History Why are poor countries poor?

[crows90]

Is it simply due to having too large a population, which isn't in the habit of consuming goods? If not could someone give a quick run down?

 

[The_Reaper]

There is no one unique reason why a state is poor.

 

[Moo]

Some luck, some regional/global domination setting up a state, some good governance and greater access to Friday night games.

 

[Poseidon]

Often due to geographical reasons.

 

[Cooldude]

Geographical reasons, type of governance, culture, education, population, etc, all interrelated

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Imperialism.

 

[Donners]

Kleptocracy, in some cases. See the rule of Mobutu in the Congo as one example.

Obviously a combination of many factors, though. Tribalism, resources, location, population, education, health, environment, history...

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Lack of resources. Either human or natural.

 

[Cooldude]

Lack of resources. Either human or natural.

Think a lot of the third world countries have quite enough resources, they're just all concentrated on the top few percent while the rest starve

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Lack of human resources.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Lots of factors.

One of them is definitely cultural - public officials must be expected to (and be seen to) act on behalf of the whole community, not just their supporters, clan, faction etc. The statesman versus the tribal chieftain test. PNG for example, is one country that fails this test dismally.

Others are just an accident of geology and resources, and what is in demand on world markets at the time.

 

[Copernicus]

How long do you have?

 

[J_Moore]

Big government, racial genetics, foreign aid, and, uh, the tyranny of low expectations.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

This is probably a good starting point

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

 

[evo]

If current Australian students think it's a good idea to use Big Footy to research your politics assignments, we'll soon be poor too.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

So many reasons. Usually more than one factor is at play, but among the more common are:
- Governance, greed, etc (eg Zimbabwe, North Korea)
- Limited set of major resources which could be of national benefit but where violence is the way of having control and very large benefits go to very few people (eg diamonds in Liberia, oil in Nigeria)
- Historical lack of foresight or knowledge making the environment tenuous (eg Haiti's deforestation)
- Colonial powers pulling out without a local population having been educated and trained in national governance (eg Papua New Guinea, probably much of Africa)
- Cultural and historical in-fighting and pressures making national government virtually impossible (eg Afghanistan)
- Geography keeping nations apart, making effective governance nearly impossible (eg Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea). This could tend to have a feeback whereby the money isn't there to build roads, which aren't there to facilitate communications, which isn't there for governance, which means there is no money for roads, etc.
- Lack of natural resouces (eg Nauru)
- Cyclic over-population (eg Rwanda)

While many disagree with his stance, I suggest reading books like "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond which attempt to outline how and why largely natural advantages saw Europeans becomes the dominant powers despite civilisation being older elsewhere.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

If current Australian students think it's a good idea to use Big Footy to research your politics assignments, we'll soon be poor too.

Bah! Since when have humanities majors been wealth creators?

 

[The_Reaper]

Is it simply due to having too large a population, which isn't in the habit of consuming goods? If not could someone give a quick run down?

If you are doing an assignment it may be better to cherrypick a few countries and explain why they aren't first world as opposed to trying to find a one size fits all model.

 

[Admiral Byng]

This is probably a good starting point

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

It's a good start, but he does seem to ignore social factors.

 

[The_Reaper]

This is probably a good starting point

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

That's more an explanation as to why Europeans were able to dominate most of the world (in particular the Americas) than of why third world countries are currently third world.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

That's more an explanation as to why Europeans were able to dominate most of the world (in particular the Americas) than of why third world countries are currently third world.

Well, it kinda does in a lot of ways, its really the premise of the book. But, like I said, its a good starting point, regardless of its merits ir otherwise in explaining the modern paradigm

 

[cancat]

Bah! Since when have humanities majors been wealth creators?

It does happen. Would you like to upsize that?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

racial genetics

What is racial genetics?

 

[J_Moore]

What is racial genetics?

I'm not sure, I was just restoring the balance.

 

[John]

Libertarian plutocrats.