What is a developed country?

[Machjo]

The old definition of development, still predominant today, stems from the age of imperialism, whereby Western norms were the definition of development, with any deviancy being lack of development. Over time, the religious aspect has weakened considerably and the cultural one to an extent, though they're both still present (Coulter considering South Korea more developed owing to Christianity or people praising development in Hong Kong owing to their having adopted the English language and cultural norms in international trade).These remnants of the imperial era remain today. The one that hasn't abated much tough is the idea that development is to be measured in terms of material wealth, a measurement that is slowly slipping away as decolonization continues slowly but surely in India, Africa, Hong Kong, and elsewhere.

Antonio Gramsci's theories on cultural hegemony are particularly pertinent here. Yes, he was a Marxist philosopher, but if you can look past his ideological leanings, you'll see he had many good points.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Personally, I'd make a distinction between spiritually developed and materially developed. A spiritually developed nation, even if not yet materially developed, if left to itself, will certainly catch up materially. A materially developed nation lacking in spiritual development will inevitably collapse, as had happened to Europe in WWI and WWII.

To me spiritual development includes moral development, knowing right from wrong, respect for the law, etc.

You may be right, I don’t know. That is the subject for a separate debate. However, until that spiritually developed country shows sufficient growth materially, it won’t be considered a developed country. And looked at it from material point of view, both China and India must grow at the current pace for several decades before they can be considered developed countries.

Which is a near impossibility, incidentally. India and China show such high growth rate purely because they are starting from a very low base of prosperity. Let us say that somebody who earned 1000 $ last year earned 1100 $ this year, an impressive increase of 10%. Now suppose somebody who earned 100,000 $ last year earned 105,000 $ this year, growth rate of only 5%. By no stretch of imagination would you say that the first man is better off than the second man.

After these countries grow for a few years, such growth rate will be impossible to sustain, since they will have to grow starting with a much bigger base. At some stage the breakneck pace of growth in China and India must inevitably come to an end.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We should consider also that in some families, the family may be rich, but without love the children will never thrive and likely never follow in their parents' material footsteps and might even come to resent material wealth as the cause of many conflicts in the family.

A poor child with loving parents is more likely to grow and develop not only materially but spiritualy too and likely be happier overall.

You are talking of intangibles here, which are a matter of debate. Different people will disagree as to which countries have more of these intangibles and which countries have less. For instance, Saudi Arabia may claim that it is a more moral country than USA or Canada or India. And according to diktats of Koran, they would be right.

Per capita income is an objective measure, something that can be quantified.

 

[JLM]

We should consider also that in some families, the family may be rich, but without love the children will never thrive and likely never follow in their parents' material footsteps and might even come to resent material wealth as the cause of many conflicts in the family.

A poor child with loving parents is more likely to grow and develop not only materially but spiritualy too and likely be happier overall.

Kids from poor families generally have the added benefit of being more resourceful.

 

[JLM]

The term "developed country" on its own is very stupid. Back in 1957 when the U.S.S.R. put the first satellite into orbit, one could argue (and the U.S. was probably afraid they were) they were the most developed country in the world.

 

[lone wolf]

The term "developed country" on its own is very stupid. Back in 1957 when the U.S.S.R. put the first satellite into orbit, one could argue (and the U.S. was probably afraid they were) they were the most developed country in the world.

I suspect Europeans felt the same when gunpowder blasted them into developing....

 

[Machjo]

You are talking of intangibles here, which are a matter of debate. Different people will disagree as to which countries have more of these intangibles and which countries have less. For instance, Saudi Arabia may claim that it is a more moral country than USA or Canada or India. And according to diktats of Koran, they would be right.

Per capita income is an objective measure, something that can be quantified.

The fact that it's more intangible does not mean it doesn't exist. We cannot observe spiritual development directly, but we can observe its result.

If we're talking about development, and we can't measure spiritual development in terms of smiles per capita per year ratios, then, in order to emphasize the limited scope of what we are referring to, it would be more accurate to say 'material development'. As such, we'd be comparing the material development of one country to that of another. On that front, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were far more materially developed than British India which was busy getting its resources sucked out from under it yet still showed a certain sense of moral leadership in such persons as Gandhi, Nehru, and others.

So looking at it that way, the thread is not actually about development generally, but more specifically material development. Spiritual development could also include how we treat other countries, whether we stereotype them negatively, etc. too.

To take an example, a country extremely poor in natural resources might never become materially equally developed as one with plenty of resources. But if that country's people are more fair-minded than in other countries, then that country may very well be more spiritually developed than others.