How do we rate developed countries?

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,601
Florania
GDP per capital is certainly NOT the only factor; if so, the parvenu (or the more fashionable word, tuhao) state of Equatorial Guinea can be considered developed.
Bahamas, Barbados, and a few other Caribbean states have fairly high GDP per capital; we don't call them developed.
The literacy rate in Tunisia, Ghana, and a few other African countries is lower than that of Vietnam, the Philippines, and Cambodia, despite having similar GDP per capital.
What render countries developed?
Why are so many countries struck in the middle income trap?
What countries are in the developed club and what are their characteristics?
If there is a clear-cut definition, I won't bother to discuss.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,961
Sydney
.
It seems to me that the ability to export manufactured goods come close
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,169
Lisbon, Portugal
GDP per capital is certainly NOT the only factor; if so, the parvenu (or the more fashionable word, tuhao) state of Equatorial Guinea can be considered developed.
Bahamas, Barbados, and a few other Caribbean states have fairly high GDP per capital; we don't call them developed.
The literacy rate in Tunisia, Ghana, and a few other African countries is lower than that of Vietnam, the Philippines, and Cambodia, despite having similar GDP per capital.
What render countries developed?
Why are so many countries struck in the middle income trap?
What countries are in the developed club and what are their characteristics?
If there is a clear-cut definition, I won't bother to discuss.
See the UN development index and look for the category "Very high development", and also see the World Bank GNI per capita index and look for the category "High income country"

If a country in those indexes is concluded both in the "Very High Development" category and "High Income country" then it is part of the developed club.

Many countries get stuck in the middle income trap because they lack structural institutions of government and economic transparency, which are important for the sustainable of economic prosperity. Building a stable high income economy takes more than just industrialising a country.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,802
GDP per capital is certainly NOT the only factor; if so, the parvenu (or the more fashionable word, tuhao) state of Equatorial Guinea can be considered developed.
Bahamas, Barbados, and a few other Caribbean states have fairly high GDP per capital; we don't call them developed.
The literacy rate in Tunisia, Ghana, and a few other African countries is lower than that of Vietnam, the Philippines, and Cambodia, despite having similar GDP per capital.
What render countries developed?
Why are so many countries struck in the middle income trap?
What countries are in the developed club and what are their characteristics?
If there is a clear-cut definition, I won't bother to discuss.
Equatorial Guina has less than 9 000 $ per capita (3 times less than Spain) so I dont see how it can be considered developed....

In addition smallish islands or "countries" (such as Bahamas, pop less than 400 thousand) are not representative of anything... I would advise to take countries with a population of at least 10 mio if you want to discuss development

Once you take 10mio+ countries, GDP per capita is a fairly good indicator.
Secondly you have to look at what a country is able to produce... Ability to produce sophisticated goods (planes, factories, ships, electronics etc..) is a good indicator of development as is the ability to have a majority of goods and services in its exports (as opposed to raw materials and agricultural products)
 
Last edited:

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,169
Lisbon, Portugal
Equatorial Guina has less than 9 000 $ per capita (3 times less than Spain) so I dont see how it can be considered developed....

In addition smallish islands or "countries" (such as Bahamas, pop less than 400 thousand) are not representative of anything... I would advise to take countries with a population of at least 10 mio if you want to discuss development

Once you take 10mio+ countries, GDP per capita is a fairly good indicator.
Secondly you have to look at what a country is able to produce... Ability to produce sophisticated goods (planes, factories, ships, electronics etc..) is a good indicator of development as is the ability to have a majority of goods and services in its exports (as opposed to raw materials and agricultural products)
The real mark of development is the ability of a country to provide good quality of life and prosperity to its citizens - irrespective of their population - that's it.
The ability to produce sophisticated goods such as airplanes amd ships doesn't tell anything to be honest. If that was so, then Russia would be a more developed country then the Netherlands...
 

RoryOMore

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,395
USA
The real mark of development is the ability of a country to provide good quality of life and prosperity to its citizens - irrespective of their population - that's it.
.
I think that this is best shown by population flows. Long term patterns rather than short-term, of youngish people with skills. Which countries attract people who are seeking opportunity and challenge, rather than running from a bad situation?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,802
The real mark of development is the ability of a country to provide good quality of life and prosperity to its citizens - irrespective of their population - that's it.
The ability to produce sophisticated goods such as airplanes amd ships doesn't tell anything to be honest. If that was so, then Russia would be a more developed country then the Netherlands...
No, it does not work.... Prosperity can be provided in low populated areas sitting on large amounts of raw material (e.g. gulf countries) without much development...
Quality of life also depends on environment..... I dont believe you can have good quality of life in the arctic for example....
And yes the ability to produce sophisticated goods tells a lot.... and the netherlands does produce them
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,802
I think that this is best shown by population flows. Long term patterns rather than short-term, of youngish people with skills. Which countries attract people who are seeking opportunity and challenge, rather than running from a bad situation?
Animals go to water, people go to money..... Which is why Saudi is one of the top immigration destinations of the world, despite being quite a crappy place... and hardly a model of development....
On the other hand not much immigration to Japan, simply because Japan has no need for labor and has restrictive immigration policies in place... Yet no one can deny that Japan is quite developed
 
Sep 2017
5
Mayberry: After Heroin and Deindustrialization
There is a distinction to be made between GDP nominal and GDP per capita. GDP per capita measures the purchasing power of individuals in a country and seems to best reflect a country's development as far as wealth and prosperity.

Of course, a country that experiences a crazy boom may have rapidly increased per capita income and therefore GDP per capita, but the country may lack development in the sense of infrastructure, sanitation, etc..(think of a gold rush boom-town type scenario).

So I would say GDP per capita should be regarded as the general indicator of national development, and the specific indicator of development should be GDP per capita in conjunction with the physical development of the country in regards to its technology, infrastructure, and public utilities etc (in order to account for boom economies).

I am curious who would disagree with this suggestion and why. Let me know.