Why are there so few developed countries?

“Developed countries” seems to be a Eurocentric western measure that applies to western countries plus Australia and, surprise surprise, excludes non-European-centric countries. So where is the surprise?

The EU helped a lot with the Central European and Baltic countries.

What is the blue dot above Brazil? French Guiana?

R1, the list includes Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. And Israel but they’re pretty European.

R3, yup!

Why no South Africa? Argentina?

Those East Asian countries became rich really quickly. And they don’t have oil money or much of anything in the way of natural resources. American protection/security helped a lot I think.

I read that South Korea was dictionary-definition the *poorest* country on the planet after their war in 1953. 52 years later, in 2005, they joined that list with Portugal. Pretty amazing.

R6, do you know what happened to Argentina? Sad story: the only country to regress from developed to developing in modern history. “Rich as an Argentine” was an old saying.

Lovely place all the same.

The existence of developed countries depends upon the existence of shithole countries.

South Africa is an anomaly among developing countries. It is both a developed country with good infrastructure and also a country with huge social and economic problems. There is a wide gulf between recipients of development aid on the one hand and skilled professionals on the other.

If every country was "developed", then who would the capitalists have to exploit for cheap labor and resources?

What's the point of the USA being "developed" when it doesn't have universal health care and a basic social safety net?

I know the answer.

Argentina is Australia's future.

Pretty simple. Most of the developed countries engaged in colonialism and the capitalist extraction of wealth, natural resources, and intelligent manpower from the non-developed countries. That centralizes wealth in a few places.

China seems like an anomaly until you read up on its own internal history.

After European powers took over parts of Africa, they often redrew borders, engaged in genocide and/or internal warfare, and shipped all of the resources back to their home countries. Hard to become a developed country when that happens.

“Why are there so few developed countries?”

Looking at the map, because all the so-called developing countries are predominantly white or culturally encourage use skin-bleaching cream to aim for whiter skin. Not many mostly white countries remain to be added. Russia is our adversary and therefore we would not consider adding them to a list of “best” countries, but if Trump wins his coup of the US, you can be sure that Russia and North Korea will be added to any federally accepted developed nations list.

R15, you forgot about the very white Eastern Europe that is not Russia

Oh ffs, spare us the "it's a euro-centric" idea that excludes nonwhite countries.

The fact is that Europe was a far more successful place and all the antibiotic, vaccines, technology, that frame life today came out of the those nasty successful countries. Electricity, the combustion engine, the scientific method . . . and all those "shithole" countries want is to stop herding cattle and live the way the Developed World does. They want their piece of that pie.

According to WHO, the worst place in the world to be born female is Somalia - not Denmark.

It's not a capitalist hallucination: life is considerably better in terms of disease, life expectancy, women's lot, etc. in Denmark than it is in Somalia.

Read 'em and weep and shove the far left bullshit up your arse.

The US is a third world shithole at the moment. First world my ass!

Ugh why do people make videos instead of write articles? r8 is beyond annoying to listen to or look at -- I'd rather read his words that watch him over-emote them. Goddamn youtubers.

The US will fall off this list in one generation. It has nothing to do with politics, but with work ethic. GenZ and young millennials do not want to work. They don’t care about material things since they live in a fantasy virtual online world. Who do they think is going to develop medications, provide services for them, or produce their new iPhones?

How is French Guiana on that list?

Because it's not a country (and it's not on the list--just the map) -- it's actually like a province of France. You'll notice that there are some Caribbean islands that are highlighted as well. Again -- French overseas territories.

It seems like if French Guiana is considered France, Puerto Rico should be counted as U.S. But it doesn't appear to be highlighted (although it's hard to see clearly.)

The US is a third world country.

I'm surprised not to see Chile or Uruguay on the list.

R10 how can S Africa be considered “developed” when they have no reliable electricity?

I think all of East Asia apart from North Korea (i.e., what we have now plus China and Mongolia) will be developed in the next 30 years. China won't be wealthy all over its territory; it'll be like America, with poor regions but overall it'll be developed. If North Korea opens up, it'll take at least 40 years to get anywhere near South Korean levels of development and wealth.

I don't think "colonialism" and resource extraction explain most of why the European countries are developed: you can extract all the materials you want, but if you don't add value to them and find markets for the resulting goods, then you're not going to develop in the manner contemplated by the IMF (high levels of human capital, infrastructure, PPP GDP, overall health). Europeans could have stolen all the sand in the Sahara, but it wouldn't be worth much without adding brainpower to it and creating silicon wafers and in turn microchips. Even stealing lots of gold doesn't make a country developed: it needs to be leveraged to provide capital for investments in infrastructure, R&D, and human development (i.e., mainly education) for it to provide intergenerational returns.

[quote] The main criteria used by the [IMF in its World Economic Outlook] to classify the world into advanced economies and emerging market and developing economies are

(1) per capita income level,

(2) export diversification—so oil exporters that have high per capita GDP would not make the advanced classification because around 70% of its exports are oil, and

(3) degree of integration into the global financial system.

[quote] In the first criteria, we look at an average over a number of years given that volatility (due to say oil production) can have a marked year-to-year effect. For the first criterion, the data source is the WEO database; for the second criterion, it is the UN COMTRADE database; and for the last criterion, it is the IMF’s Balance of Payments Statistics Database. Note, however, that these are not the only factors considered in deciding the classification of countries. As it says in the WEO Statistical Appendix, "This classification is not based on strict criteria, economic or otherwise, and it has evolved over time. The objective is to facilitate analysis by providing a reasonably meaningful method of organizing data." Reclassification only happens when something marked changes or the case for change in terms of the three criteria above becomes overwhelming. For example, Lithuania joining the euro area was a significant change in circumstances that warranted a reclassification from an emerging market and developing economy to an advanced economy. Most reclassifications in recent years were related to countries joining the euro area.

Cause or effect at R29? What were, say, Korean and Japanese IQs before industrialization?

[quote]Why no South Africa? Argentina?

Those countries, while highly industrialized, are considered "middle income". I would include Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica, Botswana, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, Oman, Thailand, in that group. Uruguay, Chile and Poland are on the cusp of advanced economy.

There is developed, developing and third world shithole.

The whole world is a shithole!

R30 - not R29 here, but I believe you have the cart before the horse: industialisation is the outcome of IQ, not its generator. That's the whole point.

Before industrialisation, and before Europe got (back to) Africa in the late 19th century, Europe already had behind it hundreds of years of universities (Oxford was founded around 1170 and grew rapidly in the next two centuries), literacy, increasing technology, parliaments, scientific discoveries . . . Isaac Newton discovered gravity in . . . 1689 or so.

The Chinese came up with the printing press long before Europe did, and also discovered gunpowder, and cultures in the Middle and Far East (we can thank Islamic culture for our arithmetic systems, astronomical observations, as well as its beautiful art and literature) and sophisticated writing and art.

By the late 19th century Europe had produced Shakespeare, Newton, fine universities, painters, writers, poets, the industrial revolution was boring down on life and culture . . . and Africa was still throwing spears at lions.

And all the "Guns germs and steel" apologist bullshit from the liberal left can obscure the obvious.

Africa today is piggy-backing onto the modernity that came out of somewhere else and someone else.

And "all the world is a shithole" is cute but let's get you reincarnated as a woman tomorrow morning, dear: what's it going to be? Copenhagen or Somalia?

^*can NOT obscure the obvious

Which is why the radical left and BLM are so intent on tearing down Western culture behind the cover of "racism": they can't stand the fact that most of what they see around them was the brainchild of people "Who don't look like me!"

If they can make it disappear they can feel better about themselves.

The Cult of Death has rendered many countries shithole countries like Brunei, UAE, Qatar, etc.