How “developed” would you consider Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India to have been in 1900 compared to now?
Then using that definition how can you claim that Japan was a developed nation in 1900? What do you think the per capita income of Japan was in 1900? In fact I suspect that using that defintion there were few developed nation outside the Americas, and even that is debtable. The average European citizen in 1900 was essenially a peasant farmer of urban wage working long hours for subsistence wages. That is assuming that they could get work, and unemployment was normally high.
I will need to ask you what you mean by ‘high per capita income’ in that definiton. I do not consider the subsistence wages and rampant unemployment found in Ireland at that time to be indicative of high per capita income. And yet I assume you believe that Ireland is a developed nation?
Blake:
Do you have any data to suport your statement about the per capita income (or pre capita GDP) of various Western European countries vs the US in 1900? I’m genuinely curious. I did a bit of googling, but didn’t come up with anything.
I don’t think per capita income was even calculable in 1900. For relative “development” then, we have to go by things such as the prevalence of infant and maternal mortality, infectious disease, industrial production, and other data that we do have. The earliest figures I have seen for per capita income date from 1928 or so.
I think the crushing defeat of Russia by Japan in 1905 clearly marked that Japan had arrived as a “developed” nation in many aspects.
I have to echo Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor. China also plans to erect (hee hee) the world’s largest skyscraper by 2007 as well. These countries are not all a bunch of peasents living in grass huts and tending to rice fields in triangle shapped hats.
Well, first of all there is no such thing as “developed”. All countries are in some state of “developING”. That is to say, there is no final end product.
Of course it is. It takes time though. Generally the process seems to be:
-Agrarian society
-Developed countries automate tasks to the point where even an untrained peasent can perform them and export them to developing countries
-Average income increases in developing countries creating a greater tax base
-Better services and infrastructure can be created
-Creation of a middle class with disposible income
-“Big Penis” stage - large public works projects and tall skyscrapers
-Developing country now finds it is exporting many of its low level jobs to even less developed countries.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
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.
It’s already been demostrated that countries do achieve higher stages of development - Brazil, Japan, China, India all the other Asian Tigers are all fairly developed.
Corrupt and backward governments do retard development. Take our Middle Eastern or African friends for example. Many of these nations are backward because they are governed by tribal rule, monarchies or dictatorships. What if Saudi oil wealth was reinvested in the nations infrastructure instead of used to buy a dozen yaghts for some sheiks son?
Having read Paul Kennedy recently I think that finding per capita values isn’t impossible. Paul Kennedy deals with economic figures way more complicated than GDP per capita and from even earlier than the 1900’s… thou naturally the figures are rough estimates at best if compared to modern statistics.
Ok... so I might have a stereotypical view of DEVELOPED... its more fuzzy than I thought... but my OP's question still holds. Are most or all of the current crops of developing/3rd world countries trapped in underdevelopment and relative poverty ? What are the causes for these difficulties in becoming developed.... ?Someting that should also be considered when understanding development - it shouldn’t necessarily be thought of in absolute terms. That is, there’s no upper limit to how developed a nation can become. Development is better understood in relationship to how countries compare to one another - one way to do this is by using various economic (and social) measures.
If you were to compare various economic and social measures of development in 1900, I would guess that Japan probably faired quite well with other countries near the top. Sure, average incomes were lower, life expectancies were lower, literacy rates were lower than they are today - but how were those measures compared to all other countries? If I remember correctly, Japan emerged on the international stage as a world power when it soundly defeated the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. I couldn’t have done so if it hadn’t modernized/industrialized and kept pace militarily/technologically with the great powers at that time. This, of course, required an ever expanding economy and an increasingly educated/skilled workforce.
Additionally, another way to understand development is to look at how various measures have improved/gotten better from some standard time reference in the past. Those countries that are considered “developed” today have by far seen the greatest level in improvement in numerous economic and social measures of development. Those that are considered “underdeveloped” (while some improvements have taken place) have not kept pace over the same time period in acheiving the same level of improvement as that found in “developed” countries.
China has something like 1.2B people. You don’t have to have much of a per capita GDP to be able to finance all kinds of government programs with that many people.
Also, a country can have a fast growing economy (even the fastest in the world) and still not be developed. Rate does not equal amount (of course you know that).
Even using the purchasing power parity definition of per capita GDP, China ranks 129 out of 231 in the CIA World Fact Book. Unless you assume that over half of the world’s countries are “developed”, I don’t think you can say China is developed.
*Originally posted by msmith537 *
While building a the largest skyscrapper (and launching a man into orbit) are impressive achievements, I would not currently consider China to be “developed” when comparing it to other countries. While it’s true that China doesn’t consist entirely of peasant farmers living in grass huts, it DOES have more than those thought of as currently developed. China still has/employs a greater percentage of its’ workforce in agriculture than Japan, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of Europe, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.
Oh, and if building large monuments was such an impressive achievement (and an indicator of how “developed” a country is), then I guess we could include North Korea.
I think this one here is an important consideration in understanding development. Every single country that could be considered developed has a sizeable middle class. One can’t (currently) say that for China, India, even Mexico and Brazil (although I would guess the last two countries middle classes are larger than the first two in terms of percentage of population).
Japan definitely is - Asian Tigers & Little Tigers are as well (for the most part); Brazil is getting there, while China and India still have a way to go. I should note that I make this claim largely on the basisi of BOTH economic and social measures of development (along with several other considerations such as level of political/economic freedom, women’s issues, and a few others) taken as a whole.
Good point - corrupt and backward governments should also be a consideration in making comparisions with other countries. In Saudi Arabia’s case, they have made massive contributions to their infrastructure (roads, railways, airports, hospitals; quality of educational institutions are suspect, though). The problem currently facing Saudi Arabia is the growth in the size of the royal family (I remember reading that their are over 5000 “princes” - could be higher) that are sucking a greater share of the oil largese, coupled with a very rapid population growth rate.
Addendum:
To illustrate the importance in not relying exclusively on economic measures to compare/contrast the level of development among countries, I recommend reading the following Atlantic Monthly article on the Indian state of Kerala:
*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
Godd question - I guess it depends on who you ask. There are two major schools of thought regarding you questions above. They loosely fall under the aegis of Modernization Theory and Depedency Theory briefly summerized as follows:
Modernization Theory - path to development should follow similar path that other developed nations followed. Modernize three sectors of countries economy (agricultural, industrial, service), begin transition from agrarian based to industrial-based economy, develop/improve infrastructure, educational institutions, financial institutions, government bureaucracy, open markets to foreign owernship/competition, and the like.
Dependency Theory - seeks to understand the Developed/Underdeveloped divide. Poor countries are kept poor by the structural aspects of global capitalism. Way to break free of this “depedent” relationship (largely exporting raw materials and importaing manufactured goods) is to institute policies that will allow countries to develop either “outside” the system (e.g. Communism) or “within” the system but under terms agreeable to underdeveloped countries (e.g. protective tariffs, larger role of government in managing economic growth and development).
For Modernization Theory, I would recommend reading the work of W. W. Rostow.
For elements of Depedency Theory, check out the work of Andre Frank.
I would also recommend reading about World-Systems Theory (related to Dependency Theory) devised by Immanuel Wallerstein.
Well, I can think of another nation, that didn’t even exist 100 years ago, that has gone from refugees in marginally productive territory to a first world nation, all while fighting several nasty wars with their neighbors - Israel. Of course, with Israel, most of the Jewish immigrants were well educated, and they have a strong sense of cultural idenity - and were extremely motivated to get a good functioning; they have also gotten considerable foreign aid as well.
Pass the dope…er… no… this way 
When was the last time you visited India, proper?
From Gyan9
About 3 months ago for my friends wedding. Any other questions? Whats your point, exactly?
-XT
You mentioned India and global power in the same sentence, without a Negative in between.
You mentioned India and global power in the same sentence, without a Negative in between.
I guess it depends on your definition, Gyan9. IMO, India IS a global power, or at the very least a regional power. They have a decent economy (which is starting to boom, especially on the tech services side), and a decent military, especially their navy, their medical services are coming around, education is getting better too (its top notch, but spotty…i.e. its VERY good, for those that get it), their infrastructure is spotty, but where its good, its VERY good. They are a nuclear country, which pretty much makes them a power right there IMO.
Are they as successful as the US? Not hardly. They aren’t even as successful as the other pacific rim countries economically, though they are probably on par militarily with all of the pacific rim countries with the exception of China. Are they also poor and fairly backward? Yep, that too. They are a transitional country IMO…still agrarian in some respects, but with a good technological infrastructure, and they are definitely on the rise. I know…I put parts of it in, and it was good work, if I do say so myself. 
When I made my examples which you quoted, what I was saying is that those are countries that have come lightyears from where they were at the arbitrary point RM set…1900. I wasn’t trying to say that the countries I listed (Japan. China. India. Russia.) were first rate powers on par with the US…thats not my definition of a successful country. My definition was to look at where they were in 1900, and where they are today…and if there is vast growth between the two, I think thats a good definition of developing.
So, whats your problem with India?
-XT
None. I’m from India. You mentioned education being very good for those who get it. My firsthand experience (upto 12th grade) in one of Bombay’s finer school and then junior college and firsthand observation (of 1st 2 years of science degree work) says that it’s not. Education in India, is a weed-out process, more than a molding process. So what education is, is very competitive. A good majority of the people who make it to the States, tend to be the ones with drive and resources (innate and otherwise). That might be providing an inaccurate picture of the actual utility of Indian education to Americans. From what I’ve read about US school education (only firsthand experience here is with US undergrad university education), Indian schools might be superior in the urban English-speaking areas in terms of curricular progress, but when it comes to developing the talents for professional fields like math, science & social sciences at the degree level, Indian institutions are woefully behind.
And those fields are precisely where Inda needs a burst of well-trained talent willing to stay behind in India.
Sure, the curriculum is more or less similar, but as far as lab work and firsthand research experience is concerned, that’s close to nil. Don’t let the publicity of the deviant and limited IITs and its related network of institutes mask this state.
Thing is, India is a country of a billion people, with a vast coastline, over disparate geographies, with constrasting cultures and languages. There are bound to be regional pockets and sectors of modernization in a country with such disparity and resources. But, overall Indian politics and social fabric, still suffers from an almost medieval mindset, driven outwardly by religion, dictated inside by exploitation of outdated and harmful social hierarchies, which are fed-forward. The progress that does happen is despite these elements (although, there are isolated and limited beacons of progressive elements in the govt. nowadays) But, sooner or later, I can’t help but seeing this attitude colliding with the modernistic, rational elements, when it comes to macrodevelopment along the breadth of India. I’m skeptical that India, innately a manufactured identity constructed over a common recent historical feature, will survive as a cohesive unit, external as well as internal threats, say 50 years from now.
Of course, this whole rant has to with RM’s questions.
I see India as a regional power, but mostly due to the realities of who we have for neighbours in the region, barring China.
Well Gyan9, obviously your experiences are more real than mine. I worked in India for a telco for 2 years, in various metropolitian cities. I met several good friends while I was there, and I loved my time there. From my perspective, it seemed that a lot of the telco engineers that were Indian were much better at the fundamentals than engineers of the same level back in the states. They were lacking in experience in some cases, but they really had the fundamentals down solid.
The education thing I got from talking to my friends and co-workers. It was THEIR contention (some of them went to graduate school in the states) that education, for those that got it, was much better than their experience in the states. I guess it varies on the person, or maybe they were just messing with me because I couldn’t really learn the language (I tried, but my english isn’t even all that good…the Indian language was just beyond me I guess) while they could speak English better than I could.
Admittedly I have no idea of the factions and such you are hinting at. I knew there was tension between hindu and muslims, but thats about as deep as I got religion wise. In my own defense, I was usually working 16 hour days and didn’t really have much time to really get into the culture (or the food!!) as deeply as I wanted too. For whatever its worth to you, I loved it there, and I made some very good friends…one of which I went back to see get married in a traditional hindu cerimony.
-XT
The world’s expert at assembling economic statistics over long period of time is Angus Madison. Conveniently, he did a study for the OECD entitled The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. Let’s take a look:
Per Capital GDP
Country 1913 1998
Taiwan $747 $15,012
Brazil 811 5,459
Thailand 835 6,204
South Korea 893 12,152
Portugal 1,244 12,929
Singapore 1,279 22,643
Japan 1,387 20,410
44 Latin American 1,511 5,795
Mexico 1,732 6,655
Western Europe 3,473 17,921
France 3,485 19,558
Argentina 3,797 9,219
UK 4,921 18,714
USA 5,301 27,331
Israel 15,152
I sorted by 1913 per capita GDP. The most dramatic jump was apparently made by Taiwan. A small number of countries jumped from 3rd world to 1st world status, arguably including Japan. A lot of countries (eg Latin America) have advanced to “Middle Income” status.
BTW, the OP answered his own question. In a zero-sum world, one nation’s gain is another’s loss. In a positive-sum world, everyone can grow. Luckily, we appear to operate under the latter scenario, provided environmental considerations (CO2, in particular) are ignored. [sub]There is also the question of whether agricultural yields can continue to advance over the next 100 years, but I’ll leave that aside[/sub]