71988.54 Maximum 148389.20

2018

Five poorest PPP Mean 1075.86 Median 1048.87 Minimum 823.01 Maximum 1325.59

Five richest PPP Mean 100582.44 Median 103963.36 Minimum 85978.22 Maximum 116638.41

Interpretation The poorest countries show slight improvement in average PPP income between 2014 and 2018, but the gap with the richest countries remains extremely large. The richest countries remain at very high levels of income per capita.

Main industries in the five poorest countries

The strongest industries are typically agriculture, subsistence farming, informal trade and low productivity services. Some countries also depend on primary resource extraction, but with limited value added and weak institutional capacity.

Main industries in the five richest countries

The strongest industries include financial services, advanced business services, global trade hubs and in some cases energy and natural resource extraction. These countries benefit from high productivity, strong institutions and integration into global markets.

6 Point 6 - Relatedness and Complexity Framework

Country Complexity Relatedness
Germany 93 90
United States 90 88
Japan 92 89
South Korea 88 85
China 80 75
Mexico 65 60
Brazil 60 58
Colombia 55 50
Nigeria 30 20
Ethiopia 25 18
Country Complexity Relatedness Category
Germany 93 90 Complexity Loop
United States 90 88 Complexity Loop
Japan 92 89 Complexity Loop
South Korea 88 85 Complexity Loop
China 80 75 Structural Trap
Mexico 65 60 Structural Trap
Brazil 60 58 Structural Trap
Colombia 55 50 Structural Trap
Nigeria 30 20 Low Complexity Trap
Ethiopia 25 18 Low Complexity Trap

#Interpretation

Advanced economies such as Germany, Japan, and the United States fall into the Complexity Loop category. Their diversified export structures and dense productive capabilities reinforce sustained innovation and growth.

Middle-income countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia exhibit moderate complexity but weaker relatedness, placing them in structural or low relatedness traps.

Low-income economies such as Nigeria and Ethiopia display both low complexity and low relatedness, indicating a Low Complexity Trap characterized by export concentration in primary goods.

#Policy Recommendations

Countries in the Complexity Loop should invest in frontier innovation and advanced R&D.

Countries in Structural or Low Relatedness Traps should promote industrial diversification through targeted industrial policies and capability upgrading.

Countries in Low Complexity Traps should focus on basic human capital formation, infrastructure, and institutional strengthening to enable gradual diversification.