4 ms·

Why did stable governmental structures evolve in the west that allow citizens in those countries to enjoy greater prosperity? Why is it that citizens with rela

by cb18 10y ago

Why did stable governmental structures evolve in the west that allow citizens in those countries to enjoy greater prosperity? Why is it that citizens with relatively stable but more authoritarian governments, in the far and middle east for example, seem to enjoy less relative prosperity than the west? (save singapore) What makes singapore special? Is the greater prosperity enjoyed in the west simply a function of the characteristics of the people living in the west? Are the types of governments found in various regions simply a reflection of the people living in those regions? (I don't mean a one to one reflection, I don't think everyone living under a ruthless dictatorship have themselves the characteristics of a ruthless dictator, but are they simply more tolerant or accepting of this societal arrangement?)

johansch 10y ago
> What makes singapore special? Competent mostly benevolent ~dictatorship for ~50 years? :)
- cb18 10y ago
  Not so long ago, Singapore was a swampy backwater with no natural resources while Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was an agricultural powerhouse rich in natural resources. Was Lee Kuan Yew just way more competent and benevolent than Robert Mugabe?
  - johansch 10y ago
    Yes? (by far)
  - toyg 10y ago
    LKY was smarter, less confrontational, more pragmatic, and ruled over a city-state -- not over a huge country.
tim333 10y ago
It took the west a long time to figure out the stable government structures. I saw one theory that civilisation started around the Med because it was easy to get about by boat and was slow in Africa because it was pretty hard to get about before jet aviation. I figure that now they've got internet they'll catch up. Hans Rosling's thing is interesting showing Africa catching a bit towards the end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
- cb18 10y ago
  Interesting video, but the two axis graph he presents is not a particularly good method for understanding the development of the world. Especially when one of those axes is average life expectancy from birth, which is mostly an illustration of the fact that we figured out how to significantly reduce infant mortality. Yes we figured that out likely due in part to the growing prosperity in society but there are I believe better ways for understanding development and prosperity around the world. Maybe some nations just express their prosperity in different ways. For example the awe-inspiring artifacts of the ancient cultures in Europe and other areas. While maybe ancient cultures in the South Pacific were content to just chill on the beach, or cross the seas, or on Easter Island, do that Easter Island thing. It took the west a long time to figure out the stable government structures. What do you mean by that? Those 'cultures around the med' were basically the longest lived in the history of the world. In many ways they are still living. Europe has enjoyed great prosperity in for over 2500 years. Waxing and waning in terms of breadth perhaps. But not hard to find throughout the historical record.
  - tim333 10y ago
    I mean that in the UK say, we only moved to a constitutional monarchy and had a bill of rights in 1689. And there have been glitches like Hitler and Franco coming to power. Europe has only really been stable and fully democratic government structure wise since Franco died in 1975.

by cb18 10y ago

johansch 10y ago

> What makes singapore special? Competent mostly benevolent ~dictatorship for ~50 years? :)

cb18 10y ago
Not so long ago, Singapore was a swampy backwater with no natural resources while Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was an agricultural powerhouse rich in natural resources. Was Lee Kuan Yew just way more competent and benevolent than Robert Mugabe?
- johansch 10y ago
  Yes? (by far)
- toyg 10y ago
  LKY was smarter, less confrontational, more pragmatic, and ruled over a city-state -- not over a huge country.

tim333 10y ago

It took the west a long time to figure out the stable government structures. I saw one theory that civilisation started around the Med because it was easy to get about by boat and was slow in Africa because it was pretty hard to get about before jet aviation. I figure that now they've got internet they'll catch up. Hans Rosling's thing is interesting showing Africa catching a bit towards the end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

cb18 10y ago
Interesting video, but the two axis graph he presents is not a particularly good method for understanding the development of the world. Especially when one of those axes is average life expectancy from birth, which is mostly an illustration of the fact that we figured out how to significantly reduce infant mortality. Yes we figured that out likely due in part to the growing prosperity in society but there are I believe better ways for understanding development and prosperity around the world. Maybe some nations just express their prosperity in different ways. For example the awe-inspiring artifacts of the ancient cultures in Europe and other areas. While maybe ancient cultures in the South Pacific were content to just chill on the beach, or cross the seas, or on Easter Island, do that Easter Island thing. It took the west a long time to figure out the stable government structures. What do you mean by that? Those 'cultures around the med' were basically the longest lived in the history of the world. In many ways they are still living. Europe has enjoyed great prosperity in for over 2500 years. Waxing and waning in terms of breadth perhaps. But not hard to find throughout the historical record.
- tim333 10y ago
  I mean that in the UK say, we only moved to a constitutional monarchy and had a bill of rights in 1689. And there have been glitches like Hitler and Franco coming to power. Europe has only really been stable and fully democratic government structure wise since Franco died in 1975.