In 2015, following the end of the 2000 -2015 Millennium Development Goals, all member states of the United Nations signed up to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The Sustainable Development Goals are part of this agenda, and they are much broader in scope than the original Millennium Development Goals and are more ambitious.
Five main themes of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development:
People – many of the goals focus on lifting people out poverty and hunger and providing a decent education for all
Planet – there is a lot more focus on protecting the environment compared to the original MDGs – for example with the ‘life under water’ goal.
Prosperity – there is a focus on improving lives through enterprise and innovation, linking into partnership below
Peace – the agenda recognises that there can be no effective development without peace.
Partnership – there is much more focus on the agenda for sustainable development being a partnership between developed and less developed countries than with the original MDGs.
NB – The most important goals?
Note how goals 7 and 8 from the MDGs are now a lot more prominent in the updated SusDev goals…
Tracking progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals
You can click on any of the goals on site linked above to find out about progress towards achieving them.
This link will take you to the progress towards goal 1, for example. The latest 2020 update doesn’t look promising. It notes that:
Even before the Pandemic, the rate of reducing the percentage of people in extreme poverty had slowed (it was around 14% in 2010, 8% in 2015 and just down to 7% in 2019.
With the Pandemic, another 50 million people will be pushed back into poverty, pushing that figure back up to 8%.
The Sustainable Development Goals: Peak Bureaucracy but little Progress?
One possible criticisms of the Sustainable Development Goals might be that there seems to be A LOT of organisations involved with being ‘partners’ for development, but not so much actual progress being made! Lots of talk, LOTS of words, LOTS of info and pretty colour coded targets, but not so much actual progress…?!?
About this post
This post was written primarily for A-level sociology students studying the Global Development Option in year two.
The 2019 World Bank Development Report highlights the importance of ‘global value chains’ to helping poor countries develop.
Global trade has increased significantly since the 1990s and global value chains today account for more than 50% of global trade.
Those countries which have high levels of participation with Global Value Chains have generally developed more quickly than those countries which have limited or no participation with global value chains.
Vietnam would be a good example of a country that has increased its export links to GVCs over the last 30 years and has seen a corresponding rapid economic development.
What is a Global Value Chain?
The report defines a global value chain (GVC) as ‘the series of stages in the production of a product or service for sale to consumers. Each stage adds value, and at least two stages are in different countries.’
The bicycle is used as an example of a product with an extensive global value chain, with many countries being involved in the many stages of its production.
Global Value Chains and Development
Those countries which have moved from simply exporting agricultural goods to manufacturing parts for products such as bicycles have seen higher levels of economic growth since the 1990s:
What I find most interesting is this map here:
We see that those countries which are more involved with global manufacturing – China and India for example have seen the highest rates of economic growth
The negative consequences?
The report also has chapters on increasing inequalities which have emerged as a result of development through increasing manufacturing – GVC firms tend to be highly concentrated in only a few regions in every country, and women are less likely to be employed in managerial positions.
And there may also be some negative environmental consequences for countries more involved in global value chains.
Future challenges
The report suggests that recent technological innovations which bring manufacturing closer to the end-consumers of GVC products (3D printers) may mean that manufacturing for GVCs is no longer a viable path to development for poorer countries.
The limitations of this report
You have to question how objective this report is – it is from the World Bank, an organisation dedicated to increasing World Trade.
The report also doesn’t seem to acknowledge the problem of what happens to those countries which are ‘left behind’ or ‘left out’ of global value chains.
That map above kind of reminds me of an updated version of Wallersteins’ ‘three zones’ in his World Systems Theory – and in that theory, one country can only move up into a higher zone at the expense of another moving down – there always has to be one country (or regions within countries) at the bottom, or maybe even left out altogether, which seems to be the case here.
It might be that integrating into GVCs is a great way to develop for SOME people in some regions of some countries, but not necessarily even for the majority of people the world over.
It might even be the case that the expansion of GVS are the cause of more inequality and thus, despite increasing economic growth (which are very limited indicators of development) we actually have equal amounts of losers (or more) than we do winners from the expansion of GVCs.
Relevance of this report for Global Development within A-level sociology
This seems to be a good case for global optimism – those countries which get more involved in global trade
The map of countries seems to be a modified version of Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory‘s ‘Zones of Production’, although interpreted here in an entirely positive light!
Abraaj Growth Markets Health Fund was set up in 2016 and invested in private health care systems in developing countries. One of its stated aims is to buy up cheap land and build private hospitals with the intention of providing low-cost private health care for people in low-income countries.
It started in 2016 and managed to attract $1 billion worth of aid money from diverse sources, mainly the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation but it has also received £75 million from the UK government’s aid budget.
The Fund established projects in private health care in Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan and India.
I stumbled across the example of the coreographer Sherrie Silver using her fame, money and skills to raise awareness of African cultures through dnace and to campaign for better funding for opportunities for young farmers in rural Africa.
Below is an example of the kind of Development advocacy work she has been involved in:
Sherrie Silver is originally from Rwanda and educated in the UK, and has had a successful career at a very young age, and it’s pretty impressive to see someone so young already working to give something back.
To my mind its hard to find anything to dislike about this kind of advocacy – it seems to be coming from a pure desire to help on the part of an individual that’s done OK for themselves, and the particular awareness campaign above certainly seems to be involving young people in developing countries.
It’s also an interesting example of the kind of ‘development assistance’ that even neo-liberals would agree with -if it’s philanthropy it’s not coming from the State, so they’d probably be OK with it.
But is this kind of Advocacy work effective at promoting development?
In itself getting young people to put up dance videos isn’t going to do anything to encourage African governments to invest in young people, so I don’t really get the logic here!
However, I guess this is useful in busting myths about underdevelopment in Africa, it is empowering, it is peer to peer and puts youth in rural Africa on a level footing with youth in cities in Western countries – I mean they’re just as capable at dancing and video editing.
But i just don’t get how putting videos of rural youth in Africa dancing is going to encourage financial investment in agriculture?
Ghana, in West Africa, has seen positive economic growth for several decades now, on a par with many of its peers (similar countries by virtue of their development stats):
However, it has been more successful that other countries in translating that economic growth into social development, as measured by the decline in stunting and the increase in primary education enrolment:
This is all according to a recent (June 2020) Report by the World Bank: Building Human Capital: Lessons from Country Experiences – Ghana.
The report takes an in-depth look at the government policies of Ghana and concludes that the positive social development has been the result of a multi-pronged policy initiatives all working together in the longer term, including:
Setting up a National Health Insurance Scheme – ensuring everyone has access to basic healthcare. This was funded by primarily by increasing tax on selected goods and services and on formal sector workers.
FCUBE – Free Compulsory Universal Education
School feeding programmes
WASH programmes – to address poor access to water and sanitation – this was largely funded by aid from the International Community.
Adult education programmes – particularly useful in educating adults about health care issues and preventing stunting.
Of particular note here is that the Ghanian government put a special tax (I think it was 2.5%) on oil extraction, specifically to fund health and education.
Also noted is the good governance in Ghana – government is stable so they’ve had continuous investment in health and education for decades now.
Analysis – what does this tell us about theories of development?
Really it tells us that governments are important – if you think about the UK – we have a (relatively) high tax and high-cost free health and education system, which help us develop ‘human capital’ – and that is what Ghana seems to have focused on at the national level.
This case study suggests that MORE government works best for social development, not less – development in Ghana has happened through taxing the oil industry and paying for state social services – taxation, public services and more regulation resulting, in this case, in MORE positive development – a great case study against the neoliberal theory of development.
Analysis – how generalisable is this case study to other countries?
This kind of development may only apply to countries who are free of conflict and have a stable, minimally corrupt government – that way, if resources such as oil are discovered, they can be taxed and the income used for health and education.
There are plenty of low to middle income countries (Ghana’s ‘peer’ countries as outlined in the World Bank report) which could learn from Ghana – so this is maybe a good low-middle income development case study.
However, as Paul Collier and the authors of ‘Failed States’ have demonstrated, many countries stuck at the bottom of the development ladder are not in a position to put in place such policies, so this case study is no help to them.
How successful has economic and social development in Kenya been since the year 2000?
This post has primarily been written for students studying the global development option for A-level sociology. The purpose of this post is to provide a specific example of a country which has, overall, experienced rapid and positive development over the last 20 years.
One of the key questions in this module is ‘what are the most effective strategies for development’ – one way of addressing this question is to explore further what development policies and initiatives have been applied in Kenya to promote positive development.
NB the purpose of this post is not to answer the question ‘why has Kenya developed economically and socially, but simply to provide a case study demonstrating the extent of the rapid progress according to many indicators of social and economic development.
Kenya in 2020: An Overview
Kenya is located in East Africa, with a population of just over 50 million people.
It is classified by the World Bank as a low to middle income country with a Gross National Income per capita of just over $1700.
Overall, Kenya has experienced positive economic and social development since the year 2000, as evidenced in the quadrupling of its GNI per capita during that time.
Social development has also been rapid: life expectancy has increased by 15 years since the year 2000, and both primary and secondary school enrolment ratios are significantly improved.
However, as some of the statistics below suggest there is still room for improvement and development challenges going forwards into the 2020s.
Economic Trends
Kenyan Gross National Income per Capita as Quadrupled since the year 2000, from $400 to over $1700.
Kenya’s Debt as a percentage of its GNI has been relatively stable, and is currently low, at only 2.2% of GNI
Kenya’s Employment Ratio is high and has increased to 72.5% of the population
NB – this bucks the global trend of increasing levels of unemployment
Development Aid
Official Development Assistance to Kenya increased from $500 million in 2000 to $2.5 billion in 2018
This would suggest as far as Kenya is concerned that Aid has not retarded broader economic or social development.
Industrialisation and Urbanisation in Kenya
The breakdown of Kenya’s GDP is:
Agriculture – 34%
Industry – 17%
Services – 47%
Kenya’s major exports remain agricultural products:
In the year 2000 20% of Kenya’s population was rural, this has grown to 28% by 2020
Education Trends in Kenya
Secondary School Enrolment increased from 39% in 2000 to 57% (2010)
Tertiary Enrolment is currently at 9%
NB the World Bank data on enrolment ratios is sketchy, there appear to be several data gaps!
Life Expectancy Trends
Life expectancy at birth has increased from 50 to 66 years in the last 20 years
Health and Sanitation Trends
Approximately 4% of the population have HIV
X percent have access to clean water
Y percent have access to improved sanitation
Population and Birth Rate Trends
Kenya’s Population increased by 20 million between the year 2000 and 2020, from 30 million to 50 million
The Fertility Rate – decreased from 5.2 to 3.5 babies per woman
Contraceptive prevalence increased from 39 to 61%
The Infant mortality rate decreased from 99 per 1000 to 45 per thousand
Access to Technology Trends
Mobile phone access increased from 0.4 to 96%
Internet access increased from 0.3 to 22%
Peacefulness Trends
Kenya’s Peace levels, as measured by the Global Peace Index, have been up and down over the last decade, but have remained broadly stable over the 10 years since the index began.
Gender Equality Trends
Gender inequality seems to be a faltering point for Kenya. After some seemingly rapid progress in the last decade, gender equality has fallen back to almost the same level as in 2006.
Other notable development trends
Kenya has had a net migration of minus 50 000 per year in recent years, combined with an increase of money received from abroad.
Conclusion: Is Kenya A Development Success Story?
Based on the above statistics it is easy to conclude that, overall, Kenya has seen a great deal of positive economic and social development – especially based on the measurements of GNI growth, life expectancy and education.
However, there are some areas where no significant development appears to have taken place – peacefulness and gender equality seem to be struggling for example.
NB – this is only a very brief look at some of the general statistics, so keep in mind that there will be regional variations and that not everyone would have benefitted equally from any development that has taken place.
Also, i haven’t tried to look at why development has (or hasn’t on some indicators) taken place in Kenya, just the statistics!
Summary of a documentary on global inequalities and waste
This excellent 2018 documentary gives us a rare insight into the daily working lives of two men living in poverty, both making a living through trash, one in Kenya and the other in the United States.
It’s a really useful resource for gaining an insight into what the lived experience of poverty is like in these two very different countries, and for highlighting the extent of global inequalities.
Most of the documentary focuses on two men, and we get to hear a lot from them: details of their lives and their thoughts on poverty and inequality and what they would do to help overcome the problems of inequality.
We also here from a few experts and other people, but these take on a supporting role to the two main proponents (which is unusual for documentaries like this, but also welcome!
This is an excellent video to use to teach Global Development in A-level sociology, personally I would use it in the introductory lesson to the module.
Below i provide a brief summary of some of the key points of this documentary:
Sorting trash in Kenyan slum
After a brief introduction we get to see the first part the day of one guy in Kenya who works in waste management.
He gets up at 4.00 a.m and then spends several hours sorting through trash which is delivered from the nearby affluent suburbs and shopping areas. He sorts out food for his pigs and separates out any useful items which he can sell on.
There are a lot of people working sorting waste, many of them there because they have no other option. Many of them also eat waste food they find there.
Recycling cans in New York
The video now hops over to America where it follows another guy who also gets up at 4.00 a.m. to collect cans and bottles, which he then sorts to sell – there’s a good market in recycled containers it seams in New York – he can make $75 a day doing this.
We also get an insight into his life history – he used to be homeless, and he reminds us that many Americans are just one pay check away from falling into a similar situation.
Back in the slum
In this third section we see the guy in Kenya sorting out some of the cartons he’s found at the dump – he gets someone else to wash them and then he sells them on, making a daily income of $3-4 which is enough for him to feed his family, and lifts him above Kenya’s formal poverty line.
The U.S ‘Cultural Waste and Recycling Centres’
Back in the United States – we’re taken to a recycling centre, a community initiative that gives ‘canners’ support in their recycling endeavours – which plays a crucial part in helping them stay resilient.
The video also gets a bit more analytical at this point – there are 600 billionaires in the United States, but 40 million Americans live in poverty. But poverty is much worse in Kenya – it takes the average Kenyan 20 years to earn the annual salary of the average American.
There’s also a short interview with an anthropologist who reminds us that waste is cultural – a lot of things are only trash because we label them as such – and we take a trip to one guy’s museum of trash to drive the point home – he’s got thousands of dollars worth of perfectly good stuff he’s collected from what other people have thrown away!
Reflecting on Inequality
The documentary now highlights inequalities in the two countries – by taking a trip to the mall in Kenya – one gets the impression that the government there is investing more in malls for the wealth than in education and health for the poor.
In America we visit a guy who makes art from trash – one piece (which sold for a small fortune) adorns the wall of the one the most expensive apartments in New York – how’s that for irony.
Final section
in this section the two main men in the video give their views on inequality – both seem quite wise – neither think inequality is a good thing and would use our financial resources to give more enabling support to those in poverty, a leg up if you like to better help them help themselves.
Discussion Questions
Why do you think the video focuses on trash as a means of exploring inequality?
Have these two men found an effective solution (sorting and selling trash) to lift themselves out of poverty?
Do you agree with the two men in this video. Should our global resources be used to help the poor?
Global inequality is one of the core themes in the Global Development option within A-level sociology, and visual infographics are a useful way of making global inequalities easier to understand.
This post focuses on global wealth inequalities.
Details of how wealth is measured are included at the bottom of this post.
(This was almost 9% increase on the previous year, and continued a long term trend of increasing wealth over the last two decades.)
If this wealth were distributed evenly, each individual adult in the world would have a total net worth of almost $80 000. However, the distribution is far from equal!
The map below shows the median net private wealth per household in different countries in 2019, according to Credit Suisse.
From the figure we can see that generally:
North America, Western Europe and Australian households have an average wealth of over $100 000.
Brazil, China and Russia (three of the BRIC nations) have an average household wealth of between $25 000 to $100 000
Much of Asia and Latin American and North Africa have an average household wealth of between $5000 to $25 000
Most of Sub Saharan Africa and Afghanistan have an average household wealth of less than $5000.
NB – you can look at practically any map of any development indicator (health/ education/ peacefulness etc.) and you’ll find that poor health, low levels of education and high levels of conflict are correlated with low levels of wealth. There are some notable exceptions, but as a general rule, low levels of household wealth means poor social development!
(For example, one notable exception is the USA which is very wealthy but severely socially underdeveloped, possibly because of such high levels of relative poverty within the country)
Global Wealth by Country
The infographic below by Visual Capitalist (link below) shows us the amount of wealth per country:
Top wealthiest countries
Visual Capitalist also produced the following table:
Rank
Country
Region
Total Wealth ($B, 2019)
% Global Share
#1
United States
North America
$105,990
29.4%
#2
China
China
$63,827
17.7%
#3
Japan
Asia-Pacific
$24,992
6.9%
#4
Germany
Europe
$14,660
4.1%
#5
United Kingdom
Europe
$14,341
4.0%
#6
France
Europe
$13,729
3.8%
#7
India
India
$12,614
3.5%
#8
Italy
Europe
$11,358
3.1%
#9
Canada
North America
$8,573
2.4%
#10
Spain
Europe
$7,772
2.2%
#11
South Korea
Asia-Pacific
$7,302
2.0%
#12
Australia
Asia-Pacific
$7,202
2.0%
#13
Taiwan
Asia-Pacific
$4,062
1.1%
#14
Switzerland
Europe
$3,877
1.1%
#15
Netherlands
Europe
$3,719
1.0%
All Other Countries
$56,585
15.7%
Global Total
$360,603
100.0%
Top 15 wealthiest countries.
The above table is kind of useful, when you see that the USA controls almost a quarter of the world’s wealth, but with only around 4% of the world’s population, that alone can give you a sense of the inequality, especially when it’s leading China in P2 whose population is more than double that of the United States.
NB – What country wealth statistics don’t show is how equally (or unequally in the case of America) wealth is distributed in a country, which is something we will consider later.
The Global Wealth Pyramid
A second visualisation Credit Suisse Produce is the global wealth pyramid
The Global Wealth Pyramid
This pyramid shows us that:
The top 1% of the population, or just 52 million people (those worth more than $1 million) control 43.4% of the world’s wealth
The next 11.4%, or 590 million people (those worth from $100 000 to $1 million) control 40.5% o the world’s wealth
The next 34%, or 1.7 billion people (those worth from $10 000 to $100 000) control 14.7% of the world’s wealth
The poorest 53%, or 2.7 billion people (those worth less than $10 000) control only 1.4% of the world’s wealth.
The richest 1% own 43% of the world’s wealth
The visualisation below (courtesy of the global inequalities blog, link below) does a good of showing how few people control how much wealth, and how many people control so little:
Wealth controlled by Ultra High Net Worth Individuals
The graphic below zooms in closer on the very very wealthy. We see that those worth more than $30 million, just 0.002% of the world’s population control over 7% of the world’s wealth!
Definition of ‘Net Worth’ or Wealth
According to the Global Wealth Report, Net worth, or “wealth,” is the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.
This figure includes the net value of all the assets a household owns if sold and their private pension fund assets. The figure does not include any state entitlements/ benefits or state debts.
Discussion Question:
What is the best way to visualise global wealth inequalities?
Sources
Credit Suisse: Global Wealth Report 2020, linked above
Global Inequalities blog – does a nice job visualising some of the stats in the Credit Suisse Report. NB the stats above are from the 2019 report, but that’s not too long ago and I like them!
Visualcapitalist – produced the excellent football like visualisation of wealth inequalities by country!
This post focuses on a recent report produced by Credit Suisse. It is primarily written for students studying the Global Development option for A-level sociology, and is meant to serve as an update on Global inequalities!
In 2019, Privately Owned Global Wealth had grown to $399 trillion, an almost 9% increase on the previous year, according to Credit Suisse’s latest 2020 Global Wealth Report, which focuses on both wealth trends to 2019 and the impacts of Coronavirus on wealth up until June 2020.
That 9% increase from 2018 continued a long term trend of increasing wealth over the last two decades. In the year 2000, global wealth stood at $118 trillion (at current US prices) and has risen on average by 6.6% per annum since then, with a significant decrease (and subsequent recovery) in 2008 with the financial crisis.
NB – wealth is not distributed evenly and the map below shows the median net private wealth per household in different countries in 2019,
The impact of Coronavirus on Global Wealth
The Global Wealth Report notes that to June 2020 Coronavirus has cost the global economy around $8 trillion, in terms of what economic growth was predicted to be.
We see a rapid decline in global wealth per person January to March, when Coronavirus was taking hold, but then a recover, as governments around the world stepped in with stimulus packages.
The chart above also shows you that we’ve basically just had zero growth in wealth since from 2019 to June 2020.
However, you can see that by June 2020 there has been a decline in wealth per person of around $3 000, compared to projected growth which never happened!
The Economic Impact of Coronavrius on Different Regions
The chart below shows the impact by region
The impact of Coronavirus up until June 2020 seems to have been minimal on most regions if we compare the 2019 projections with the actual figures to June 2020.
The global average decline in wealth to June 2020 is – 2%, and most regions have seen around a 2% decline, compared to what was expected, overall we simply have almost 0 global growth compared to an anticipated 2% increase!
There are minor variations across regions, but nothing too significant according to the figures above!
There are significant variations by country
However, if we look at the impact of Coronavirus on wealth by country, we do see significant differences emerging:
The above chart shows us that to June 2020 the UK’s average household wealth declined by 7%, while China’s increased by 4%. Meanwhile the USA has seen almost no change to private household wealth!
This infographic shows the biggest percentage gains and losses per individual by country
We can see some dramatic variation here, with Brazil and South Africa’s per person wealth declining by around 25%, supposedly due to Coronavirus, while quite an eclectic mixture of countries have seen their individual wealth increase by 5%
NB – the figures look more dramatic if you look t the dollar amounts:!
Projections for future wealth growth
The Global Wealth Report is optimistic about future growth potential in most regions, especially India and China
How valid is this data?
NB – this report is latest based on available data, but it was written before the latest wave of lockdowns in November 2020.
The report is very clear that these global wealth trends could change dramatically depending on how Coronavirus and the societal reaction to it develops!
You need to be sceptical I think about the focus of this report – it is on global wealth, rather than global poverty, if you look at the later (poverty not wealth) you realise that there are millions of people around the world who are being pushed into poverty because of Coronavirus (more of that later!) – but you miss out on this in this report because it’s been written mainly (I think) for a Western audience, and you get the impression that’s everything is OK.
This report by Alianz and the World Bank gives you a different impression, talks of a ‘wealth buffer’ which insulates the wealthy from the worst effects of the economic downturn caused by the Pandemic, but it also talks about how millions of those towards the bottom are being pushed into extreme poverty.
You might remember that above the Credit Suisse report shows a negative 2% economic growth rate in Africa, then says nothing else about it – well, that basically means a LOT more people pushed into poverty, which is what the Allianz/ World Bank report focuses on!
Note: Definition of ‘Net Worth’ or Wealth
According to the Global Wealth Report, Net worth, or “wealth,” is the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts. This figure includes the net value of all the assets a household owns if sold and their private pension fund assets. The figure does not include any state entitlements/ benefits or state debts.
If that wealth average wealth were distributed equally then every adult would have around $77 000. H
In 2019, Privately Owned Global Wealth had grown to $399 trillion, an almost 9% increase on the previous year, and continuing a long term trend of increasing wealth over the last two decades.
As we approach the end of 2020, there are almost 8 billion people on planet earth.
Trying to think in terms of billions of people is perhaps a little overwhelming, and maybe not that useful in helping us understand global differences and global inequalities.
A billion, (one thousand million) is so large a number that it’s maybe too abstract to help us understand the characteristics of our global population, it’s kind of easy to glaze over when talking and thinking in billions.
For example, if you look at the numbers of people on each continent, the figures are as follows:
4.8 billion from Asia
1.28 billion would be from Africa
800 million would be from Europe
720 million would be from Latin America & the Caribbean
400 million would be from North America
These numbers, presented in the billions and hundreds of millions aren’t that easy to comprehend – you kind of glaze over and switch off, it’s just because the numbers are so large we can’t relate to them that easily!
An easier way to compare these figures is to look at it in percentage terms, which is much easier for the human brain to understand:
Percentage of people on each continent:
60% in Asia
16% in Africa
10% in Europe
9% from Latin America & the Caribbean
5% from North America
With the percentages, we lose a bit of accuracy by rounding up or down, but for getting an overview it’s an easier starting point than the longer ‘billions and hundreds of millions’ figures above.
An even easier way to present an overview of global population characteristics is to imagine the world as 100 people, which is exactly the same as looking at the population in percentage terms, just a bit more ‘human’ and thus easier to relate to!
If the world were 100 People…
60 would be from Asia
16 would be from Africa
10 would be from Europe
9 would be from Latin America & the Caribbean
5 would be from North America
100 People: A World Portrait
There are a few versions of ‘the world as 100 people’ video – in which we are taken through how many people would live where, how many people would be what religion, how many have access to clean drinking water and so on.
However, although the most recent versions are dated 2019 and 2018, they both use the data from the 2016 project above: 100 people a world portrait – which also has it’s own (not as snazzy) video and sources (neither of the two more recent snazzier videos seem to think it’s even worth crediting where they got their information from, so I’m not going to link to them from here.
The Miniature Earth (Throwback)
I first came across the concept of the world as a 100 people back in 2010, through this miniature earth video.
IMO it’s a much better version, to the tune of ‘Mad World’ – just a shame it’s now dated and so not that useful, other than to compare to the 2016 statistics!
United States
China
Japan
Germany
United Kingdom
France
India
Italy
Canada
Spain
South Korea
Australia
Taiwan
Switzerland
Netherlands
