The Third World

[Assume Nothing]

I'd probably sound naive here, but what changes need to take place before the Third World countries can progress towards becoming First World countries?

[sohkmj1]

I'd say that the most important change is having people in charge who aren't corrupt or incompetent. It makes a pretty big difference, interestingly (was thinking about Liberia when I wrote this).

[Vezon Dash]

I'd say that the most important change is having people in charge who aren't corrupt or incompetent. It makes a pretty big difference, interestingly (was thinking about Liberia when I wrote this).

 

Unfortunately this is a rare occurrence, even in a country like the United States. Our government is both corrupt and incompetent, but we are already built up which is what allows us to be stable as a country.

[Cheat]

I wonder if China is still officially a LEDC..

[Low Levelled]

Someone will always be behind. Better them than us.

[RpgGamer]

I see the "first world" countries becoming "third world" long before the opposite happens.

[Furah]

As long as first world countries are capitalistic in nature, there will always be third world countries. If they can pay Lee the foreigner $10/day to manufacture goods, then why would they ever pay John the guy in a near-by town $10/hr.

[obfuscator]

As long as first world countries are capitalistic in nature, there will always be third world countries. If they can pay Lee the foreigner $10/day to manufacture goods, then why would they ever pay John the guy in a near-by town $10/hr.

If they were legislated to do so, they would...which would effectively kill capitalism. So yeah, I agree...

[Quyneax]

I think a big problem is the division of former colonies (which make up a large part of the third world) into countries along geographical lines rather than tribal lines, as well as the adaptation of a presidential system in countries with multiple tribes. But I have no solution for that. Looking at the recent division of Sudan and South Sudan, you see some of the problems that arise. Israel and Palestine are an extreme example of two tribes (peoples/countries, if you prefer) showing the difficulties of dividing land and power. And of course some tribes live in the same area, so you couldn't even give them both 'their' land.

 

President Assad of Syria shows how tribalism combined with divide-and-conquer and a presidential system sucks.

[Assume Nothing]

... I see arguments against capitalism, which seems to imply that its removal would improve their situation. I'm not sure how - surely that would mean you're withdrawing opportunities (albeit rather mediocre ones) from them as opposed to giving them more?

[Arceus]

Naturally, a randomly chosen African country is going to have some trouble after they were deprived of their youth for hundreds of years via slave trade, dominated by other countries colonizing it, and finally granted independence without a proper power transfer. But never rule catching up out, especially with the problems that plague Western countries today.

[Omar]

Other than issues deriving from colonization, I would say subsidies in First World agriculture is a huge issue too. Goes to show we only use liberal arguments when they come in handy; we can't allow ourselves to think nationally in a globalized context. I can't make any sense of anti-WTO protests; how do people expect this problem to be solved in another way?

I would expect this to be the most important step towards development if it wasn't for the border issues. Maybe growth and economic alliances could solve the problem, ECSC style. I don't see capitalism as a problem here; the entire Asian continent is developing in waves thanks to it, whereas Africa is going nowhere precisely because it is not exploitable (save for natural resources, which don't necessarily create jobs). Paying Lee 10$/day is better than not paying him at all.

[Randox]

Perhaps a better aproach might be to consider how the first world countries ended up as first world countries to begin with. While the existence of other first wold countries will certainly impede the progress of everyone else (because at the end of the day, it is in the developed worlds best interest to keep everyone else in the dirt, with a fairly significant reason being that if the whole world turned into north america, billions of people would starve as a result of the planet being unable to sustain our current population with everyone at that standard of living, mostly because of land usage issues).

 

So before we move on with my suggestion, the first step would be the fall of western civilization, so that we are no longer the alpha male protecting our position.

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't study history, and when I do, I only study the devices we use to make war, and any other cool shit we might have built. The history part is largely boring.

 

Form what little I do know, the first step would seem to be becoming a major military power. At least part of that is probably because its very difficult to advance when people keep invading you, so by becoming a major military power, you don't have to put up with being conquered by the other powers all the time.

 

My other observation is that war leads to innovation, and once the war is over, many of the innovations get adapted for our civilian lives. A few examples are:

 

The entire field of cryptography, nuclear technology, almost every major aviation innovation, radar, microwave ovens, the internet, and probably many more I can't think of right now. While we are certainly able to invent stuff without war, the need to out technology your rivals, and a huge budget, go a long way to speeding things up, and thinking up things that you might not otherwise ever think of (I doubt microwave ovens would exist if not for radar coming along when it did, and a happy accident that showed it could melt chocolate. We are to wary of radiation now to think of blasting it at our food). Medicine is an oddball, unless you count chemical warefare, since most of the wartime advances in that field are confined to surgical techniques.

[cultjunky]

The issue with the 'third world' (Africa specifically) is that they are only financially sufficient, in that they DO have resources, but cannot exploit those resources, without foreign expertise. Slotting that into indigenous hierarchies has only served to give wealth into the elite. There is very little framework to 'share the wealth' e.g. a manufacturing framework, where workers can begin to think about unions; democratic principals that would encompass individual states, rather than tribal (read monarchy) territory's; even socialist concepts.

 

Should the continent of Africa combine it's individual states, it could puff it's chest up to the USA.

 

However, there are so many other states that have 'interests' in individual African states, that they 'passively' dictate (individual African states) governmental policy.

 

It will take a revolution akin to the American Civil War, ending in a declaration of independence of sorts, that encompasses all African states, before Africa, as a continent, stops being a third world county.

 

I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. However, look at what has happened in Egypt in the last year. Historically, Egypt has been the most advanced of the African states. The idea that Africa as a continent, a group of individual states - countries - cannot be just a pipe dream. Egypt is the first step in an imposed democracy. Which does mean:

 

Continued civil war

 

Where atrocities will continue to happen

 

Where infrastructure that would lift a state out of 'third world' status, will not occur.

 

Where children die.

 

Where children will join the army.

 

Where children will not be educated.

 

Where all the charity money we in the west have donated, will count for nothing.

 

Where we feel helpless.

[Omar]

This approach tends to cause world wars though. In addition, you don't just become a military power, especially when your "enemies" and you are mutually dependent.

[cultjunky]

This approach tends to cause world wars though. In addition, you don't just become a military power, especially when your "enemies" and you are mutually dependent.

 

 

You don't have to become a military to overthrow a regime.

 

Equally, in this day and age, doesn't military power means jack shit? Look at Afghanistan. Without getting into the politics of who armed the them, the Russian invasion, and now the coalition invasion buggered up, the indigenous population have repelled every invader.

[Omar]

I was answering Randox, in case that wasn't clear.

[Low Levelled]

Intellectual properties.

[Randox]

This approach tends to cause world wars though. In addition, you don't just become a military power, especially when your "enemies" and you are mutually dependent.

And that terrible, but the beuty of that (from a technological point of view) is that world wars are huge, and they drive innovation harder than normal wars (like your run of the mill invasion) because there is so much more at stake.

 

As a side note, it surprises me in some respects that North America and Australia became first world (except Mexico). They all have their origins as colonies, yet at some point they all developed armies in their own right, though where Australia is on the Military power scale, I have no idea. Also, Canada is no longer a military power (except for snipers), at least not compared to the states or Russia.

 

 

So another key would seem to be some form of democratic government, either a Republic or a true Democracy (Canada, Britain, and Australia are I think all technically monarchies, but in terms of practical government they are a republic, democracy, and I think Aus is also a republic). While you really can't get rid of corruption, democratic government styles tend to be much more resilient to this than true monarchies and dictatorships.

 

This coupled with Capitalism would seem to allow a country to thrive, since all the first world countires are running some form of democratic cpitalist system, though there are also many democratic socialist countries that are also doing quite well. So I would say that democracy is probably the more important component.

[Giordano]

Democracy is hardly the most important factor to advance. If anything, they'd sell off the country's national resources off to global corporations and the country itself never grows.

 

A nationalist dictatorship, interested in advancing their power, would I think yield a better economic growth. Only after, once the country has a stable economic base, should a republic form.

 

 

Also military power/wars isn't relevant in this situation. Developing countries are trying to catch up to the First World's average technological line. There's nothing to "invent", the game here is to apply those technologies and ideas to as much of the country as possible. Military power should only be used to maintain the security of the government, so coups and civil wars don't hinder the progress of he country (like the case of many African states).

[Jonanananas]

Democracy is hardly the most important factor to advance. If anything, they'd sell off the country's national resources off to global corporations and the country itself never grows.

 

A nationalist dictatorship, interested in advancing their power, would I think yield a better economic growth. Only after, once the country has a stable economic base, should a republic form.

 

 

Also military power/wars isn't relevant in this situation. Developing countries are trying to catch up to the First World's average technological line. There's nothing to "invent", the game here is to apply those technologies and ideas to as much of the country as possible. Military power should only be used to maintain the security of the government, so coups and civil wars don't hinder the progress of he country (like the case of many African states).

 

The biggest problems Africa has is corruption and instability. A good democracy would greatly reduce both those problems.

[Quyneax]

Democracy is hardly the most important factor to advance. If anything, they'd sell off the country's national resources off to global corporations and the country itself never grows.

 

A nationalist dictatorship, interested in advancing their power, would I think yield a better economic growth. Only after, once the country has a stable economic base, should a republic form.

 

 

Also military power/wars isn't relevant in this situation. Developing countries are trying to catch up to the First World's average technological line. There's nothing to "invent", the game here is to apply those technologies and ideas to as much of the country as possible. Military power should only be used to maintain the security of the government, so coups and civil wars don't hinder the progress of he country (like the case of many African states).

 

The biggest problems Africa has is corruption and instability. A good democracy would greatly reduce both those problems.

Not really. Democracy, specifically elections, are easy to rig. And they tend to run right over the interests of the small minorities. If you want to solve corruption, you need to pay your employees (customs officers, police, tax collectors) enough that the additional income from being corrupt buys a neglegible amount of happiness. Instability has to do with religious/tribal issues as well as poverty etc. and those will take time to get over.

[Giordano]

Democracy is hardly the most important factor to advance. If anything, they'd sell off the country's national resources off to global corporations and the country itself never grows.

 

A nationalist dictatorship, interested in advancing their power, would I think yield a better economic growth. Only after, once the country has a stable economic base, should a republic form.

 

 

Also military power/wars isn't relevant in this situation. Developing countries are trying to catch up to the First World's average technological line. There's nothing to "invent", the game here is to apply those technologies and ideas to as much of the country as possible. Military power should only be used to maintain the security of the government, so coups and civil wars don't hinder the progress of he country (like the case of many African states).

 

The biggest problems Africa has is corruption and instability. A good democracy would greatly reduce both those problems.

A misconception people have is that a democracy is less corrupt than a dictatorship. A dictatorship is more self-centered towards the government which I think gets' misunderstood as corruption. Nay, with a solid nationalist dictatorship (key word here is nationalist; any Joe wanting to get in power to absorb money then leave isn't going to work) like Saddam, Pol Pot, and to the classic example, Hitler, the focus of the government is to transform the country itself into a powerhouse of economic and political power. And when a country has very little organization, a republic with all it's bureaucracy is the LAST thing needed.

 

A republic should only be in place AFTER the country is stabilized. For example, pre-colonial America, self-proclaimed "Police of Democracy" started out as a dictatorship (and I don't mean the King of Britain). The leaders of the Mayflower, Puritans, and Virginian colonies were all headed by one guy and his council which would lead the colony to prosper. Having a democracy there would just complicate things and with all the crisis they had (such as Inidan attacks, fast approaching winter) strong leadership was absolutely needed.

 

 

Think of it as raising a child. You do not have democracy reigining in the house when the kid is an toddler, or else he'd be eating chocolate for dinner and having an heart attack when he's 10. A parent needs to be strong to guide the child into a lifestyle of healthy, rational choices. When the kid is older, like his teenage years, you as the parent can't decide what resturants he would eat or what shoes he should wear. The kid will branch out and discuss these problems instead of following orders.

[Randox]

My point was, that right now all the highest standard of living countries are democratic. My point being, it probably helps. If not the democracy itself, then it is probably conected to something else that is helping.

 

And no, a democracy isn't necessarily less corrupt (though outlawing lobbiests probably helps a bit), but it is inherently more resiliant to it because it greatly reduces the power of any one person, and requires the corruption to be more widespread. In a dictatorship, you only need a fraction of the corrupt individuals and a some loyalists and your set to go. In a democracy, with a strong legal system and a constitution (if your a republic. True democracies have no constitution), and it much harder to do what you want. At least, it is harder to do certain things.

 

Exports help. Being a net importer is a very poor way to try and grow a large economy. You want to offset as much of your imports as possible, and you want to be a net exporter if you can to draw more money into your economy and encourage growth.

[Omar]

Saddam Hussein: ~200,000 kurds and other minorities

Pol Pot: pretty much a quarter of the population of his country

Hitler: millions of Jews and other minorities

 

I think you might have missed the (apparent) correlation between third world dictatorships and genocides.

 

 

Another important thing the West can do: cancel the Third World's debt. That and getting rid of subsidies should already give them a boost.