Countries to be developed by 2050 (2014, lease, house)

[pigeonhole]

To kettlepot : and Brazil and India? you didn't mention them. They are major actors though.

[kettlepot]

India is developing rapidly, but there are simply too many Indians for 40 more years of development to raise their standard of living to First World levels. Same applies to China. As for Brazil, again, fast but not spectacular levels of growth, will not be enough to raise the nation into the First World. It's important to understand what puts a country into the First World. It isn't the size of your economy; it's the size of your economy, per capita. India, and China have WAAAYYYY too many Per Capitas, and Brazil isn't growing fast enough to reach a First World standard of living in 40 years.

That's why I consider Argentina the biggest disappointment. In 1900 Argentina's per capita GDP was almost on par with the first rung of nations. Now, after a century of mismanagement, it only has a middling standard of living. The natural wealth of the country is still there, but stupidity squandered it.

[pigeonhole]

But then if you retain the Per Capita criterion, Russia with a relatively small and dwindling population ,and important resources should make it one day, or is its mismanagement hopeless too?

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

Classifying countries based on their standards of living is not our call to make. That decision is up to international powers and currently, they only give two classifications - First World, and Third World.

I suppose it would make since to have a third category characterizing countries that are middle income, but they don't.

Actually, the most commonly used these days is "developed" or OECD member and "developing". The 1st 2nd and 3rd world is only really used colloquially now.

Originally Posted by pigeonhole

Just seen on TV a report on Angola, thanks to diamonds and oil, and the end of the civil war and political stability since a few war, this African country is experimenting a boom, and believe it or not, the journalist was saying that up to 20% of the population is earning more than 30.000 $ (and among them there are already tycoons). One of the rare success stories on that continent?

Not really. Gabon has a high standard of living due to mineral wealth and slow population growth. Botswana has been middle income for a while now, and has a higher GDP per capita than most developing nations. These two have long been candidates for the first developed countries in Africa. Angola is also booming as stated above.

India, China, and to a lesser extent, Brazil have far too many people. Even if their nations economies continue to grow, they will still have rampant poverty for the foreseeable future.

[jaytr]

Kettlepot,
Good analysis. I see you are as interested in global affairs as I am. I agree with almost all of your picks and reasoning. These are where I differ and why:

First World:
Costa Rica: no real growth industry, other than tourism. Good governance is not enough.
Thailand: governance has always been a mess--requires a strongman to get anything done. Bangkok is a joke, and it gets much worse outside the capital (I've explored all over the country). It doesn't have the structure and vision of Taiwan and South Korea.

Possible Middle Income Countries:
Philippines: a country that will forever hold potential, but unrealized. Too much inefficiency, corruption, underdevelopment outside the capital. Sad to see.

Will Not Achieve Developed Status:
Colombia: I think this S. American country has relatively good governance and leadership. FARC is severely weakened, and Colombia may well prosper. More inroads into drug territories have been made, and remote farmers/villagers are gradually siding with the government/law.

Again, I'm impressed with your summaries and predictions.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by jaytr

Kettlepot,
Good analysis. I see you are as interested in global affairs as I am. I agree with almost all of your picks and reasoning. These are where I differ and why:

First World:
Costa Rica: no real growth industry, other than tourism. Good governance is not enough.

You may be right about Costa Rica. My reasoning was based entirely upon its history of good governance. And Tourism will never bring a country to a First World standard of living. Still there are many countries that have developed, (Japan, Hong Kong) who had nothing more than good government. So take Costa Rica's good government, and add in some vision, and maybe they could make a go of it.

Originally Posted by jaytr

Thailand: governance has always been a mess--requires a strongman to get anything done. Bangkok is a joke, and it gets much worse outside the capital (I've explored all over the country). It doesn't have the structure and vision of Taiwan and South Korea.

Possible Middle Income Countries:
Philippines: a country that will forever hold potential, but unrealized. Too much inefficiency, corruption, underdevelopment outside the capital. Sad to see.

Perhaps in these two countries, I'm envisioning the triumph of propinquity over embedded social and governmental behavioral norms. If these two societies aren't militantly resistant to outside influence (ala DPRK, and Myanmar), they may be forced to change by the sheer force of the money pouring in. That's my hope anyway.

Originally Posted by jaytr

Will Not Achieve Developed Status:
Colombia: I think this S. American country has relatively good governance and leadership. FARC is severely weakened, and Colombia may well prosper. More inroads into drug territories have been made, and remote farmers/villagers are gradually siding with the government/law.

I would certainly like to see Colombia succeed, and I do agree that Colombia in recent years has had leadership on many levels (not just Presidential) that has been positively courageous. However, can this high level of leadership be maintained over the coming decades? Leadership is sort of a hit or miss thing, while demand for drugs seems to be an immutable constant.

Also, as long as Chavez is in power, he along with his allies, will be actively seeking to undermine the country. If there will be any one thing he won't be able to abide, it will be success in Colombia. The counter example would be more than he could bear. Chavez will pour resources into destroying Colombia so that it may join his Bolivarian revolution and bring more territorial contiguity. With the addition of Colombia, he would be on the border with Panama reaching north towards his existing allies in Nicaragua, and he would have connected with his compatriot in Ecuador, and beginning to reach south towards his ally in Bolivia. You can see how Colombia is probably the linchpin to his plans.

Finally, as a general rule, I don't consider wealthy countries that are entirely dependent on a single industry (oil), and run that industry using outside management and the importation of outside technology and equipment, as true First World countries. Therefore, that takes wealthy Gulf states out of the First World for my purposes. So far, only the UAE and Bahrain seem to be thinking beyond the oil box. Russia is fooling itself into thinking it is developing, when all it is really doing is funding its current standard of living, and military power, by extracting a non-renewable resource.

[jja100]

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

Soooo!!! Out of curiosity, which additional countries do you, the people of city-data, think will be put on the list of 'Developed' or 'High Income' by 2050?

The BRIC nations. This is where most of the "emerging market" capital is being thrown at which can only mean higher standards of living for the near future for these nations.

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

In the year 1950, developed(First World) referred to only a very small number of countries. Namely, America(US), Canada, and a few Western/northern european countries. From 1950 to 2000, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Greece, Italy, Spain, and numerous others joined the list.

You can take Italy, Spain, and Greece off that list.

Italy still doesn't have natural gas piped into many homes and there is a huge water problem in Sicily. The bureaucracy and poor/corrupt judicial system in Italy is very high which makes getting anything done a chore. The Italian telephone company is looking to Mexico for help and their Airline just got bought out by Air France. Ebay sellers are refusing to ship merchandise to Italy because they don't want to be responsible for the Italian postal service losing packages. It also takes a long time to receive any package in Italy. Italy also had a refuse problem in Naples that had to be taken care of. They don't want to bury the waste nearby so they were contemplating on paying other northern countries to burn their refuse.

Both Italy and Spain are having a difficult time with African and Romanian illegal immigration sucking off of the social system and causing crime. Greece is much like Italy in terms of complacency. The wheels hardly turn and if they do turn they are turning in the wrong direction.

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

Here is a list of countries that are considered third world today, but I think they will achieve first world status by 2050.

Just a few to mention:

Mexico, Chile, Poland, Turkey, Russia, Malaysia

Today, these are all firmely established middle - income countries. If their current economic growth rate continues, then I am sure their futures are quite bright.

Are there any that you all would add to the list?

Only Chile, Turkey, and Russia will make it on that list according to my own research. Chile has a very good pension system and is moving in the right direction in terms of a flat tax system. Turkey is doing very well with its exports and Russia as well is a very oil rich country.

Someone mentioned Argentina moving up the latter but I doubt that seriously. Uruguay will surpass Argentina very soon if it hasn't already. Argentina is much like Italy in that it has such a horrible judicial system and cheating is a way of life there for survival. Argentina has an absolute economy in that it has everything it needs to self sustain itself but the political bureaucracy and socialist/anti-capitalist mentality will prevent anybody from accumulating wealth that doesn't already start out with it. Wealthy Argentinians basically make money by renting out their apartment flats in Buenos Aires to tourists on short term leases in American dollars and converting those dollars into many weak pesos which gives them huge buying power compared to the rest of the nation.

[jtur88]

Forty years is a long time. and things will change faster than they've ever changed before. . Iran. Indonesia. Lithuania. Slovenia.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

You may be right about Costa Rica. My reasoning was based entirely upon its history of good governance. And Tourism will never bring a country to a First World standard of living.

Barbados is first world or very nearly so. Although possibly more than just tourism was involved.

Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

I believe Andorra got to First World status mostly through tourism and a bit of smuggling.

Common denominator being smallness. Tourism can, perhaps, bring a country to First World status if it's quite small in under population and area.

[CravingMountains]

I think tourism can be a major driver for economic growth. Like a previous poster mentioned, though, in order for tourism to put a country in developed status the population needs to be small. Barbados and The Bahamas have a high gdp per capita because tourism is their main industry and they both have small populations (The Bahamas I know only has about 300,000 people living there).

Countries like Haiti, with 9 million people, cannot rely on tourism to bring them out of poverty. There are too many people for the industry to support.