Different factors have affected such developments: economic policies (spending as much as possible now to get more votes vs investing to the future development: R&D etc.), skills to develop some sectors (e.g tourism), ability to attract foreign investments, luck in discovering oil, metals etc...

Thanks a lot Tiia for the response.

Besides, macroeconomic policies, variations in policy priorities on social and heath sectors and overall human development contribute to such variations. For example, some countries besides efficient economic policies focused on rapidly improving basic education and primary health care while many countries showed very slow progress. Some countries focused more on welfare spending while many others focused on overall human development.

Thanks a lot Perianayagam for the brilliant suggestion. If I get you right, you are attributing the differences in development between such countries to knowledge gaps and human capital development, right? Interesting!!! Your vital suggestion is well noted.

Other things being equal, much depends on the existing economic mechanisms.

To illustrate my point,, use two quotes from my book "S-economics" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vladimir_Ilyin/?ev=hdr_xprf

Page 11: "The welfare of a country is determined by the results of the activity of the support members of the population (s-members), those purposefully involved in invention of new knowledge and technologies, design of technical devices and other vital objects, vc-production, education and learning of new generations and defence of the country."

Page 9: "For those seeking extraterritorial profit the main goal is not the economic development of the country. To achieve their goals corporations hire guest workers and seek locations which offer cheaper labor, land, etc."

Actually the difference from my point of view depends mainly on economic situations plus culture differences between countries

Cultural barriers and political crises may be contextual problems but effective social and economic policies can address both.

Thanks a lot Vladimir, Nabil and Perianayagam for your wonderful suggestions. They've been well noted. I however would like to know from Nabil what you mean by "economic situations plus cultural differences". Could you kindly through more light on this.

David, Your question should be a fascination to many and the answers (even rough approximations) essential understanding among nations worldwide. At this stage -- as I see -- you are seeking guidance along alternative paths. Later you will collate the evidence along each path. Years ago, I attempted to define the paths, economic and cultural. See that: Asia Pacific J. of Management, January 1985, Six Management Propositions .... Robert G. Cope. I urge you to seek answers.

Thanks a lot Robert for the suggestion. I will surely attend to the recommended document.

A possible suggestion in the "culture" suggestion above (Nabil) might be -- for example -- women's work at home or community may not enter the economic statistics but where these women are educated they provide care for their families and community and neighbors that reduce economic drains on health and social costs -- such as crime. Thus providing a society with a net gain.

Thanks a lot Robert for the clarification. Your suggestion is very much appreciated and well noted

Good question the examples of Ghana and Nigeria post independence are interesting they had larger GDPs and growth than say Portugal, Spain and Greece.  There are a number of possible reasons - education, diversification from commodity only economies, lack of corruption, transparent legal structures.  However it is in the interests of neo-liberal economies to maintain the dependence of the poorer countries - terms of trade, access to cheaper raw materials, control of the supply chain.  I hope this is on interest.

Thanks a lot Barnes for the opinion shared. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Many Asian countries are classic examples of such development gaps. In the 1950s and 1960s, India, Japan, Singapore, China, South Korea, Indonesia and many other Southeast and South Asian Countries all had more or less same levels of socioeconomic indicators:  literacy and education,  infant mortality rate and life expectancy, income and poverty. Yet today Japan, Singapore,, South Korea all have achieved high levels of GDP and human development index on par with other European industrialized countries.

Main reasons for this achievement of these three countries are early policy focus with resource allocation on human development indicators:

• education including female education (primary secondary and higher education including technical education);
• primary healthcare (with focus on universal health care and reduction in infant mortality rates);
• Fertility and population growth rates fell as a results these polices;
• GDP per capita and Wealth of these countries  rose as result of both human resource development and promotion of industry and global trade;
• Besides, all the three countries had efficient corruption-free political governance coupled with good/democratic political leadership.

India lagged for decades in human development index because of lack of early focus on education and primary health care in the 1960s and 1970s. Many other south Asian countries had similar problems. Political governance and corruption were added problems. Many African countries are struggling because of similar problems, besides social frictions. Despite high fertility, West Asian countries income rose because of oil and gas wealth.

Twenty first century is an opportunity for laggard countries to quickly concentrate on human development sector and reap the potential of demographic dividend.

Thanks so much Prof. Arokiasamy for the wonderful opinion shared. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Article Health gap between developed and developing countries: Does ...

https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/7203/A-Level/Geography/What-is-the-development-gap-and-how-is-it-measured