Adam Smith first introduced a comparison of wealth among the population, since then numerous authors have extended the definition to encompass more topics to provide a holistic view of the theory. It is still a general belief that a rich country is thriving. However, these are two separate definitions that are not based on each other. It is possible for a country to be rich, but it is not prosperous. The income of a nation is linked to economic and economic growth and the Gross Domestic per Capita, while stability is linked to longevity. A country must be able to support itself for a long period of time to maintain its well-being. Sustainability includes enhancing human labor and improving the human development index. It is true that a country can be wealthy but not prosperous. For example, there are countries endowed with minerals and capital yet they still cannot be viewed as affluent. For instance, a country like the United Arab Emirates is one of the wealthiest States in the world, but due to low investment in human capital, this country still has high illiteracy levels, high insecurity, and a weak social welfare. Therefore, despite the endowment with Oil, the UAE is always not prosperous. Another classical example is China; in the recent years, China has recorded higher GDP per Capita as compared to the United States of America, yet still, the USA is viewed as more prosperous than China. The reason behind such a view is because the USA has invested more in human development and human capital as compared to China and hence ensuring its future sustainability and prosperity. Consequently, it is not automatic that a wealthy country could be prosperous.
If you like this sample, we will email it to you with pleasure!