3 ms·

The key features that made it fantastically rich were sitting on one of the world's most strategically located ports, building a lot of soviet style housing and

by pydry 4y ago

The key features that made it fantastically rich were sitting on one of the world's most strategically located ports, building a lot of soviet style housing and a leader with nowhere to run. Being a city state means it's hard to hide when things get ugly. Having capitals far away from citizenry, on the other hand - like in myanmar or brazil, makes it easy to be corrupt. This is a well studied phenomenon. Lee Kuan Yew was palpably afraid in 1965 - especially of the domestic communists. That was probably a good thing in most respects - he knew he had to improve living standards or he'd be strung up. He did, partly by following the good advice of albert winsemius. It also led to his authoritarian streak and his censor happy ways, of course. The fear ran both ways. 1950s america was also a time where elites were palpably fearful of domestic communists. It also combined with fast improving living standards and the largest scale house building to date. That might just all be a giant coincidence though.

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
This. Geopolitics is everything.
Daishiman 4y ago
The ruling class’ lack of fear of legitimate backlash by the working class seems certainly like a good thesis to explain the modern Western world’s increasing inequality.
rayiner 4y ago
Ascribing Singapore’s wealth to its location as a strategic port is more than a bit odd, considering its always been where it is, but hasn’t been rich this whole time. In classical times Chittagong, the port city where my dad went to college, was one of the most important ports in the world. But that didn’t prevent Bangladesh from being one of the poorest countries in the world in modern times. Clearly there is more at work. The geography of Singapore gets thrown around a lot to detract from how much Lee Kuan Yew’s deliberate decisions made Singapore what it is today. Which is a shame because that makes it hard for other developing countries to learn from Singapore’s example.
- pydry 4y ago
  It was rich while the British ran the place and they founded the city coz its a good place for a port. The locals just didnt see much of that wealth. I find the geography doesnt really get thrown around a lot. Lee Kuan Yew's boasts that the city became rich despite "no natural resources" does though, which i find to be misleading. There is obviously more to the story than just the port but it's important to understand the inbuilt advantages the city did have given the obvious incentive to "replicate" what happened, especially when the story told by the island's cult of personality was so keen to downplay them in favor of his genius leadership and the grit and determination of the people. (I say cult of personality because I queued up to see his dead body lying in state... and the experience with him, mao, kim jong il and kim il sung wasnt all that different) Most of the economic development was critically dependent upon the port and its status as a transshipment hub at a global crossroads. Getting Shell to build a refinery in cape town or bhutan would have been a lot harder.
  - merry_flame 4y ago
    Penang, the other key constituent of the British Straits Settlements, provides an excellent counterfactual. Besides location, population, ethnic mix, colonial history, etc. were extremely similar back. Though Penang isn't a poor city by any means, Singapore blows it out of the water. Give LKY credit where credit is due.
andrepd 4y ago
>Being a city state means it's hard to hide when things get ugly. Having capitals far away from citizenry, on the other hand - like in myanmar or brazil, makes it easy to be corrupt. This is a well studied phenomenon. Fascinating, I'd never really thought of this. Do you have a link to any studies about this phenomenon?
- pydry 4y ago
  https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.8.2456 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.8.2456 This is one
sib 4y ago
1950's America also benefited from having created the biggest wartime production economy the world had ever seen, combined with most other "advanced" economies having been turned to rubble. At the end of WWII, the US's GDP was greater than the rest of the world combined.

by pydry 4y ago

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago

This. Geopolitics is everything.

Daishiman 4y ago

The ruling class’ lack of fear of legitimate backlash by the working class seems certainly like a good thesis to explain the modern Western world’s increasing inequality.

rayiner 4y ago

Ascribing Singapore’s wealth to its location as a strategic port is more than a bit odd, considering its always been where it is, but hasn’t been rich this whole time. In classical times Chittagong, the port city where my dad went to college, was one of the most important ports in the world. But that didn’t prevent Bangladesh from being one of the poorest countries in the world in modern times. Clearly there is more at work. The geography of Singapore gets thrown around a lot to detract from how much Lee Kuan Yew’s deliberate decisions made Singapore what it is today. Which is a shame because that makes it hard for other developing countries to learn from Singapore’s example.

pydry 4y ago
It was rich while the British ran the place and they founded the city coz its a good place for a port. The locals just didnt see much of that wealth. I find the geography doesnt really get thrown around a lot. Lee Kuan Yew's boasts that the city became rich despite "no natural resources" does though, which i find to be misleading. There is obviously more to the story than just the port but it's important to understand the inbuilt advantages the city did have given the obvious incentive to "replicate" what happened, especially when the story told by the island's cult of personality was so keen to downplay them in favor of his genius leadership and the grit and determination of the people. (I say cult of personality because I queued up to see his dead body lying in state... and the experience with him, mao, kim jong il and kim il sung wasnt all that different) Most of the economic development was critically dependent upon the port and its status as a transshipment hub at a global crossroads. Getting Shell to build a refinery in cape town or bhutan would have been a lot harder.
- merry_flame 4y ago
  Penang, the other key constituent of the British Straits Settlements, provides an excellent counterfactual. Besides location, population, ethnic mix, colonial history, etc. were extremely similar back. Though Penang isn't a poor city by any means, Singapore blows it out of the water. Give LKY credit where credit is due.

andrepd 4y ago

>Being a city state means it's hard to hide when things get ugly. Having capitals far away from citizenry, on the other hand - like in myanmar or brazil, makes it easy to be corrupt. This is a well studied phenomenon. Fascinating, I'd never really thought of this. Do you have a link to any studies about this phenomenon?

pydry 4y ago
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.8.2456 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.8.2456 This is one

sib 4y ago

1950's America also benefited from having created the biggest wartime production economy the world had ever seen, combined with most other "advanced" economies having been turned to rubble. At the end of WWII, the US's GDP was greater than the rest of the world combined.