Development since 2005: Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Latin America and East Asia

Overview

Headline

South Asia made the most progress since 2005, followed by East Asia & Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America & Caribbean. The ranking averages each region's rank on three gains: GDP per capita growth, years of life expectancy gained and percentage points of secondary enrollment gained. South Asia ranks first on income and enrollment and second on life expectancy [1][2][3].

• Sub-Saharan Africa gained the most life expectancy (+8.9 years, to 62.8) but income per person rose only 16% and is still below its 2015 peak [1][2].
• South Asia more than doubled income per person (+148%), added 7.4 years of life expectancy and gained 22 points of secondary enrollment [1][2][3].
• Latin America & Caribbean was near the top on enrollment (98% gross) and life expectancy (75.8 years) in 2024. But it gained the least in life expectancy and enrollment, and income per person grew only 24% [1][2][3].
• East Asia & Pacific more than doubled income per person (+115%) and still has the highest income of the four, at $13,295. Even so, that is only about 32% of the high-income-country level [1][4].

Income is the largest gap in every region once each is compared with high-income countries. The size of that gap varies enormously, from 4% of the high-income level in Sub-Saharan Africa to 32% in East Asia & Pacific [1][4].

Regional trajectories

Each chart below shows one region's three indicators indexed to 2005 = 100, on the same vertical scale for all four regions, so heights compare directly. Levels are in the text.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Biggest gain: life expectancy. It rose from 53.9 to 62.8 years (+8.9, the largest gain of any region) [2]. Secondary enrollment rose from 31% to 46% [3]. Income per person grew only 0.8% a year, from $1,367 to $1,589, and peaked at $1,647 in 2015 [1]. Biggest gap: income. It stands at 3.8% of the high-income level, down from 4.1% in 2005, so the gap widened [1][4]. The biggest non-income gap is secondary enrollment: 46% against 103% in high-income countries [3][5]. Population grew 66% to 1.24 billion, so total output grew much faster than income per person (see the population section) [6].

South Asia

Biggest gain: income. GDP per capita rose from $940 to $2,329 (+148%, 4.9% a year), the fastest of the four [1]. Life expectancy rose from 65.1 to 72.6 years. It fell to 67.8 in 2021, the COVID-19 year, before recovering [2]. Secondary enrollment rose from 55% to 77%, though the series has slipped from a 2022 high of 80% [3]. Biggest gap: income. It reached 5.5% of the high-income level, from 2.8% in 2005, so the gap narrowed relatively but remains very large [1][4]. Secondary enrollment, 26 points behind high-income countries, is the largest non-income gap [3][5].

Latin America & Caribbean

Biggest gain (relative to peers): secondary enrollment. It rose from 87% to 98% gross, close to the high-income level [3]. This is a modest result: the region's gains in income (+24%) and life expectancy (+3.3 years) were the smallest or second smallest of the four [1][2]. Income per person grew only 1.1% a year, from $7,161 to $8,872. It fell in 2020 and has recovered only gradually [1]. Biggest gap: income. It stayed at about 21% of the high-income level (21.6% in 2005, 21.1% in 2024), so there was no convergence in two decades [1][4]. Life expectancy (4.6 years behind) and enrollment are close to the high-income levels [2][3][7][5].

East Asia & Pacific

Biggest gain: income. GDP per capita more than doubled, from $6,191 to $13,295 (+115%, 4.1% a year) [1]. Secondary enrollment rose from 70% to 92% [3]. Life expectancy rose from 73.3 to 76.7 years, a smaller gain because it started high [2]. Biggest gap: income. At 31.6% of the high-income level, up from 18.7%, this is the closest to convergence of the four but still far from it [1][4]. Secondary enrollment, 11 points behind high-income countries, is the largest non-income gap [3][5]. The World Bank's East Asia & Pacific aggregate is dominated by its largest economies, so it hides large differences between countries.

Side-by-side comparison

Levels on a common scale

The three charts below plot the four regions' levels on common axes for each indicator.

GDP per capita

Life expectancy

Secondary enrollment

Gains, 2005 to 2024

Gaps to the high-income benchmark

Gap is each region's 2024 level as a share of the World Bank high-income aggregate. The high-income level is a benchmark, not a target. It shows how far each region is from where today's richest countries stand.

Income per person is the largest gap in every region and the only one that is wide in all four. For Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, secondary enrollment is the second-largest gap, 57 and 26 points behind the high-income level. For Latin America & Caribbean and East Asia & Pacific, life expectancy is within 4 to 5 years of the high-income level and secondary enrollment within 5 to 11 points [2][3][7][5].

Ranking since 2005

How the ranking works

Regions are ranked by the average of their ranks on three gains: GDP per capita growth (%), life expectancy gain (years) and secondary enrollment gain (percentage points). A second, normalized score rescales each gain to 0–100 across the four regions (0 = smallest gain, 100 = largest) and averages the three.

Ranking

1. South Asia. It ranks first on income and enrollment and second on life expectancy. Both ranking methods place it first.

2. East Asia & Pacific. It ranks second on income and enrollment, but third on life expectancy because it started high.

3. Sub-Saharan Africa. It gained the most life expectancy but the least in income per person. Its gains are large relative to its starting point.

4. Latin America & Caribbean. It ranks last on life expectancy and enrollment gains and third on income, and it is last under both methods. Its low ranking partly reflects its high starting point.

Population context

UN population data show demographic forces that sit beside the World Bank figures. Population growth dilutes per-person gains in Sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia has the oldest population of the four regions [6].

• Sub-Saharan Africa: population grew 66% to 1.24 billion, while fertility fell from 5.6 to 4.3 births per woman. Median age is only 18. Output grew roughly 93% in total, yet income per person grew only 16% [1][6].
• South Asia: population grew 28% and fertility fell to 2.2, about replacement level. Faster output growth than any other region is the main reason for its top rank [1][6].
• East Asia: population grew only 12%, fertility is 1.3, and median age rose from 30.5 to 37.4. It has the oldest population of the four regions [6].
• Latin America & Caribbean: population grew 19% and fertility fell to 1.8, below replacement. Its income per person grew 24% over the period [1][6].

Caveats

• Regional definitions differ between sources. The World Bank's South Asia, East Asia & Pacific, Latin America & Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa are matched to the UN's Southern Asia, Eastern and South-Eastern Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa. UN Southern Asia includes Iran, and the UN East Asia grouping excludes Pacific island states. Use the population figures as context rather than as an exact match.
• School enrollment is secondary gross enrollment. Net primary enrollment would be the cleaner measure, but the World Bank has no regional values for it after 2015 [8]. Gross enrollment can exceed 100%, and it measures access, not learning quality.
• The most recent years may be provisional. The 2024 values are the latest published and may be revised. South Asia's secondary enrollment fell from 80% in 2022 to 77% in 2024 in the current series [3].
• COVID-19 distorts the middle of the period. Life expectancy dropped in 2020–21 in South Asia and Latin America & Caribbean, and income fell in most regions in 2020. The ranking is not sensitive to this, as 2005–2019 gives the same first and last places [1][2].
• Income is measured in constant 2015 US dollars at market exchange rates. It is not adjusted for purchasing power, and it is not a measure of well-being.
• The ranking weights three indicators equally. Adding health outcomes other than life expectancy, poverty or inequality could change second and third places.

Sources