Why do third world countries remain underdeveloped?

[theessexfox]

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm 

 

Here is an interesting article about neo-colonialism, though a little lengthy. The main premise is that post-colonial states remain underdeveloped and trapped in poverty as developed nations, often the former colonial masters, still have a large control over the economic system and political policy of the country, to its own benefit. The objective of neo-colonialism is to widen the gap between the rich and the poor nations, with living standards depressed and people exploited in the post-colonial state, whilst the profits go into the profits of multinational corporations in the developed world. 

 

I went to Kenya last summer, and the depth of poverty in spite of recent improvements is inescapable, and there is no immediate cause or solution to be seen. One man I spoke with talked about the level of corruption in Kenya, which he described as systematic and at all levels of governance, to the extent that everyone hopes for a huge win for one side in an election to avoid civil unrest.

 

I have a very limited knowledge of post-colonialism and international development, and I think it is a topic that inevitably gets shunned and little attention in the media in the face of more immediate domestic issues. Why, do you think, third world countries retain such levels of underdevelopment so many decades after colonialism ended? 

[Webbo]

Can't be arsed to read all that especially as it's written by Marxists and is bound to be bollox. As soon as I saw neo colonialism I switched off.

 

When we eventually achieve Brexit we can remove the external tariffs of the EU and import more food and other goods from the third world, cheaper food for us and a boost to all those countries. Trade is the only sustainable way out of poverty.

[SMX11]

The lack of the rule of law, private property, economic freedom and governments being propped up by foreign aid.
 

[ithuriel]

So many causes, the cold war with war by proxy, the west supporting their puppets whilst the east supported the communist sides.

Tribal factions restarting age old conflicts, dictators  rising from the armed forces of these countries to control governments because of the direction they wanted their countries to go in.

The drugs and slave trade, rich criminals controlling key governing positions etc.,

Religious strife thrown into the mix too.

In a lot of cases these countries have been under their own rule for the better part of half a century and they have steadily gone backwards, mostly due to misrule.

Then again you have countries like Argentina that have been a mess for a hell of a long time, sometimes just bad governments are to blame.

[Merging Cultures]

Read "The Looting Machine" by Tom Burgis. It is focused on Africa, but similar rules apply elsewhere.

 

PM me if you are really interested. I've worked and lived in some of the "worst places" in the world.

[Strokes]

Probably not helped by the fact wealthier nations have more to offer their best and brightest people.....but hey immigration is good for everyone. 

[boots60]

Simple geography - The climate

[Merging Cultures]

Simple geography - The climate

Holy shit. Mind blown.

[leicsmac]

Because the first world nations want to remain so and have a steady supply of leaders to support in those third world countries who they know will keep them in that state?

 

Disrupting the status quo is bad for business.

[Great Boos Up]

A vicious cycle of power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In my opinion. (from John Emerich Edward)

[breadandcheese]

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

 

"Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

 

Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10. Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth. Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third. A 1% increase in incomes in the most unequal countries produces a mere 0.6% reduction in poverty; in the most equal countries, it yields a 4.3% cut."

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

Too much shagging going on in the 3rd world to ever get time to develop anything

[MattCan]

Corruptible governments and institutions in the Third World. Loved and supported by the First World.

[Benguin]

Because celebrities don't look sad enough when they ask us to donate to aid charities.

 

 

[MPH]

take Nicaragua for example. I have been there a few times ... some companies have ' helped' the country by opening some businesses there. Now don't get me wrong, there's no malice intended. Managua for example has had some call centers open up here where the pay is equivalent to $450 a month. The national wage average is equivalent to $250 a month so on the surface it's a great thing and in many ways it is.. but you obviously have to have a very very good lvl of English to work in them and these are staffed entirely by university graduates. I just wonder if it's  in the long term interests of a nation if it's university graduates are working in call centers instead of taking entry lvl jobs in the business/ trade and commerce sectors which are a considerably lower wage?

[ozleicester]

greed and neoliberalism

[Harry - LCFC]

I'll read it later but as Webbo says, the words 'Marxism' and 'neocolonialism' indicate to me that it's wrong.

[leicsmac]

54 minutes ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I'll read it later but as Webbo says, the words 'Marxism' and 'neocolonialism' indicate to me that it's wrong.

Yeah, the article may well come from a biased source and might identify the reasons for the problem incorrectly, but I think it's reasonably evident that a problem exists and the richer nations aren't really helping, yeah?

[Barky]

Don't think the richer nations are always to blame. How are richer nations to blame for places like north korea or Burma? Often I think the problems are homegrown, but it almost always comes down to greed for power and consequent failure to establish inclusive systems of government

[Webbo]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, the article may well come from a biased source and might identify the reasons for the problem incorrectly, but I think it's reasonably evident that a problem exists and the richer nations aren't really helping, yeah?

Biased is the wrong word. It's incorrect to say that one country is poor because another country is rich. It's not in anyone's interest to keep people in poverty. Wealthy countries are usually politically stable and they spend money with other wealthy countries. 

[ozleicester]

countries are barely different to people... there are a few with too much and many with too little. 

 

Those with too much could share, but they dont, they hoard and greedily keep those without deliberately without, in order to continue to increase their hoard, with little or no concern for those without.

[bovril]

27 minutes ago, Barky said:

Don't think the richer nations are always to blame. How are richer nations to blame for places like north korea or Burma? Often I think the problems are homegrown, but it almost always comes down to greed for power and consequent failure to establish inclusive systems of government

I agree with your first sentence but I'm not sure N Korea is the best example.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

Don't think the richer nations are always to blame. How are richer nations to blame for places like north korea or Burma? Often I think the problems are homegrown, but it almost always comes down to greed for power and consequent failure to establish inclusive systems of government

The Korean situation can be traced back to the superpowers cleaving Korea in two at the end of world war 2 just because it was politically expedient, without caring one wit for the people they were dividing. Apart from the guys that could be trusted to run the show as puppets, of course.

 

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Biased is the wrong word. It's incorrect to say that one country is poor because another country is rich. It's not in anyone's interest to keep people in poverty. Wealthy countries are usually politically stable and they spend money with other wealthy countries. 

Of course it is. Wealth is a zero sum game right now (though ironically it doesn't have to be) and so of course those who have more want to keep it. Instability serves the purpose of those already stable just fine.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

 

Of course it is. Wealth is a zero sum game right now (though ironically it doesn't have to be) and so of course those who have more want to keep it. Instability serves the purpose of those already stable just fine.

No it's not. We're not poorer in this country because China and India are richer than they were 20 years ago.The cheap consumer products they make are saving ordinary people money.  We're not poorer because Saudi Arabia make billions selling oil, if they didn't sell us oil we wouldn't have cars, lorries, planes and cargo ships like we have now. They all create jobs, make trading easier, spreading the wealth around.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

No it's not. We're not poorer in this country because China and India are richer than they were 20 years ago.The cheap consumer products they make are saving ordinary people money.  We're not poorer because Saudi Arabia make billions selling oil, if they didn't sell us oil we wouldn't have cars, lorries, planes and cargo ships like we have now. They all create jobs, make trading easier, spreading the wealth around.

Some people might argue we're poorer in influence than we were a few decades back, but that's another discussion.

 

I've no disagreement that trade does help countries get richer (having a key resource helps), but how do you explain that these countries are poor and remain poor? I'm reasonably sure it's not all down to their own leadership errors, not when it's a matter of record that the Great Powers like to play politics in those regions.