Spot on! Social overhaul is perhaps the most important indicator of a shift from thrid to first world status. For sure, industrialisation and a strong economy are a not insignificant part of the equation, but they’re not a deal-closer.
That’s why I think countries like India and China have a much longer way to go than most people imagine. These two countries are going to need a social revolution to make a full transition in the near future. I’m far more optimistic of some eastern European nations ‘getting there’ in the near future.
Yeah thats a problem. I would assume most countries offer first world lifestyles (cars, healthcare, education, etc) if you are wealthy but what about the other 80% of people who can’t afford that stuff?
Developed to me means that people are living a life that is at the very least on par with what life was like economically in the 1950s in america. Access to a car, access to healthcare, a wage that allows enough for a few luxuries, etc. The wealthy in most countries have access to this stuff but the poor sometimes are still living in shanties and can’t afford antibiotics. When it becomes normal to have access to a home, healthcare, education, etc and 70-80% of the country considers themselves ‘middle class’ or at the very least not deprivationally poor then a country is can be considered developed.
What is the rationale for assuming that “developed” somehow implies an equivalence to 1950’s American lifestyle? While I’ll agree with your assessment that development shouldn’t be looked soley in economic terms, I don’t necessarily agree that 1950’s America is the model to emulate for all countries).
In fact, what constitutes “developed” status (or development in general) has been vigorously debated over the last 20-30 years. The work of Amatrya Sen (Nobel Prize winning economist), among others, has enhanced the debate by forcing others to examine development in different ways. Specifically, away from primarily emphasizing economic indicators towards including a broader range of measures (specifically, quality of life or social measures).
Once other indicators are included, then it’s not necessarily easy to define who is developed or non-developed from a strict economic interpretation. To give you one example:
As of 1999, India had a GDP/capita of roughly $1200. One state in India - Kerala - has a GDP/capita of $1000. However, if you looked at other indicators in Kerala more closely, you found the following:
Life expectancy (males and females) - around 72 years, roughly 10-15 years greater than India as a whole; comparable to many countries of the developed world.
Fertility rate - 1.7 children per women; about 2-3 children less than the Indian average; again, rates that are comparable to those found in the developed world.
Infant mortaility rate - roughly half that found throughout the rest of India and comparable to many countries of the developed world.
Literacy rates - 90%, whereas the rest of India is around 50-60 %. And, the literacy rates are similar for both men and women in Kerala, whereas for the rest of India the literacy rates between men and women are much larger (many more men are literate as compared to women).
Now, while Kerala may be poor in economic terms, in terms of the quality of life it compares favorably with many places in the developed world (Europe, US, Japan, etc.). People of Kerala may not own a car or a nice, big home, but they have access to decent medical care, educational facilities, and the like.
The Human Development Index - HDI - (published by the United Nations) is one (albeit somewhat crude attempt) to gauge the level of development by incorporating both economic and social indicators to rank and compare countries around the world. The US is generally in the top 5-10 every year. I think one year Canada was #1, while another year it was Norway. To rank high, countries needed to do well in both economic and social terms. Deficiencies in either pushed countries down in the rankings.
To address the OP, most people speculate that several countries of Southeast Asia will shortly become part of the developed world. Specifically, Singapore and Malaysia, and to a lesser degree Thailand and Indonesia (although the baht devaluation in Thailand in 1997 which crippled the economies of Southeast Asia has pushed back the time table; the devestating effects of the recent tsunami also will affect those countries as well, especially Indonesia).
Latin America and Eastern Europe are two other regions where there are several countries that are well on their way towards becoming part of the developed world. In Eastern Europe, those countries that are now part of the EU should see marked gains in their overall level of economic development - Poland, Czech Republia, and Hungary - but the effects will take some time. In Latin America, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil are all experiencing decent rates of economic growth (comparatively speaking), but still lag quite a bit with respect to various social indicators. However, as those countries’ economies expand and help create a growing middle class, then the social indicators should improve.
Some countries in the Middle East have the economic potential, but poor social indicators coupled with an over-reliance on a single commodity (oil) make it unlikely that those countries can sustain a high level of development once they reach that stage (note: this is not to say that they cannot; rather the likelihood is that without some sort of economic diversification coupled with improvements in various social indicators the ability of those countries to maintain their status is questionable).
In economic terms, the smaller Gulf States have economic indicators that are quite good (UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait) relative to the rest of the region. However, the bulk of their good economic status is attributed to one resource - oil. Take away that resource, and those countries various economic measures decline markedly. I do know that Bahrain is making some attempt at economic diversification by relying on other industries (specifically banking).
Sorry, but I have to disagree. China and India’s population will not implode anytime this century. What’s occuring is that the rate of growth for both countries is slowing. China has already reached the beginning stages of population stabilization (replacement rate is a bit below 2.0 - the rate necessary to maintain population stabilization). India, on the other hand, is expected to surpass China in terms of total population in the next 20-30 years. However, the rate of growth for India has steadily declined over the last 20-30 years and should reach the beginning stages of stabilization around the time they surpass China as the most populated country.
The REAL population implosion this century will occur in Europe and Japan (if current population growth and immigration trends continue). Some countries already have a negative population growth (meaning their population is in decline). I’ve read accounts that, given current trends, Japan’s population will fall from 120 million to 90 million over the next 50-75 years.
Is such a population decrease always a bad thing? Japan, for example, might be a more liveable country in terms of living space etc. with a reduced population. Moreover, a reduced population may lead to increased pressure for greater efficiencies in industry via technological developments.
A good question - I would think that it isn’t necessarily a bad thing if the decline in population is coupled with a gradual shrinkage in a country’s economy. Or if productivity per person increases over time. In the first case the overall economy shrinks, but the average stays the same per person (GDP/Capita). In the second case, the average increases but the overall economy stays the same. It’s even theoretically possible for an economy to grow even if the population declines, if the level of productivity per worker increases at a rate greater than the expected level of productivity per worker had the population remained stable.
However, I can’t think of any example where an economy has grown while the population has declined at the same time. One way to alleviate the potential shrinkage of a particular economy is immigration - one that I think Europe will be in a better position to handle than Japan (Japan being notoriously reluctant to open its borders to large numbers of immigrants; although even in Europe, there is a growing movement towards reducing or restricting immigration in some countries).
Hasn’t this happened in Ireland – albeit rather slowly? After the famine, its population didn’t stop declining until the 1980s, yet the standard of living improved considerably during that time.
eponymous wins the gold. Thank you for those fantastic posts. Your efforts to fight ignorance have not gone unnoticed.
In summary, “developed” status does not simply rely on economic indicators, a variety of social indicators need to be considered as well.
Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait are well on their way economically, but social indicators lag way behind economic indicators for nearly all.
China and India’s population will be stabilizing in the next 20-30 years.
If current population growth and immigration trends continue, Europe and Japan’s population will decrease.
From what I understand about Brazil and Chile is that there is a huge underclass and then a small upperclass. To me developed means that 70-80%+ of the country may consider itself ‘middle class’ or at the very least virtually nobody considers themselves desperately poor. Even the homeless in countries like France have it pretty good when you think about it. They still have healthcare, a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure, affordable education, representative government and government institutions (like police) to look out for them, etc. My statement on ‘1950s america’ is just a reference to a country where the majority of people have enough disposable income to purchase a quality home, have competent means of transportation, access to healthcare and a very intact infrastructure that is representative.
As far as social indicators I was going to make a post yesterday about how according to freedom house almost all countries which are considered developed are also considered liberal democracies, but I figured that was due to the fact that most developed countries share a cultural identity. Most developed countries in Europe, north america as well as Israel, Australia and New Zealand share a common historical background.
On the other hand countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore or Tiawan became developed while under dictatorships. Even the USSR experienced some intense development under Stalin’s 5 year plan, and China is growing at about 10% a year (which is about what South Korea grew at when it went from undeveloped to developed in under 40 years while under the dictatorship of Park Chung Hee). So I don’t know if there is a correlation between domestic policies and economic growth. It could just be a fluke due to the fact that most developed countries share the same cultural history.
I can’t remember when or where he said it, but Machiavelli did say that republics tend to do better than dictatorships because in republics private property is more respected; in a dictatorship, the main ethic is “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable”, far as the government’s attitude towards its people. See Russia under Putin for a prime example of this.
I’d say Brazil, and perhaps China, with the caveat that they are after all still a dictatorship. India will make it, but it’s going to take longer than 30 years.
Hmm - you might have a point with Ireland, but wasn’t a large percentage attributed to out-migration? In other words, the rate of natural increase (# of births minus # of deaths) could have been above replacement rate, but due to poor economic considerations people left in large numbers over the years. Would be interesting to see the demographics with respect to RNI and out-migration, in any event.
I think another factor which helped Ireland was its’ incorporation into the EU. I also think what helped somewhat was an increase in immigration from other countries (from the EU and elsewhere).
In the case of Japan, its’ expected population decline will be attributed solely to people dying in larger numbers versus those being born into the population.
Well, I think it is less so for Chile than for Brazil, but you are generally correct with respect to many Latin American counties. They still suffer from having a relatively small middle class compared to the rest of the developed world. However, given current economic trends, the countries I’ve listed will continue to see an expansion of their middle classes. They still have plenty of work to do, especially with respect to many social/quality of life indicators, but the indicators (both economic and social) suggest that they are well on their way.
Note: I should point out that at one time (late 1800’s early 1900’s) Argentina (and to some extent Uruguay) had comparable living standards to that found throught the US, Canada, and Europe.
China and India over the 25-50 years will still have huge segments of their population mired in sub-standard economic and social conditions. Economically, both are poised to emerge as major powerhouses. Whether this will translate into those countries having a sizeable and affluent middle-class on par to what is found throughout the rest of the developed world remains to be seen. Remember, the developed world “developed” at a rate greater than it’s population increased (population increased, but so did productivity levels due to technological advances), whereas China and India’s population grew at a rate faster than its’ gains in productive capacity.
Personally, I think China will emerge as THE dominant new economic powerhouse this century, but I think India will follow close behind. I wouldn’t be surprised if future historians mark the 21st century as the Chinese Century and the 22nd century as the Indian Century.
Thank you for those fantastic posts. Your efforts to fight ignorance have not gone unnoticed.