6 ms·

I agree regarding China, and I think it will end up limiting economic growth there once they get past the industrialization bump. (I believe they are past it.)

I agree regarding China, and I think it will end up limiting economic growth there once they get past the industrialization bump. (I believe they are past it.) I contrast the west with, for example, Russia, which has a very intelligent work-force and extensive natural resources, but has been unable to break out of the corruption and lack of trust endemic to their culture. India is another example: there is no reason they shouldn't be a first world country looking only at their human and natural capital. The middle east is lousy with countries with incredibly intelligent peoples stuck in second-world (at best) conditions. And so on.

nmrm2 11y ago
Isn't colonialism is a much better explanation in the case of India and, to a lesser extent China?
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  No, it's poor to non-existent property rights and corruption. Look at Venezuela vs Chile for an example of two very similar countries with wildly differing property rights.
- Chinjut 11y ago
  Perhaps it's the legacy of colonialism which gives rise to the "low-trust" structure of modern India?
- hga 11y ago
  A country with rather rigid castes and 40,000 endogamous groups is likely never going to be high trust. "Colonialism" if anything cut against these two facts. Don't know about China, but they do have an issue with colonialism going back centuries and centuries, even if the Han culture eventually "conquered" the invaders.
- scarmig 11y ago
  It needs a bit more than that. All the Americas were colonized, and most (but not all) are doing better than India. Indonesia is roughly twice as rich per capita. South Africa is even richer. And Malaysia even richer than it. Algeria, Libya. Korea and Taiwan were both colonized and much more exposed to WW2, and they're very well off. The poorest countries in the world were mostly colonized, but that's because most of the world has been victims of colonialism. And the effects of colonialism reverberate to the present day. But it's not really powerful IMO as an explanatory variable for differences in human development in the non-European world.
toothbrush 11y ago
Out of curiosity, do you see any specific countries as having a generally non-intelligent workforce? If not, why mention it specifically for Russia and India?

nmrm2 11y ago

Isn't colonialism is a much better explanation in the case of India and, to a lesser extent China?

meatysnapper 11y ago
No, it's poor to non-existent property rights and corruption. Look at Venezuela vs Chile for an example of two very similar countries with wildly differing property rights.
Chinjut 11y ago
Perhaps it's the legacy of colonialism which gives rise to the "low-trust" structure of modern India?
hga 11y ago
A country with rather rigid castes and 40,000 endogamous groups is likely never going to be high trust. "Colonialism" if anything cut against these two facts. Don't know about China, but they do have an issue with colonialism going back centuries and centuries, even if the Han culture eventually "conquered" the invaders.
scarmig 11y ago
It needs a bit more than that. All the Americas were colonized, and most (but not all) are doing better than India. Indonesia is roughly twice as rich per capita. South Africa is even richer. And Malaysia even richer than it. Algeria, Libya. Korea and Taiwan were both colonized and much more exposed to WW2, and they're very well off. The poorest countries in the world were mostly colonized, but that's because most of the world has been victims of colonialism. And the effects of colonialism reverberate to the present day. But it's not really powerful IMO as an explanatory variable for differences in human development in the non-European world.

toothbrush 11y ago

Out of curiosity, do you see any specific countries as having a generally non-intelligent workforce? If not, why mention it specifically for Russia and India?