The rapid development and national power in the developed countries after the revolution is due to the speedy recovery and upgrading of industries and especially technologies. Therefore, less developed countries have to focus their attention on how to develop or adopt the industries and technologies from developed countries. (Sheleifer et al., 1998; Rodrick, 1998,2001) suggests that the poor development performance in less developed countries is largely associated with their institutional problems such as political issues, market distortions, unfairness in income distributions, government interventions, colonial heritages, violent crimes, micro instability and so on (Lin and Lui).
Furthermore, some developed countries have taken advantage of the unfair use and distribution of resources in order to help their citizens to become more wealthy. These powerful and rich countries have a responsibility to help less
…show more content…
As mentioned above, some less developed countries are under their colonialism type of government. For instance, many countries in Europe, such as Great Britain became powerful and rich because of their colonial reign in Asia.They expanded their country through the rich natural resources in Asia, and take advantage of low labor. But, not experience hardship from their colonial rulers like Hong Kong, which under the Britain ruled for 150 years and both countries benefited from this system. This is also a way how developed countries helped less developed countries. Today Hong Kong has a strong and stable economy and already catching up with other developed countries (Yuen and Ng).
Some developed countries have successfully helped less developing countries, however, it relies on the country how they will use this aid for developing their own country. The development of the poor countries depends on their own capabilities with or without the aid of the rich countries they
...conomically beneficial trade and technology development. In this regard the Epilogue uses sound logic to plausibly answer the wealth question. On the other hand, Mr. Diamond uses the same "national competition" thesis to purport that Asia's large, centralized governments were conspicuously growth-inhibitive. This argument would not seem to pass muster given what we have learned about the role of governments. Professor Wright's slides state that "Centralization may limit predation and even allow for growth" as "centralized predation = incentives to maximize the haul " This clearly refutes Mr. Diamond's argument that centralized, monopolistic Asian governments impaired societal advances. Thus, Guns, Germs, and Steel can scantly explain why China and the Middle East remain emerging markets while Western and Northern Europe enjoy significantly larger national wealth.
The practice of colonialism by several nations led to the possession and exploitation of weaker countries. It resulted in the strengthening of the mother country and oppression of the indigenous people of the colonies (Nowell, 2013). Colonial cities were deliberately developed within colonial societies in order to centralize political and economic control. Essentially, colonial cities facilitated the consolidation and exportation of wealth to the dominating nation (The Editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2014).
As the twenty-first century continues to move forward, humanity finds itself in a predicament unlike any other. Cities are overcrowded, impoverished peoples go hungry regularly, natural resources are depleting from overuse, and the degradation of the environment are daily occurrences on this planet. With so much taking place, how do we reach the point where our planet flourishes and prospers efficiently? Seemingly so, we have reached a point of no return. Yet according to Jeffrey D. Sachs, we can still maintain a flourishing, prosperous planet and the ideas that lie within this document review the main conclusions in the book Common Wealth by Jeffrey D. Sachs.
Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you are hungry, under clothed, and at risk at death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others. With that in mind, this raises the question of whether rich nations have an obligation to help those nations in need. People who earn above a certain income should be forced to donate 10% of their money to the poor because, it will help break the vicious circle of poverty, help the society at large to move forward, and lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. The poor do not have the money to save; all of the income goes to food, lodging, and heating bills, which are essential for survival. There is little left over to enjoy the luxuries of life, such as a home with heating, education, medical care, or even three proper meals a day. Because of their lack of education, they cannot get a well paying job, and thus are stuck in the lower classes of society. To he...
To this, I would explain how wealthy nations have a quite high standard of living, access to clean water, food, great opportunity, etc. Many individuals who make up the world’s poor are not in a place where they can change their circumstance. This could be due to health conditions due to the lack of human rights, lack of housing, lack of opportunity, corrupt government, environmental factors, where you are born, etc. Many of these factors are not issues that would concern wealthier nations and are presented to them outside of their control. So if only some parts of the world are faced with these challenges, why should they be further punished for it? They certainly did not ask to be born into such conditions. The world’s poor have a clear disadvantage that does not allow them to live the same quality of life as others which is unjust. Everyone should be granted equal
Philosophy Public Affairs 32, no. 2 (1995). 4 (2004): 357-383. Singer, Peter; Miller, Richard "“What Duties Do People in Rich Countries Have to Relieve World Poverty”."
Third world countries have the name underdeveloped countries, but it is better to call them over-exploited countries. Developed countries are implementing several foreign policies and trading blocks that have nothing to develop the less developed countries; on the contrary, they exploit the development and block growth in many ways such as imperialism, globalization, and capitalism. These practices of developed nations prevent third world countries from development. The countries that have advanced technologies and standard economical status are considered as the developed countries. Besides their growth, these countries have started taking advantage of third world countries that are also less fortunate in terms of economy and technology.
Landes, D., 1999. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 38-59
Some argue that colonization help countries develop faster through industrial revolution and bring modern civilization to the once “underdeveloped” country. Dr. Walter Williams wrote in 2011 that the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong were once colonies and now they’re the superpower countries in the world, but countries that were never colonized like Nepal continued to stay in poverty and is considered a third world country. I argue that colonization does not have to do anything with poverty. For example, the Philippines was conquered by the Spanish for more than 300 years, yet the Philippines is still considered a third world country amongst many southeast Asian countries. In addition, Jamaica was a colony under the British Empire much like the United States, but there is a drastic difference in wealth between the two countries today. Therefore, although the United States and Hong Kong are great examples, colonization does not affect the wealth of the colonized
The unequal distribution of wealth is seen as a negative and ongoing problem and debate within American politics and society. There is a great deal of evidence to back up why wealth distribution is damaging the American ideals of life. It also carries inevitable and undetermined consequences for our nation. How resources are distributed within a country depends on where the resources were found. For example, numerous people will move to an area that is rich with resources in order in ensure job security. Just because a country is fruitful in a resource does not mean that that particular country is wealthy. In fact, the laborers are paid very minimal...
Rodney’s argument is broken down into six chapters each consisting of several subdivisions and case studies supporting his principle argument. The first chapter works towards defining the terms of development and underdevelopment and argues the comparative nature of these terms; a country is only ‘underdeveloped’ by European standards. This chapter begins by tracing European development from its early stages of communalism through feudalism and finally capitalism. Then, he works towards developing an understanding of the term ‘underdevelopment’ and through an analysis of a variety of development indices what it constitutes in present day society: “In Niger, one doctor must do for 56, 140 people; in Tunisia one doctor for every 8,320 Tunisians”(18). The Marxist concept of inherent inequalities within the international capitalist system un...
People, especially those from wealthy nations, do not truly understand how large of a problem poverty is and how many areas it effects. Not only does it cause economical issues, but it can contribute to social and security issues as well.
This means that the poor countries actually get poorer. Ø As well as the rich countries actually exploiting the poor ones they have international debt. Many poor countries have borrowed billions of pounds from the rich countries which charge huge amounts of interest on the loans, thereby increasing the gap between rich and poor. [IMAGE] [IMAGE]
Theoretical model of modern economic growth shows that long-term economic growth and raise the level of per capita income depends on technological progress. This is because of without technological progress and with the increase of capital per capita, marginal returns of capital would diminish and output per capita growth would eventually stagnate (Solow, 1956; Swan, 1956). Studies have shown that “experience, skills and knowledge in the long-term economic growth is playing an increasingly important role” (World Bank, 1999). Despite how technological progress work on economic growth, and how there are different views on the role of in the end, but I am afraid no one would deny that technical progress in the important role of economic development. In this sense, for a country to achieve long-term economic growth, we must continue to promote technological progress. However, economic growth theory is analyzed in general, and usually under the assumption that in the closed economy, and technological progress in a country not normally have taken place in various departments at the same time, and now the economy are often increasingly open economy. In this way, the technological progress in different economic impact on a country may be quite different. In addition, we assume that technological progress is Hicks neutral, is to an industry in itself, but technological progress also reflects the establishment of new industries and development. The new industries and technology-intensive industries generally older than the high, the use of less labor. Even the old industries, the general trend of technological progress is labor-saving.
Extractive institutions are used throughout this book to explain that the upper class extracts resources and goods from the lower class. They don’t allow growth or competition, but rather they just exploit the rest of society into doing their labour. It’s used to please a few, rather than the majority, and can still be seen in most places in the world. Whereas, inclusive institutions are the ideal way nations should be run, allowing for fair economical systems, property ownership, educational facilities and allowing all citizens to participate in the growth of the economy. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that this is the main factor in distinguishing the rich countries from the poor and, moreover, how they treat their citizens. This system is relatively used in North America and Western Europe.