8 ms·

"And no one would dispute that the key to all this success has been education." I would. Singapore is what it is because of their strategic placing in the wol

"And no one would dispute that the key to all this success has been education." I would. Singapore is what it is because of their strategic placing in the wold today. The only reason the English decided to convert this tropical island in the commerce nucleus it is. People always rationalize how when something good happens to them it is always because of their merit alone. Spain discovered America because it is on the extreme of Europe and not in the center, Germany is an Industrial nation because it has so much water and coal, and is very cheap to transport things and USA has the bigger and most fertile plains in the world for a very small population. Now ask an American, German or a person from Singapore what is the key of success and they will tell you hard work of course, but they don't work harder than people from Central African Republic(I had been there, very beautiful and rich but in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure, and very poor).

ewolf 14y ago
True, the article certainly leaves out a lot there. I would, however, attribute Singapore's success to their own good leadership. The Brits certainly were not the ones who developed it to what it is today.
- effinjames 14y ago
  The jews did bro, amen.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
I would dispute that education is the key to all this success as well. Let us assume that educational outcomes (i.e., human capital as measured by test scores) are the driver of this success. Even making this assumption, the bulk of the gap in educational outcomes between the US and Singapore is probably not due to education. The US 8th grade PISA score is 495, whereas that of Singapore is 540. But Asian Americans have a score of 535. Several American states have Asian students who even exceed Singapore, specifically NY, TX and CT. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-average-american.html http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-... If education were the primary driver of educational outcomes, that shouldn't happen. So we should reject education as the primary driver of educational outcomes. However, the article also suggests a cultural explanation: "it's built into our [Singaporean] culture to study all the way through school". If Asian Americans share this trait but non-Asian Americans do not, this is certainly consistent with the data.
seagreen 14y ago
Your hypothesis that Singapore's done so well because of its location is certainly a common one and puts you in good company. It doesn't strike me as very persuasive though. For instance, here's a map[1] of ports and harbors in Malaysia. There are a lot of them. How come Singapore has almost the GDP (239 billion) of all of Malaysia put together (278 billion)? [1] http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/MYS.php http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/MYS.php
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Lets ask a different question. Why does NYC have a GDP of $544B [1], which is nearly as large as that of the rest of NY State ($611B)? Another comparison: the GDP of the NYC metro area is $1.28T [2]. The GDP of Texas is $1.3T, Florida is $0.754 and CA is $1.9T. You are probably right that location doesn't explain Singapore's wealth. But education probably doesn't either - I don't see any reason to believe NYC has a better education system than NY - NYC, CA, TX or FL. The simplest explanation is that when a city becomes a regional hub, it generates disproportionate amounts of wealth. In the case of Singapore, the city also just happened to be a country. [1] http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia12.pdf http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia1... [2] The metro area is NYC + commuter suburbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City [edit: B -> T for NYC metro GDP]
  - seagreen 14y ago
    I think you mean trillion instead of billion for the NYC metro area GDP. We really need words that sound more different for the two concepts, because they're way too easy to confuse despite how different they are. Good comparison between the SE Asia situation and New York. I think it paints an accurate picture of what's going on. My beef with the parent is this line, "Singapore is what it is because of their strategic placing in the wold today." Personally, I think a more accurate way to put that would be "because of their strategic place in the world and merit." Singaporeans had something to do with Singapore becoming a regional hub (the second time, at least) and they should get credit for it. I definitely don't think education alone explains Singapore's wealth. Just because I disagreed with one of the parent's points doesn't mean I disagree with everything he said.
guylhem 14y ago
[Disclosure- my best friend immigrated to Singapore after his PhD in Europe] Natural factors play a role, but only so much. IMHO, you are rationalizing. There are many places in the world that are strategically located and resource rich, but they didn't grow as much as Singapore did. In Asia, if I was a villain, I would put my lair in Timor (if I wanted an island) or New Guinea (if I wanted land) - just between India, Australia, Japan, etc. Water and coal are abundant in many places. Argentina has great fertile plains and a lower population. Coal was first mined in China, and in the UK which also had IIRC more coal and water than Germany. Hell, following your explanation about the new world, Portugal and Ireland are even more at the extreme of Europe- they should have discovered America! They didn't (I know the story about Vinland, the vikings an so on - but they didn't do as much as Spain did) It we are talking about geographic distance, southern Morocco or Senegal would have been at an advantage - but they didn't do it. It's too easy to rewrite history. Education and investment are clearly driving growth. Show me a country that is betting big on education and pushing for investment (preferably local, from savings), even if it has not much politically stability it is a country with a bright future. Besides India (who will certainly be the next big thing after the US - not China IMHO), I'd put my chips on countries like Estonia, Kenya, Uruguay.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  If you go to an underdeveloped country and see people working really hard, that's not a rationalization. It's a counterexample to the implied thesis that economic development is a matter of hard work.
  - im3w1l 14y ago
    Are they working this hard all over the country? For how long have they done that? Are they working hard not smart?
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Show me a country that is betting big on education and pushing for investment (preferably local, from savings), even if it has not much politically stability it is a country with a bright future. Historically that is not true. Countries which increased their investment in education tended to have (slightly) slower economic growth, at least in the period 1960-2000. Paper: http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+education+gone.pdf http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+edu... Blog post with key graph: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha....

ewolf 14y ago

True, the article certainly leaves out a lot there. I would, however, attribute Singapore's success to their own good leadership. The Brits certainly were not the ones who developed it to what it is today.

effinjames 14y ago
The jews did bro, amen.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I would dispute that education is the key to all this success as well. Let us assume that educational outcomes (i.e., human capital as measured by test scores) are the driver of this success. Even making this assumption, the bulk of the gap in educational outcomes between the US and Singapore is probably not due to education. The US 8th grade PISA score is 495, whereas that of Singapore is 540. But Asian Americans have a score of 535. Several American states have Asian students who even exceed Singapore, specifically NY, TX and CT. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-average-american.html http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-... If education were the primary driver of educational outcomes, that shouldn't happen. So we should reject education as the primary driver of educational outcomes. However, the article also suggests a cultural explanation: "it's built into our [Singaporean] culture to study all the way through school". If Asian Americans share this trait but non-Asian Americans do not, this is certainly consistent with the data.

seagreen 14y ago

Your hypothesis that Singapore's done so well because of its location is certainly a common one and puts you in good company. It doesn't strike me as very persuasive though. For instance, here's a map[1] of ports and harbors in Malaysia. There are a lot of them. How come Singapore has almost the GDP (239 billion) of all of Malaysia put together (278 billion)? [1] http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/MYS.php http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/MYS.php

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Lets ask a different question. Why does NYC have a GDP of $544B [1], which is nearly as large as that of the rest of NY State ($611B)? Another comparison: the GDP of the NYC metro area is $1.28T [2]. The GDP of Texas is $1.3T, Florida is $0.754 and CA is $1.9T. You are probably right that location doesn't explain Singapore's wealth. But education probably doesn't either - I don't see any reason to believe NYC has a better education system than NY - NYC, CA, TX or FL. The simplest explanation is that when a city becomes a regional hub, it generates disproportionate amounts of wealth. In the case of Singapore, the city also just happened to be a country. [1] http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia12.pdf http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia1... [2] The metro area is NYC + commuter suburbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City [edit: B -> T for NYC metro GDP]
- seagreen 14y ago
  I think you mean trillion instead of billion for the NYC metro area GDP. We really need words that sound more different for the two concepts, because they're way too easy to confuse despite how different they are. Good comparison between the SE Asia situation and New York. I think it paints an accurate picture of what's going on. My beef with the parent is this line, "Singapore is what it is because of their strategic placing in the wold today." Personally, I think a more accurate way to put that would be "because of their strategic place in the world and merit." Singaporeans had something to do with Singapore becoming a regional hub (the second time, at least) and they should get credit for it. I definitely don't think education alone explains Singapore's wealth. Just because I disagreed with one of the parent's points doesn't mean I disagree with everything he said.

guylhem 14y ago

[Disclosure- my best friend immigrated to Singapore after his PhD in Europe] Natural factors play a role, but only so much. IMHO, you are rationalizing. There are many places in the world that are strategically located and resource rich, but they didn't grow as much as Singapore did. In Asia, if I was a villain, I would put my lair in Timor (if I wanted an island) or New Guinea (if I wanted land) - just between India, Australia, Japan, etc. Water and coal are abundant in many places. Argentina has great fertile plains and a lower population. Coal was first mined in China, and in the UK which also had IIRC more coal and water than Germany. Hell, following your explanation about the new world, Portugal and Ireland are even more at the extreme of Europe- they should have discovered America! They didn't (I know the story about Vinland, the vikings an so on - but they didn't do as much as Spain did) It we are talking about geographic distance, southern Morocco or Senegal would have been at an advantage - but they didn't do it. It's too easy to rewrite history. Education and investment are clearly driving growth. Show me a country that is betting big on education and pushing for investment (preferably local, from savings), even if it has not much politically stability it is a country with a bright future. Besides India (who will certainly be the next big thing after the US - not China IMHO), I'd put my chips on countries like Estonia, Kenya, Uruguay.

slurgfest 14y ago
If you go to an underdeveloped country and see people working really hard, that's not a rationalization. It's a counterexample to the implied thesis that economic development is a matter of hard work.
- im3w1l 14y ago
  Are they working this hard all over the country? For how long have they done that? Are they working hard not smart?
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Show me a country that is betting big on education and pushing for investment (preferably local, from savings), even if it has not much politically stability it is a country with a bright future. Historically that is not true. Countries which increased their investment in education tended to have (slightly) slower economic growth, at least in the period 1960-2000. Paper: http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+education+gone.pdf http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+edu... Blog post with key graph: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha....