East Asia is the only region which was certainly 'poor' but now can be described as somewhat 'rich', and they are all more or less followed the same pattern:
- low wage, high volume, light industry for export
- lower wage, high volume, heavy industry
- multi-decade protectionism to raise global competitive domestic champions
- no democracy, if you can help it to ensure political stability to execute multi-decade strategy
Idiosyncratic caveats:
- Japan got its boost particularly by becoming the arms manufacturer for the US in the Korean War
- Singapore / Hong Kong also had financial liberalisation / international money laundering for the Brits
- Korea / Taiwan / Hong Kong also had shipping
China has followed clearly the same trend (note the irrelevance of the political system, main thing is to avoid democratic instability), simply becoming more massive than any before because it is inherently massive, and has therefore even greater economies of scale to leverage.
Germany has helped push development there (as has the US to a lesser degree) by investing in manufacturing and taking advantage of their labor force(s). Modernizing existing factories helped.
I believe there was a long period (decade) of economic depression, entry into the EU then opened up a huge new market for former Warsaw Pact countries. It is worth noting that East / Central Europe economic development remains very uneven - Romania, Bulgaria both pretty much economic basket cases
Exactly, that’s one of the most overlooked parts of the Earth, but if you consider the GDP growth rate over the last 30 years, Poland is second only to China.
Brazil tried local protected manufacturing --Mexico tried to be the lower cost manufacturer for NorthAm and SouthAm and they had some success but ultimately were beaten by Chinese labor. China had the advantage of both being a MFG base and also a market opportunity. Their labor force in their EEZs were also better educated.
I have read that Brazil's main problem is geography - major population centres are the coast, and separated from each other by difficult-to-pass terrain. Part of what Bolsonaro is trying to do is solve this, through sacrificing the Amazon
Brazil does have logistical problems, but your characterization of them is completelly off. And, by the way, the Amazon isn't logistically "on the way" for anything. The parts that aren't in reach from some quite large ports do not host many people or economical activity.
I would be very interested to know of Finland's economic progress. I suspect the end of the Cold War was a delta, though this is just my intuition. Would love to be educated on this!
Finland was part of Sweden until Napoleonic wars. At that time, the Enlightenment was a fashionable topic among European monarchs. Instead of annexing Finland, Alexander I of Russia set it up as an autonomous grand duchy, as a test case for more modern forms of government. Finland gained a political identity and kept Swedish institutions instead of adopting Russian ones.
Economic growth started in the mid 19th century. Industrialization began, the old guild system was abolished, and there were fancy new things such as public education, own currency, and railroads. When Finland gained independence during WW1, it was largely a formality. There was still a bloody civil war, and Finns didn't really start working together until WW2.
When WW2 ended, Finland was still largely rural. There were war reparations to be paid and refugees from lost territories to resettle. While Finland had leaned towards Germany until then, it was no longer possible, and Sweden became the new role model. Finland focused on heavy industry and technology. People started moving to cities (and to Sweden). Because Finland was a special case as the favorite capitalist country of the Soviet block, trade with the USSR became lucrative. The economy was mostly free but not fully open, and the occasional devaluation of the currency was a key financial tool. By the 1980s, Finland had become a wealthy country.
The end of the Cold War was a catastrophe. Trade with the USSR/Russia collapsed. Business leaders didn't know how to operate in an open market. The government didn't know how to deal with that. The result was probably the worst depression in Finnish history. Other political choices of the time (such as joining the EU) were better. The next center-left/center-right coalition made some good choices, as did Nokia. After 2000, Finland started regularly appearing near the top of various "top countries by [a good thing]" lists.
That was fascinating. Does anyone have recommendations for something that goes into more detail? Finland seems to have had different enough circumstances that it can be a useful test case for grand theories of economic development based on looking at e.g. Asia.
Well, state of the public infrastructure and transportation is top notch in China nowadays. Traveling from big cities in China to big cities in US is like going to the third world country.
Thus, the "developed" country is a mirage, it only applicable to certain aspects of life or economy, while as a whole doesn't hold.
Maybe not "poor" in the literal sense of the word, and certainly much less than they used to be, but also not really fully developed countries comparable to the Western nations.
Click saver: on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_D... has Thailand on 79th place between Peru and Armenia. Malaysia is on place 62 between Costa Rica and Kuwait. The list is 189 entries long so both of these countries are still in the upper half, but there aren't western countries nearby, unless east european countries like Albania and Bulgaria count.
- low wage, high volume, light industry for export - lower wage, high volume, heavy industry - multi-decade protectionism to raise global competitive domestic champions - no democracy, if you can help it to ensure political stability to execute multi-decade strategy
Idiosyncratic caveats:
- Japan got its boost particularly by becoming the arms manufacturer for the US in the Korean War
- Singapore / Hong Kong also had financial liberalisation / international money laundering for the Brits
- Korea / Taiwan / Hong Kong also had shipping
China has followed clearly the same trend (note the irrelevance of the political system, main thing is to avoid democratic instability), simply becoming more massive than any before because it is inherently massive, and has therefore even greater economies of scale to leverage.
reply