What India, Brazil, China and a lot of other "developing" countries have had is investment from trans-national corporations based in the West. These companies have basically industrialised these poorer countries. As a result, they have more diversity in industry now (not just farming for resources, they actually MAKE things that can be traded).
This has led to an increase in wealth, which has been used properly in a lot of places (East Asia especially here) to diversify further, improve education facilities, and promote the growth of further industry ("service economies" and information/scientific, which is more like what dominates in The West).
There's 4 categories of industry; Primary (basic, resource gathering), Secondary (making shit, factory work), Tertiary (a "service" economy, consumerism, transport, business, etc) and Quaternary (Information technology, education, scientific). Generally, the more developed a country is, the less primary industry it has and the more Tertiary and Quaternary dominates.
Africa lags because it hasn't had that investment and diversifying of industry, transnationals aren't opening up factories and other industries there... it's stuck in a rut of being the continent that's only seen as useful for mining shit, farming and getting natural resources. When that's all a region has to offer, they're not going to make money very fast... unless it's like oil or something, which is how The Middle East got rich.
There are endemic social problems as well; corruption, lack of high education, stupidly high birth rates, unmitigated spread of HIV and other diseases. They do contribute.
I don't accept "colonialism!" as an excuse. It's been, what 70 years since The British and French left? That's 3 generations ago. I can't stand countries blaming social regressivism on some policy "The British!" might or might not have implemented during their stay. As someone of Maltese descent, I'm not going to sit and blame The European Knights for Catholicising Malta, and that's why abortion (in ANY circumstance) is still illegal in 2017. Fuck that shit, no, today Maltese people are accountable for that, and I'm going to point it out and say what a fucking disgrace it is because I want better for women of my ethnicity.
Industries are not woven out of thin air, though. Brazil, India and China are successful for many reasons, and although the reason you mention is valid, they only attracted capital because they were already more fortunate both socially and economically in order to do so. All of these countries had native elites with higher education during the early industrial era, and it was thus much easier for them to start new industries when they accumulated the power and influence after colonization in order to do so.
Why is Africa still poor after all these years?
← View full post
Lack of investment from other countries.
What India, Brazil, China and a lot of other "developing" countries have had is investment from trans-national corporations based in the West. These companies have basically industrialised these poorer countries. As a result, they have more diversity in industry now (not just farming for resources, they actually MAKE things that can be traded).
This has led to an increase in wealth, which has been used properly in a lot of places (East Asia especially here) to diversify further, improve education facilities, and promote the growth of further industry ("service economies" and information/scientific, which is more like what dominates in The West).
There's 4 categories of industry; Primary (basic, resource gathering), Secondary (making shit, factory work), Tertiary (a "service" economy, consumerism, transport, business, etc) and Quaternary (Information technology, education, scientific). Generally, the more developed a country is, the less primary industry it has and the more Tertiary and Quaternary dominates.
Africa lags because it hasn't had that investment and diversifying of industry, transnationals aren't opening up factories and other industries there... it's stuck in a rut of being the continent that's only seen as useful for mining shit, farming and getting natural resources. When that's all a region has to offer, they're not going to make money very fast... unless it's like oil or something, which is how The Middle East got rich.
There are endemic social problems as well; corruption, lack of high education, stupidly high birth rates, unmitigated spread of HIV and other diseases. They do contribute.
I don't accept "colonialism!" as an excuse. It's been, what 70 years since The British and French left? That's 3 generations ago. I can't stand countries blaming social regressivism on some policy "The British!" might or might not have implemented during their stay. As someone of Maltese descent, I'm not going to sit and blame The European Knights for Catholicising Malta, and that's why abortion (in ANY circumstance) is still illegal in 2017. Fuck that shit, no, today Maltese people are accountable for that, and I'm going to point it out and say what a fucking disgrace it is because I want better for women of my ethnicity.
--
Countess_Kittycat
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Industries are not woven out of thin air, though. Brazil, India and China are successful for many reasons, and although the reason you mention is valid, they only attracted capital because they were already more fortunate both socially and economically in order to do so. All of these countries had native elites with higher education during the early industrial era, and it was thus much easier for them to start new industries when they accumulated the power and influence after colonization in order to do so.