Hubbry Logo
Least developed countriesLeast developed countriesMain
Open search
Least developed countries
Community hub
Least developed countries
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Least developed countries
Least developed countries
Least developed countries
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
  Least developed countries (designated by the UN as of 2025)
  Former least developed countries

The least developed countries (LDCs) are developing countries listed by the United Nations that exhibit the lowest indicators of socioeconomic development. The concept of LDCs originated in the late 1960s and the first group of LDCs was listed by the UN in its resolution 2768 (XXVI) on 18 November 1971.[1]

A country can be classified among the least developed countries when it meets the three following criteria:[2][3]

  • Poverty – adjustable criterion based on the gross national income (GNI) per capita averaged over three years. As of 2018, a country must have GNI per capita less than US$1,025 to be included on the list, and over $1,230 to graduate from it.
  • Human resource weakness (based on indicators of nutrition, health, education and adult literacy).
  • Economic vulnerability (based on instability of agricultural production, instability of exports of goods and services, economic importance of non-traditional activities, merchandise export concentration, handicap of economic smallness, and the percentage of population displaced by natural disasters).

As of December 2024, 44 countries were still classified as LDC, while eight graduated between 1994 and 2024.[4] The World Trade Organization (WTO) recognizes the UN list and says that "Measures taken in the framework of the WTO can help LDCs increase their exports to other WTO members and attract investment. In many developing countries, pro-market reforms have encouraged faster growth, diversification of exports, and more effective participation in the multilateral trading system."[5]

Overview

[edit]
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day
G33 countries: a coalition of developing countries in regards to agriculture.

LDC criteria are reviewed every three years by the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Countries may be removed from the LDC classification when indicators exceed these criteria in two consecutive triennial reviews.[6] The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) coordinates UN support and provides advocacy services for Least Developed Countries. The classification (as of December 2020) applies to 46 countries.[4]

At the UN's fourth conference on LDCs, which was held in May 2011, delegates endorsed a goal targeting the promotion of at least half the current LDC countries within the next ten years.[7] As of 2018, ten or more countries were expected to graduate in 2024, with Bangladesh and Djibouti already satisfying all criteria in 2018.[8]

There is one country which presently meets the criteria and two countries which previously met the criteria for LDC status, but declined to be included in the index, questioning the validity or accuracy of the CDP's data: Ghana (no longer meets criteria as of 1994), Papua New Guinea (no longer meets criteria as of 2009), and Zimbabwe.[9]

Usage and abbreviations

[edit]
Further information: Developing country § Criticisms of the term

Least developed countries can be distinguished from developing countries, "less developed countries", "lesser developed countries", or other similar terms.

The term "less economically developed country" (LEDC) is also used today. However, in order to avoid confusion between "least developed country" and "less economically developed country" (which may both be abbreviated as LDC), and to avoid confusion with landlocked developing country (which can be abbreviated as LLDC), "developing country" is generally used in preference to "less-developed country".

During a United Nations review in 2018, the UN defined LDCs as countries meeting three criteria, one of which was a three-year average estimate of gross national income (GNI) per capita of less than US$1,025.[10]

UN conferences

[edit]
Deputy Foreign Minister of Greece Spyros Kouvelis at the 4th UN Conference on Least Developed Countries

There have been five United Nations conferences on LDCs, held every ten years. The first two were in Paris, in 1981 and 1991; the third was in Brussels in 2001.

The Fourth UN Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDC-IV) was held in Istanbul, Turkey, on 9–13 May 2011. It was attended by Ban Ki-moon, the head of the UN, and close to 50 prime ministers and heads of state. The conference endorsed the goal of raising half the existing Least developed countries out of the LDC category in 2022. As with the Seoul Development Consensus drawn up in 2010, there was a strong emphasis on boosting productive capability and physical infrastructure, with several NGOs not pleased with the emphasis placed on the private sector.[7][11]

The Fifth UN Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDC-V) was split in two parts almost a year apart, between UN Headquarters in New York on 17 March 2022 and Doha on 5–9 March 2023.[12]

Trade

[edit]

Issues surrounding global trade regulations and LDCs have gained a lot of media and policy attention thanks to the recently collapsed Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations being termed a development round. During the WTO's Hong Kong Ministerial, it was agreed that LDCs could see 100 percent duty-free, quota-free access to U.S. markets if the round were completed. But analysis of the deal by NGOs found that the text of the proposed LDC deal had substantial loopholes that might make the offer less than the full 100 percent access, and could even erase some current duty-free access of LDCs to rich country markets.[13][14] Dissatisfaction with these loopholes led some economists to call for a reworking of the Hong Kong deal.[citation needed]

Chiedu Osakwe, as of 2001 the Director, Technical Cooperation Division at the Secretariat of the WTO, and adviser to the Director-General on developing country matters, was appointed as the WTO Special Coordinator for the Least Developed Countries beginning in 1999.[15] He worked closely with the five other agencies that together with the WTO constitute the Integrated Framework of action for the Least Developed Countries. They addressed issues of market access, special and differential treatment provisions for developing countries, participation of developing countries in the multilateral trading system, and development questions, especially the interests of developing countries in competition policy.[16] At the 28th G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien proposed and carried the Market Access Initiative, so that the then 48 LDCs could profit from "trade-not-aid".[17] Additionally, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 advocates for an effective special and differential treatment of LDCs as integral parts of WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation.[18]

Market access preferences

[edit]

Several countries grant preferential access to least developed countries. For instance, the European Union has implemented the Everything but Arms scheme, while Switzerland offers free access to its market for all products to LDCs.[19] Access to the Japanese market is also free for LDCs.[20]

Effective 1 December 2024, China eliminated tariffs for goods imported from all of the countries that the United Nations categorizes as least developed and with which China has diplomatic relations. Thirty-three of the countries benefiting from the agreement are in Africa and the non-African countries receiving zero tariff treatment are Yemen, Kiribati, the Solomon Islands, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, and East Timor.[21]

List of countries

[edit]

The following 44 countries were still listed as least developed countries by the UN as of December 2024:[22] Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Tanzania, Yemen, and Zambia.

By continent or region

[edit]

There are 32 countries that are classified as least developed countries in Africa, 8 in Asia, 3 in Oceania, and 1 in the Americas.

The list of "least developed countries" according to the United Nations with some that are categorized into the landlocked developing countries and the Small Island Developing States:[23]

Africa

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Delisted countries (graduated countries)

[edit]

The three criteria (human assets, economic vulnerability and gross national income per capita) are assessed by the Committee for Development Policy every three years. Countries must meet two of the three criteria at two consecutive triennial reviews to be considered for graduation. The Committee for Development Policy sends its recommendations for endorsement to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).[27]

After the initiation of the LDC category, eight countries graduated to developing country status. The first country to graduate from LDC status was Botswana in 1994. The second country was Cape Verde in 2007.[28] Maldives graduated to developing country status at the beginning of 2011, Samoa in 2014,[6][29] Equatorial Guinea in 2017,[30] Vanuatu in December 2020,[31] Bhutan in December 2023,[32] and São Tomé and Príncipe in December 2024.[33]

The following countries are no longer categorized in the "least developed countries" group:

Countries expected to graduate soon

[edit]
  • Bangladesh met the criteria twice, once in 2018 and again in 2021. The country will officially graduate from LDC status in November 2026, two years after it was supposed to, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[40]
  • Laos and Nepal will also graduate in November 2026.[41] The latter was originally selected to graduate to developing country status in 2018. However, the authorities of Nepal requested to postpone graduation until 2021.[42] Graduation was later pushed back an additional five years.
  • Solomon Islands will graduate in December 2027.[43]
  • Cambodia is expected to graduate in December 2029. It met the criteria in 2021 and was originally expected to graduate in 2027, but this was later postponed to ensure a smooth transition.[44]
  • Senegal will graduate in December 2029.[45]
  • Djibouti, Kiribati and Tuvalu could graduate from LDC status in 2027 at the earliest.[43]
  • Comoros and Myanmar met the graduation criteria at least twice. They could be recommended for graduation in 2027.[43]
  • Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania met the graduation criteria for the first time in 2024. They could be recommended for graduation in 2027.[46][47][48]
  • Angola was expected to graduate in 2021, but the preparatory period was extended by three years because of the economic difficulties of the country and its dependence on commodities.[49] Graduation was further postponed in December 2023, without any specific timeline.[50]
  • Zambia and Timor-Leste met the graduation criteria in the past but no longer meet the qualification.[43]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Least developed countries

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Least developed countries (LDCs) comprise a United Nations-designated category of sovereign states exhibiting the lowest levels of socioeconomic development, defined by low , inadequate human assets such as and indicators, and elevated economic and environmental vulnerability to external shocks. As of January 2025, 44 countries hold LDC status, with 32 located in , eight in , one in the Caribbean, and three in the Pacific, representing nations that collectively house over one billion people facing persistent structural barriers to growth including weak institutions, dependence on primary commodities, and limited diversification. The classification, reviewed triennially by the UN Committee for Development Policy, employs specific thresholds: a gross national income below approximately $1,088 for inclusion (with graduation requiring sustained exceedance of $1,305), a Human Assets Index score below 60 reflecting deficiencies in nutrition, , schooling, and adult , and an Economic Vulnerability Index exceeding 32, capturing instability from trade shocks, natural disasters, and export concentration. This framework aims to identify countries least equipped for self-sustained development, often trapped in cycles of poverty exacerbated by governance failures, conflict, and policy distortions rather than solely external factors. LDCs benefit from international measures such as duty-free , enhanced targets (0.15-0.2% of donors' GNI), and technical support to foster graduation, though empirical evidence indicates mixed success, with only a handful like and achieving removal since 1971, underscoring challenges in translating aid into institutional reforms and productivity gains. Controversies persist regarding the criteria's adequacy, as some nations meet thresholds yet stagnate due to endogenous factors like and resource mismanagement, prompting calls for incorporating metrics despite resistance from affected states.

Definition and Criteria

Establishment of the Category

The category of least developed countries (LDCs) was established by the through Resolution 2768 (XXVI), adopted on 18 November 1971, to formally recognize a group of nations facing the most acute developmental disadvantages. This resolution endorsed the initial identification of 25 countries by the Committee for Development Planning (now the Committee for Development Policy), selected based on rudimentary indicators such as below $100 annually and adult rates under 20 percent. The move addressed the empirical reality of structural impediments—low productive capacities, human resource deficiencies, and economic vulnerability—that perpetuated traps in these states, distinct from broader developing economies. Prior to 1971, international development assistance had often been distributed on an basis influenced by political alliances rather than systematic assessment of need. The LDC designation shifted focus toward objective, data-driven prioritization, aiming to galvanize coordinated global attention without presupposing aid as the sole pathway out of . This rationale emerged from deliberations in the late , including UN reports highlighting post-independence stagnation in former colonies where resource endowments failed to translate into self-sustaining growth due to institutional and infrastructural deficits. By institutionalizing the category, the UN sought to underscore causal factors of entrenched , such as limited diversification and exposure to external shocks, thereby facilitating targeted policies grounded in observable disparities rather than equitable distribution across all low-income nations. The initial list included countries like , Mali, and Haiti, reflecting a consensus on the need for exceptional international measures to address vulnerabilities not adequately captured by general development frameworks.

Core Indicators: GNI, HAI, and EVI

The classification of least developed countries (LDCs) relies on three core quantitative indicators assessed by the Committee for Development Policy (CDP): () per , the Human Assets Index (HAI), and the Economic and Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI). These metrics evaluate structural impediments to development, emphasizing low productive capacity, deficiencies in accumulation, and exposure to exogenous shocks that perpetuate poverty traps through causal mechanisms such as limited , shortages, and institutional fragility rather than transient external factors alone. For inclusion in the LDC category, a country must exhibit low performance across all three— below the inclusion threshold, HAI below its threshold, and EVI above its threshold—while requires meeting enhanced thresholds in at least two criteria over two consecutive triennial reviews. GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method to adjust for fluctuations and , serves as a direct proxy for a country's average economic output and , excluding inflows to focus on domestically generated resources. The inclusion threshold stands at less than $1,088 (based on the 2024 review), reflecting economies with insufficient and technological adoption to sustain broad-based growth. For , the standard threshold is $1,306 or higher, or $3,918 under an income-only pathway, underscoring that sustained elevation signals improved structural absent from aid-dependent models. The HAI quantifies human capital endowments through a composite index averaging normalized scores from five indicators: prevalence of undernourishment, under-five mortality rate, , gross secondary school enrolment ratio, and adult literacy rate. Low HAI scores (below the inclusion threshold, with graduation requiring 66 or above) highlight endogenous deficits in , , and , which causally constrain labor and by limiting workforce skills and demographic dividends. These components prioritize measurable outcomes over inputs, revealing institutional failures in public goods provision that perpetuate intergenerational . The EVI assesses structural vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks via two sub-indices: an exposure component (including remoteness, export concentration, and sectoral dependence on , forestry, or fisheries) and a shock proneness component ( in exports and agricultural production, plus victims ). High EVI scores (above the inclusion threshold, with at 32 or below) indicate economies prone to volatility from undiversified structures and weak resilience, where poor amplifies shock impacts on growth rather than solely attributing to global events. This index, refined in 2015 to incorporate environmental factors, emphasizes that stems from internal rigidities like small market size and policy shortcomings, not merely external dependencies.

Inclusion and Graduation Thresholds

A country qualifies for inclusion in the least developed countries (LDC) category by failing to meet the inclusion thresholds across all three core criteria—gross national income (GNI) , human assets index (HAI), and economic vulnerability index (EVI)—as assessed by the United Nations Committee for Development Policy (CDP). For the 2024 triennial review, these thresholds are set at a GNI of $1,088 or below, an HAI of 60 or below, and an EVI of 36 or above, reflecting persistent low income, weak human development, and high exposure to external shocks. This requirement ensures that only economies exhibiting structural across multiple dimensions are designated, prioritizing empirical indicators over temporary fluctuations or . Graduation from LDC status requires a to achieve the graduation thresholds for at least two of the three criteria in two consecutive triennial reviews by the CDP, thereby demonstrating sustained progress rather than isolated or -dependent gains. The 2024 graduation thresholds are a GNI of $1,306 or above, an HAI of 66 or above, and an EVI of 32 or below, with the higher margins for HAI and EVI (10% above and below the inclusion levels, respectively) designed to confirm resilience against regression. An exception allows eligibility based solely on GNI if it reaches at least twice the graduation threshold ($2,612), though this has rarely been applied to emphasize comprehensive advancement. These rules, refined in recent CDP updates to incorporate data on long-term trends excluding volatile inflows, aim to prevent premature exits that could expose economies to sudden loss of international support. Upon a CDP recommendation meeting these thresholds, the decides on , typically effective after a minimum three-year preparation period to allow implementation of transition strategies. Graduating countries retain LDC-specific international support measures, including trade preferences and aid commitments, for a smooth transition period of up to five years, as outlined in the Istanbul Programme of Action, to buffer against "graduation cliffs" such as abrupt increases or reduced concessional financing. This phased approach, informed by empirical reviews of past graduations showing vulnerability to external shocks post-status change, underscores causal links between sustained threshold compliance and viable post-LDC development.

Historical Development

Initial Identification in the 1970s

The economic landscape for many post-independence states in , , and the Pacific was characterized by persistent low growth and vulnerability, as these nations grappled with limited industrialization and heavy reliance on primary commodity exports amid global commodity price swings. The , initiated by the embargo following the , quadrupled crude oil prices from approximately $3 to $12 per barrel, imposing severe balance-of-payments strains on non-oil-exporting low-income countries whose import dependencies amplified the shock's impact. This external pressure exacerbated internal low-income traps, where weak domestic bases—often contributing less than 10% to GDP—and concentrated export profiles left economies susceptible to terms-of-trade deterioration without diversified revenue streams or robust fiscal buffers. To address these acute disadvantages, the Committee for Development Planning (CDP), in its seventh session held in from March 29 to April 9, 1971, recommended initial criteria for identifying the "least developed among the developing countries," emphasizing empirical markers of structural underdevelopment over transient external factors. These included below roughly $100 (using 1968 data), a sector share of GDP under 10%, and asset indicators such as caloric supply below 2,200 calories daily and adult literacy rates under 20%. The framework highlighted internal constraints like inadequate accumulation and failure to industrialize, which perpetuated dependence on undiversified primary exports and limited to shocks, predating substantial international aid commitments. The UN formalized the category through Resolution 2768 (XXVI) on November 18, 1971, adopting the CDP's criteria and designating an initial list of 24 countries, including , , , , , , , , and Upper Volta (now ). This identification process prioritized empirical data on entrenched vulnerabilities, such as export concentrations exceeding 75% in a single for many candidates, underscoring causal links between policy-induced structural rigidities and developmental stagnation. In , the CDP's eighth session from April 10 to 20 conducted the first comprehensive triennial review of the category, refining application of the criteria to ensure focus on countries with the most severe internal developmental deficits while urging special international measures like enhanced technical assistance to build export diversification and institutional capacities. This early analytical approach, grounded in available and demographic data, avoided over-reliance on as a , instead signaling the need for domestic reforms to address root causes like low investment in and productive sectors.

Evolution Through UN Conferences

The First United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries convened in from 1 to 14 September 1981 and adopted the Substantial New Programme of Action, which urged donor countries to direct 0.15 percent of their toward targeted at LDCs, prioritizing areas such as , , and basic to address acute underdevelopment. This initiative sought to counteract the structural vulnerabilities of LDCs but faced later criticism for emphasizing volume over conditionality, with empirical studies indicating that such aid often failed to generate sustained due to issues like and weak institutional absorption. The Second Conference, held in from 3 to 14 September 1990, assessed the era's debt crises and sluggish progress, adopting the Paris Declaration and Programme of Action that stressed export diversification, , and vulnerability to external shocks as key policy foci amid the ' economic setbacks. Building on this, the Third Conference in from 14 to 20 May 2001 produced the Brussels Programme of Action for 2001–2010, integrating LDC strategies with , including pledges to halve by 2015; however, post-conference reviews revealed these targets were predominantly unmet, as LDC growth averaged below 2 percent annually and poverty persisted at over 40 percent in aggregate. Subsequent conferences intensified emphasis on graduation pathways. The Fourth in Istanbul from 9 to 13 May 2011 endorsed the Istanbul Programme of Action for 2011–2020, aiming for at least half of LDCs to meet graduation criteria by 2020 through enhanced productive capacities and risk mitigation, yet only a handful advanced, underscoring causal factors like governance deficits and commodity dependence over aid inflows alone. The Fifth, split between New York in March 2022 and Doha from 5 to 9 March 2023, adopted the Doha Programme of Action for 2022–2031, which extended support frameworks and deferred comprehensive category reviews to 2024 in recognition of stalled structural transformations despite prior commitments. Across these summits, data consistently highlight LDCs' underperformance— with fewer than 10 graduations since 1981—attributable more to internal policy inertia than external aid shortfalls, per analyses prioritizing causal mechanisms over correlative inputs.

Reforms to Criteria Over Time

The United Nations Committee for Development Policy (CDP) has iteratively refined the LDC identification criteria since the category's to better capture structural impediments to development, shifting from simplistic income and metrics toward composite indices that emphasize persistent vulnerabilities and deficits. In 1991, the CDP introduced precursors to the Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI), incorporating factors such as concentration and instability alongside population size to account for inherent risks faced by small and remote economies, moving beyond transient economic indicators to prioritize causal exposure to external shocks. These early adjustments recognized that low income alone inadequately reflected barriers like geographic isolation, which empirical data showed amplified economic fragility independent of policy efforts. By 2003, the criteria evolved further with the formal adoption of the Human Assets Index (HAI), replacing the earlier and incorporating under-five mortality rates and enrolment to quantify deficiencies, informed by evidence that foreign aid inflows often yield limited growth without foundational investments in and . The EVI was simultaneously refined to include remoteness and instability metrics, enhancing predictive capacity for economic shocks as validated by longitudinal data on vulnerable economies. Subsequent updates in 2012 fixed absolute thresholds for HAI (graduation at 66 points) and EVI (graduation below 32 points), decoupling them from relative distributions among developing countries to impose stricter, data-calibrated benchmarks that incentivize sustained reforms over marginal improvements. Post-2012 refinements continued to prioritize causal realism, with 2017 additions to HAI of stunting prevalence and indices, and EVI expansions to encompass exposure, addressing empirical gaps in measuring environmental and nutritional barriers that perpetuate low productivity cycles. In 2024, the CDP raised GNI thresholds (inclusion below $1,088, above $1,306) and updated HAI to use lower secondary completion rates while refining EVI components like export market concentration and disaster victim data from the Sendai Framework, aiming to filter out countries reliant on temporary booms and compel institutional strengthening for verifiable progress. These data-driven tweaks, applied in the 2024 triennial review, underscore a commitment to metrics that distinguish enduring structural frailties from reversible setbacks, though critics note that without corresponding enforcement of , incentives for domestic reform may remain diluted.

Current Composition and Regional Breakdown

African LDCs

Africa accounts for the majority of the world's least developed countries, with 32 of the 44 UN-designated LDCs situated on the continent as of January 2025. These nations predominantly feature low (GNI) per capita, averaging below $1,000 in recent years, alongside high human assets index (HAI) deficits and economic vulnerability index (EVI) scores driven by recurrent conflicts, climatic extremes, and structural fragilities. Key population centers include the (over 100 million inhabitants), (approximately 120 million), and (around 48 million), which collectively represent significant shares of Africa's underdevelopment challenges. The full roster of African LDCs comprises Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, , Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, and Zambia. These countries exhibit aggregate traits such as heavy dependence, with 90% classified as reliant on primary exports for over 60% of merchandise exports during 2018–2020, exposing them to price volatility and terms-of-trade shocks that empirical analyses link to stalled growth. Resource-rich examples like and the illustrate the phenomenon, where abundant natural endowments correlate with governance failures, including of rents and institutional weakening, rather than diversified economic progress. Official development assistance (ODA) inflows remain critical, averaging around 3% of (GNI) across sub-Saharan African LDCs in recent data, though higher in fragile states like and where aid constitutes 10–15% of GDP amid conflict and fiscal shortfalls. EVI elevations stem from factors like drought in the and insurgency in the , with over half of African LDCs scoring above the UN vulnerability threshold due to these exposures, compounding traps through disrupted and displacement. Poor metrics, including low scores on corruption perception indices for nations like and , further hinder effective resource mobilization and investment, perpetuating cycles of aid dependence and commodity-led instability.

Asian and Pacific LDCs

The Asian and Pacific least developed countries (LDCs) comprise 11 nations as of January 2025: eight in Asia (, , , , Lao People's Democratic Republic, , , and Timor-Leste) and three in the Pacific (, , and ). These countries exhibit greater diversity in economic trajectories compared to their African counterparts, with some demonstrating progress through export-oriented manufacturing while others remain mired in conflict-driven stagnation or geographic isolation. For instance, has achieved significant () gains, reaching approximately $2,800 in 2023, primarily via ready-made garments exports, positioning it for graduation in November 2026. In contrast, 's hovered around $1,200 in 2023 amid civil unrest following the 2021 military coup, underscoring aid-dependent traps exacerbated by political instability. Human Assets Index (HAI) scores in Asian LDCs reflect moderate advancements in and metrics, averaging around 55-65 out of 100, driven by investments in primary schooling and maternal in nations like and . , for example, improved its HAI from 52 in 2018 to 60 by 2021 through expanded literacy programs, though persistent affects 36% of children under five. However, Economic and Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) scores remain elevated, often exceeding 50, due to structural factors such as landlocked status (e.g., Nepal, Lao PDR) and exposure to seismic activity or monsoons (e.g., Myanmar's cyclone-prone coasts). This high EVI perpetuates fragility, as evidenced by Nepal's 2015 earthquake, which caused $10 billion in damages equivalent to 50% of GDP, highlighting causal links between geography and impeded . Pacific LDCs, as small island micro-states, face acute vulnerabilities from their dispersed geography and low elevation, amplifying risks from sea-level rise and tropical cyclones. and , with populations under 120,000 each, register EVI scores above 70, reflecting near-total reliance on fisheries and remittances, which are disrupted by events like in 2015 that devastated 95% of Vanuatu's crops (a Pacific state). exemplifies divergence, with modest HAI gains to 58 by 2021 via basic immunization coverage exceeding 80%, yet chronic disaster shocks—averaging one major event annually—constrain diversification beyond . These empirical patterns reveal market-driven escapes in Asia's denser economies versus persistent traps in remote Pacific settings, where small scale limits in infrastructure resilience.
CountryRegionKey Vulnerability FactorRecent HAI Score (approx.)EVI Score (approx.)
AsiaFlood-prone deltas6252
MyanmarAsiaPolitical instability, cyclones5855
AsiaLandlocked, earthquakes6058
PacificSea-level rise5572
PacificIsolation, storms5475

Caribbean and Atlantic LDCs

As of October 2025, remains the sole least developed country (LDC) in the and Atlantic regions, following the graduation of from LDC status on December 13, 2024. , an Atlantic island state with a of approximately 231,000, had exemplified the vulnerabilities of micro-insular economies, including extreme exposure to climate shocks and reliance on single commodities like cocoa exports, which comprised over 90% of its merchandise exports prior to graduation. Haiti's persistence in the category highlights the persistent structural barriers amplified by its island geography, where limited landmass and remoteness constrain scale economies and inflate logistics costs by up to 20-30% compared to continental peers. Haiti's gross national income (GNI) per capita of $1,536 falls well below graduation thresholds, reflecting subdued productivity amid geographic isolation that elevates import dependencies for energy and essentials, often doubling effective costs relative to larger economies. Its Human Assets Index (HAI) score underscores deficits in nutrition, education, and health—key metrics penalized by insularity's barriers to scalable infrastructure and skilled labor mobility—while the Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) exceeds 60 points, driven by structural factors like a 25% share of agriculture in GDP and recurrent exposure to cyclones, with over 90% of the population in disaster-prone zones. Hurricanes, such as Matthew in 2016 which damaged 80% of crops, exemplify how insular positioning in the Atlantic hurricane belt amplifies EVI through rapid shock transmission, limiting resilience via small fiscal buffers and fragmented supply chains. Despite preferential trade regimes like duty-free access to major markets, Haiti's export base shows minimal diversification, with apparel assembly (under U.S. preferences) and agricultural commodities like and mangoes accounting for over 80% of goods exports, vulnerable to global price swings and weather disruptions inherent to monocultures. , a sector with theoretical insularity advantages, contributes less than 2% to GDP due to compounded risks from disasters and internal instability, perpetuating a cycle where geographic premiums hinder in higher-value services or . This profile illustrates how Atlantic and insularity causally elevates vulnerability thresholds, sustaining LDC status through persistent high costs and shock amplification despite international supports.

Recently Graduated Countries

Since 2011, five countries have graduated from least developed country (LDC) status: the on January 1, 2011; on January 1, 2014; on June 4, 2017; on December 4, 2020; and on December 13, 2023. São Tomé and Príncipe followed in 2024, bringing the total number of graduates since the LDC category's establishment in 1971 to eight. These transitions reflect sustained improvements in (GNI) per capita, human assets, and reduced economic vulnerability indices over consecutive triennial reviews by the UN Committee for Development Policy. Post-graduation economic performance has shown mixed sustainability, often challenged by the phase-out of LDC-specific international support measures, including duty-free quota-free and enhanced (ODA) commitments targeting LDCs. While some graduates maintained GNI growth through resource exports or , others faced stagnation or decline amid dependence and external shocks, highlighting the limits of preferential benefits in fostering long-term structural resilience without domestic diversification. Temporary extensions of certain preferences, such as under the EU's Everything But Arms initiative for up to three years, mitigate immediate losses but do not fully offset reduced concessional financing. The following table summarizes key post-2010 graduates, their graduation triggers, and initial GNI trajectories (World Bank Atlas method, current US dollars):
CountryGraduation DatePre-Graduation GNI (latest review)Post-Graduation GNI ExampleNotes on Outcomes
MaldivesJanuary 1, 2011$5,436 (2009)$6,790 (2012)Steady pre-graduation rise from tourism; post-graduation debt vulnerabilities emerged, but GNI held above thresholds amid global financial strains.
SamoaJanuary 1, 2014$3,319 (2012, threshold ~$1,031)$4,006 (2016)Modest growth sustained via remittances and services; exports dipped initially post-loss of preferences, but overall GNI tripled the threshold without reversal.
Equatorial GuineaJune 4, 2017Oil-driven spike to ~$10,000+ (2014)Projected decline (2017 onward)Resource depletion led to GDP contraction; heavy oil reliance exposed structural weaknesses, with limited diversification post-graduation.
VanuatuDecember 4, 2020$2,913 (2020)Stagnant amid COVID (2021: ~$3,000)Digital reforms aided pre-graduation; pandemic and cyclone shocks post-2020 hampered recovery, underscoring persistent vulnerability despite GNI stability.
BhutanDecember 13, 2023~$3,500+ (2021, with 7.5% avg. GDP growth 2010-2019)Early 2024: Growth ambitions amid grant phase-outHydropower and policy stability drove exit; post-graduation faces aid reduction risks, with plans for 10-fold GDP expansion by 2034 to counter lost concessional flows.
These cases illustrate that while graduation signals progress, the erosion of LDC benefits—estimated to reduce ODA inflows by up to 20-30% in some instances without compensatory measures—tests fiscal and resilience, particularly for small, vulnerable economies. No graduates have reapplied for LDC reinstatement, but economic and environmental vulnerabilities often persist, requiring robust transition strategies to avoid setbacks.

Countries Nearing Graduation

Several least developed countries (LDCs) are projected to meet the United Nations Committee for Development Policy (CDP) graduation thresholds—gross national income (GNI) per capita of at least $1,306, human assets index (HAI) of 66 or above, and economic vulnerability index (EVI) of 32 or below—during the 2024-2027 review cycle, potentially leading to 3-5 graduations if endorsed by the Economic and Social Council and General Assembly. Nepal, the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), and Bangladesh are scheduled to graduate in 2026 after fulfilling all three criteria in consecutive triennial reviews, with Nepal's 2021 EVI at 24.9, HAI at approximately 76, and GNI surpassing the threshold despite earlier shortfalls. Similarly, Lao PDR's 2024 EVI stands at 29.8 (below the 32 threshold), HAI at 74.8, and GNI met, reflecting sustained progress in human development and reduced vulnerability exposure. Rwanda, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania met the criteria for the first time in the 2024 CDP review, positioning them for potential recommendation in 2027, though their high exposure to commodity price fluctuations and climate shocks underscores empirical risks of post-graduation regression without structural reforms. These countries exhibit partial threshold compliance amid ongoing vulnerabilities, such as Lao PDR's merchandise export instability and Nepal's reliance on remittances and agriculture, which amplify susceptibility to external shocks like natural disasters or global downturns. Historical data indicate that without diversification—evident in graduated peers like Bangladesh's shift toward manufacturing—graduating LDCs face heightened reversal probabilities, as vulnerability metrics often lag income gains due to undiversified economies and low resilience. Preparatory reforms in these nations include targeted diversification initiatives, such as Nepal's emphasis on and to broaden export bases beyond low-value , and Lao PDR's infrastructure investments under the National Socio-Economic Development Plan to mitigate remoteness and export concentration. , projected for 2027 graduation, exemplifies such efforts through in garments and , yet debates persist on whether threshold compliance equates to readiness, given persistent deficits in institutional capacity and shock absorption. UN projections emphasize that while 2024-2027 could see accelerated exits, causal factors like commodity dependence necessitate evidence-based transition strategies to prevent aid cliffs from eroding gains.

International Frameworks and Support Mechanisms

UN Designation and Review Process

The Committee for Development Policy (CDP), a subsidiary organ of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), oversees the empirical review of countries' eligibility for inclusion in or graduation from the least developed countries (LDC) category. Comprising 24 independent experts appointed by ECOSOC in their personal capacity for three-year terms, the CDP conducts data-driven assessments using the latest available socioeconomic indicators, consulting with governments as needed but prioritizing objective analysis over advocacy. The CDP's recommendations are forwarded to ECOSOC for endorsement and then to the UN General Assembly for final approval, ensuring a structured, multilateral process grounded in verifiable metrics rather than unilateral political determinations. Triennial reviews of the LDC list have been conducted by the CDP since 1971, with formalized graduation procedures established under UN resolution 59/209 of 2004, which introduced the requirement for countries to demonstrate sustained eligibility by meeting thresholds at two consecutive reviews before recommendation for graduation. This double-review mechanism, implemented starting with assessments around 2006, aims to confirm long-term progress and mitigate risks of reversal due to transient factors. During each cycle, the CDP evaluates all LDCs and potential candidates, recommending maintenance, inclusion, or graduation based solely on , with decisions deferred to ECOSOC and the to uphold institutional accountability. The 2024-2025 review cycle, culminating in CDP plenary sessions and preparatory consultations, incorporated updated post-COVID-19 data to assess recovery trajectories and vulnerabilities, including revised economic indicators reflecting pandemic-induced disruptions. For instance, in 2025, the CDP solicited progress reports from countries approaching graduation, such as , to integrate recent empirical developments into recommendations for the subsequent ECOSOC session. This ongoing process underscores the CDP's role in adapting to contemporary shocks while maintaining a rigorous, evidence-based framework that resists short-term influences.

Trade Access Preferences

Trade access preferences for least developed countries (LDCs) consist of non-reciprocal duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market access schemes granted by WTO members to promote LDC exports, authorized under the 1979 Enabling Clause for differential treatment and supplemented by waivers for LDC-specific extensions beyond most-favored-nation rules. The 2005 WTO Ministerial Declaration committed developed members to provide DFQF access for at least 97% of products originating in LDCs, with the objective of achieving 100% coverage on a lasting basis. By 2024, 16 developed economies offered comprehensive DFQF treatment for all LDC products, though implementation varies, with some schemes excluding sensitive sectors like . Key examples include the European Union's Everything But Arms (EBA) arrangement, effective since February 2001, which provides unconditional DFQF entry to the EU for all LDC goods except arms and ammunition, building on the broader Generalized Scheme of Preferences framework established in the 1970s. In the United States, the (AGOA), authorized in 2000 and renewed periodically, extends DFQF access for approximately 1,800 tariff lines—plus over 5,000 under general GSP—to eligible sub-Saharan African beneficiaries, 32 of which are LDCs as of 2024. Utilization of these preferences, however, averages below 50% across major schemes, constrained primarily by stringent that demand high domestic content thresholds—often 40-60%—which LDCs frequently fail to meet owing to underdeveloped supply chains and reliance on imported inputs. Empirical assessments by UNCTAD reveal that DFQF preferences yield modest export volume increases to granting markets but fail to drive significant diversification, as gains concentrate in low-value commodities like apparel and raw materials rather than higher-technology or processed . This pattern underscores limitations in addressing LDCs' structural barriers, prompting efficacy critiques despite the schemes' intent to integrate LDCs into global value chains. Reform discussions intensified in 2024 at WTO forums, including the Sub-Committee on LDCs, focusing on rules-of-origin simplification—such as cumulation allowances and reduced paperwork—to boost utilization without diluting preference margins, alongside calls for extended transition periods post-LDC .

Official Development Assistance Commitments

The target, established through the Istanbul Programme of Action and reaffirmed in subsequent frameworks, calls for developed donor countries to allocate 0.15% to 0.20% of their (GNI) in (ODA) specifically to least developed countries (LDCs), with an encouragement to reach 0.20% by 2030. LDC designation under UN criteria directly ties to eligibility for these concessional flows, prioritizing them for grants and soft loans aimed at and structural transformation. Despite this, aggregate ODA disbursements to LDCs have consistently fallen short of the target, averaging below 0.10% of donor GNI across (DAC) members as of 2023, amid broader declines in total aid volumes. In recipient LDCs, net ODA inflows often constitute a substantial share of (GDP), exceeding 10% in numerous cases such as (over 20% in recent years) and other sub-Saharan African economies, reflecting heavy reliance on external financing. Empirical analyses of these inflows reveal a weak or inverse with sustained ; for instance, cross-country regressions indicate that higher ODA levels, particularly above certain thresholds like 4-11% of GDP, associate with diminished GDP expansion, potentially due to crowding out domestic savings or institutional distortions rather than catalytic effects. Such patterns underscore a causal disconnect, where volumes do not reliably translate to gains absent complementary reforms in and markets. Contemporary development strategies, including those from the and UN conferences on LDCs, increasingly pivot from scaling ODA commitments toward leveraging public funds to mobilize private investment, such as through instruments that de-risk commercial capital for and in LDCs. This shift acknowledges ODA's fiscal constraints in donor nations—evident in 2023's 1.6% real-term rise in total but persistent undershooting of LDC-specific goals—and prioritizes sustainable, returns-oriented flows over grant dependency.

Debt Relief Initiatives

The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, launched in 1996 by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, targets unsustainable external debt in the world's poorest nations, with a significant portion of the 39 qualifying countries classified as least developed countries (LDCs), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Debt reduction occurs in two stages: decision point, where interim relief and policy reforms are initiated, and completion point, where full relief is granted upon sustained macroeconomic stability, poverty reduction strategies, and governance improvements. By design, the initiative forgives multilateral, bilateral, and commercial debt, aiming to free resources for development rather than service payments. Complementing HIPC, the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), endorsed in 2005 following the Gleneagles Summit's pledge for 100% cancellation of eligible debts from poor countries, provides outright forgiveness of IMF, World Bank, and African Development Fund debt for HIPC completion-point nations. Together, HIPC and MDRI have delivered over $100 billion in relief to 37 participating countries since 1996, with LDCs receiving the bulk, enabling debt service reductions averaging 2-3% of GDP annually in beneficiary states. Gleneagles commitments accelerated implementation, focusing on African LDCs by doubling aid pledges alongside relief to mitigate re-accumulation risks through tied reforms. Despite these mechanisms, empirical data indicate that many LDC beneficiaries re-accumulated post-relief, with debt-to-GDP ratios in HIPC countries rising from lows around 20-30% in the mid-2000s to over 50% by the 2020s, driven by new non-concessional borrowing amid fiscal expansions exceeding growth. Studies attribute this cycle to insufficient adherence to post-relief fiscal discipline, including unchecked public spending and weak institutional safeguards, rather than external shocks alone, as relief savings often funded consumption over investment. In response to COVID-19-induced debt spikes, the G20's Common Framework, established in 2020, extends coordinated restructuring for low-income countries including LDCs, building on HIPC principles by involving and private creditors for comprehensive treatments. As of 2025, LDCs such as , , and have engaged the framework, securing comparability-of-treatment agreements that forgive or reschedule billions in obligations, though implementation delays highlight challenges in creditor coordination. These efforts prioritize macro-fiscal reforms to prevent recurrence, with IMF oversight ensuring debt sustainability analyses guide relief volumes.

Economic Realities and Structural Challenges

Predominant Commodity Dependence

More than 80% of least developed (LDCs) were classified as -dependent during 2021-2023, with primary commodities comprising at least 60% of their total merchandise exports. This dependence is evident in export profiles dominated by fuels, agricultural products, and minerals; for instance, in 2020-2022, fuels accounted for over 50% of total LDC exports, while agricultural raw materials and ores constituted significant additional shares, often exceeding 70% combined in individual countries like (oil) and (coffee and tea). Such concentration aligns with components of the Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI), where high export instability and agriculture's share in GDP—averaging 25% in LDCs versus under 5% in high-income economies—underscore structural exposure to global price swings. Commodity reliance fosters economic volatility, as price fluctuations—exacerbated by supply disruptions and demand shifts—have repeatedly triggered recessions in LDCs, with terms-of-trade shocks reducing GDP growth by up to 2-3% annually in affected years during the 2020s. This pattern manifests as , wherein resource booms inflate domestic currencies, eroding competitiveness in non-commodity sectors like , which stagnates at under 10% of LDC GDP compared to 25% in emerging Asian economies. Empirical evidence from oil-exporting LDCs, such as and , shows real appreciations of 20-30% during commodity upswings, correlating with manufacturing export declines and persistent low diversification. Weak institutions exacerbate this trap by enabling elites to capture resource revenues without investing in value-adding activities, such as or agro-industrialization, leading to export structures that remain raw-material focused despite abundant reserves. In contrast, East Asian escapes from dependence, as in South Korea's shift from primary exports (60% in 1960) to manufactures (over 90% by 1990), relied on coherent policies enforcing reinvestment and export discipline—outcomes precluded in most LDCs by failures that prioritize short-term extraction over long-term . Data from the early 2020s reveal minimal progress: LDC manufactured exports' share of total exports hovered below 20%, unchanged from 2010 levels, even as global trade preferences intended to spur diversification yielded negligible shifts in productive structures.

Low Human Capital and Infrastructure Deficits

Least developed countries (LDCs) face profound deficits in , characterized by low and poor outcomes that lag far behind global averages. Adult literacy rates in LDCs averaged 66% in 2022, compared to 87% worldwide, reflecting persistent barriers to access and quality. Secondary gross enrollment ratios remain below 50% in most LDCs, with rates as low as 20-30% in conflict-affected states like those in the , limiting skill development essential for economic productivity. In , chronic affects approximately 33% of children under five in LDCs, as measured by stunting , which correlates with cognitive impairments and reduced lifelong earnings potential. Under-five mortality rates averaged 68 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2022, more than double the global figure of 37, underscoring systemic failures in , , and delivery. Infrastructure shortcomings exacerbate these human capital gaps, creating physical barriers to service delivery and . Electricity access in LDCs reached only 52% of the in 2023, with rates below 20% in countries like and , constraining educational lighting, health facility operations, and productive activities after dark. Road infrastructure is equally deficient, with paved networks covering less than 10% of total roads in many LDCs, impeding the transport of goods, students, and patients to markets and facilities. These deficits deter (FDI), as investors prioritize reliable power and ; empirical analyses show LDCs receive FDI inflows averaging under 3% of GDP annually, partly due to such infrastructural unreliability. Endogenous governance failures, particularly corruption, primarily drive these deficits rather than external aid shortfalls or geographic determinism. Corruption indices for LDCs average scores of 28 out of 100 on Transparency International's 2023 , indicating high perceived public-sector graft that diverts up to 20-30% of development budgets from and projects. Research demonstrates that weak institutions amplify corruption's erosive effects, reducing the return on spending by inefficient allocation and eroding infrastructure maintenance funds through . For instance, econometric studies across developing economies find that a one-standard-deviation improvement in quality could boost accumulation by 10-15%, highlighting how internal policy choices and accountability mechanisms causally outweigh dependency in perpetuating these shortfalls.

Vulnerability to External Shocks

Least developed countries face heightened vulnerability to external shocks, as quantified by the Economic and Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI), which assesses exposure to climatic events, , and economic perturbations like terms-of-trade volatility. This index underscores how structural factors—such as remoteness, limited economic scale, and high reliance on weather-sensitive sectors—magnify shock propagation, often resulting in amplified and output losses compared to more diversified economies. For example, small economic size in LDCs intensifies the fiscal and social repercussions of disruptions, with recovery periods extended by inadequate buffers like foreign reserves or insurance mechanisms. Climatic shocks, including droughts and floods, exemplify this exposure, eroding agricultural productivity and exacerbating food insecurity in regions like the and . , , and rank among the most at-risk LDCs for climate-induced losses and damages, facing disproportionate impacts despite minimal contributions to global emissions. The similarly amplified vulnerabilities, causing GDP contractions across LDCs—such as a collective output dip in 2020—and pushing millions deeper into poverty, with fiscal responses constrained to just 2.6% of GDP versus 15.8% in advanced economies. These events highlight adaptive capacity shortfalls, where deficient policy frameworks and infrastructure limit shock absorption, prolonging humanitarian crises. Institutional resilience varies markedly among LDCs, influencing post-shock trajectories; , for instance, has leveraged targeted adaptation strategies and ambitious nationally determined contributions to enhance recovery from climatic and health disruptions. Despite international pledges for in the early 2020s—aimed at building such capacities—delivery has fallen short, with higher commitments correlating to lower fulfillment rates and insufficient resources reaching vulnerable nations. This gap perpetuates reliance on ad-hoc aid, underscoring the need for sustained, policy-aligned support to mitigate escalating external pressures.

Impacts of LDC Status

Benefits from Preferential Treatment

Preferential trade treatments, such as duty-free quota-free (DFQF) access granted by developed countries under WTO commitments, have enabled least developed countries (LDCs) to expand exports in labor-intensive sectors like textiles and apparel. For instance, the European Union's Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, providing tariff-free entry for nearly all LDC goods except arms, has significantly boosted Bangladesh's ready-made garment exports to the EU, rising from $2 billion in 2001 to approximately $23 billion in 2023, with 91% utilization of preferences in 2023. Similar schemes in the and other markets have supported export diversification in select LDCs, particularly those with competitive advantages in low-skill , leading to measurable gains in earnings and in export-oriented industries. Empirical analyses by UNCTAD and WTO indicate positive, albeit heterogeneous, effects on LDC export volumes from these preferences. A UNCTAD study quantifies substantial tariff savings under generalized systems of preferences (GSP), with LDCs realizing economic value through reduced costs, though benefits are concentrated in a few countries and products like apparel and agricultural goods. WTO research on DFQF implementation post-2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Decision shows elevated export growth in primary products for beneficiary LDCs, with some achieving 5-10% higher utilization rates in preferential schemes compared to non-LDC developing peers when are simplified. These effects vary by LDC, with higher-income or more integrated economies like and capturing disproportionate shares due to supply-side capacities. Post-graduation retention periods in schemes like provide transitional benefits, mitigating abrupt loss of preferences. For , scheduled for LDC graduation in 2026, the has extended EBA access until 2029, allowing continued duty-free exports during adjustment to standard GSP terms and preserving sector momentum. Such mechanisms have aided prior graduates like in sustaining export levels, with UNCTAD noting they facilitate investment in competitiveness upgrades without immediate shocks. Overall, these treatments have contributed to incremental trade-led growth in responsive LDCs, though scale remains limited by global utilization patterns averaging below full potential due to origin rules and .

Empirical Evidence on Trade and Growth Effects

Empirical studies indicate that preferences granted to least developed countries (LDCs) have boosted volumes in labor-intensive sectors such as apparel and textiles, but these gains have not consistently translated into broader economic diversification or sustained growth. For instance, analyses of non-reciprocal preferences (NRTPs) from major providers like the , , , and show that preferences increase the probability of introducing new products by approximately 4.4 percentage points compared to 2.3 points without such access, primarily extending existing patterns rather than fostering or variety beyond primary commodities and simple manufactures. World Bank assessments of Everything but Arms (EBA) preferences similarly highlight underutilization due to administrative costs and rules of origin, limiting impacts to select products without evidence of spillover into diversified production structures essential for long-term growth. Outcomes remain heterogeneous across LDCs, with modest export elevations—such as a 30% aggregate increase attributable to LDC designation in gravity models—confined to beneficiaries like and , while many others, particularly in Central and , exhibit negligible or zero effects from schemes like the US African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Prior research confirms that preferences stimulate preferred product s but fail to significantly affect total exports, often due to concentration in a few items accounting for 45-89% of preference-utilizing trade, underscoring weak causal links to overall export variance. Post-2000 data reveal that while LDC exports grew amid global demand surges, preferences explain only a marginal share of this variance—less than 5% in econometric decompositions—overshadowed by domestic factors such as GDP share (averaging under 10% in LDCs versus 18% in top performers), accumulation, and inflows driven by policy reforms. In contrast, non-LDC developing economies like achieved rapid export diversification and growth through unilateral market-oriented reforms and integration into global value chains, without reliance on LDC-specific preferences, highlighting that internal institutional and infrastructural improvements, rather than external concessions, are primary drivers of sustained trade-led development.

Post-Graduation Transitions

Graduated least developed countries (LDCs) experience a three-year transition period during which many preferential treatments, such as duty-free quota-free (DFQF) , are phased out, exposing economies to potential "preference cliffs" that can reduce competitiveness if domestic productive capacities remain underdeveloped. This phase-out heightens risks of GDP growth slowdown or reversion to LDC-like vulnerability levels without proactive internal reforms, as evidenced by quantitative assessments projecting losses of up to 6% or more than $6 billion annually for some graduates due to escalations on key commodities. Sustainability post-graduation hinges on factors like economic diversification, institutional strengthening, and increased domestic , rather than extended dependency, with reviews of prior graduates underscoring the need for higher tax revenues and to offset lost preferences. Case studies illustrate divergent trajectories: , which graduated in 2014, has sustained per capita income gains above the LDC threshold through expansion and remittance inflows, bolstered by policy focus on services sector resilience despite external shocks. Similarly, , graduating on December 13, 2023, maintains development momentum via exports and high-value , with agriculture's GDP share declining from 43% in 1980 to 17% in 2017, reflecting structural shifts toward non-commodity sectors that mitigate reversion risks amid global crises. In contrast, resource-dependent graduates like (2017) have encountered stagnation from volatility post-preferences, highlighting how weak diversification amplifies cliffs without governance-driven adaptations. Committee for Development Policy (CDP) triennial reviews and UNCTAD analyses of the eight fully graduated LDCs (including in 1994 and in 2020) reveal that most have avoided re-inclusion by sustaining at least two of the three graduation criteria— , human assets index, and economic vulnerability index—over extended periods, attributing longevity to institutional reforms over preferential . However, vulnerabilities persist, with GDP trajectories in some cases flattening without compensatory measures like enhanced or building, as global events such as the exacerbate transition fragility. In 2025, Bangladesh's preparations for its November 24, 2026, underscore these dynamics, with the CDP requesting an extended monitoring mechanism report by October 31 to assess progress, amid domestic calls for deferral by 3–5 years due to unreadiness in competitiveness and revenue systems. Policy analyses emphasize urgent reforms—such as rationalization, diversification beyond ready-made garments, and institutional upgrades—to avert welfare losses estimated in tens of millions from preference erosion, reinforcing that internal causal drivers, not external supports, determine post- resilience. A potential November 25 consultation could enable deferral if thresholds falter, but evidence from prior graduates indicates that deferrals delay, rather than resolve, the imperative for self-sustaining growth paths.

Criticisms and Debates

Aid Dependency and Its Causal Harms

In least developed countries (LDCs), (ODA) frequently exceeds 10-15% of (GDP), creating entrenched dependency that undermines self-sustaining growth. Empirical analyses reveal that when constitutes more than 15-25% of GDP, its marginal impact on growth turns negative, as inflows substitute for domestic mobilization and distort incentives for productive . For instance, cross-country regressions on sub-Saharan African data, where many LDCs are concentrated, show aid dependency correlating with stagnant or declining GDP growth rates over decades, contrasting with lower- economies that prioritize internal reforms. Causal mechanisms exacerbate these outcomes through and resource misallocation. High aid volumes reduce government accountability to taxpayers, enabling patronage networks and poor institutional quality, as disaggregated aid data linked to metrics of political institutions demonstrate weakened and increased in recipient states. Additionally, aid-induced effects—appreciation of the real from unearned inflows—erode competitiveness in tradable sectors like , with econometric evidence from aid-recipient panels confirming reduced diversification and growth. These dynamics crowd out effort, as firms face higher costs and governments favor aid-financed public spending over market-oriented policies, perpetuating cycles of inefficiency observed in longitudinal studies of aid-dependent LDCs. Empirical critiques, including those from the , highlight that no robust positive correlation exists between sustained aid and long-term growth in LDCs, with dependency instead financing governance failures that hinder structural transformation. In contrast, economies pursuing market liberalization—such as through export-led strategies and reduced state intervention—have achieved faster and growth without heavy aid reliance, as evidenced by comparative analyses of liberalizing developing nations outperforming aid-heavy peers in human development indicators. This underscores the first-principles harm of aid as an exogenous crutch, diverting from endogenous drivers like property rights enforcement and entrepreneurial incentives essential for escaping .

Governance Failures and Rent-Seeking

Least developed countries (LDCs) consistently exhibit weak governance structures, as evidenced by their low scores on global indicators such as Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), where the majority score below 30 out of 100 in 2023, signaling pervasive public sector corruption. The World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) further reveal that LDCs average negative percentiles in dimensions like control of corruption and rule of law, far below global means, reflecting systemic failures in enforcing contracts, protecting property rights, and curbing arbitrary power. These deficiencies foster environments where political elites prioritize personal gain over public welfare, perpetuating economic stagnation and hindering the structural reforms needed for graduation from LDC status. Rent-seeking behaviors, defined as efforts to obtain economic rents through political influence rather than productive activity, exacerbate these issues by diverting resources from investment to networks. Empirical studies on low-income countries, including many LDCs, demonstrate that reduces GDP growth by misallocating capital toward unproductive sectors and discouraging through and insecure property rights. of foreign provides stark evidence: disbursements to aid-dependent nations correlate with surges in deposits by ruling elites, estimated at 7.5% of aid inflows in some cases, undermining incentives for broad-based development. Comparisons across resource-rich African economies underscore governance's causal role in outcomes. , despite heavy diamond reliance similar to LDC peers, sustained average annual growth of over 5% from 1966 to 2020 through robust , low (CPI score of 59 in 2023), and prudent resource management that bolstered property rights and private sector incentives. In contrast, , an LDC with vast oil wealth, experiences elite-driven that has concentrated revenues among a narrow cadre, yielding minimal and growth volatility, with CPI scores lingering below 35. Such disparities highlight that prioritizing institutional reforms—strengthening and anti- mechanisms—over additional resource transfers is essential for enabling and long-term prosperity in LDCs, as supported by analyses linking adherence to sustained economic performance.

Distortions from Trade Preferences

Trade preferences for least developed countries (LDCs), including duty-free quotas under schemes such as the European Union's Everything But Arms initiative and the United States' , frequently exhibit low utilization rates averaging 30-60% across beneficiaries from 2015-2019, as documented by WTO analyses of export declarations. This underutilization stems largely from restrictive (RoO), which mandate proof of substantial local value addition or limited sourcing from non-preferential partners, coupled with high compliance costs including , , and verification processes that strain LDC administrative and logistical capacities. Landlocked LDCs face even lower rates due to added transport and hurdles, further curtailing the schemes' intended boost to export volumes. These barriers not only diminish immediate gains but also perpetuate distortions by channeling preferences toward low-value, primary commodity —like agricultural products and raw minerals—that more readily satisfy thresholds without complex processing. Compliance burdens disproportionately penalize higher-value manufactures requiring imported inputs, which often exceed allowed non-originating content limits, thereby reinforcing LDCs' reliance on undiversified, low-skill export profiles. Studies of preference-dependent LDC reveal persistent concentration in few product lines, with limited shifts toward processed or diversified despite decades of preferential access. Over the longer term, such protections insulate LDC producers from multilateral tariff reductions and competitive pressures, dampening incentives for productivity-enhancing reforms in areas like infrastructure, skills development, and regulatory efficiency. Preference erosion analyses, simulating the impact of broader most-favored-nation liberalization, indicate that heavy dependence on shielded markets leads to sharper export contractions in LDCs lacking diversified bases, as firms fail to build resilience against normalized competition. This dynamic entrenches structural vulnerabilities, as evidenced by stalled progress in upgrading export sophistication metrics under prolonged preferential regimes.

References

  1. https://policy.desa.un.org/least-developed-countries
  2. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/ldc-category
  3. https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/list
  4. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/ldc-category-2025.pdf
  5. https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/graduation-support-package
  6. https://unctad.org/news/least-developed-countries-50-mid-life-crisis-or-resilient-maturity
  7. https://ferdi.fr/en/publications/the-rationale-of-the-least-developed-countries-category-over-half-a-century-in-brief
  8. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldcr2021_ch1_en.pdf
  9. https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/recognition
  10. https://www.unescap.org/our-work/countries-special-situations/ldc
  11. https://ferdi.fr/en/events/fifty-years-of-least-developed-countries-rationale-impact-and-prospects-of-the-category
  12. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/ldc_list.pdf
  13. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/bodies/constituted-bodies/least-developed-countries-expert-group/frequently-asked-questions-about-ldcs-the-leg-and-napas
  14. https://policy.desa.un.org/themes/least-developed-countries-category/inclusion-in-the-ldc-category
  15. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/ldc-graduation-0
  16. https://ferdi.fr/dl/df-9F3BUfa6aVTR3q3mFS3GBzoa/ferdi-p208-gradu-ation-from-the-category-of-least-developed-countries.pdf
  17. https://policy.desa.un.org/themes/least-developed-countries-category/graduation-from-the-ldc-category
  18. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo
  19. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-1973-oil-crisis-three-crises-in-one-and-the-lessons-for-today/
  20. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_ecosoc/e_1971_7s.pdf
  21. https://www.unjiu.org/sites/www.unjiu.org/files/jiu_document_files/products/en/reports-notes/JIU%2520Products/JIU_REP_1987_5_English.pdf
  22. https://docs.un.org/en/E/5126%28SUPP%29
  23. https://www.un.org/ldc5/past-conferences
  24. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ppaa/ppaa9801.pdf
  25. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/least-developed-countries/paris1990
  26. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/least-developed-countries/brussels2001
  27. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/least-developed-countries/istanbul2011
  28. https://www.un.org/ldc5/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X23003194
  30. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2025-06/ldc-handbook-2024.pdf
  31. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldc2024_en.pdf
  32. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD
  33. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-developed-countries
  34. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/list-ldcs
  35. https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/chart-february-2022
  36. https://unctad.org/publication/state-commodity-dependence-2025
  37. https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/sites/default/files/2025-10/africa-oda.pdf
  38. https://unctad.org/publication/least-developed-countries-report-2023
  39. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldc2023_en.pdf
  40. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2025-06/ldc-handbook-2021.pdf
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/EVI-and-HAI-scores-of-LDCs_fig5_344297537
  42. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13132-023-01630-0
  43. https://www.who.int/news/item/01-11-2017-building-resilience-of-health-systems-in-pacific-island-ldcs-to-climate-change
  44. https://thecommonwealth.org/ldc-ipoa-report/chapter-7-natural-disasters-risk-management-and-resilience-commonwealth-ldcs
  45. https://unctad.org/news/sao-tome-and-principe-graduates-least-developed-country-status
  46. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/s%25C3%25A3o-tom%25C3%25A9-and-pr%25C3%25ADncipe-graduation-status
  47. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/ldc_profile_haiti.pdf
  48. https://policy.desa.un.org/themes/least-developed-countries-category/least-developed-country-category-haiti-profile
  49. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?locations=HT
  50. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/countries-approaching-graduation-and-graduated
  51. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trade_impacts_of_ldc_graduation.pdf
  52. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/CDP-PL-2015-8a.pdf
  53. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/eapd2023/CDP-PL-2015-8b.pdf
  54. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/CDP-PL-2016-5b.pdf
  55. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/equatorial-guinea-graduation-history
  56. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/CDP-PL-2020-9c.pdf
  57. https://www.itu.int/hub/2021/02/least-developed-no-longer-how-digital-transformation-drove-vanuatus-ldc-graduation/
  58. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/cdp-pl-2023-vanuatu-transition.pdf
  59. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/bhutan-graduation-status
  60. https://www.undp.org/bhutan/stories/ldc-graduate-bhutan-sets-sights-10x-economic-growth
  61. https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/bhutans-graduation-from-the-ldc-list-navigating-future-challenges/
  62. https://www.thecommonwealth-ilibrary.org/index.php/comsec/catalog/download/428/428/3776?inline=1
  63. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/cdp-pl-2024-6-6-nepal.pdf
  64. https://bizpati.com/2024/10/84076/
  65. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/cdp-pl-2024-6-5-laopdr.pdf
  66. https://policy.desa.un.org/themes/least-developed-countries-category/least-developed-country-category-lao-peoples-democratic-republic
  67. https://unctad.org/es/conference/global-supply-chain-forum-2024/topic/least-developed-countries/list
  68. https://rtm.org.la/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/STS-ENG-updated-waiting-for-clearannce.pdf
  69. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/graduation_ldc_status_e.htm
  70. https://english.nepalnews.com/s/explainers/everything-you-should-know-about-nepals-scheduled-graduation-from-ldc-status/
  71. https://rtm.org.la/nsedp/criteria-ldc-graduation/
  72. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/02/cambodia-ldc-graduation-economic-progress/
  73. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/committee-development-policy-cdp-0
  74. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/graduation-process-and-cdp
  75. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/previous-triennial-reviews-and-graduation-decisions
  76. https://sdg.iisd.org/events/27th-session-of-the-committee-for-development-policy-plenary/
  77. https://cpd.org.bd/ldc-exit-should-drive-structural-transformation-of-bangladeshs-economy/
  78. https://www.globalpolicy.org/sites/default/files/download/FfD_LDC_online.pdf
  79. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/final_text_e.htm
  80. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditctsce2024d3_en_0.pdf
  81. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/everything-arms-eba
  82. https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/african-growth-and-opportunity-act-agoa
  83. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/roi_e/literature_review_on_preference_utilization_e.htm
  84. https://unctad.org/publication/trade-preferences-outlook-2024
  85. https://unctad.org/news/trade-preference-schemes-need-reforming-how
  86. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news24_e/devel_15nov24_e.htm
  87. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-to-least-developed-countries-as-a-share-of-donors-national-income
  88. https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/temaer/SDG/globale-verdensmaal/17-partnerskaber-for-handling/delmaal-02/indikator-1
  89. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/bilateral_oda
  90. https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD%282024%2931/en/pdf
  91. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2025/04/official-development-assistance-2024-figures.html
  92. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1062976917302375
  94. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=ger
  95. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322039.2022.2062092
  96. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/increasing-development-finance-efforts-to-scale-private-finance-mobilised-and-its-impact_345b768b-en/full-report/component-2.html
  97. https://www.uncdf.org/article/8934/action-plan-to-increase-private-investment-mobilization
  98. https://focus2030.org/Slight-increase-in-Official-Development-Assistance-in-2023
  99. https://devinit.org/blog/blended-finance-oda-best-use-limited-resource/
  100. https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/Debt-relief-under-the-heavily-indebted-poor-countries-initiative-HIPC
  101. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/debt/brief/hipc
  102. https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/mdri/eng/index.htm
  103. https://www.globalissues.org/article/603/g8-summit-2005-one-year-on
  104. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-33388990
  105. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/what-happened-after-debt-was-forgiven-lessons-hipcmdri-countries
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X02000736
  107. https://clubdeparis.org/en/communications/page/common-framework
  108. https://www.imf.org/en/About/FAQ/sovereign-debt
  109. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldc2021_en.pdf
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/dutch-disease
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10221746/
  112. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ldcr2020_en.pdf
  113. https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/unido-publications/2025-09/IID%2520Policy%2520Brief%252025%2520-%2520Industrialization%2520for%2520development%2520-%2520Are%2520LDCs%2520falling%2520behind_0.pdf
  114. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2023-24reporten.pdf
  115. https://databank.worldbank.org/id/7f18f0c5
  116. https://policy.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/cdp-excerpt-2023-4.pdf
  117. https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/sites/default/files/download-documents/chapter1_accesstoelectricity.pdf
  118. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance/brief/combating-corruption
  119. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291945148_Human_Capital_and_Economic_Growth_The_Role_of_Governance
  120. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322039.2022.2129368
  121. https://policy.desa.un.org/themes/least-developed-countries-category/ldc-identification-criteria-indicators/evi-indicators
  122. https://ferdi.fr/en/indicators/a-retrospective-economic-vulnerability-index
  123. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/poorest-countries-greatest-risk-losses-and-damage-climate-change
  124. https://www.iied.org/poorest-countries-greatest-risk-losses-damage-climate-change
  125. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/news/covid-19-widened-chasm-between-least-developed-countries-and-rest-%25E2%2580%2593-new-un-report
  126. https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/supporting-climate-action-least-developed-countries
  127. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2025.1629509/pdf
  128. https://www.ldc-climate.org/press_release/ldcs-push-for-bold-climate-finance-commitments-ahead-of-cop-29/
  129. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/bangladesh_en
  130. https://unctad.org/news/how-increase-benefits-generalized-system-trade-preferences
  131. https://unctad.org/publication/generalized-system-preferences-how-much-does-it-matter-developing-countries
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0313592616302363
  133. https://bangladeshtextilejournal.com/bangladesh-eyes-fta-with-eu-to-safeguard-trade-benefits-beyond-ldc-graduation/
  134. https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/rules-of-origin
  135. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/utilization-trade-preferences-ldcs-2015-2019-patterns-and-trends
  136. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022199624000989
  137. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/9f7e50c8-4cf1-5b3e-a6cb-eec6e86ab053
  138. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_news_archive/2016_Member_Trade_Preferences_Klasen.pdf
  139. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220388808422073
  140. https://www.kdijep.org/v.45/1/33/Effects%2Bof%2Bthe%2BUtilization%2Bof%2BNon%2BReciprocal%2BTrade%2BPreferences%2BOffered%2Bby%2BQUAD%2BCountries%2Bon%2BEconomic%2BGrowth%2Bin%2BBeneficiary%2BCountries%25E2%2580%25A0
  141. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ldc_graduation_e.htm
  142. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638199.2024.2323661
  143. https://oecd-development-matters.org/2022/05/11/three-thoughts-on-the-graduating-commonwealth-ldcs/
  144. https://www.uncdf.org/article/8620/btngraduation
  145. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/aldc2021d5_en.pdf
  146. https://unctad.org/publication/least-developed-countries-report-2024
  147. https://thecommonwealth.org/ldc-ipoa-report/chapter-6-graduation-progress-and-prospects-commonwealth-ldcs
  148. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/bangladesh-graduation-status
  149. https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/un-asks-bangladesh-about-ldc-graduation-progress-3988066
  150. https://www.theigc.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Razzaque-et-al-Policy-Brief-March-2025_LDC-graduation.pdf
  151. https://cpd.org.bd/bangladeshs-decision-on-ldc-graduation-deferral-needs-careful-assessment/
  152. https://eng.munabulletin.com/bangladesh/news/1816
  153. https://www.cmi.no/publications/8074-does-aid-work
  154. https://www.devstud.org.uk/media/2020/06/mwanamanga-msc-dissertation.pdf
  155. https://www1.essex.ac.uk/economics/documents/eesj/bassi.pdf
  156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438781500111X
  157. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10967490701515580
  158. https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/publications/papers/subramanian0606.pdf
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999323002468
  160. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/foreign-aid-economic-development
  161. https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-How-International-Aid-Can-Do-More-Harm-Than-Good.pdf
  162. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023
  163. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators
  164. https://bulletin.bmeb-bi.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=bmeb
  165. https://ideas.repec.org/a/idn/journl/v24y2021i2cp205-220.html
  166. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/717455
  167. https://issafrica.org/iss-today/botswana-has-valued-good-governance-as-much-as-diamonds
  168. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/why-the-rule-of-law-is-the-key-to-prosperity-lessons-from-thirty-years-of-data/
  169. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/roi_e/wto_secretariat_7april22.pdf
  170. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/roi_e/overview_marti19may21.pdf
  171. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/trade-vs-development-effects-trade-preferences
  172. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/706421468321295657/pdf/wps3730.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.