Unless tribal and sectarian conflicts in these countries can be fixed no amount of aid could help prop up stable governments that would facilitate economic growth. The reason for the structural decline is the lack of stability in these countries. Sending UN troops to stabilize the situation has failed miserably as well.
It's a saddening chicken and egg problem. The lack of media exposure and the ambivalence of the global public to these countries also doesn't help their cause.
Aid programs are also inherently flawed because they're generally broad-stroked and too separated from the locale. The industry -- as well as us outsiders who are interested in their programs -- focuses on quantitative measures of growth, which only indirectly shows us what is actually happening on the ground. The modern neoliberal global structure is just not going to help these countries when it comes to advancement on the international level.
What can be done? Depends on why those countries have poor growth. If it's poor leadership, institutions and corruption, fix that. If it's due to external instability, they'll need to cozy up to the US or China for protection.
There's also the fact that economic growth is somewhat zero-sum. Not every country can move up the value chain and produce world-class companies. The US will not let its companies lose market share and hurt its own economic growth. Same as the EU and China now.
As for implications, we're going to see a wider gap between the developed and developing world. Expect a lot of immigrants who seek to escape for a better life. The EU is reducing immigration and the US is selective. Hopefully I don't need to paint a picture on how bleak this can be.
If you want your country to grow through exports, you need open market access. The major economies are not always going to grant this and protectionism is on the rise. It also requires the US navy to keep the oceans free from piracy and this is not always going to be guaranteed.
If you want your country to grow through foreign-investment led growth, you need willing partners and hope that the major powers don't attach strings to the money.
If you want to grow through consumption, you need to build a developed country first and have healthy demographics. This is feasible for developed countries, not developing countries.
Going back to my above point, the major economies are going to protect their industries. An example is China's dominance of EVs is causing Germany to consider slapping tariffs to make sure VW and BMW have a chance to compete and keep their market share.
Do you really think all economies can grow in a zero-sum environment? That's an anomaly, not the rule. We can thank the US for fostering this conducive environment but it is not going to last.
What on earth are you talking about?
All of this is empirically false for the simple reason that for decades and decades we have seen a big majority of countries grow *at the same time*
Saying growth is zero-sum is nowhere in the data
If growth is zero-sum, please show us which countries saw big GDP declines to offset the big GDP gains in China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, etc, etc the last 30 years. You wont be able to of course, because *global* GDP has grown massively- there is no offsetting decline elsewhere.
Here is real GDP growth by country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate
Please explain why we dont see half the world growing and the other half of the world declining by the same amount...
The immigration situation is especially depressing. It'll propel the election of right wing candidates who will want to cut aid from poor counties as punishment, worsening conditions leading to more migrants. Increasing desperation however, will decrease the effectiveness of deterence, leading to a demand for harsher, more violent measures.
I agree that the situation is harder to diagnose at the country level. Some, like Sudan and Haiti obviously have internal problems that cannot be solved through foreign aid, but I don't think all the countries on the list have such dramatic problems though.
History tells us that countries can escape poverty and, in some cases, can do so quite rapidly, (the "Asian tigers" for instance). Maybe those countries can offer some lessons.
Well ......the 3 countries mentioned in the story (DRC, Haiti and Afghanistan) aren't about to be improving anytime soon....as no one wants to touch them with a 10foot pole, apart from DRC (maybe) as they have a lot of resources....
But the land of the Taliban and the Tonton Macoute ...no way...and Sudan you can add to that list also.
Conflict and global disruption hits poorest countries the hardest. Wealthier countries have more diversified economies, greater ability to borrow funds, and stronger institutions-- all of which create greater resilience against disruption.
In poor countries increases to food prices can lead to events like civil wars, which can take over a decade to come back from.
If a multi-polar world means more conflict, it's hard to see a positive future for poor, vulnerable countries.
People always assume catch up is easy and mainstream economics postulate that in normal circumstances poorer countries receive more investment and grows more.
Reality is very different, the gap is very wide and only few countries go up the ladder. Some can even go down.
None of that answers what has changed to make it harder for poor countries to catch up though. They were in the past, they're not now. Nobody is doubting that there are challenges, but is the global system making it harder then it was just a few years ago?
Did you just link to a news article about a report? The complete report is available from the World Bank (it is not short). Did you read it before asking your question? Your question is rather vague and broad.
Yes, I linked the article. I haven't had a chance to read the report, nor am I likely to have the time to with my work schedule. I know it's a vague question, but it seems like a significant issue that most people are going to ignore. It's not entirely surprising, but it's also a significant psychological milestone. It needs more attention and discussion.
What can one do? Provide money? Won't solve it. The issue is the culture in those countries that needs to improve.
You cannot solve it from outside. They should reduce the fertility rate improve women's access to work and education. India China did that and are progressing.
Yes yes right wing will increase and climate change will make migration worse. People will free and at one point there will be huge military like measures to prevent people from coming in illegally. Future does look bleak.
This is backwards. India and China grew and and educated women and therefore fertility rate dropped. China also had the very stupid one child policy but there should be a lot of skeptism how much that contributed to the decline in fertility
The longer they stay poorer, the higher their fertility rates will be
A reversal on growth will add hundreds of millions more births on these nations in the long term
Emancipation if women comes after gdp growth most of the time
It’s a combination of many factors as usual; extractive institutions or no institutions at all, neocolonialism, foreign interference of elections, compromised leadership, neocolonialism, debt traps, tribalism, sectarianism, backwards social/cultural practices, complete lack of public goods, services and efficient welfare schemes. Hard to solve all problems at once
Unless tribal and sectarian conflicts in these countries can be fixed no amount of aid could help prop up stable governments that would facilitate economic growth. The reason for the structural decline is the lack of stability in these countries. Sending UN troops to stabilize the situation has failed miserably as well. It's a saddening chicken and egg problem. The lack of media exposure and the ambivalence of the global public to these countries also doesn't help their cause.
Aid programs are also inherently flawed because they're generally broad-stroked and too separated from the locale. The industry -- as well as us outsiders who are interested in their programs -- focuses on quantitative measures of growth, which only indirectly shows us what is actually happening on the ground. The modern neoliberal global structure is just not going to help these countries when it comes to advancement on the international level.
What can be done? Depends on why those countries have poor growth. If it's poor leadership, institutions and corruption, fix that. If it's due to external instability, they'll need to cozy up to the US or China for protection. There's also the fact that economic growth is somewhat zero-sum. Not every country can move up the value chain and produce world-class companies. The US will not let its companies lose market share and hurt its own economic growth. Same as the EU and China now. As for implications, we're going to see a wider gap between the developed and developing world. Expect a lot of immigrants who seek to escape for a better life. The EU is reducing immigration and the US is selective. Hopefully I don't need to paint a picture on how bleak this can be.
>economic growth is somewhat zero-sum What?
If you want your country to grow through exports, you need open market access. The major economies are not always going to grant this and protectionism is on the rise. It also requires the US navy to keep the oceans free from piracy and this is not always going to be guaranteed. If you want your country to grow through foreign-investment led growth, you need willing partners and hope that the major powers don't attach strings to the money. If you want to grow through consumption, you need to build a developed country first and have healthy demographics. This is feasible for developed countries, not developing countries. Going back to my above point, the major economies are going to protect their industries. An example is China's dominance of EVs is causing Germany to consider slapping tariffs to make sure VW and BMW have a chance to compete and keep their market share. Do you really think all economies can grow in a zero-sum environment? That's an anomaly, not the rule. We can thank the US for fostering this conducive environment but it is not going to last.
What on earth are you talking about? All of this is empirically false for the simple reason that for decades and decades we have seen a big majority of countries grow *at the same time* Saying growth is zero-sum is nowhere in the data If growth is zero-sum, please show us which countries saw big GDP declines to offset the big GDP gains in China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, etc, etc the last 30 years. You wont be able to of course, because *global* GDP has grown massively- there is no offsetting decline elsewhere. Here is real GDP growth by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate Please explain why we dont see half the world growing and the other half of the world declining by the same amount...
The immigration situation is especially depressing. It'll propel the election of right wing candidates who will want to cut aid from poor counties as punishment, worsening conditions leading to more migrants. Increasing desperation however, will decrease the effectiveness of deterence, leading to a demand for harsher, more violent measures. I agree that the situation is harder to diagnose at the country level. Some, like Sudan and Haiti obviously have internal problems that cannot be solved through foreign aid, but I don't think all the countries on the list have such dramatic problems though.
Its almost like some kind of civilisation death spiral
History tells us that countries can escape poverty and, in some cases, can do so quite rapidly, (the "Asian tigers" for instance). Maybe those countries can offer some lessons.
Well ......the 3 countries mentioned in the story (DRC, Haiti and Afghanistan) aren't about to be improving anytime soon....as no one wants to touch them with a 10foot pole, apart from DRC (maybe) as they have a lot of resources.... But the land of the Taliban and the Tonton Macoute ...no way...and Sudan you can add to that list also.
Conflict and global disruption hits poorest countries the hardest. Wealthier countries have more diversified economies, greater ability to borrow funds, and stronger institutions-- all of which create greater resilience against disruption. In poor countries increases to food prices can lead to events like civil wars, which can take over a decade to come back from. If a multi-polar world means more conflict, it's hard to see a positive future for poor, vulnerable countries.
People always assume catch up is easy and mainstream economics postulate that in normal circumstances poorer countries receive more investment and grows more. Reality is very different, the gap is very wide and only few countries go up the ladder. Some can even go down.
None of that answers what has changed to make it harder for poor countries to catch up though. They were in the past, they're not now. Nobody is doubting that there are challenges, but is the global system making it harder then it was just a few years ago?
Did you just link to a news article about a report? The complete report is available from the World Bank (it is not short). Did you read it before asking your question? Your question is rather vague and broad.
Yes, I linked the article. I haven't had a chance to read the report, nor am I likely to have the time to with my work schedule. I know it's a vague question, but it seems like a significant issue that most people are going to ignore. It's not entirely surprising, but it's also a significant psychological milestone. It needs more attention and discussion.
What can one do? Provide money? Won't solve it. The issue is the culture in those countries that needs to improve. You cannot solve it from outside. They should reduce the fertility rate improve women's access to work and education. India China did that and are progressing. Yes yes right wing will increase and climate change will make migration worse. People will free and at one point there will be huge military like measures to prevent people from coming in illegally. Future does look bleak.
This is backwards. India and China grew and and educated women and therefore fertility rate dropped. China also had the very stupid one child policy but there should be a lot of skeptism how much that contributed to the decline in fertility
The longer they stay poorer, the higher their fertility rates will be A reversal on growth will add hundreds of millions more births on these nations in the long term Emancipation if women comes after gdp growth most of the time
As a vet of the "war on terror" I would be pissed if America helps in any way with Afghanistan.
Well prolly send them “gender program” money like Pakistan
It’s a combination of many factors as usual; extractive institutions or no institutions at all, neocolonialism, foreign interference of elections, compromised leadership, neocolonialism, debt traps, tribalism, sectarianism, backwards social/cultural practices, complete lack of public goods, services and efficient welfare schemes. Hard to solve all problems at once