Joseph Zimbler

Pol 252
Prof. Hartzell
28 September, 2023
zimbler_mp_6
After reading the first two chapters of Factfulness, I think it is clear that we need to
reshape much of our ideas around development. Hans Rosling does a spectacular job at
challenging how we determine which countries are developed and which are developing.
However, some of the methods he incorporates to change how we separate countries need to
be developed further.
One of Rosling’s main points is his opposition to separating countries into two groups,
developed and developing. Instead, he proposes that four levels be used to split the countries.
There are both positives and negatives to this approach.
The positives center around the flexibility that four levels allow as opposed to just two
groups. In order to pair each country with its level, Rosling looks at the amount of money
people earn per day and pairs money per week with a level 1-4. This measure is very people
centric, something that is missing in a lot of determinants of development like GDP. And with a
larger division of countries by expanding two groups into four levels, policy makers and
organizations can approach them all in different ways, offering help that is more specific and
effective.
However, while there are some positives to the four levels, it still isn’t the best way to
determine development. While the people-centric approach is a strength, Rosling leans too hard
into it. In my opinion, Rosling’s method is great for determining an individual or a family's
situation as compared to others, but not so much for an entire country. Since different families
have different incomes per week, it can be hard to use this measure to put each country at just
one level. And if you take an average, you risk simplifying information and missing the spread,
Rosling constantly talks about in chapter 2. So if you shouldn’t take averages, yet each
family in each country lives at a different level, how can this system be used on a country-wide
basis?. In essence, his measure is extremely effective at putting individuals and families into
their own development stages, but fails to do so at a country-wide level, his goal to begin with.
The best part of these two chapters have been their ability to challenge my negative
view of the world. I have always thought that the world is getting worse due to issues like
climate change, increased crime rates, polarization, the poverty divide and more. Additionally,
with the media, teachers (don’t take this personally), and professionals adding fuel to the fire, I
have always been convinced that the world is worse now than it was 20 years ago. Then I read
this book, and for really the first time I have been met with the belief that the world has not just
improved over the last ten years, but that most people are living better than ever before.
Rosling’s ability to do this as successfully as he does is astounding.
To convince me that the world has actually improved, Rosling begins the book with a
simple quiz. After taking it, I thought that I had gotten maybe 50% or even more. Then I looked
at the answers, discovering I had scored a whopping 2/14. Then, I found out my score was the
average, and I was even more shocked. This hook really worked, and I wanted to know what my
mistakes were and why most people scored so poorly.
Now that I was very intrigued to keep reading, I readily bought into all of the statistics
presented throughout the chapter about the improvements the world is making, as well as why
my brain is wired to believe in the negative more than the positive. With his powerful hook, Hans
Rosling was able to do what no one else has: convince me that countries around the world are
rapidly developing, creating a better world today than ever before.