Developing Countries or Never will be Developed Countries ?

[adamant]

One way to look at “developed” over “developing” is to check out the energy use per capita (per person) . “developed” countries use a lot of energy per capita - cars/mass transit, mechanized farming, mass production,etc.
I don’t have all the numbers, but certainly in energy terms the USA is the most “devloped” (or wasteful mabye - although maybe GDP/energy use would show if it is waste or not) with Japan up there, Europe, and China way behind but closing fast.
What energy usage will also show is that for instance China will never reach the energy use per capita that the USA enjoys now . Why not? - because if they did they would be using more energy just by themselves than is produced in the whole world today. There is not enough usable energy (in the forms mainly of oil/natural gas/coal) for China (much less the whole world) to be as energy “developed” as the USA or Europe.

The fact that China’s economy is growing fast (and with it their energy needs especially oil/natural gas) will be one of the drivers of conflict in the near and long term over who gets the access to what is left (most of what is left in terms of oil/natural gas is in the Middle East and somewhat also in Russia and former soviet union countries).

So, while many countries are “developing” they will not all be able to be “developed” because in terms of easily produced energy, it is a zero sum game, and every year brings us close to the time when there is not enough to go around.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

and also

Peak Oil - The Future Of Life On Earth

and under speeches look at :

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/

As for a positive sum world - that is only true if energy supplies can continually grow. So far they have - but we are reaching a peak when the supply will level out and then start falling - that will actually be a negative sum game then.

Agricultural yields are already leveling out due to soil depletion/erosion/ farmland being converted to housing/etc. With energy becoming more scarce, the yields (which depend so much on energy in terms of pumping water, mechanized farming, fertilizer production from natural gas, etc) will be falling and with population still growing the stuff will be hitting the fan (and already is in some countries).

Another more drastic look at things (but not less valid necessarily) is

www.dieoff.org

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

I suggest you go to rural Alabama or Mississippi, & see how “developed” the United States is. Compare that to Seattle. Then compare Seattle’s wealthy neighborhoods to a Harlem slum.

You cannot judge how “developed” a nation is by examing the bottom.

[Rashak_Mani]

Nice figures… do be careful about inflation thou… growth in numbers doesn’t translate directly into growth in wealth.

The USA was 6.5 times richer than Brazil in 1913… now they are “only” 5 times as rich.

Israel didn’t even exist in 1900… nor did “independent” Taiwan. As for India I think Xtisme said it himself… decent… decent… not developed.

Xtisme you seem to put a lot of value in POWER … nuclear and military as a definition of development. Maybe Brazil should build the atomic bomb once and for all… just to get the Nuke Club member card ?

[Rashak_Mani]

*Originally posted by eponymous *

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:

Eponymous... which theory do you give more credit too ?  

( Our “dear” ex-president FHC after 30 years writing about sociological stuff totally left aside what he wrote about Dependency Theory when he took over office… so much for academics being true to their theories.)

[XT]

From Rashak Mani

Xtisme you seem to put a lot of value in POWER … nuclear and military as a definition of development. Maybe Brazil should build the atomic bomb once and for all… just to get the Nuke Club member card ?

Not at all…I just don’t discount military power from the equation is all…and you do. Its all part of the package IMO…military, economic, cultural, natural resources, technical capability. You will notice I put Japan and the Asian Tigers on the list too RM, and they don’t have notable militaries…nor do many of them have the bomb (hell do ANY of them have the bomb?).

As I said, I merely factor it into the equation as to how a country is percieved on the world stage…and you ignore it because I assume its distasteful to you. Unfortunately, its reality. BTW, Pakastan and North Korea ALSO has the bomb, and you will notice I did NOT put them on my list. Nice try to pigeon hole me though.

-XT

[Rashak_Mani]

hehe… just poking you…

Actually most brazilians think having nukes is silly… not so sure nowdays. We could easily get some… just issue of money being spent. Our delivery systems suck thou.

Well we never know. Someone might try to "liberate" us eventually....

[furt]

*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
**Israel didn’t even exist in 1900… nor did “independent” Taiwan. **

Yet surely a country like Taiwan does illustrate something: they went from being an occupied territory of Japan in 1900, underwent a semi-invasion of mainland Chinese in 1948, and yet now are a prosperous, democratic nation.

[eponymous]

*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor *

I suggest you go to rural Alabama or Mississippi, & see how “developed” the United States is. Compare that to Seattle. Then compare Seattle’s wealthy neighborhoods to a Harlem slum.

Having traveled existensively throughout the United States (and, yes, through rural Alabama and Mississippi; in fact, I lived in Alabama for several years) and currently living in a major metropolitan area (I used to live in a neighborhood right next to one of the largest “slums” in the city), I am quite aware of the differences in socio-economic conditions that exist in certain parts of the United States. You also will find these differences in every so-called “developed” country in the world.

What you need to ask yourself is this - are these pockets of “underdevelopment” commonplace throughout the country, or are they isolated, relative to the rest of the country as a whole? In addition, you need to ask yourself if these pockets of underdevelopment have similar characteristics as those found in other countries around the world. In other words, bad as the living conditions are for those who live in rural Mississippi or the slums of Harlem, do they compare to the living conditions for the rural poor living in Mexico or the slum dweller in Calcutta, India?

What you will find, and why I can make the claim that Japan, US, much of Europe, et al. are developed, is that compared to such places as Mexico, China, India, etc. the pockets of “underdevelopment” are NOT commonplace (relative to the rest of the country as a whole) and the poor have BETTER living conditions (relative to the poor in underdeveloped countries).

My suggestion to you is to visit rural Mexico, India, and China (and the slums of such cities as Mexico City, Calcutta, and Shanghai). Then come back and compare what you’ve experienced to that found here in the US (or any other developed nation).

You cannot judge how “developed” a nation is by examing the bottom.

Quite true - nor can you judge how developed a nation is by examining the top. Besides, one needs to consider a host of factors/measures in making such a claim regarding development. I’d suggest you read the article above (link provided in a previous post) regarding the state of Kerala in India. Economically, Kerela is worse of than many other Indian states. However, if you look at many of its social measures (Life Expectancy, Literacy Rates, Infant Mortality Rates, etc.) you see that Kerela compares favorably with many places in the developed world (US, Europe). Is Kerala developed or not? Depends on how you define development.

[XT]

From Rashak Mani

hehe… just poking you…

hehe, ok. I’m a bit miffed at a poster in another thread that called me a “xenophobic isolationist”, so if I was a bit short, my appologies.

Reguards,
XT

[eponymous]

*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *

Eponymous… which theory do you give more credit too ?
( Our “dear” ex-president FHC after 30 years writing about sociological stuff totally left aside what he wrote about Dependency Theory when he took over office… so much for academics being true to their theories.)

Well, it depends. Depedency Theory has a few good points, but I think it overstates it’s insistence on how encompassing the effect that the Developed World has on the Underdeveloped World. In other words, if you believe that Depedency Theory is true, then the poor countries are “locked” into a system in which they will forever be poor. It doesn’t help to explain how some countries have been able to “develop” - the Asian Tigers (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong).

Likewise, Modernization Theory has a few good points, but I think it understates the effect that the Developed World has on the Underdeveloped World. In other words, if it were simply a matter of following the same path as that of the developed world, then why have the myriad development policies/projects/initiatives undertaken by many of the underdeveloped countries been such a dismal failure? There’s some merit in trying to understand the structural characteristics of global capitalism that make it exceedingly difficult for poorer countries to achieve the same results as the richer countries (they are locked into a system that they had no impact in creating in the first place).

I’m much more of a pragmatist - do what works. This means that, depending on the goals, different countries will have to take different approaches (depending on the circumstances).

[cowgirl]

John Mace

Why stay in a country with a corrupt gov’t when you can emigrate overseas?

Because most people don’t have a choice. You need huge amounts of some combination of money, education, skills and luck in order to emigrate legally. If you do it illegally you are cursed in the popular culture of the nation you go to. You cannot apply for refugee status on the basis of economic hardship, only if your life is in danger in your home country. One result of this is the brain drain resulting from people with money, education, skills etc leaving for a better life in developed countries.

Now let’s address the issue of debt. Because of the massive lending in the 1970s most developing nations are in enormous amounts of debt and most of their cash goes to paying off interest. Capital flows from developing countries to developed countries far exceed those going in the opposite direction. This means that (a) developing countries just can’t get ahead, no matter how much money they make, because it all leaves the country instead of getting reinvested in infrastructure etc, and (b) developing countries are at the mercy of institutions like the Bretton Woods ones who can make basically any demand they want in return for more loans. Suffice it to say their interests are often not the same as the nation in question, but the nation doesn’t have much leverage.

Grey

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

(Substantially more) Credit and financial independence.

Dread

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.

The importance of this point cannot be overemphasized. This is precicely why Israel is not considered ‘developing’

On development theories: the field has progressed since Dependency Theory in the 1970s. Many interesting critiques come from Amartya Sen (Development as Freedom), Wolfgang Sachs (The Development Dictionary), for starters. Postcolonialism should not be ignored (Edward Said Orientalism) but always is. Also there are feminist critiques. These people don’t tend to agree with each other on most things but they do agree that modernization theory and dependency theory are hugely inadequate to explain ‘development.’

[Rashak_Mani]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
**From Rashak Mani

hehe, ok. I’m a bit miffed at a poster in another thread that called me a “xenophobic isolationist”, so if I was a bit short, my appologies.

Reguards,
XT **

Wow... "xenophobic isolationist" ?  Wow... repeating the same meaning almost. Could you point me out to that thread ?

[eponymous]

*Originally posted by cowgirl *

On development theories: the field has progressed since Dependency Theory in the 1970s. Many interesting critiques come from Amartya Sen (Development as Freedom), Wolfgang Sachs (The Development Dictionary), for starters. Postcolonialism should not be ignored (Edward Said Orientalism) but always is. Also there are feminist critiques. These people don’t tend to agree with each other on most things but they do agree that modernization theory and dependency theory are hugely inadequate to explain ‘development.’

Good point - both Modernization and Depedency Theories are currently inadequate in undertanding and explaining development. Although, to be fair, they are a good starting point in helping one understand the issues involved.

I’m glad you mentioned Amartya Sen - I frequently refer to his works in coming to grips in my understanding of what “development” is (his work also helps to illustrate the example of Kerela in the linked article I provided in a previous post).

[XT]

Well, don’t want to hijack your thread here…but I think you actually were involved in the thread if I remember correctly. However, if you really want to look, it was here. I won’t quote what was said, you can go see for yourself and that would REALLY be hijacking your thread. It COULD have been an interesting discussion IMO…

-XT

[ralph124c]

Not enough has been said about the role of governemnet-if too corrupt, no nation can make progress. Take the case of Argentina-it has plenty of oil, is rich in other resources, and has a largely educated population. In fact, in 1900, the USA and Argentina were roughly on par with eachother. What happened? Argentina is now staggering under a heavy debt load, and many of its most productive citizens have emigrated. The reason? Political corruption, starting with Juan peron, and continuing to this day!

[Rashak_Mani]

Tell me about it… just read an article estimating corruption losses from 15% to 30%. Imagine trying to develop with these kinds of “losses” ?

One could then discuss why there is less corruption in developed countries… if its cause and effect. Sadly what Bush is doing in Iraq by giving away choice contracts and paying them way more than is needed is very typical in South America. Construction projects are the choice method for deviating money. If even the US can’t escape these kinds of practices… what chance does Brazil have ?

[XT]

The difference is here, RM.

From Business Week Online

How was Halliburton chosen?
The company was selected in an emergency process that did not involve competitive bidding. The Army Corps of Engineers gave the contract to extinguish oil well fires to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root because it had the “expertise and specialized resources.” KBR, for example, helped douse some 300 Kuwaiti oil fires after the first Gulf War in 1991.

What’s wrong with that?
Critics say the work was added, with no competitive bidding, to an existing contract under which KBR provides logistical support to the Army. The hotel and food bills for some 350 Office of Reconstruction & Humanitarian Assistance bureaucrats, most of whom were holed up at the Kuwait Hilton resort, are paid by KBR – $5,000 a month per person, plus a markup, says an ORHA official. “That’s an inexcusable waste of money that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay,” says Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who has asked the General Accounting Office to investigate.

From Business Week Online

How was Bechtel selected?
Seven U.S. companies were secretly invited to bid in a limited competition allowed under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. While all seven had a track record on overseas projects in such places as Kosovo and Afghanistan, Bechtel’s experience in Arabic-speaking nations carried the day. It employs more than 1,000 people in the Mideast, it’s building a $1.7 billion aluminum smelter in Bahrain, and it’s expanding a Saudi Arabia airport for $1.5 billion.

Why were the bidders all American?
USAID officials say the law requires them to use only U.S. suppliers. In addition, each bidder had to have a type of security clearance, which no foreign company possessed, to review classified documents handed out at a pre-bid conference. Overseas companies, however, are eligible for subcontracts. Besides, one USAID official says: “Imagine the furor if we chose European companies, using American tax dollars.”

USAID also says it had to limit competition because it was working under a tight deadline. In the end, it took just 63 days to complete a process that usually takes 6 months. Why the haste? For political and humanitarian reasons, the Iraq project couldn’t wait, says USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios: “We wanted it all in place so we could begin construction immediately.”

Again, what’s wrong with that?
Some members of Congress say they aren’t satisfied by the constantly shifting explanations for the U.S.-only requirement. They may have a point. Natsios and other USAID officials have given a variety of reasons, and some don’t hold up. One USAID official says that in January, Natsios waived the America-only requirement for all contractors, not just subcontractors, as USAID had claimed. He has the authority to do so, legal experts agree. But by then tacking on a security-clearance requirement, he wound up restricting the bidders to Americans only.

Bolding mine to illustrate what I thought were the key points…the critical examination of the process.

The point of all that above is to show that it IS a critical process. Ok, there MIGHT have been some shanigans going on with the contracts. There is certainly a case there. However, there are also opposing political forces that are critical of the appointments and are raising a stink about it. In fact, its my understanding that many of the “no compete” contracts are being terminated and are going to BE competed now (of course, the incumbants might simply win again, though they will have to work for it this time I suppose)…and the reason for that is all that political flack generated in the first place. Its a big difference than a lot of the corruption in the 3rd world…and the biggest difference (which was my point in all this) is that ours is, broadly speaking, a self correcting system…check and balances and all that. And, maybe more importantly, we basically trust our system TO self correct…eventually. In the 3rd world, they don’t. IMO anyway, from what I’ve seen.
-XT

[Rashak_Mani]

Special interest groups and politics make for shady deals… and I don’t think the process is as self correcting as you paint it. I don’t even mind the US only companies as much as the overdone values stipulated. Add to that the reluctance of the US media to criticize Bush…

 Naturally its not the same thing as in South America... but give it time and arrangements might get too cozy. The fact that it was done in Iraq and not mainland USA does mean its not a regular thing.

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
Nice figures… do be careful about inflation thou… growth in numbers doesn’t translate directly into growth in wealth.

No, you be careful bub… [sub]just kidding[/sub]…

Fair point, but all figures are adjusted for inflation: they are in 1990, “international dollars”, which means they reflect “Purchasing Power Parity” terms rather than exchange rates.

For myself, I prefer to leave the whys and whens of development for another thread. Suffice it to say that there have been dramatic gains in per capita income in some countries, depressing experiences in others, and that a comparison between the 2 sets provides a natural experiment that can distinguish between successful and unsuccessful growth strategies.

For those interested in developmental economics, the World Bank website might be a good place to start.

[XT]

From Rashak Mani

Special interest groups and politics make for shady deals… and I don’t think the process is as self correcting as you paint it. I don’t even mind the US only companies as much as the overdone values stipulated. Add to that the reluctance of the US media to criticize Bush…

Sure, thats why the US is still a third world power…er, wait. Huh? Oh, never mind…must just be luck.

The situation under Bush is not as radically different as you seem to think it is RM. Its pretty much the same ole same ole. The Iraq thing is really the biggest difference, but on the home front I don’t really see the huge changes your are hinting at.

Clean the foam from the mouths of the liberal left (or the rabid right under Clinton) and its pretty much ‘business as usual’. Show me where you think things are vastly different under Bush than, say, under Clinton with reguards to the PACs and Special Interest Groups, and media critizizing, etc. You won’t be able to find a quantitative difference.

-XT