English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i want to know the economic factors behind the gap between the developed and underdevelope countries

2006-08-14 05:19:13 · 7 answers · asked by ojo i 1 in Social Science Economics

7 answers

The most important thing a country must have to be prosperous is an effective, efficient and honest government that provides a stable enviroment for industry and growth to be nurtured and grow. The reason is not natural and/or human resources. If that were the case, Russia and any African nation, nations that have vast natural resouces, would be far richer than Great Britian or Japan, two nations that have small populations, few natural resources, and yet are vastly prosperous. Japan and Britain both share the feature of having a good government.

2006-08-17 17:31:15 · answer #1 · answered by mikeyboy602 2 · 0 0

The most important factors is institutions. Countries that ended up poor had institutions that existed to protect the military aristocracy at the expense of the commercial class. Countries that ended up rich had institutions that existed to limit the power of the military aristocracy and help the commercial class to operate and quickly and peacfully resolve any disputes that arise in the process.

You should read Daron Acemoglu's papers on the importance of institutions in economic growth:

http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/index.htm?prof_id=acemoglu&type=publication

2006-08-14 06:28:10 · answer #2 · answered by NC 7 · 0 0

ALL THE ANSWERS THAT i READ SO FAR ARE BULLSHIT there is only one difference between rich countries and poor countries. Rich countries have in place an unalterable constitution to protect its citizens from the tyranny of the wealthy and poor countries do not have such protection

2006-08-14 05:48:46 · answer #3 · answered by neil w 1 · 2 0

the fast answer (which i'm not prevalent for, yet I ought to pass do an interview) is maximum international locations can in basic terms try this with forced redistribution of wealth. that could propose (in spite of the form of government) taking from the haves (funds, property, drugs,foodstuff, land and so on) and giving even quantities to unquestionably everyone in spite of social status (organic however impossible Communism). To my pal who replied partly ; "...undertake open-markets, sparkling governments to blame to the human beings, and function the superb know for inner maximum property rights. .." if this have been actual than a rustic not stated interior the unique question ought to not have a CEO making $125M (not , repeat not which incorporate inventory concepts), whilst the door guy he passes each and every morning makes $21K (and is not , repeat not eligible for the inventory option application). additionally, a lot of that's approximately ability (I did say this could be short). think of for a 2nd in case you will with regard to the rationalization a billionaire could spend his/her very own funds to alter right into a mayor, senator or governor? i admire my city, yet once I spent $90K on a marketing campaign to alter into mayor which will pay $35K human beings would not call me a public servant, they could call me a psychiatrist.

2016-10-02 01:46:18 · answer #4 · answered by olmeda 4 · 0 0

The differences are culture, civil war, climate , tribalism and education. Its an over simplification to say that if rich countries gave more money to poor countries, then everything would be aok.

2006-08-14 05:27:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

countries are constantly developing so your method of measuring will constantly be changing. Developed countries have the brains, the system and enough resources. Undeveloped countries have the resources but not enough brains in the middle class.

2006-08-14 05:24:49 · answer #6 · answered by jercha 4 · 0 1

Education, technology, currency, economy, religion,etc.

2006-08-14 05:29:49 · answer #7 · answered by C93 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers