While Philip's answer talks about why you cannot compare cameras of different levels with each other without considering their price (in short: the 2000D is the successor to the 1300D, while the 4000D is a line even below the 1300D/2000D line), I want to answer the question:
Are they not supposed to make entry level cameras good/better so more and more people can get into photography with entry level models?
The most obvious and most important limit to get into something for virtually everyone is money. You can see that throughout the history of photography. In its early stages, it was incredibly expensive, and therefore, only well-off people could become photographers. As the understanding of the chemistry behind film emulsion and development improved and the process was automated, photography got cheaper, meaning that more people could use it.
Better products might lead to people migrating to this from older technology - for example, a lot of professional photographers waited for digital to become better suited for their use than film before adapting it.
Cheaper products might lead to people entering something. If you cannot (or do not want to) afford $5000 for a 1DX Mark II, you might still be able to afford a $385 4000D. Both take pictures, both offer auto-focus, both offer RAW support, both offer interchangeable lenses, both should have better image quality than a smartphone at the same price point. Okay, I do not know a smartphone that is sold at $5000, but you get the point ;-)