Paulus Holdings · Development Research
A composite development index combining economic capacity, educational attainment, and demographic structure.
Run the modelEach indicator is scored out of 100. The weights determine its contribution to the final result.
GDP per person, adjusted for purchasing power parity, compares economic resources while accounting for differences in local prices.
PPP adjusts for price differences. It is not itself a measure of income or poverty.
A proposed shared assessment measures what students know, using the same 0–100 scale across countries.
A hypothetical assessment, not an existing universal exam. OWID uses schooling and literacy.
Assessment bands: 70–100 good; 50–69 average; 40–49 concerning; below 40 poor.
The average number of children per woman adds a demographic dimension to how we think about a country’s future.
A deliberate model assumption. Higher fertility does not necessarily mean greater development.
Adjust the values below to see how the weighted score changes.
For exploration only. These profiles are hypothetical, not country data.
Contribution by indicator
Different units need a common scale. We turn each indicator into a score out of 100, then apply its weight.
P = min(GDP per capita in PPP international dollars ÷ 60,000, 1) × 100. E = the shared assessment percentage. F = min(children per woman ÷ 6, 1) × 100. All inputs are nonnegative. The $60,000 and 6-child ceilings are illustrative design choices, not internationally agreed benchmarks. Real comparisons would need the same data year and PPP price base.
Purchasing power and education each receive 40%, reflecting material living standards and opportunities to learn. Fertility receives 20% because demographic patterns add context but are a less direct measure of wellbeing. These weights are proposed judgments, not empirically validated findings.
For this classroom model, 70–100 is high, 50–69.9 moderate, 40–49.9 low, and below 40 very low. These are illustrative bands. Averages can hide inequality, and higher fertility is not inherently better. The index omits health, environmental sustainability, and personal freedoms.
The Hamet Model combines purchasing power, education, and fertility to explore a country’s development from three perspectives. I chose GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity because it helps compare economic resources while accounting for differences in local prices. I paired it with a proposed common education assessment because knowledge and skills influence people’s opportunities. Together, these indicators consider both material resources and the ability to use them, although average incomes can conceal poverty and an exam cannot capture every aspect of learning.
I gave purchasing power and education 40% each because I consider them the strongest foundations of this model. Fertility receives 20% to add a perspective on future generations. My original design rewards higher fertility, but this is a value choice: more births do not automatically improve wellbeing, and demographic needs differ between countries. Keeping its weight lower limits its influence. The model is therefore a transparent classroom proposal, rather than a validated development index; using it in practice would require comparable education data and a careful review of the fertility assumption.
Indicator definitions informed by Our World in Data. Weights and scoring are our proposal.