Joining the First World By 2055
Mike Ralls
> Look at the "First World" in, say, 1925. Now look at it
today. It's bigger, sure, but not that much bigger. Over that period,
we've seen more countries lifting themselves from the Third to the
Second World than from the Second to the First. <
80 years is a bit much, so let's look at the world in 2055 and try to
see what countries, if any, will have joined the first world by then.
Hmm . . . it might be useful to look at the previous 50 years first. In
my opinion, and I think most people here will agree with it, the
following countries joined the first world sometime in the last 50
years; Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea. Anyone disagree with those?
It seems to me that China, despite it's truly impressive growth rates,
is just not in line to join the first world in 50 years. In Asia . . .
Thailand maybe?
But what about Eastern Europe? It's part of the EU now, and with a
pretty good degree of capital and labor mobility, it seems pretty likely
to me that some, if not most, of Eastern Europe will join the first
world in the next 50 years. Any thoughts on who? Thoughts Doug Muir?
Latin America . . . I don't know. Noel? Which, if any, Latin American
countries do you think have a good shot of joining the first world in
the next 50 years?
Africa . . . maybe South Africa if things go really well?
Thoughts?
--
Mike Ralls
sigi...@yahoo.com
Mike Ralls wrote:
> Hmm . . . it might be useful to look at the previous 50 years first. In
> my opinion, and I think most people here will agree with it, the
> following countries joined the first world sometime in the last 50
> years; Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea. Anyone disagree with those?
Let us say that the First/Second divide is around US$15,000 per capita
GDP at PPP. This is a bit arbitrary, but so is pretty much every other
method, and this seems to give relatively few nonsense results. I will
make just one adjustment, which is to take out oil states and and small
island states... it's interesting that Barbados, Malta and Cyprus are
First World, but let's keep this simple.
So. Who's joined the club?
In Eastern Europe: The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary,
Slovenia. Note that most of these countries had a "lost decade" in the
1990s. This suggests that they converged to low First World levels
while still Communist.
In the Mediterranean: Spain, Portugal, Greece and Israel.
Singapore. (Singapore is not small. 4 million people.)
Finland.
Japan rebounded after a temporary dip back down to Second World status,
c. 1945-60.
I think that's about it.
Other hand: Argentina dropped from low First to high Second. Probably
also Russia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. 1980s Russia seems to have
been balanced right on our First/Second line.
That gets weird. Because if we accept Russia as a former First World
country... then there have been, to a first approximation, about as
many people moving out of FW status as into it! Russia's population is
nearly equal to that of all the other new FW states combined.
That's a bit alarming.
Let's say the post-Soviet collapse is temporary... the medium-term
effects of losing a major war, albeit a cold one. Sort of like postwar
Japan, though the recovery is taking a bit longer. If Russia's growth
continues at current rates (~6%), it'll pass our arbitrary line around
2012 or so.
... it's still not that long a list. Four Mediterranean countries,
five in post-Communist Eastern Europe, three in East Asia, and Finland.
Thirteen, out of about 170 potential candidates. And their total
population is only around ~150 million or so, which is about 2.5% of
current world population.
If ~15% of the world is currently First World, and 2.5% more join every
50 years, then we're only 1700 years away from Total Global Prosperity!
...okay, that was pretty crude and linear. Still. The club hasn't
exactly been growing by leaps and bounds.
What /has/ been happening is a lot of movement from Third to Second.
The Third/Second boundary is fuzzy. But arbitrarily placing it around
$3,000, we see that Indonesia and China both graduated around 1990
(though Indonesia has been flirting with it since 1997), while India is
just right on the line today.
Of course, using countries is a crude metric. Especially when some of
the countries are really big. Probably 50 to 100 million Chinese have
joined the First World in the last 25 years. China as a whole, though,
has just crept up from Third to Second.
> It seems to me that China, despite it's truly impressive growth rates,
> is just not in line to join the first world in 50 years. In Asia . . .
> Thailand maybe?
Malaysia is about 20% richer than Thailand. Though they're both
plausible IMO.
But look at the current pattern. Of the 13 new First World countries,
11 have appeared adjacent to an existing member of the club. The
remaining two (Israel and Singapore) have appeared not too far away.
We're not seeing new First World states arising in Africa, Latin
America, or south Asia. In fact, no outlier has joined since Australia
and New Zealand, way back before WWI. The long-term pattern seems to
be expansion from pre-existing cores.
Hm. I feel a model coming on.
Doug M.
sigi...@yahoo.com
We arbitrarily placed the dividing line at $15,000 pcGDP at PPP. Let
us say that this target moves, but slowly. Say at 1.5% per year. This
is lower than the global rate of economic growth, but not by much. It
means that by 2055, the threshold will have about doubled, to a bit
more than $30,000 in constant dollars.
So, to reach and pass the line, a country must grow faster than 1.5%
per year. Right? And the farther it is below the line today, the
faster it must grow to catch up and pass.
Here's our ultra-simple model.
Everybody grows at 2%.
If you're adjacent to one current First World country, you get an
additional 0.5% of growth. "Adjacent" means within 100 miles by land
or 500 by sea.
Two or more First World neighbors, add another 0.5%. No First World
country within 1000 miles, lose 0.5%.
So. Who are the current crop of High Seconds?
Lithuania. $12,980, one FW neighbor, grows at 2.5%. Will be around
$44,800 in 2055. They're in.
Argentina. $12, 470. But no FW country within 1000 miles. The
isolation penalty means they only grow at 1.5%. So they can't catch
the moving line. Not in.
Poland. $12,450, 2+ FW neighbors. Totally in.
Latvia. $11,980, one FW neighbor. In.
Croatia. In.
Chile. Screwed just like Argentina. Not in.
South Africa. See Chile. Not in.
Malaysia. $10,400, one neighbor. In.
Russia. $10,180, 2+ neighbors. In.
Botswana. Not.
Costa Rica. Not.
Mexico. Not.
Bulgaria. Oooh, so close, but just falls short.
We then skim past a whole bunch of middle-Second countries -- Brazil,
Thailand, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine -- all of which are Not In.
Then there's China. Only $5,640, but 2+ neighbors means 3% growth.
$24,700 by 2055. Still falls short. And nobody lower than China has
any chance.
So: Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Croatia, Malaysia and Russia. Bulgaria
and China near-misses.
Hey, I said it was ultra-simple. And it's useful as a tool for
extrapolation. If we keep the "line moves at 1.5%" part, throw out the
rest, and then just back-calculate, we find that China only needs
sustained growth of around 3.2% to get into the First World. That
seems altogether plausible.
For a much more complex and interesting model, check out this post:
If you read through the comments, you'll notice a claim that areal
effects are not /that/ strongly correlated with growth. With growth,
maybe not, but they do seem to be strongly correlated with this
particular transition. (Totally arbitrary though it may be.)
Enjoy.
Doug M.
Richard Gadsden
> But look at the current pattern. Of the 13 new First World countries,
> 11 have appeared adjacent to an existing member of the club. The
> remaining two (Israel and Singapore) have appeared not too far away.
> We're not seeing new First World states arising in Africa, Latin
> America, or south Asia. In fact, no outlier has joined since Australia
> and New Zealand, way back before WWI.
And before that, the only two are Japan and the USA. My assumption is
that the first First World state was the UK, so all the other European
members were adjacent or all but adjacent. There are just the four cases
where a country made it without a neighbour or near-neighbour already
there: UK, USA/Canada, Australia/NZ and Japan. And two of those four had
colonial links to the UK. Actually, you could make a case for Singapore
as the fifth - it's not *that* close to Japan or Australia.
[My rule-of-thumb for the C20/C21 is 50% of US pcGDP at PPP; for the C19
the same but use the higher of UK and USA pcGDP - plenty of countries have
a better standard of living now than 1900 USA but 1900 USA was First World
then and they aren't necessarily so now]
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Richard Gadsden
> Doug Muir wrote:
>
> > Look at the "First World" in, say, 1925. Now look at it
> today. It's bigger, sure, but not that much bigger. Over that period,
> we've seen more countries lifting themselves from the Third to the
> Second World than from the Second to the First. <
>
> 80 years is a bit much, so let's look at the world in 2055 and try to
> see what countries, if any, will have joined the first world by then.
>
> Hmm . . . it might be useful to look at the previous 50 years first.
> In my opinion, and I think most people here will agree with it, the
> following countries joined the first world sometime in the last 50
> years; Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea. Anyone disagree with
> those?
I'd add Greece and Slovenia. Arguably, East Germany, though I'd say "left
and rejoined" - but if you're measuring from 1955, I think it had already
left. Still, that's very endpoint-dependent. Oh, Singapore. Ireland.
> It seems to me that China, despite it's truly impressive growth rates,
> is just not in line to join the first world in 50 years. In Asia . . .
> Thailand maybe?
Malaysia is another maybe on that list. Turkey if you're counting it as
Asian. India, like China, has too much country to grow too much, though
getting part of the country up to that level is much more likely.
Anything other than Turkey that's Muslim? Probably not, apart from some
of the smaller Gulf states (Qatar, Bahrain, etc). Kurdistan if (a) it
becomes independent and (b) Turkey signs over some territory, perhaps as
part of a joining-the-EU deal, but I doubt it even if the unlikely
preconditions are fulfilled.
> But what about Eastern Europe? It's part of the EU now, and with a
> pretty good degree of capital and labor mobility, it seems pretty
> likely to me that some, if not most, of Eastern Europe will join the
> first world in the next 50 years. Any thoughts on who? Thoughts Doug
> Muir?
East Germany effectively has already, as has Slovenia. The Czechs,
Hungarians and Estonians are all closing rapidly. I'd say a fair
definition (barring catastrophes to the US economy) is 50% of the US
per-capita GDP and a reasonable income distribution (ie not a single
super-rich family in a small country).
By 2055, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia are all very possible.
Even if Western Europe stagnates a bit, it's very unlikely that the EU's
economy won't outpace the USA's - simply because of the big growth rates
Eastern Europe is already starting to experience as they catch up with the
West. I doubt much of the Balkans will have made it by 2055, but they
should be well on the way.
> Latin America . . . I don't know. Noel? Which, if any, Latin American
> countries do you think have a good shot of joining the first world in
> the next 50 years?
>
> Africa . . . maybe South Africa if things go really well?
And that's pretty much it for subsaharan Africa. I guess Tunisia or Egypt
are also possible.
Noel
---And now you see the problem with the $15,000 per capita
definition. It isn't the arbitrariness. It's that nobody but nobody
but zero enjoyed that before World War II. Heck, the U.S. only
achieved it in 1966.
Ergo, and I apologize for my bluntless, it's a useless definition.
It leads to such startle-inducing statements as calling Argentina
"low First" during the Belle Epoque.
So what's a reasonable definition?
Taking a Stewart Potter look at things, a reasonable definition
is "more than 40% the per capita income of the richest sizeable
country."
Does this change your rough description of the economic
history of the world? Yes.
Which brings us to second point: unless you take Commu-
nist accounting far more seriously than I do, I'm not sure how
one can consider Russia to be "formerly First World." Allen's
book covers the issues far better than I can, but let me simply
make two short points:
(1) There is a lot of evidence to believe that Russia produced
more stuff for the same inputs than it would have in 1980 in
the absence of Communism;
(2) There is no evidence that you could have switched Russia's
1980 production of stuff for a mix more like the developed world
but with the same aggregate value.
That brings us to my third point, which is that original meaning
of the term "Second World" actually has value. In addition, your
use of it to mean "middle income countries" is almost entirely
ideosyncratic. There's nothing wrong with inventing a term, but
why do so when the phrase "middle income country" fits exactly
the idea you're expressing? You'll just confuse people like me,
or anyone steeped in the development literature.
So what is Russia? An underdeveloped country that happened
to become Communist in the middle of a rather impressive indus-
trialization process. What would have happened in the absence
of Communism? Damned if I know, although I tend to be among
the more skeptical. But it was never developed as we know it.
In conclusion, Argentina (and possibly Uruguay and southern
Brazil) are pretty much the only places to have suffered falling
down the development leagues in the absence of the Red Army.
Still alarming, but not as much.
It also, I should say, puts Argentina as having fallen down the
league tables from the high part of the First World to clinging
desperately to the lower edge, a characterization which better
passes the smell test for anyone who's been there.
Best,
Noel
sigi...@yahoo.com
Noel wrote:
> ---And now you see the problem with the $15,000 per capita
> definition. It isn't the arbitrariness. It's that nobody but nobody
> but zero enjoyed that before World War II. Heck, the U.S. only
> achieved it in 1966.
>
> Ergo, and I apologize for my bluntless, it's a useless definition.
Um. I've said twice now that it's a line that moves.
> So what's a reasonable definition?
>
> Taking a Stewart Potter look at things, a reasonable definition
> is "more than 40% the per capita income of the richest sizeable
> country."
That would be the US. $39,500. 40% of that is... um, $15,800.
> Does this change your rough description of the economic
> history of the world? Yes.
How?
> Which brings us to second point: unless you take Commu-
> nist accounting far more seriously than I do, I'm not sure how
> one can consider Russia to be "formerly First World."
Too complicated to go into now. Waived. Moving along.
> That brings us to my third point, which is that original meaning
> of the term "Second World" actually has value. In addition, your
> use of it to mean "middle income countries" is almost entirely
> ideosyncratic.
It is, yes. But I've been doing it for years -- in TRW as well as
Usenet -- and you're the first to complain.
> It also, I should say, puts Argentina as having fallen down the
> league tables from the high part of the First World to clinging
> desperately to the lower edge, a characterization which better
> passes the smell test for anyone who's been there.
Um. Under your/Potter's definition, Argentina is actually farther from
FW status than it was under mine.
Doug M.
Noel
sigi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Noel wrote:
>
> > ---And now you see the problem with the $15,000 per capita
> > definition. It isn't the arbitrariness. It's that nobody but nobody
> > but zero enjoyed that before World War II. Heck, the U.S. only
> > achieved it in 1966.
> >
> > Ergo, and I apologize for my bluntless, it's a useless definition.
>
> Um. I've said twice now that it's a line that moves.
---I missed that, but it doesn't come out in your discussion.
> > So what's a reasonable definition?
> >
> > Taking a Stewart Potter look at things, a reasonable definition
> > is "more than 40% the per capita income of the richest sizeable
> > country."
>
> That would be the US. $39,500. 40% of that is... um, $15,800.
---Right. Doug, I'm not attacking your standard, which passes
the smell test. I am stating that your previous post was sloppily
worded and the definition useless.
> > Does this change your rough description of the economic
> > history of the world? Yes.
>
> How?
---Argentina and the southern cone, which I believe that I
mentioned. The fall is greater. It also changes one's per-
ception of who is likely to move up anytime soon.
> > Which brings us to second point: unless you take Commu-
> > nist accounting far more seriously than I do, I'm not sure how
> > one can consider Russia to be "formerly First World."
>
> Too complicated to go into now. Waived. Moving along.
---Is this agreement?
> > That brings us to my third point, which is that original meaning
> > of the term "Second World" actually has value. In addition, your
> > use of it to mean "middle income countries" is almost entirely
> > ideosyncratic.
>
> It is, yes. But I've been doing it for years -- in TRW as well as
> Usenet -- and you're the first to complain.
---TRW? Anyway, there's always a first. It's my complaint and
I'm sticking to it ... and you're as aware of the literature and con-
ventional uses as I am.
> > It also, I should say, puts Argentina as having fallen down the
> > league tables from the high part of the First World to clinging
> > desperately to the lower edge, a characterization which better
> > passes the smell test for anyone who's been there.
>
> Um. Under your/Potter's definition, Argentina is actually farther from
> FW status than it was under mine.
---Uh ... how? 15k versus 15.8k? Big difference. But okay.
Best,
Noel
sigi...@yahoo.com
Noel wrote:
> > Um. I've said twice now that it's a line that moves.
>
> ---I missed that, but it doesn't come out in your discussion.
The 1.5% thing. Also my last on the "convergence" thread.
> ---Right. Doug, I'm not attacking your standard, which passes
> the smell test. I am stating that your previous post was sloppily
> worded
The bits where I said things like "crude" and "simplistic" weren't
clues?
> > > Does this change your rough description of the economic
> > > history of the world? Yes.
> >
> > How?
>
> ---Argentina and the southern cone, which I believe that I
> mentioned.
In the context of the entire planet over the last 50 years plus the 50
to come, this counts as a rounding error.
> It also changes one's per-
> ception of who is likely to move up anytime soon.
Ah now, that's something else again.
My "move the line 1.5% a year" was pretty simplistic. I said that.
Other hand, your "40% of the richest big country" raises problems of
its own. Frex, the US has been perking along at around 3% growth for a
while now, while most of the rest of the developed world has been more
like 2%. As a result, the US has gradually been pulling away from the
other big developed countries.
Extend that out 50 years, and you get a First World cutoff line of over
$60,000. And you find that much of the current First World has fallen
to the bottom of the league, or even out of it. France, for instance,
falls from 70% of US GDP to about 45%, while Spain and South Korea fall
well under 40%.
Using your definition, there will probably be /fewer/ First World
countries in 2055 than today. That doesn't seem right.
Oh, and it becomes surprisingly difficult for China to catch up.
Growing your economy 12x in fifty years... I'm not sure any big country
has ever managed that.
> > > Which brings us to second point: unless you take Commu-
> > > nist accounting far more seriously than I do, I'm not sure how
> > > one can consider Russia to be "formerly First World."
> >
> > Too complicated to go into now. Waived. Moving along.
>
> ---Is this agreement?
No, concession. Too gnarly to argue here and now.
> ---TRW?
The Real World.
> > Um. Under your/Potter's definition, Argentina is actually farther from
> > FW status than it was under mine.
>
> ---Uh ... how? 15k versus 15.8k? Big difference.
I had it at 83% of First World. You have it at 79%.
No, not that big a difference. But still: using your standard, it
clearly ain't there.
Doug M.
The Horny Goat
>Oh, and it becomes surprisingly difficult for China to catch up.
>Growing your economy 12x in fifty years... I'm not sure any big country
>has ever managed that.
Surely Japan did so during 1880-1930.
Actually I've been interested in your non-mention of Hong Kong which
has CLEARLY moved up in the last 30 years. Surely you're not
considering it as merely part of China? It's significantly both bigger
and richer than Singapore which you've mentioned several times.
And have you mentioned Taiwan or South Korea?
bm2...@eve.albany.edu
> sigi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Other hand, your "40% of the richest big country" raises problems of
> its own. Frex, the US has been perking along at around 3% growth for a
> while now, while most of the rest of the developed world has been more
> like 2%. As a result, the US has gradually been pulling away from the
> other big developed countries.
>
> Extend that out 50 years, and you get a First World cutoff line of over
> $60,000. And you find that much of the current First World has fallen
> to the bottom of the league, or even out of it. France, for instance,
> falls from 70% of US GDP to about 45%, while Spain and South Korea fall
> well under 40%.
As a side issue, do you think this (continued divergence of the US from
the rest of the rest of the industrial world) is a likely scenario for
the next half-century? As someone who lives in the US, high growth
rates are a good thing for me and mine, but as a person of liberal
sensibilities I tend to cringe at the prospect of decades of
nationalist self-congratulatulation and sneers at "degenerate old
europe" (I suppose I'll just have to go out and buy more stuff until
the feeling passes).
best,
Bruce
Davi...@missouristate.edu
the first world. I would look for countries with high and rising world
human development and second world incomes:
Malaysia (high probability)
Thailand (medium probability)
Uruguay (medium probability)
Costa Rica (medium probability)
Chile (medium probability)
Cuba (medium probability)
Iran (low probability, very contigent on political developments)
Who would have predicted China's economic rise in 1978?
David Kohlhoff
Mike Ralls
> In Eastern Europe: The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary,
> Slovenia. Note that most of these countries had a "lost decade" in the
> 1990s. This suggests that they converged to low First World levels
> while still Communist.
Wow. If true, that's a pretty interesting suggestion there.
Hmmm . . . ObFuWT (Obligatory Future What Then): Some country
converges to low First World Levels in the next 50 years while
Communist. China would be the obvious candidate of course, but I'm of
the "If it looks like a Capitalist Roader, Acts like a Capitalistic
Roader and . . . etc" school of thought on whether China is "really"
Communist or not so I don't think it's a good candidate there.
> Singapore. (Singapore is not small. 4 million people.)
If you count Singapore, then you've got to count Hong Kong.
> Japan rebounded after a temporary dip back down to Second World status,
> c. 1945-60.
Um if you're going to count Japan . . . then Germany in late 1945 was
First World then?
> That gets weird. Because if we accept Russia as a former First World
> country...
I don't, but I'll go along with you for it.
> Japan, though the recovery is taking a bit longer. If Russia's growth
> continues at current rates (~6%), it'll pass our arbitrary line around
> 2012 or so.
That soon? I didn't know they were doing that well. Hmmm . . .
> If ~15% of the world is currently First World, and 2.5% more join every
> 50 years, then we're only 1700 years away from Total Global Prosperity!
Truly the promised land is before us!
You know, I once set up an AHC on SHWI to get as large a % of the world
First World by 2000 as possible, and it looked damned hard to do for
every participant. This does suggest something.
> What /has/ been happening is a lot of movement from Third to Second.
Perhaps we could get some synergistic effects when a large enough % of
the world becomes Second? If nothing else, it opens up a whole lot more
candidates for the next jump up the latter.
> Malaysia is about 20% richer than Thailand. Though they're both
> plausible IMO.
We could easily start a thread on their own on what a First World
Malaysia or a First World Thailand would be like. Imagine a world
without Go-Go Bars.
> Hm. I feel a model coming on.
~To model! To model!
I love to . . to model!
It's always
A paper
A way!
--
Mike Ralls
Mike Ralls
sigi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Other hand, your "40% of the richest big country" raises problems of
> its own. Frex, the US has been perking along at around 3% growth for a
> while now, while most of the rest of the developed world has been more
> like 2%. As a result, the US has gradually been pulling away from the
> other big developed countries.
ObFuWT: This trend continues indefinitely?
Will the US eventually be regarded as it's own special category? That
is, the US isn't really considered "First World" because it's so far
ahead of everybody else who is in the "First World"?
How far ahead would the US have to pull before significant numbers of
the French, the Germans, and the Japanese are coming over to become
waiters (or whatever) because the income disparity is that large?
--
Mike Ralls
Mike Ralls
> On 15 Nov 2005 18:40:32 -0800, sigi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, and it becomes surprisingly difficult for China to catch up.
>>Growing your economy 12x in fifty years... I'm not sure any big country
>>has ever managed that.
>
>
> Surely Japan did so during 1880-1930.
Sorry, but no. Not 12x.
--
Mike Ralls
Mike Ralls
> And that's pretty much it for subsaharan Africa.
Botswana has a chance. Not the way I'd bet, but it does have one.
--
Mike Ralls
Mike Ralls
> Here's our ultra-simple model.
>
> Everybody grows at 2%.
*snort*
Oh Doug, I love ya man.
Sniperoonie:
> For a much more complex and interesting model, check out this post:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9r2jw
And Carlos too.
"Come take comparative advantage of us."
--
Mike Ralls
Noel
before, but nobody who deals professionally with development
or economic growth uses it. You won't find it cited in journals;
you won't hear it spoken at conferences. So with no asper-
sions to Doug, I wish you'd stop using it --- the discussion
can't help acquiring a somewhat sophomoric feel.
"Middle income country" is the phrase you're looking for.
Apologies,
Noel
sigi...@yahoo.com
Noel wrote:
> It also, I should say, puts Argentina as having fallen down the
> league tables from the high part of the First World to clinging
> desperately to the lower edge, a characterization which better
> passes the smell test for anyone who's been there.
This has been niggling at me.
Argentina's pcGPD is well below the First World threshold as defined by
either you or me. Are there other numbers we can use?
Life expectancy. See other thread. Argentina is under 76, which no
other FW country is.
Infant mortality. Argentina is over 15/1000, which is ridiculously
high. It's between Russia and Mauritius. Worse than Sri Lanka, worse
than Belarus, worse than Fiji. No other FW country has an infant
mortality rate higher than around 7 or so. The US is 6.5, most
European countries are around 5, and the Nordic countries, Japan and
Singapore are down around 3-4.
Literacy. A weakish metric for several reasons, one being that it
squashes hard against the 100% limit. Still, let's just look. Hm:
Argentina is in 53rd place, tied with the Maldives and lower than
Romania, Albania, Mongolia, or Tonga.
Still no? Don't like all these wussy human development numbers? Okay,
let's do one that I know will be close to your heart: car ownership.
USA, about 0.77 per capita. Go us! But we're strange. (It's not just
the big distances, either. Canada is 0.55.)
The EU-15 was about 0.5 in 2001: http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/#ch8.
Italy, 0.55. Great Britain, 0.42. Ireland, 0.36.
Noodling, I find that pretty much every FW country has at least 0.25.
In fact, only Hungary and Greece are under 3.0.
I can't find Argentina's current number, but I did turn up a 1986
report stating it as 0.125.
(As compared to 0.124 for 1986 Yugoslavia and 0.145 for 1986 Hungary.
Damn, Hungary. They had video rental stores under Communism, did you
know?) By 1998 that number had only risen to 0.14:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db.
That's 7 year old data, but if we're generous and say the rate of
increase doubled after 1998 -- unlikely, but let's go for it -- we'd
still only get to 0.157.
Not First World.
-- I know you've been there. But -- no offense intended, serious
question -- did you get outside of BA? Because it's a big country, and
capitals are always richer.
If you're still sure it's First World, what are you basing that on?
Am I missing something?
Doug M.
Pavel Vozenilek
> Let us say that the First/Second divide is around US$15,000 per capita
>
> So. Who's joined the club?
>
> In Eastern Europe: The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary,
> Slovenia. Note that most of these countries had a "lost decade" in the
> 1990s. This suggests that they converged to low First World levels
> while still Communist.
>
a) Eastern Europe is Russia, Ukraine etc. The countries
above are mostly Central European ones.
b) Czechoslovakia was pre-war first-world country
but during rule of communist party slipped down,
slowly but steadily. That's why they got rid of communists.
Up to some point this applies to other countries as well
So it is more like return back to the club. These countries
had existing infrastrusture, established industries,
educational institutions, legal systems and
cultural traditions from before.
c) The "lost decade" is mere journalist term.
The countries underwent painful but necessarily transition
and even then their GDP grew up (most of the time).
Serbia or Belorussia may have lost the decade.
/Pavel
Noel
---You vex me, Douglas, you vex me.
> Not First World.
> -- I know you've been there. But -- no offense intended, serious
> question -- did you get outside of BA? Because it's a big country, and
> capitals are always richer.
---In 1990, I crossed the country from Mendoza to B.A. in
a dying automobile. Since then, my trips have all been to
to Buenos Aires.
> If you're still sure it's First World, what are you basing that on?
---Never mind. I hate the name game here, and I wish
I hadn't gotten into it. I suppose I should have just come
out and said that I find the whole idea silly. The "second
world" idea is just dumb; the attempt to find a threshold
(moving or not) a mugs game; and arbitrary just-so
models don't seem to me to be particularly useful.
I question the entire premise of the thread.
In other words, I'm happy to talk about Argentina, and
I'm happy to compare it to other countries, but I am pre-
emptively withdrawing from any discussion of the term
"First World" and what it means.
I should have just said that, instead of being snarky.
So with the above in mind, I concede the obvious (which
I don't think that you think I ever disputed): Argentina is
quite a bit poorer than any country in Europe that wasn't
previously governed by Communists, and it's not really
any richer than the other major Latin American economies.
Well ... it's not much richer than Mexico.
But there are a number of things that make Argentina
different from other Latin American countries of similar
income levels. These same things probably also apply
to most of Eastern Europe, and so won't seem as
striking to you as they do to people comparing the
place with the other middle-income regions of the
world.
> Am I missing something?
---Argentina has desperate poverty in the provinces,
particularly in the far north. In addition, there are a
great deal of "villas miserias" in and around the capi-
tal, housing about one in every fifteen people.
But allow me to point out the statistics that illustrate
the feel you'll get on the ground, even in the provinces
and especially in the rural areas:
97 percent of the population has access to potable water.
100 percent of the school-age population is in school.
What does that mean? Argentina, quite simply, feels more
orderly than Mexico. The police, for example (even in the
corrupt province of Buenos Aires) enforce the traffic laws.
Asmstrikingly, street prostitution, while not uncommon, is
kept to certain very well-defined areas. Zoning laws, even
in small cities, are enforced. The statistics for education
and potable water are only reflections of that.
As for cars ... as you know, this is a subject close to my
heart. Therefore, I know exactly where to go for statistics,
which is the automobile companies' market reports. There
you'll find that the number of automobiles (including light
trucks) per 1000 people is 167.
That number is lower than it was in 1992, when it peaked
at 193.
In that same year, Mexico enjoyed only 125 cars per 1000.
In 2002, Mexico's number was 196.
So what does that mean?
It means that Argentina has been hit with an awful economic
depression in the intervening years; far worse than the 1995
crisis in Mexico. That feels very different on the ground.
For a poignant look at the resulting suffering:
http://www.undp-povertycentre.org/publications/vulnerability/Crisis_y_bienestar_en_ARG-FISZBEIN.pdf
Crime is also substantially lower in Argentina than elsewhere;
the homicide rate is a third of Mexico's, and the fear of crime
quite low, after a spate of horror stories in 2001 and 2002.
In other words, Argentina is a middle-income country with a
worse-than-average income distribution as a result of a recent
horrendous economic depression. On the other hand, the
nation retains several unique features that, while quite quan-
tifiable, create a qualitatively different impression than other
middle income nations (notably Brazil and Mexico, but not
Uruguay or Chile) in the same region.
Best,
Noel
Noel
Europe, not by any stretch of the imagination. I made a stupid state-
ment. In my defense, however, it is because I find this entire "First
World: On or Off?" approach rather sophomoric. It leads to sloppy
thinking ... as I, in fact, very clearly demonstrated by engaging in
it myself.
Best,
Noel
Mark Edelstein
So what you're looking for is "high" "middle" and "developing?" (Not
being in development studies myself I'm not fully versed in the
intricacy of such things).
In any case Argentina is one of the more unique cases. Argentina was
once a bona fide high income country (or at least sort of close to it)
and now manifestly is not.
All the places that vaulted into the high income countries since 1945
were all far poorer than Argentina in every way in the early 20th
century (well maybe not Japan).
The upshot-at least it isn't Africa. It could also be argued the middle
income countries of the Middle East are worse off than the middle
income countries of Latin America. Aside from everything else Latin
Americans get to smuggle themselves into the U.S, while North Africans
(ok I'm stretching regions) get to smuggle themselves into France and
Italy.
sigi...@yahoo.com
Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
> c) The "lost decade" is mere journalist term.
Well, no. It's broad but reasonably accurate.
> The countries underwent painful but necessarily transition
> and even then their GDP grew up (most of the time).
GDP growth in Hungary was basically stagnant through the 1990s.
Between 1990 and 1993, Hungary's GDP contracted by 18%.
Slovakia, even worse: their economy contracted by about 25% between
1990 and 1994. Neither Hungary nor Slovakia had recovered 1989 income
levels until about 1998.
Czechs? Of the 10 years from 1990 to 1999, the Czech economy only grew
during four. The other six, they contracted. (Recession in early
'90s, burst of growth from 1994-7, second recession in late '90s.)
They recovered 1989 income levels in 1997... then lost them again, and
didn't get them back until 2001.
So, yeah, lost decade.
> Serbia or Belorussia may have lost the decade.
Serbia lost two decades. At current growth rates, they'll recover
their 1989 income level around 2012.
Doug M.
Old Toby
>
> Mike Ralls wrote:
>
> > Hmm . . . it might be useful to look at the previous 50 years first. In
> > my opinion, and I think most people here will agree with it, the
> > following countries joined the first world sometime in the last 50
> > years; Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea. Anyone disagree with those?
>
> Let us say that the First/Second divide is around US$15,000 per capita
> GDP at PPP. This is a bit arbitrary, but so is pretty much every other
> method, and this seems to give relatively few nonsense results. I will
Hmm, using the URL you posted in the "Convergence and growth rates":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
and posting for the record, since Wikipedia is subject to change...
Let's start out with a list of "unquestionable long time First World
Countries"; vis: Western Europe (minus Spain, Portugal, and Malta),
the White parts of the Anglosphere, and Japan. Now, according to the
URL, the poorest country on this list would be New Zealand, so if we
dredge up everything richer than that:
1 Luxembourg 63,609
2 Norway 40,005
3 United States 39,496
4 Ireland 37,663
5 San Marino 34,600*
6 Equatorial Guinea 33,994
7 Iceland 33,269
8 Denmark 33,089
9 Canada 32,921
10 Switzerland 31,690
11 Austria 31,254
Hong Kong SAR (PRC) 30,558
12 Japan 29,906
13 Australia 29,893
14 Belgium 29,707
15 Netherlands 29,332
16 Finland 29,305
17 Germany 28,988
18 United Kingdom 28,938
19 Qatar 28,919
20 Sweden 28,205
21 Italy 27,984
22 France 27,738
23 Monaco 27,000*
European Union 26,900*
24 Andorra 26,800*
25 Singapore 26,799
26 Taiwan (Republic of China) 25,983
27 Liechtenstein 25,000*
28 Brunei 24,143
29 New Zealand 23,943
Equatorial Guinea is clearly an error (the Wikipedia article
on Equatorial Guinea gives a PPP per capita GDP of only 2,700)
and one so grievous as to make one wonder about the reliability
of the whole page. But taking it at its word on the rest, this
gives us only five countries that have made it to the level of
the "unquestionables": Hong Kong, Qatar, Singapore, Taiwan, and
Brunei. Three "Tiger Economies" and two oil rich states, no
big surprises. Rather the surprise is that so few have "made
it", The richest countries of maybe 50 years ago are still
richer than all but a handfull of other countries. If one
wants to be stingy, one can slam the door to the "First World
shut" at 23,900 and only let in five new countries and 35 mil.
more people (most of them Taiwanese).
So what does this mean, it means that if one wants to argue
for a larger First World on the basis of GDP, one basically has
to apply some non-GDP based test for what countries you consider
"First World", then accept whatever richer countries get dragged
in.
So, think Spain is clearly First World now?
30 United Arab Emirates 23,818
31 Spain 23,627
You've added another oil state, but no biggy. Perhaps you think
the list should go all the way down to Portugal:
Netherlands Antilles 22,818
32 Israel 22,077
33 South Korea 21,419
34 Greece 20,362
35 Slovenia 20,306
36 Cyprus 19,633
Macau SAR (PRC) 19,400*
37 Malta 19,302
38 Bahrain 18,817
39 Portugal 18,503
Doesn't seem too controversial, even if these new countries are only
half as rich as Americans. Maybe we should take things down as far
as Poland:
40 Czech Republic 18,370
41 The Bahamas 17,865
Puerto Rico (USA) 17,700*
42 Barbados 16,483
43 Kuwait 16,066
44 Oman 15,649
45 Hungary 15,546
46 Estonia 15,217
47 Slovakia 15,066
48 Saint Kitts and Nevis 14,293
49 Saudi Arabia 13,955
50 Lithuania 12,980
51 Trinidad and Tobago 12,794
52 Argentina 12,468
53 Poland 12,452
Interesting about the Caribbean countries, these aren't
the ones with the big off shore banks or anything, but
maybe they're just doing better than we often give them
credit for. The rest are expansions of the European
periphery, the larger gulf states, and Argentina...
Maybe the border should be pushed all the way down to 10,000,
a nice easy, resonant, instantly checkable threshold:
54 Mauritius 12,215
55 Latvia 11,980
56 Seychelles 11,847
57 Croatia 11,568
58 Antigua and Barbuda 11,363
59 Chile 10,904
60 South Africa 10,798
61 Libya 10,769
62 Malaysia 10,423
63 Russia 10,179
64 Botswana 10,169
Looking rather more dubious here. Russia, First World?
Botswana, First World? Maybe we just have the wrong idea about
them, but...
Lets look at the next 2,500 cohort:
65 Costa Rica 9,887
66 Mexico 9,666
67 Uruguay 9,107
68 Palau 9,000*
69 Bulgaria 8,500
70 Brazil 8,049
71 Grenada 7,917
72 Thailand 7,901
73 Tunisia 7,732
74 Romania 7,641
75 Iran 7,594
76 Turkey 7,503
Mexico is richer (per capita) than Uruguay! For some reason it
seems significant. These are borderline/rapidly developing
countries, but I don't think any are thought of as "first
world".
Going down further
77 Kazakhstan 7,418
78 Tonga 7,415
79 Belize 7,339
80 Maldives 7,327
81 Turkmenistan 7,266
82 Republic of Macedonia 7,237
83 Colombia 6,962
84 Gabon 6,922
85 Algeria 6,799
86 Dominican Republic 6,767
87 Panama 6,739
88 Saint Vincent and Grenadines 6,650
89 Belarus 6,646
90 Ukraine 6,554
91 Namibia 6,449
92 Samoa 6,125
93 Fiji 5,997
94 Dominica 5,970
95 Lebanon 5,930
96 Cape Verde 5,858
97 People's Republic of China 5,642
98 Venezuela 5,571
99 Peru 5,556
100 Suriname 5,539
101 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5,504
102 Saint Lucia 5,350
103 Nauru 5,000*
104 Swaziland 4,995
105 Albania 4,937
106 Serbia and Montenegro 4,858
107 Guyana 4,575
108 Philippines 4,561
109 Paraguay 4,553
110 Jordan 4,383
111 El Salvador 4,379
112 Morocco 4,332
113 Jamaica 4,327
114 Ecuador 4,083
115 Egypt 4,072
116 Guatemala 4,009
117 Azerbaijan 3,968
118 Sri Lanka 3,882
119 Armenia 3,806
120 Syria 3,724
121 Indonesia 3,703
122 Iraq 3,500*
123 Vanuatu 3,297
124 Bhutan 3,095
125 India 3,080
126 Cuba 3,000*
127 Georgia 2,774
128 Bolivia 2,710
129 Honduras 2,682
130 Nicaragua 2,677
131 Vietnam 2,570
132 Kiribati 2,537
133 Ghana 2,475
134 Angola 2,457
135 Pakistan 2,388
136 Papua New Guinea 2,357
137 Zimbabwe 2,309
138 Sudan 2,246
139 Mauritania 2,187
140 Cameroon 2,176
141 Moldova 2,119
142 Lesotho 2,074
143 Cambodia 2,074
144 Micronesia 2,000*
145 Kyrgyzstan 1,934
146 Laos 1,921
147 Guinea 1,919
148 Mongolia 1,918
149 The Gambia 1,903
150 Djibouti 1,878
151 Bangladesh 1,875
152 Solomon Islands 1,845
153 Senegal 1,813
154 Uzbekistan 1,766
155 Uganda 1,728
156 Comoros 1,660
157 Haiti 1,625
158 Marshall Islands 1,600*
159 Togo 1,564
160 Chad 1,555
161 Sao Tome and Principe 1,529
162 Cote d'Ivoire 1,436
163 Nepal 1,402
164 North Korea 1,400*
165 Myanmar 1,364
166 Rwanda 1,351
167 Republic of the Congo 1,267
168 Burkina Faso 1,258
169 Mozambique 1,247
170 Tajikistan 1,246
171 Nigeria 1,120
172 Central African Republic 1,107
173 Tuvalu 1,100*
174 Benin 1,094
175 Kenya 1,062
176 Mali 1,024
177 Eritrea 909
178 Liberia 900*
179 Zambia 870
180 Niger 865
181 Madagascar 854
182 Sierra Leone 842
183 Ethiopia 814
184 Afghanistan 800*
185 Yemen 736
186 Guinea-Bissau 730
187 Burundi 708
188 Tanzania 673
189 Democratic Republic of Congo 633
190 Somalia 600*
191 Malawi 569
192 East Timor 400
It seems to me that if we want a really significant
definition of the "First World" we need to define
it in some absolute sense, rather that simply a
"richest nations club" or an arbitrary income figure.
To me the "First World" would be those countries where
the vast bulk of the population can live in comfort and
freedom. Obviously interpreting those terms is highly
subjective...
> make just one adjustment, which is to take out oil states and and small
> island states... it's interesting that Barbados, Malta and Cyprus are
> First World, but let's keep this simple.
Ah, but if you run with the "contiguity" model of first world expansion,
these could be very important "hot spots" for future expansion.
> In Eastern Europe: The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary,
> Slovenia. Note that most of these countries had a "lost decade" in the
> 1990s. This suggests that they converged to low First World levels
> while still Communist.
With the possible exception of Slovakia, it would probably be fair to
say that they converged before 1914, or at least 1938. Perhaps it
is wrong to speak of convergence at all: they were part of the
European Core, and , while not first adapters, they modernized
with it. Certainly Hungary and Bohemia-Moravia were industrializing
in the 19th century.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Noel
% of households with, 2001 data:
Refridgerator 91%
Washing machine (in building) 74%
VCR 35%
Microwave 20%
Telephone 66%
Cable television 54%
Median annual household income, by income decile, pesos:
1 2,556
2 4,620
3 6,564
4 8,136
5 10,008
6 12,348
7 15,636
8 19,704
9 26,412
10 54,540
For comparison, the median household income in France (measured
in Argentine pesos at current exchange rates, and thus not factoring in
that the cost of living in Argentina is much lower) was 44,668 per
year.
Best,
Noel
Noel
---The median income in Spain is 36,710 pesos per year; in Portugal
it's 26,433.
Here's a big caveat: Argentine figures are pre-taxes but
post-transfers
(which are not insignificant for the lower chunk of the income
distribution);
European ones are post-taxes and transfers. But let's work with what
we've got.
So one way of looking at these figures is to say that 20 percent of
the Argentine population lives better than half of Portugal, waving
away
the tax issue --- which means that the real number is less than 20%.
Argentina = poor country.
But ...
In terms of inequality, Argentina does surprisingly well. Take the
80th percentile-20th percentile ratio. In Spain, it's 5.1. In
Portugal,
it's 7.4. In Argentina, it's 4.3. Of course, straight comparisons are
tough, but the Argentine figures are pre-tax for the 80 percentile,
which receives few (if any) direct transfers from the state, so it
seems reasonable to think that this is understated.
Argentina is still poor.
Only ...
These figures don't take into account purchasing power. Since
I lack the time to do anything better, let's use the Big Mac standard.
That predicts a PPP equalizing exchange rate of 1.7 pesos per euro,
against a market rate of 3.4
Very roughly, then, the real PPP after-tax median income in (say)
Portugal is 12,970 pesos per year. That's a little bit above the 60th
pre-tax percentile in Argentina.
Similarly, PPP obfuscates a whole host of relative price changes:
a Portuguese family with the same putative PPP income will find cars
a whole lot cheaper than an Argentine family with the same PPP in-
come, whereas the Argentine family will be able to consume more
personal services.
And the Big Mac index is superlatively lousy, of course.
Plus that tax thing.
But the point is made. Argentina really does have a bigger "middle
class" than most Latin American countries. Argentina also really has
a very large mass of very poor people, unlike even poor Western Euro-
pean countries. Argentina has Third World rates of infant mortality,
but high literacy and relatively high university attendance rates.
Wages
(unlike incomes) are much lower than in Europe, since capital grabs
most of the national income in Argentina. So I'm not arguing that
Argentina is a European country. I am arguing, quite simply, that
not all middle-income countries are created equal.
Old Toby's post is a very nice way of getting at the same point from
another direction.
Best,
Noel
Noel
---Caveat: Ireland and Italy were not rich countries fifty
years ago. 100 years ago they were downright poor (in
relative terms). So that bumps your list of graduees to
... seven!
An argument could also be made about Sweden, Nor-
way, and Finland, if we're going to go back a century.
Fifty years, harder case to make. Split the difference
... eight and a half!
Like I said, just a caveat. But I wouldn't want anyone to
accuse you of eurocentrism.
Best,
Noel
sigi...@yahoo.com
Noel wrote:
> > But taking it at its word on the rest, this
> > gives us only five countries that have made it to the level of
> > the "unquestionables": Hong Kong, Qatar, Singapore, Taiwan, and
> > Brunei. Three "Tiger Economies" and two oil rich states, no
> > big surprises. Rather the surprise is that so few have "made
> > it",
>
> ---Caveat: Ireland and Italy were not rich countries fifty
> years ago. 100 years ago they were downright poor (in
> relative terms).
For a half-century after independence, Ireland pretty consistently had
a pcGDP between 60% and 70% of Britain's.
Checking, I find that in 1950 Ireland's was $3,518. (Italy's was
$3,425, close enough as makes no never mind.) The US was $9,573. If
we go with the "40% of US" test, then 1950 Ireland just barely falls
short.
For that matter, so does Austria ($3,731). But both Austria and Italy
can be put in the specail "still recovering from the war" category,
like Japan.
Argentina in 1950 had $4,987! More than half of the US.
[noodles] 1973 numbers. US, $16,607. Italy, $10,409... all
recovered. Argentina, $7,970. Has slipped from 52% of the US to 47%,
but that's just a hiccup, my friends.
Ireland, $7,023. 42% of the US. Has crept over the 40% line, but is
still poorer than Argentina.
Hmm. We see some interesting long-term trends here. Argentina has
been falling slowly but steadily for a long time now. Ireland was
rising gradually for a while before its sudden takeoff. And Italy
arced upwards quickly after the war, plateaued in the 1970s and '80s,
and has been slowly losing ground in the last decade or so.
Anyway, you can probably add Ireland to the "joined the First World"
list. I doubt they were high-income by any reasonable standard in
1955.
Doug M.
sigi...@yahoo.com
> ---You vex me, Douglas, you vex me.
Didn't mean to.
> ---In 1990, I crossed the country from Mendoza to B.A. in
> a dying automobile.
Cool. I spent much of 1990 unemployed and living in Mom's basement, so
that's good.
> I question the entire premise of the thread.
>
> In other words, I'm happy to talk about Argentina, and
> I'm happy to compare it to other countries, but I am pre-
> emptively withdrawing from any discussion of the term
> "First World" and what it means.
Can we ask, then, if it has any meaning at all?
Is there such a thing as the "First World"? (Or high-income countries,
if you like?) Or is it just a seamless spectrum, with any division
being arbitrary?
My gut feeling is that there /is/ such a thing as a high-income
country, and that a boundary line exists and is fairly sharp. However,
I'm not at all sure my gut is trustworthy. There's a "know it when I
see it" aspect here. That's good for telling the difference between
erotica and porn, but less good when it comes to development economics.
> But there are a number of things that make Argentina
> different from other Latin American countries of similar
> income levels. These same things probably also apply
> to most of Eastern Europe, and so won't seem as
> striking to you
What you're saying, ISTM, is that Argentina is more /European/.
Socially, at least. 'Feels more orderly', traffic laws being enforced,
prostitution allowed but cordoned, no-kidding zoning. Not as anarchic
as the rest of Latin America.
> The statistics for education
> and potable water are only reflections of that.
I cheated a little on the statistics. They're true, but there's
another statistic I didn't give: the UN Human Development Index. That
takes several different numbers -- life expectancy, education, PPP GDP
-- weights them, smooshes them together, and gives a number from 0 to
100. This is obviously a bit ad hoc, but at least it's consistent.
Anyway, Argentina scores rather high, around 86 or so -- the highest in
all Latin American, and right in the middle of the Eastern European
countries.
The infant mortality rate is still pretty alarming, though.
Doug M.
Pavel Vozenilek
>> c) The "lost decade" is mere journalist term.
>
> Well, no. It's broad but reasonably accurate.
>
>
>> The countries underwent painful but necessarily transition
>> and even then their GDP grew up (most of the time).
>
> GDP growth in Hungary was basically stagnant through the 1990s.
> Between 1990 and 1993, Hungary's GDP contracted by 18%.
>
> Slovakia, even worse: their economy contracted by about 25% between
> 1990 and 1994. Neither Hungary nor Slovakia had recovered 1989 income
> levels until about 1998.
>
> Czechs? Of the 10 years from 1990 to 1999, the Czech economy only grew
> during four. The other six, they contracted. (Recession in early
> '90s, burst of growth from 1994-7, second recession in late '90s.)
> They recovered 1989 income levels in 1997... then lost them again, and
> didn't get them back until 2001.
>
> So, yeah, lost decade.
>
>
of the economy and law system.
But the recovery was quite fast and I would not consider
the time in between as "lost" by doing nothing.
Different thing is public perception - at least in the
Czech Republic these years are really considered lost
due to incompetence and corruption.
/Pavel
nandodick
the vast bulk of the population can live in comfort and
freedom. Obviously interpreting those terms is highly
subjective
bad criteria, income it´s an important reference, you can check out in
www.worldbank.org or www.imf.org for a complete and detail list of
income tabulations, ever get into the debate whether income it should
be measured in PPP standards (how much you can buy with, say a dollar
in your country) versus nominal GDP (which differs greatly for example
japan should have an nominal per capita GDP of let say 50.000 but at
PPP get in 30.000 or so, yep you figured, out Japan is a expensive
country, for India ITOH moves from 400 nominal to 3000 PPP) ... anyway
income , i agree it´s importnt but not the whole picture, so although
you can divide the world between High Income Countries (HIC), Medium
Income Contries (MIC, everything from 15 K PPP, to 7.5-5) and Low
Income Country (anyone below), you are not getting the whole picture,
as i said (as someone wisely explained to you "Second World" it´s a
absolete logism referring to former socialist economies which over last
decade transition-ed to market economies, not losing a decade but
mostly well spending it)
if you look for a broader view you can check also the Human
Devolepment Index, which rates every country (and every subdivision) in
High-Medium-Low and Lower Development Index 1.0 been top, UE an US,
Japan, etc moving from 0.99 to 090 it´s an interest way of confront
Income versus well being.
anyway and going to the point: in 50 years or even 30, I think the new
EU countries which are not also close to HIC, but receiving billions in
funding from brussels, Ireland and Spain are to examples what lots of
euros can do for a healthy growing economy, so i would apply the bid
for the 10 new member, even Croatia. Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and the
western balkans, the have a clear chance. it will depend if they can
close a deal with the EU and the growth rates, so far turkey and
bulgaria have healthy growing economies.
in Asia it´s taken for granted South Korea, Singapur and Taiwan (which
are considered by the world bank and the OECD as new Industrialized
countries or NICs but no as New Devoloped Countries, the discusion, I
think today it´s pointless) IMHO you can add Thailand, Malasia and far
less possible Indonesia, are transitioned to more healthy finantial
systems after the "asian crisis".
in latin america? well i put my money in Chile (literally), and Costa
Rica, (a silicon republic, 40% of it`s exports are high tech, let´s
thank Mr Intel) it can sound weird in the states but Cuba also has a
big big chance after Fidel, and so it has Mexico, going closer and
closer to US economy, as Brasil and uruguay...Argentina? it´s a
country I love, and I think, as a former president said, "doomed to
succeed", but they have spent the last 50 years proving something
else...
for Africa, maybe the mini-oil states (equatorial guinea, gabon, yeah,
they have a chance small but they have), and i said also south africa
if liberalize and even angola, congo-zaire, other countries doomed
because of its richies, any way the should move up to MIC.
middle east, Iraq, if they pull together again, Israel, lebanon and the
gulf states which are moving fast from oil-based economies yo
service/financial economies, say UAE, qatar, bahrein. the Maghreb has a
chance also of moving up, Tunis its growing nicely and Lybia it´s not
longer a pariah, algeria and marrocco at some point the should start to
do thinks correctly...
any way i would say tha chances of becoming a HIC are depending of
long-term invesment, education, and a healthy market systems, if you
can get the three you can move up any other way you remain or going
down down down down down....
Dennis Brennan
sigi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> My gut feeling is that there /is/ such a thing as a high-income
> country, and that a boundary line exists and is fairly sharp. However,
> I'm not at all sure my gut is trustworthy. There's a "know it when I
> see it" aspect here. That's good for telling the difference between
> erotica and porn, but less good when it comes to development economics.
Hence Noel's yuk upthread about Potter Stewart .
-Dennis
Noel
---I just mean that you're making me think, damn you.
It's a very good thing.
> > ---In 1990, I crossed the country from Mendoza to B.A. in
> > a dying automobile.
>
> Cool. I spent much of 1990 unemployed and living in Mom's basement, so
> that's good.
---It was an interesting trip, including the time in Mendoza when
three American men had to rush to the defense of an overly-ideal-
istic young American woman who had almost suffered a date rape.
Thankfully, the hotel walls were thin, and we immediately under-
stood what "no" meant.
We actually drove from Santiago. I would very much like to repeat
the trip.
> Can we ask, then, if it has any meaning at all?
>
> Is there such a thing as the "First World"? (Or high-income countries,
> if you like?) Or is it just a seamless spectrum, with any division
> being arbitrary?
>
> My gut feeling is that there /is/ such a thing as a high-income
> country, and that a boundary line exists and is fairly sharp. However,
> I'm not at all sure my gut is trustworthy. There's a "know it when I
> see it" aspect here. That's good for telling the difference between
> erotica and porn, but less good when it comes to development economics.
---Without intending to, I illustrated that problem when I wrote,
as you point out, that Argentina is more "European" than much
of the rest of Latin America. It still suffers from juridical uncer-
tainty, extreme poverty (the infant mortality figures are horrifying),
high level corruption, populist politics, and macroeconomic mis-
management. But much of it simply doesn't feel "underdeveloped."
Yet it clearly is.
>From the other direction: Is Milan in the First World? Is Rome?
Naples? Athens? Palermo? Istanbul?
I tend to think a there's a continuum, but I'm willing to be convinced
that there's a threshold. My idiot blather about Argentina, however,
makes me skeptical of using a "know it when I see it" definition.
>
> > But there are a number of things that make Argentina
> > different from other Latin American countries of similar
> > income levels. These same things probably also apply
> > to most of Eastern Europe, and so won't seem as
> > striking to you
>
> What you're saying, ISTM, is that Argentina is more /European/.
> Socially, at least. 'Feels more orderly', traffic laws being enforced,
> prostitution allowed but cordoned, no-kidding zoning. Not as anarchic
> as the rest of Latin America.
---That's spot on. It feels less anarchic, although many of the
basic state institutions do not, in fact, work any better.
> The infant mortality rate is still pretty alarming, though.
---Quite horrifying, in fact.
Best,
Noel
Thomas Womack
<sigi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Noel wrote:
>
>> It also, I should say, puts Argentina as having fallen down the
>> league tables from the high part of the First World to clinging
>> desperately to the lower edge, a characterization which better
>> passes the smell test for anyone who's been there.
>
>This has been niggling at me.
>
>Argentina's pcGPD is well below the First World threshold as defined by
>either you or me. Are there other numbers we can use?
I think that the PPP correction is almost erasing the distinctions
which might be useful for determining what's first-world and what's
not: I'd be more interested in doing PCA on the costs of the
individual items in the PPP baskets, see what sort of sets of items
tend to be simultaneously cheap.
That's trying to untangle the cost-of-labour and capital-availability
parts: services in a second-world country might well be done by a
craftsman sitting at his bench (I've just been to a department store
in Bangkok where the bottom three floors are standard food and garment
retail, and floor four is full of mobile-phone repair booths each with
its SMD rework station), first-world tends to go to a shop-front and
be sent away.
I think this ends up saying that you can categorise a country by
examining its taxis: I don't know of first-world countries with
tuk-tuks, and 'presence of safety-belt' also correlates reasonably.
The Romanian taxi-driver deeply offended when I reached for where the
safety belt would have been stuck in my mind somewhat :)
[though safety-belts might also be a proxy for rule of law]
Tom
Old Toby
>
> ---Caveat: Ireland and Italy were not rich countries fifty
> years ago. 100 years ago they were downright poor (in
> relative terms). So that bumps your list of graduees to
> ... seven!
>
> An argument could also be made about Sweden, Nor-
> way, and Finland, if we're going to go back a century.
> Fifty years, harder case to make. Split the difference
> ... eight and a half!
>
> Like I said, just a caveat. But I wouldn't want anyone to
> accuse you of eurocentrism.
I wasn't really thinking that long term. More like what would
be considered First World after the notions of the First and Third
Worlds were established, but before people started noticing how
certain parts of the "third world" were not so poor anymore.
Maybe c.1975-1985, if one had to put a date on it. If this
perception is warped by the prejudices of people back then,
so be it.
I suppose I was more interested in delimiting the _concept_
of the First World, rather than the First World as an actual
economic state.