# data[].attributes.body
Each of the stories illustrate origins and reasonings behind development and its negative effects on populations and citizens. The populations of these less developed countries are unfortunately victims of the actions of the government or authority and their strives for profits and power. These authority figures are never making decisions for the benefits of people, but for the benefits of their own pockets. This places stress on many LDC citizens like Priya, Nathalie, and Jun.

# data[].attributes.body
these stories, linked together, show the relationship between economic, social, and political. Jun, even though from a more developed country compared to the other two, still struggles to achieve security. His job is at the mercy of his government structure and social conditions. Nathalie and Priya both struggle, actively everyday to gain access to essential resources. Their experiences are exacerbated due to their statuses as women and norms surrounding gender and family. None of them can truly achieve security in their respective societies. Access to resources is an ongoing challenge for all (belonging to the general public)

# data[].attributes.body
I think the stories of Priya, Jun, and Nathalie, uniquely show the vast differences in life experience that can be faced in the global south. Not all of them have the same socioeconomic statuses in their own countries, however there is a present deprivation of basic needs and or rights from their governments. Whether it be securing housing, gaining access to food and water, they all have to find ways in which to make due with the situations at hand. Natalie Keita

# data[].attributes.body
All three stories vary in the types of resources and freedoms that they lack in everyday life, but it goes to show that the meaning of "developed" or less developed goes beyond more basic data points like GDP, which doesn't measure the human experience of many areas within a country.

# data[].attributes.body
There was a theme of unreliable government or politicians not looking out for their citizen's best interests.

# data[].attributes.body
The social climate of the DR of the Congo caused Nathalie to be incredibly disadvantaged, from being expected to miss school in order to fetch water for her family, rather than have her brothers/caregivers help out. The authoritarian regime as well has implications on how Nathalie and her family live life, they don't have access to basic energy resources.

Similarly, Priya's living conditions don't allow her basic energy, so she has to outsource that illegally, as well as she's also susceptible to illness due to not having sanitary waste control or her own bathroom.

For Jun, the political regime of China caused him to lose his job. So even though, economically, he was living a middle-class lifestyle, his loss of income after losing a job by calling out his government, affects Jun's ability to continue living the lifestyle he had previously established.

# data[].attributes.body
Nathalie, Priya and Jun's stories all emphasize the struggles that they go through because of systemic issues trickling down. Because the countries they are all from are "developing" which in the name states that there is a lack of access and support to resources

# data[].attributes.body
The stories of Nathalie, Priya, and Jun illustrate that the Global South is a challenging place to have access to basic human needs. The lack of resources keeps the Global South in a position where development cannot truly occur to the fullest like other nations.

# data[].attributes.body
As I understand the stories illustrate how people living in countries vastly different from one another in culture and location can experience similar issues. All three are struggling to make ends meet, however the internal and external influences creating these situations are completely different. It shows that regardless of the economic success of a country, take China for example, there can still exist underdevelopment of the same intensity as an economically struggling country. - Aron

# data[].attributes.body
The stories illustrate how regardless of a nation's overall status, resources may be scarce or not readily provided safely and reliably. They all come from relatively different standings, yet all three lack government support to varying degrees. Jun's government is oppressive and does not provide clean water, Priya's government fails to protect her housing and does not provide regulated water and electricity, and Nathalie is without any stable government or resources.

# data[].attributes.body
All three stories highlight the prevalence of the issue of scarcity in the Global South or LDCs. They also speak to limitations in accessing education, employment, or other vital resources.

These stories additionally highlight social unrest that is often very common in the Global South, namely Nathalie living under constant fear of her village being raided by armed forces and Jun's criticism of the government being censored.

# data[].attributes.body
The stories illustrate the lack of resources, like no energy in schools, or having to go far to get water. In addition, the consistency of illness and people getting sick. These LDCs are examples of what it is like for these nations to not have the basic human needs than other countries.

# data[].attributes.body
i think the purpose of these stories were to show the diversity of what an LDC can look like. it shows that countries with economic success can still be an LDC

# data[].attributes.body
Even though living in different individual circumstances (rural versus urban, low-income versus middle income, etc), Nathalie, Priya, and Jun all live in instability due to not being assured that their basic needs will be met as a result of not living in a wealthy country, which negatively affects the quality of their lives and their ability to reach their full potential.

It also highlights the large differences between the countries the people live in, but still resulting in similar outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
there are a mix of internal, external, and natural forces that influence the development of these countries. For example, while Priya in India may live under a democracy, she still experiences the effects of colonization, gender gaps, and lack of resources because of her living situation in a large city where there are gaps in wealth. Jun and Nathalie also experience similar characteristics in struggling in their daily life because of several factors.

# data[].attributes.body
Nathalie, Priya, and Jun are all individuals of color belonging to developing nations. Because of this, they don't have access to the same resources to the fullest extent as wealthy developed nations.

# data[].attributes.body
Across all characteristics, there was an overall theme of lacking the resources, materials, security, and freedom needed to live healthily and do whatever one wishes.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite their various differences their stories help indicate what it is like to live in an LDC. Each experiences certain deprivations that make it hard to meet their needs. Thus they demonstrate that the countries in the Global South, while economically, socially, and politically diverse, share that many of their people are struggling to or on the brink of struggling to meet their needs.

# data[].attributes.body
The stories had the purpose of linking people of less developed countries together to illustrate that there can be a variety of areas in which these countries are less developed as well in general showing that not all developing countries are the same. They do not have the same lives, but their experiences are shaped by being members of LDCs.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the stories of Nathalie and Priya show that regardless of age or where you live gaining access to basic human needs such as food a decent paying job and a stable home can be challenge for anyone living in any global south country. Regarding the story of Jun his showcases that even in China a nation that has economic success does not mean all other human needs and rights are being met which in this case is freedom of speech. Overall it shows that development cannot simply mean economic development but must include improvements to all areas of life.