This question goes out to any Economist and Historians about a countries or areas development?

Question

So it has always been on my mind. Why is it that the European, North American and some of the Far Eastern Nations are the most advanced Nations int the world. The Nations of Africa, Latin America, and South Eastern Nations are the poorest Nations in the world. Why is that?, and from your point of expertiese what could the poor countries do say Nigeria or Bhurma do to be with the big economic countries like the US, and all the other developed countries in the world?

Answer 1

Countries that were more advanced in 1800 are still more advanced, although many poorer countries are adopting the technology and improving now that the age of imperialism is over. "Guns Germs and Steel" provides a convincing argument of why most lasting civilizations developed in northern temperate climates. (Egypt, China, Iraq, Rome etc) The migration of farming techniques and technology do not spread well in a North south direction because of the changing climate conditions. When the Mayan failed there was no place they could transfer their technology to so it was lost. But why didn't the Chinese "discover" Europe and America,and why didn't the Arabs circumnavigate the planet? The answer for these question are more likely due to culture and/or of accidents of timing.The success of Northern Europe and their off shoots is a relative recent phenomenon. Much of the success of European culture is due do the rise of scientific inquiry. " The Discoverers" offers a good discussion of why this took place in Europe.
http://www.amazon.com/Discoverers-Daniel-J-Boorstin/dp/0394726251
The answers are complex so you should read the book if you want to pursue the question, but the simple explanation is that the fragmentation in Europe politically and the weakness of authority permitted diversity of thought.

Answer 2

The real question is why was Europe able to create a dynamic private sector that led to economic growth. Until the Second World War, only Europe and the English colonies of the US, Canada, and Australia would be considered developed. Only recently has Japan and the Asian Tigers (S. Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) moved into the ranks of developed countries.

What was special about Europe? One theory (I don't remember the source) is that competition between the many small countries crowded together in Europe was what created the right conditions for the private sector to grow. If one country had a bad environment for business, business could move to another country that offered a better environment. Also economic strength was necessary for political and military strength. A country with a weak economy was also going to be weak militarily. For example, Germany at the end of the 19th century had a strong incentive to catch up with Britain economically so that it could compete with Britain militarily.

Answer 3

I would say that you are looking at a few relative points and not the whole picture. China has been the source of almost all mans modernity. But they started long before the west ever did. So they sat back for a few thousand years and watched how we all did with their inventions and discoveries. Now, almost to the point of extinction we talk about how advanced we are yet in a few years China will once again reap what they have sewn, and you probably don't get out of the country much... we are not so all ahead as we think... I think China will really show the rest of the world how it is done and we will follow along because they know and knew long before us.

Answer 4

There are a number of theories on this question. One of these is that since Europe and parts of Asia (and North America, whose population primarily came from Europe) were farther from the equator, and things did not grow as easily there, the inhabitants were more driven to come up with new techniques to ensure their survival. These improvements carried forward to the point that when they expanded, they could use these tools to become dominant.

Another theory is that, due to Europe and Asia's longitudinal axis, peoples and crops could spread more easily than in Africa and the Americas. The importance of this is that when one society discovered new crops or techniques, due to the similar climate, these could easily be transferred to other societies. In the Americas, what one society discovered might be useless to the next that was farther north or south, and in a different climate zone.

A third theory, and the one that I buy into the most, is a variant of the one above. With similar climactic conditions across vast pieces of land, people could easily move from one area to another without having to change their farming practices. This allowed more contact between peoples, which spread diseases. People then developed immunities to these diseases, so that when they met new people, they would transmit the diseases to new people without these immunities, who would then be weakened so the immunized populations could push them out of the way.

As for what poor nations can do to raise themselves to a first world status, I think the long term solution is for them to focus on educating their populations to compete and developing a clear framework for competition.

Some nations, such as Japan, have been quite successful in becoming first world economies by educating their people and developing their core competencies. More recently, nations such as Singapore have been successful by establishing a stable economic set of rules and being open to foreign investment.

For the first question you asked, a good book on the subject is called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Take a look on Wikipedia for a more complete discussion of his theory.

Hope it helps.

Answer 5

invest a lot in education, relax cultural and political restrictions on the economy, change the political system to a less corrupt one.

Answer 6

culture, i.e. such values as hard work, education, honesty, generally taking charge of one's life, demanding that government serves people (& not vice versa)