11–20 of 110 posts
No mention of colonialism or imperialism here. Not the whole answer, but part.
The impact of colonialism is studied under the institutionalist approach to growth theory, with the two most proeminent recent authors being Acemoglu and Robinson. The submission doesn't elaborate on it, but the literature is out there.
I "like" the use of North Korea as example of bad institutions and not of effect of embargoes. Likewise South Korea definitely did not receive (and properly used) foreign aid. /s The article clearly contradicts itself on the point by showing how ineffective Qing dynasty policy reforms were in China while later even bigger changes in communist China worked. And definitely does not address anything related to USSR or r…
South Korea did receive quite a lot of foreign aid from US, UN.
South Korea is the only nation to transition from receiver to giver in international aid. https://poldev.revues.org/1535
As someone who migrated from a developing country(India) to a developed country(Australia) and observing the difference in quality of life of average citizens among the two countries, I always wonder why politicians/dictators from developing countries who can also observe these differences ever wonder that the average people in a developed country are living a good life so why not just copy what the developed country…
Problem is developed countries don't want to see poor countries arm up. Especially w.r.t. nukes.
I "like" the use of North Korea as example of bad institutions and not of effect of embargoes. Likewise South Korea definitely did not receive (and properly used) foreign aid. /s The article clearly contradicts itself on the point by showing how ineffective Qing dynasty policy reforms were in China while later even bigger changes in communist China worked. And definitely does not address anything related to USSR or r…
> Likewise South Korea definitely did not receive (and properly used) foreign aid. South Korea did receive quite a lot of foreign aid from US, UN. South Korea is the only nation to transition from receiver to giver in international aid. https://poldev.revues.org/1535
The article answers the question with the following two points:
- lack of strong institutions
- trade barriers
It provides an example of North vs south Korea in defense of the theory.
It's a ridiculously simplistic synthesis in my opinion.
this guy says that the output of people is what determines the wealth of a country. this confuses me a little because isnt it true that if all the countries in the world were filled with productive people, there might not be enough demand for all of their services? would a large chunk of people not be left behind? and, according to my introductory economics textbook, if such demand exists that every person on this earth can be employed at a high salary, would that demand not have already been naturally met in this global free market of nations that has existed for some time now? and lastly, here in the united states, a very rich country, most people have relatively meaningless jobs. people are wildly overpaid for the work that they do here in many cases. there are professors of womens studies and social network or engagement experts who are paid a lot of money to essentially do nothing. i would be happy to be corrected.
Around the turn of the XX century, many struggling economies today were on par with middling countries in Europe.
Think Czech, Finland, Hungary, Polen, Japan. Brazil, Mexico, etc., were competitive with them back then, but now, the latter are seen as basket cases of mismanagement. And empire and colonialism didn't give even Japan aby advantage till the 30s, arguably one could say that sapped their vigor. On the other hand LatAm had become independent from Iberian powers while inheriting a system of government (not the best but arguably better than monarchies), yet with the exceptions of Chile and Uruguay, the rest have underperformed.
As someone who migrated from a developing country(India) to a developed country(Australia) and observing the difference in quality of life of average citizens among the two countries, I always wonder why politicians/dictators from developing countries who can also observe these differences ever wonder that the average people in a developed country are living a good life so why not just copy what the developed country…
Because controlling people, who are struggling in their life, are much easier by dictators. Even with religious activities, dictators can make citizens pray for him. if politicians allow you to have lots of chances, then you'll start criticizing and want more. More improvement on life conditions gives you less control on citizens. I'm Turkish living in Switzerland, I can say that it is the same shit in every developi…