Economic, Social, and Environmental Dimensions of Development in Sudan

*Elwasila Mohamed*

## **Abstract**

This chapter aims to investigate how social and environmental progress indicators lead economic indicators of development in Sudan. Economic indicators are represented by gross domestic product (GDP), investment, and unemployment. Social progress indicators are represented by life expectancy at birth standing for health and school enrollment for education. Environmental performance is indicated by access to safe drinking water and access to sanitation facilities. Trade as percentage of GDP is included to represent openness and outward of the economy. The study provides analytical links between these development dimensions and found empirical verification that social and environmental performance indicators cause economic growth rather than the other way around through dynamic econometric methods utilizing time series data over the period 1970–2017. Accordingly, the study provided recommendations and projections on enhancing social progress indicators toward 2030 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets.

**Keywords:** economic growth, social progress, environmental performance, health, education, Sudan

## **1. Introduction**

Development, however defined and measured, is something that has not been realized in low-income countries. From its narrow measurement through gross domestic product (GDP) to human development index (HDI) to a more comprehensive index of sustainable development, now development can be seen in lowincome countries. Low-income levels have been associated with low achievements in all aspects of social and environmental progress in these countries. Even some levels of economic growth in terms of income per capita and social, political, and environmental indicators of progress are all lacking behind. That is, economic growth alone is not sufficient to advance societies and improve the quality of life of citizens. True success, and growth that is inclusive, requires achieving both economic and social progress (SPI, 2018) [3]. In short, economic progress should be accompanied with social and environmental progress. The measurement of economic development in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) was well established in the economic literature pioneered firstly by Simon Kuznets and developed into systems of national accounts adopted by the United Nation agencies since the 1960s. However, major criticisms have been raised against using GDP as a measure

opportunity indictors and find that these social performance indictors strongly affect subjective well-being. Nevertheless, economics, with its all school of thought, has been playing a central role on these advances of definitions, measurements, and determinants of development. For Seligman [5], "economics is both the creature and the creator. It is the creature of the past; it is the creator of the future. Correctly conceived, adequately outlined, fearlessly developed, it is the prop of ethical

*Economic, Social, and Environmental Dimensions of Development in Sudan*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90752*

upbuilding, it is the basis of social progress" (1903, p. 70). The development that took place in the West and the United States in particular was described as a transformation to industrial society with all of its economic, social, and political facts and facets. On this type of development and how it has been achieved, Seligman made six points which differentiate modern industrial society from all its predecessors. In today's less developing countries, these points differentiate success from failure to achieve development. The points are the practical exhaustion of free land, the predominance of industrial capital, the application of scientific methods, the existence of a competitive regime based on the newer conception of liberty, the spread of education and the birth of a distinct public opinion, and a true democratic spirit and the growth of a new idealism. Unless these points take place in today's less developing countries, it is unlikely that they be able to move forward for real socioeconomic development. Economic growth or more widely some development achieved in low-income countries cannot be attributed to conventional factors of production such as physical capital and formal employment. It is rather an outcome of private investment, social households, and individual behaviors with the use of assets from the natural environment. We give some examples in justification of this argument. Private spending health has always been far larger than government spending on health in low-income countries, including Sudan. Even on primary education, household spending exceeds government spending although primary education is supposed to be free and universal. This can be indicated by a large number of school dropouts, where school-age children go to work in informal jobs so as to help their often poor families. In the political arena, political and personal rights are lacking behind, and individuals are left to themselves to find ways to exercise and express their views and voices. Social media have been playing a major role in providing information to the public replacing the official government media channels. This has typically taken place in Sudan since December 2018. Communications and organization of activities through social media have contributed strongly to massive demonstrations which succeeded in ousting the regime that ruled the country for almost three decades. Thus defective social and political fabrics in less developed countries cannot be disentangled from all types of economic and political corruption which have been the chronic illness in these countries in postcolonial periods. In such cases, it is by no means to expect that economic policies and pure economic factors contribute economic growth and development and social equity. Instead, social and environmental progresses achieved however small have to be attributed to the private and household's behaviors and initiatives and thus are the main contributors to economic growth. Furthermore, economic growth achieved through these channels is always skewed toward the rich who are not necessarily contributing a fair share to its achievement. This can be reflected by a wide and even increasing income gap between the rich and the poor in low-income countries. Also, economic growth can be expected really to resolve and revert environmental degradation in terms of massive resource depletion and accumulation of pollution. Thus, arguably it is not more than luxury to seek a verification of environmental Kuznets curve in low-income countries. Furthermore, environmental policies in these countries are usually lax and lacking behind. This in turn has been pushing low-income countries to trade environment for development and become pollution havens. It is a fact that

trade in its export side has been intensive in primary products and natural

**65**

of economic and social welfare, particularly among scholars in the field on environmental economics. This literature has been arguing for modification of GDP to include resource depletion and environmental degradation associated with economic growth in a context of sustainable development. The World Bank has adopted and started measuring the so-called genuine savings indicator developed by Pearce and Atkinson [1] and the genuine progress indicator (GPI), as measures of sustainable development. Yet, a massive body of literature had been developing arguing that economic growth is the only way to protect the environment, in the context of the so-called environmental Kuznets curve. Since the early 1990s, the UN Development Programme has adopted and started measuring the human development index pioneered by Sen and Haq. The HDI encompasses measures of economic, health, and education and ranks countries in a scale of 100 points according to their achievements in these dimensions. All these measures have been developed in lines of calls sustainable development following the World Commission on Environment and Development Report in 1987 and the Agenda 21 adopted in Rio 1991. In 2000, the world nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The agreed MDGs had to be achieved by 2015. Many low-income countries failed to achieve the targets, while the world nations went forward to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030. In the light of their progress to achieve the MDGs, low-income countries are unlikely to move forward to make progress in achieving the SDGs in a matter of 10 years. However, SDGs remain a guide to economic, social, and environmental policies in all countries but particularly in low-income countries. Detailed discussions on these measures of development in the context of MDGs and SDGs can be found in Chapter 5 of the United Nation Global Sustainable Development Report [2].
