|
To answer the "so what" factor, you are moving into the work of Richard Lynn and associates.
Many decades ago I was looking at international development and came to a slightly different conclusion. As a young and politically-incorrect undergrad at the time, I was wondering if any so-called "developing" countries in fact became developed. I reasoned that if non of them has developed, then the older but less politically correct term "underdeveloped" may be more apt.
At the time, I could find four that were qualified to be called "developing" countries-Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. They all seemed to have certain characteristics in common. They were small, non democratic, capitalistic, and highly influenced by Confucianism. I was wondering if they were necessary but insufficient factors in development.
I remember looking at Singapore and Trinidad in particular. They both were ruled by Britain, became independent at around the same time and had the time to produce two generations of the administration class. Furthermore, Trinidad discovered oil on her territory. On the surface, Singapore should have been out-classed. All she has is a harbor. Reality as we all know is quite different.
The strangest case was Argentina. She managed to turn herself from one of the world's richest in the late 1800s to a basket case by the 1970s. Unbelievable.
With the recent advances in China and India, I can see that my hypothesis was too "narrow". What is happening in Kenya, on the other hand, makes me wonder.
Interesting diversion from the topic.
|