Developing Countries or Never will be Developed Countries ?

Great Debates
1

During the whole last century (1900’s) from what I know the only country that managed to go from underdeveloped to developed was South Korea. That’s 100 years.

I know economics and international relations rarely are Zero Sum affairs. (Zero Sum means what one gains another loses overall... so non-Zero Sum scenarios means that you can have many "winners" ... Zero Sum scenarios mean one winning another loses.)  Commerce especially seems to defy Zero Sum pretty much. 

Still I wonder... environmental problems aside... is it possible to have more 3rd world developing countries becoming fully fledged 1st world countries ?  I am not talking about just getting your act together and developing.... but structurally speaking is their enough "wealth" and "markets" for more countries to become rich ? 

Without poorer countries to supply basic materials and receive goods... with heavy competition from already established powers can someone climb into the developed category ? I am thinking of overall numbers... so if someone sinks and another takes their place the overall numerical change was small.

 Are 3rd world countries bound to mostly stay underdeveloped and economically deficient ?  Limited to agriculture and basic industry ? Or are the limitations only "technical" mostly ? Corrupt governments added to a weak global economy. These countries can and will eventually attain higher degrees of development ?
2

Um…aren’t your assumptions flawed? I can think of a few more countries that went from being fairly (or even VERY) backward to being global powers. Japan. China. India. Russia.

Of course other ‘third’ world countries COULD become major players. It certainly is NOT a zero sum game…as countries become more affluent and successful, MORE markets open up for the old established 1st world countries, which in turn opens up more markets to the up and comers. Look at many of the (non communist/non fucked up) countries in Asia for gods sake. At the turn of the century many of them were simply colonial possessions. Japan is probably the greatest success story out there…went from being an isolationist fuedal power, boot strapped itself to an industrial power, took on the worlds greatest nation (and lost), then rebuilt itself yet again to become an industrial and technological giant…all in 100 years, and with absolute SHIT for resources. Japan has NOTHING, comparable to other countries resource wise…but they have the will and drive to succeed. Hell, you are from Brazil man…what was Brazil at the turn of the century? And now?

I think it varies based on the country, on its people and their willingness to work, on the basic resources a country has. Today, you don’t NEED to have vast natural resources to thrive. Many formerly backward countries in Asia basically took the plunge and put in new, high tech infrastructures, as well as accelerated training to position themselves in the new information age. Other 3rd world countries COULD do this, if they wanted too. In the short term it would certainly cost them, but in the long term they could certainly more than thrive.

-XT

3

I was pondering this issue yesterday watching 60 minutes do a piece on Equatorial Guinea. They have massive oil wealth and a fairly small population to provide for. In that case the answer to prosperity is not more money. The government is a kleptocracy that benefits the few and does very little for the many.

I would think the single best predictor of development is a stable, responsive government with minimal corruption. The problem is that I haven’t seen a proven model for reducing corruption. This may be a case of the chicken and the egg. I am not sure if corruption declines because of development, or if the decline in corruption fuels development.

4 
Japan was already becoming a developed country at the centuries start. They had been since the 1870's been racing to catch up to western standards. For all effects and purposes they were almost developed or already developed.

China is not developed… Russia was a power… but again never had a very developed economy. Thou Russia is an awkward exception perhaps. Now they certainly aren’t one anymore.

Careful Xtisme… power, global or not doesn’t mean development.

As for Brazil… near 1900 we had one of the most powerful fleets in the world (4th or 5th) funny enough. Rio introduced gas street lamps very early on… but all due to transitory wealth from Rubber, coffee or whatever was on high demand back then. Of course we have grown, we sure have a more sophisticated economy than ever before, but we still are backward despite a lot of effort.

I think you americans have very little notion how difficult it is to conduct business in 3rd world countries... from high taxes, inefficient govt. and finally sky high interest rates. To create "native" industries in these conditions and to increase economic activity is nigh impossible...

Another issue I see is education… Japan’s “resource” is their highly educated population. It seems poor countries nowdays whenever they produce good minds see them wasted in underdeveloped economies or emigrate to Europe and the USA. There is a lack of critical mass in education to break through or change things.

I feel that part of this inablility to change things or break free from current economics and social models is in some part due to how things operate and the interests of richer countries. I don't want to sound like a commie of sorts... but well off countries might wish for more prosperous 3rd world and bigger markets... but in fact aren't working towards one. (Or against either.) No one wants more competition.
5

Also forgot to add… people talk of developING countries. I know its PC talk… but the implicit idea that things develop naturally towards development and out of undevelopment isn’t true. Maybe in a thousand years most 3rd world countries will remain the same way they are now as relates to development.

Development is not a given…

6

“China is not developed”? :confused:

China has the fastest growing economy on Earth (and this is not a good thing.)

It just created a hydro dam that equals Hoover or any hydroelectric project ever executed or conceived.

It put an astronaut into freaking orbit, man!

You got funny ideas about the meaning of the word “developed”.

How about a definition?

7

**R.M.**I think you answered your own question quite well:

Your quote, below, can also be easily explained by your quote above. Why stay in a country with a corrupt gov’t when you can emigrate overseas? Those who do stay (due to patrotism or family matters) seem unable to successfully change the gov’t.

Businesses isn the 1st world would like nothing better than to seel their products in the 3rd world. And many do. But to make an investment in that country, you need to have a reasonable assurance that that the gov’t won’t collapse or won’t nationalize your assets if the political winds change. You need to be certain that the infrastructure can sustain your factory.

BTW, I’d add Singapore to your list with South Korea.

8

Are yo joking? You speak as if there were no restrictions to inmigration in wealthy countries. Remember we live in a capitalistic were you have all the freedom you want except living were you want.-

9

Why not just add all the Asian Tigers to that list? Taiwan was a big pile-o-nothing a century ago. And how about the modernizing Gulf States, like Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman?

And why ignore the large list of middle income countries that have sprung up in the past several decades? Thailand, Turkey, and Malaysia, for example. Those countries have all made huge progress in modernizing their economies over the past few decades.

I think there’s a lot more countries that have made tremendous strides in their economies in the last century than only South Korea.

10 
 Fastest growing because they had a shitty communist economy before ? Bosda... most people there have 2 bicycles in the family... not a car. Average GDP per capita is pathetic. An American earns more in a day than most Chinese do in a couple of months. China is BIG... but not developed. Sending people to space doesn't make 'em developed.

Developed means high per capita income, stable economy, laws and institutions that work, security and advanced economies.
11

So what does a developed country have that a developing one doesn’t?

12

Should’ve previewed.

13

Caucasians.

14

I’m sure the Japanese are shocked.

15

Just kiddin.

16

I suppose its all in your definition of what success is for a ‘developing country’, Rashak Mani. If your definition is that they have to be just like America…or just like Europe…then, ya, its a pretty short list indeed. I’d STILL argue that Japan is on the list though. Yes, the Meiji Restoration (I assume this is what you are talking about) BEGAN in 1867/68, however Japan didn’t really start coming into its own, industrial wise, until fairly close to the turn of the century (they bought a lot of their early weapons, ships, guns, etc, from Europeans like the British). Makes sense if you think it through…they were totally agrarian, and had to learn to be an industrialize nation…which meant sending students to Europe to learn how, then coming back and working with what they learned to integrate it into their society. Their constitution was ratified in the late 1880’s (I think) and their textile industry really started booming in the 1890’s (again, as I remember). However, it wasn’t until after the Sino-Japanese War (um, late 1890’s) and the even later Russo-Japanese War (I think 1903-1905?) that Japan started to really come into its own.

And of course, after their defeat to the allies in WWII (HA…got THIS date, 1945!) they were pretty much back to square one again, and had to rebuild nearly from scratch.

As to other examples of success, I gave several of the asian rim countries like Taiwan and Singapore, and up and coming Malaisia(the Asian Tigers Ravenman mentioned). But it all comes down to your definition of what is a ‘success’.

Certainly pre-industrial Russia, going from an agrarian aristocracy in the early 1900’s to become an industrialized nation that could take on and beat Nazi Germany is one definition (in my book) of a success. Were they as successful as America? Well, in their own way I suppose they were…they certainly made great strides IMO. They weren’t all they COULD have been, no doubt, and the plight of the average Soviet citizen was no barrel of laughs…but as a NATION, they certainly made great strides. China is the same. From a backward agrarian nation in the early 1900’s, though the fucked up years under Mao, to now…ya, they too have made great strides. India is the same.

My definition of ‘success’ is looking at the straight gains a country has made, not looking at them in comparison to another nation like the US and saying, well, they aren’t very successful because of XX that the US has and they don’t. I don’t consider a country a success only if it attains such a lofty position in the world…and frankly I don’t see many countries that CAN aspire to such heights as the US or EU.

As for countries getting to be just like the US…well, time will tell. ATM, the US is at the pinicle of its power, the most powerful and affluent country on earth. NO ONE is on par with us…yet. Europe is pretty close, and Japan is right there too. Maybe someday the pacific rim countries will surpass the US…or China. Europe almost certainly will, if they ever get their shit together. Japan probably will not, alone…but as part of a larger entity? Undoubtedly.

As for the Middle East, Africia, South East Asia, Central and South America? Well, some of them will, and some of them won’t make it. As a region, and at a general guess, I’d say that the ME and Africa are not going to be there for a LONG time…if ever. Individual COUNTRIES in the region may and will prosper (Kuait for instance or South Africa), but as a region…I’m not seeing it at this time. South East Asia? Depends on if they get THEIR shit together and if those countries still communist throw off those dictatorships or at least modify them on the China model. Malaisia certainly looks like its pretty strong to me, and its getting stronger IMO. Central and South America? Will be a hit and miss proposition, with some countries being fairly well off, some being dirt poor. Possibly forming a larger federation like the EU or the US for that matter might increase their ‘gravity’ in the world.

-XT

17

If you look at Rashak’s quote, he was talking about the educacted elite, many of whom were educated in one of the developed countries. For those folks, emigration to one developed country or another is often an option. If you’re talking about the “teaming masses”, yes, there are big barriers to emigration.

18

*Originally posted by Grey *

A very good question - and one that isn’y necessarily easy to answer. A good place to start would be to look at BOTH economic and social measures of development. Some important ones to consider are the following:

1)GDP/capita - an measure of the value assigned to goods/services produced by a country in a given year.

  1. Perchasing Power Parity (PPP) - measure used to overcome bias of GDP/Capita. I liken it to a “cost of living” adjustment (cheaper to live in India relative to the US, for example).

  2. Income levels

  3. Literacy Rates

  4. Life Expectancy

  5. Infant Mortality Rates - often used as an indicator of health

  6. And others can be included as well

A crude measure often used (primarily by United Nations) is the Human Development Index (HDI). It combines both economic and social measures of development to rank countries.

In general, a Developed Nation will have a relatively high GDP/Capita and have relatively high incomes (both adjusted for cost of living). In addition, Developed Countries have the highest Life Expectancies and Literacy Rates. In addition, Developed Countries will also have the lowest RNI (Rate of Natural Increase - difference between births and deaths) as well as the lowest Infant Mortality Rates.

By many people’s accounts, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong (part of China now) would be considered “Developed” with Malaysia and Thailand not far behind.

Other countries, such as Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain would also be considered “Developed” by some. Although critics would argue that these countries rely exclusively on oil for their development, unlike the other Developed countries which have more diversified economies (especially a prominant industrial base which the above OIC’s - Oil Prducing Countries - lack). Some countries in this category, such as Saudi Arabia, have relatively decent economic measures, but would not be considered developed due to their relatively poor social measures of development (such as literacy and life expectancy rates).

Other countries, which appear to be making gains in their development, don’t quite measure up to the rest of the “Developed World” in various economic or social measures of development. For example, Mexico has achieved a level of economic growth and development. Their industrial base is expanding rapidly, and their is a growing middle class with corresponding incomes. However, a significant percentage of their population lives in poverty and suffers numerous social ills that have not quite improved to those found in the Developed World (such as literacy rates and life expectancies).

A similar situation exists in China. While China’s industrial base in growing, China is still largely rural and agrarian. GDP/Capital and incomes lag far behind the “Asian Tigers” and “Little Tigers” of Asia. Likewise, various social measures lag behind as well.

19

What? There are few barriers to immigration.

Labour government in Britain wants there to be NO limit.

Hell, even in the US they issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

Labours new ID card scheme is a load of bull. They willl just hand out ID cards to everyone.

20

Xtisme… I agree that aspiring to EU and US levels isn’t reasonable… but certainly your definition of sucess can be a bit wide. If I have a shitty salary and I double it from US$ 300 to US$ 600… its still a shitty salary by 1st world standards. Did I sucessfully increase my countries economic means ? Yes. Am I a developed country ? No.

Japan I think had crossed the developed "line" by 1900. The fact that they got blasted back was quickly overcome by having high education and national purpose.

Being a developed country was well defined by eponymous. I agree some Asian Tigers are close to developed or already so. China is VERY FAR from it thou. Gulf Oil States are very wealthy… but economically not developed. Take away the oil and they are going to have a very poor future. (One or another Oil state seem to be investing more in order to be less dependent on oil… not most.)

Still the point of the thread is not to squabble about definitions… thou it seems there are some differences. DEVELOPED means DEVELOPED. Not on their way to developed.