Barriers do not weigh the same everywhere; which bite hardest depends on a country's geography, resources, institutions, and income.
Judging significance means asking which barriers bind here, and which one, if eased, would unlock the most progress.
The same framework gives different answers in different places.
Nepal, landlocked and low-income: geography and weak infrastructure dominate, driving up trade costs.
Haiti, small and disaster-prone: disaster vulnerability and low human capital dominate, as repeated shocks undo past gains.
Case study
The DR Congo holds vast mineral wealth in cobalt, copper, and coltan, yet stays among the world's poorest countries.
Its binding barriers are governance ones, weak institutions, corruption, and instability that divert revenues and deter investment: the resource curse.
Better infrastructure alone would help little while the institutional barrier binds.
Targeting the Binding Barrier
The payoff of judging significance is prioritisation: with limited money and political capital, the binding barrier tells policymakers where to act first.
Trade and transport in a landlocked economy.
Governance in a resource-rich economy.
Resilience and institutions in a disaster-prone economy.
Broad strategies all matter, but context sets their order of priority.
Active recall
Explain what it means to say a barrier is binding in a particular context.
For a landlocked and a resource-rich economy, name the barrier likely to bind hardest in each, and why.
Why does identifying the binding barrier matter for policy?
