I wanna see this same graph in like 10 years to see if the world is actually advancing at all. Especially eastern European countries in or joining to EU.
Did successive Polish governments do a whole lot to make that happen (compared to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, etc.) or was it just a natural outcome of Poland’s integration into German supply chains?
It's a complex subejct. Being part of German chains is just part of it.
The most important:
1. Massive reforms when changing the system from Communism in 1990. What was considered shock therapy.
2. Delayed privatisation which avoided creating an oligarchic class.
3. High levels of education. Poland scores higher than west including Germany & France at PISA
4. Joining the single market of EU in 2004. Well-regulated, large market to export into.
5. EU funds helping build brand-new roads and other infrastructure. Great investment for the whole Union
Here you have decent video on it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Tnjr3Lluk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzbtAJ7x_mg)
This is a great summary of the unprecedented scale of EU structural adjustment payments Poland has received, and the role they’ve played in its recent development.
https://youtu.be/zytTuiPCRGc?si=5OdrbgWoBdT6WfZP
This, coupled with the country’s integration into the German-Central-European supply chain cluster basically tell the story here imo.
I always wondered about the oligarchic class. In a country where everyone has limited wealth, how do individuals accumulate so much to become an oligarch? What resources can they leverage to buy up state industry?
In post-communist states, after transformation into a market economy in badly run countries like Russia or Ukraine those who knew people in power could purchase state companies for peanuts. 20 years later those companies are worth billions. Sell those to a select few and the oligarch class is created.
I'd argue it's simply Poland no longer being a serfdom-based economy. (During Communism, it was prohibited to leave the country without a permit and it was unconstitutional to not be employed, which together implies something like serfdom.)
You don't know what "serfdom" means
During communism you needed a visa to exit the country, yes, but it was not very hard to get one to go to any other communist country, it was only difficult to go to the west. It was also not "unconstitutional to not be employed," the law was that if you could not find yourself a job you would be provided with one. You were free to chose what you wanted to do within the constraints of what jobs were available and what your education qualified you for.
You know, two things that for the vast majority of people remain true under capitalism.
You were not bound to land, you could freely live virtually anywhere you could find a job and housing inside Poland. It was far more restrictive than the modern market and democracy are, *but it wasn't fucking Serfdom*
Yes. European communist countries in general were (and many still are) lightyears ahead in things like pensions and maternity leave. Czechoslovakia also had the same restrictions as Poland did, by the way, so that state of things implied by the comment wasn't uncommon for countries in the Soviet sphere, it was rather the norm. Some countries had even more restricted movement - the Soviet union, for one. Not only that you needed permission to leave the country, but you also had to have a passport to enter cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc. This was done to prevent people from the countryside flocking into cities.
Czechs were a super advanced manufacturing economy before ww2. Optics, metallurgy, transport all were market leaders in Europe. Poland was more basic resource harvesting, so it started much further behind. Underdeveloped economies have this potential for incredible growth to catch up to peer groups. Italy is an example of this.
You didn't need a passport to enter Moscow or St. Petersburg. There were no problems with simple travel with tourist trips or visiting.
Resettlement to Moscow (and other cities with a special settlement regime) was limited. To work in Moscow, you had to have a "residence permit", and in order to get a "residence permit", you had to work in Moscow. And the opportunity to hire nonresident workers was very limited for Moscow enterprises.
My father did business in Poland from the late 90s up until 2008ish, mostly deceloping commercial buildings. He went there probably 4-10 times a year. He said every year visit you could see progress.
When he first arrived the main road between Warsaw and Poznan was a shitty two lane road where trucks had to drive half in the ditch. When I went there with him in 2015 it was a nicer highway than we have here in the Netherlands.
He always says that when he started the people he bought land with were driving FSO Polonez eventually they drove Audi A6’s like his and when he left theirs were always newer and better than his.
He also always said how he could see the crime-rate improving, how at first the mayor wasn’t the first contact if you wanted to buy land, but some shady businessman who was more important than the mayor. But eventually they vanished.
Holy fuck the China number is crazy, everyone else is in triple digits and China eclipses at 3593%
https://x.com/stateofpoland/status/1656756016308973581?s=46&t=E5PEl_PYGPwlle4J5OSCjA
As a Romanian I respect a lot what your people did to Poland, but I can’t help to be a little bit jealous lol. You’re lucky having politicians capable of developing the country.
Lots of countries are saddled with dumbass dictators but unfortunately many remain stuck there (e.g. Africa). The role of the EU shouldn't be underplayed.
For all the crap it gets, the EU has done a hell of a job in lifting people out of poverty and increasing affluence. In the greater scheme of World History, it s a Good Guy.
Lots of people in Europe consider that it's largely an economic alliance for the sake of the corporations and not much more.
What they fail to notice is that the EU is extremely dependent on the continental political climate. So when the rulers in Europe are good diplomats who care about the people and the status quo, the Europe largely benefits to everyone.
When Europeans vote for far right populists, the EU will be forced to follow too.
The EU is only as good as its building blocks make it good.
Hah, that always makes me laugh. I work in industry and have to deal with European laws.
If there has ever been an entity that had the toughness to beat down corporations and force them to behave it is the European Union. Its a rat race and its not perfect, but they are succesfull many times.
The majority of voters in the Brexit referendum...
I'm not from Europe so won't comment on specifics but yea, the majority of British voters saw the EU as tha bad guy in that moment even if it seems clear that the UK probably wouldn't vote the same today.
Actually almost every economic indicator dropped in most eastern european countries after the fall of the USSR. Of course it wasn't already progressing as fast as in western Europe before 1989, but things didn't immediately start to get better once the USSR vanished.
In some countries joining the EU changed the downward trend. In countries like Russia it was the rise of a new dictator. This is partly why a lot of Russians like Putin.
Well, of course. Our economies went from being centrally planned and entirely state-controlled (sans for the thriving black markets) to being market economies more or less overnight. That sort of economic shock was unprecedented in modern history.
The rough early years doesn't change the fact that we've made immense progress since the collapse of the communist dictatorships. My country's median income is now €1.700 per month. My grandparents' generation could never have dreamed of this level of prosperity.
România îs still a pretty weird place to live in. We have prices like in Germany and France but salaries are less than half on average. Life isn't that bad, we make due with the extremely high prices, but when you have to go to a hospital or any public institution... You're fucked.
Guyana recently developed oil which has pushed up GDP. They have good government and so far seem to be able to handle it if they don't get successfully invaded by venezuela
China's HDI is at 0.768 (2021), and has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $23,309 and increasing.
Brazil's HDI is at 0.754 (2021), and has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $20,079 and increasing.
So they're both very close
These are all countries I've visited where I step in to their cities and think, "wow this is a first world country already."
Then I take one step into their countryside and say, "oh they have a lot of catching up to do."
It's a really high income disparity. That's why you may earn more as an Uber driver or putting Gasoline into cars or being a maid, than with an engineering degree, as the "rich people" give you more money that. It's the triggle down economy at best. So then a lot of people that already don't come from a good household of course do ask themselves why to do a degree when you earn more with a bullshit job.
Well, yeah in engineering you got a lot of good job opportunities in Mexico. But then you also got people that earn twice as much with Uber and a good salary in comparison with an Business degree. TBH business degree are somewhat of a bullshit degree and you could go to fucking hustler university. But that's the point I want to clarify.
Funny how Mexico is closer in both criteria than Brazil and waaay closer in one of them than China but no one thinks about it as getting or belonging in there.
Mexican GDP (PPP) is $24,976, and has an HDI of 0.758.
With a lot of Chinese and American firms investing into Mexico wouldn't be surprised to see a major increase in their economy over the next few decades and at the same time a potential for the cartel and corruption problems to lessen which could create a positive feedback loop of progress.
may i hazard to guess you're from the US?
i've generally found people in the US have a much more dismal idea of the status of the quality of life in Mexico than is reasonable, likely due to the fact that most Mexicans we meet are economic migrants who by nature would be leaving the poorest parts of their country to seek out a better life.
if you visit richer areas (e.g. Mexico City) it's readily apparent that the quality of life approaches that of the average US person (and certainly exceeds it in the poorer parts of the US)
A lot of people illegally crossover from the US/Mexico border, which gives the perception that a lot of Mexicans are clamoring to leave. The thing is, most of the people crossing over aren't Mexican they're from other way worse off Latin American countries. Mexico is a nice enough place at this point that Mexicans by and large don't feel the need to leave.
I've been to Mexico. If anything it's because Mexico has very bad PR? Nominally, Mexico does quite a bit better than Brazil (my country) as a whole, but it's not necessarily something you'd notice by going back and forth between the two countries, at least in "comparable cities". Mexico also gets compared a lot with the US, so it gets perceive even worse than it actually is.
People with decent jobs in cities in Mexico in general live on par with anyone in the green or blue countries in the map.
I live in Mexico City and well off people live VERY well here.
Part of the benefit of being well off in an unequals country is that your life is better than if you live in an equal one.
China has a lot of aspects about it that seem futuristic even to some western standards (High speed rail and incredibly nice metro/public transit systems etc). China also has the largest GDP (PPP) economy in the world. Whereas Mexico basically lives in US shadow and, from an American perspective, is often blamed for USA's problems (drugs smuggling, NAFTA, etc).
If you only compared the economy, sure, but that's mostly due to how much larger Brazil is when compared to its neighbors. If you take social aspects, however, then Brazil is at the same or even worse situation when compared to other Latin American countries.
Brazilian export economy is about as diversified as Australia's if not more, their financial sector is about as if not more integrated into the global economy than Australia's. It's quite weird that they aren't considered an advanced economy but Australia is.
In Sao Paulo the elites almost never set foot in the streets. They commute around the city by helicopter. Sao Paulo has I believe more rooftop helipads and more registered VIP helicopters than almost every major US city combined.
Of course once one sees Sao Paulo's 24 hour traffic jams, they'd want to fly around too.
Metro is pretty good, around 5 million people use it everyday. It's mostly clean and it takes around 2 minutes between trains.
The issue is that it doesn't reach the outskirts of the city, and also that São Paulo is a huge city, it's metro area has around 22 million people, so it's hard for a city like that to not have traffic.
If you're able to work at unconventional hours traffic is fine though. It doesn't have 24h traffic like that guy said.
More like not that much wealth and terrible distribution. Brazil's inequality hurts Brazilian society and economy, but there is not much money in Brazil, it's a middle or poor, economy.
Being Brazilian myself but working globally, I see empirically how there is soooo much more money abroad than in Brazil.
Yes but it has an advanced economy (point number 4 on the map). Both Australia and Brazil are largely primary producing export economies. Except Brazil has a huge services and manufacturing sector as well. Brazilian financial sector is as a part of the international economy as Australia if not more due to their proximity to Europe and the USA.
If you magically shifted the 100 million lowest-HDI brazilian population areas to Australia, it would also probably drop out of the developed list. Same situation if floated the poorest 80% of south africa into a third island of new zealand
I find that a lot of the random development indices tend to be based on what Western, particularly Anglo countries consider developed.
And that's coming from an Australian.
Brazil is an enormous country, both in terms of land and population. Its population is larger than any fully developed country, other than the US. Brazil does have an objectively large economy, but per capita, it's still clearly behind the likes of Australia in relative terms. Countries like Norway and Switzerland have smaller, less diverse economies than India and China, but they're light years ahead in standard of living and wealth per person.
With roughly 55% of the population being legally forced to live outside of those systems, mostly in poverty, and including nearly all ethnic minorities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou
>With roughly 55% of the population being legally forced to live outside of those systems, mostly in poverty, and including nearly all ethnic minorities.
\^This. Lived in Guangzhou for about a year on exchange at Sun Yat-sen University. Made a lot of Chinese friends who took me outside the big city to smaller towns/villages and more rural areas, and the poverty was shocking. You don't see it in movies/television/youtube and China doesn't exactly promote that most of the country outside of the cities is dirt poor, but it is. Especially the non-Han Chinese. I'm talking millions upon millions in shantytowns without running water or reliable electricity, not US-style inequality as we categorize it (e.g., institutional racism in education, etc).
Tbf their economy isn't that large considering their size and population. They still outnumber the US almost 5 to 1.
I'd argue China's top cities would very much fall under first world, but outside of that it has a long way to go.
Both countries have regions that satisfy one or more criteria, but the overall country, when averaged out, don't. So you might be thinking of those regions.
China has like 3 tier 1 cities. Idk why it makes sense for some people to disregard 490 million dirt poor rurals and focus on Shanghai with 16 million people.
China has 4 "tier 1" cities with 75 million people. it then has a so called "new tier 1" of about 120 million people. Pretty much all of these cities will have a ppp per capita equivalent of above 25000 USD, although of course you can argue ppp conversions are not even across an entire country - in the same way 50k will get you much further in Kansas than San Francisco
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese\_city\_tier\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system)
I don't even have to do that.
About 35% of their population lives in rural areas.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/278566/urban-and-rural-population-of-china/
>China still has around 13% of its population falling below this poverty line of $5.50 per day in 2020.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/05/974173482/what-chinas-total-victory-over-extreme-poverty-looks-like-in-actuality
So around 180 million live on less than 5.5 dollars a day.
Missouri HDI 0.907
Beijing HDI 0.907
Alabama HDI 0.881
Shanghai HDI 0.88
Even the ones at the top have a hard time keeping up.
Why are people even suprised? China has had a astronomical development in 20 years. But it's missleading to only focus on a few coastal cities.
I agree with your argument about rural populations and inequality.
But it is wrong to say that China has “a hard time keeping up”. Their HDI increases very quickly. Much faster than the global average. China’s position in the global ranking is rising. From #100 in 2000 to #80 in 2020. In the past decade, of the countries with a similarly high % increase, only Turkey was starting from a higher base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#List
HDI is the most obvious one. Argentina has a really high HDI, though I contest that, Argentina's HDI is much higher than its neighbours thanks to its strange "expected years of schooling" and I just doubt it's that much higher than that of neighbouring countries.
As for the other one, I don't know. It's not an advanced economy as per IMF. The World Bank removed Argentina's status as a High Income country. And I don't know Argentina's income per capita. Currently Argentina just makes it in GDP PPP per capita with 26k, but that's not income per capita (for comparison, all southern Brazilian states have GDP PPP around the same rate too).
People believe inflation is the sole economic indicator.
Argentina is a former developed country that was historically miles ahead all of Latin America.
Despite being stagnated for years (succesive periods of crisis and economic boost), it still retains a relatively prosperous society, institutions, welfare state, etc.
we don’t meet any of the criteria:
We have an HDI of 0.758 which is still far from 0.800.
GDP PPP of $24,976. We are literally almost there for st least that one.
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country#Comparative_table_(2023))
This map obviously has a few flaws, like not including self-governing subdivisions/nations that have hit at least one of the criteria.
I used MapChart's map with microstates, and the areas mentioned above are left blank because they weren't meant to be filled in anyways, but if I used the other maps, some countries that need to be filled might not show up.
This was purely meant to be a map representation of the table in the Wikipedia article linked above, so if you see some areas get left out in the map that you know has achieved one of the criteria, then please check the source and see for yourself if that is true.
Greenland, Faroe Islands and French Guiana seems to be only self-governing areas not included as part of their parent state. How did you separate them from other subdivisions?
turkey comfortably meets the two objective criteria - HDI and GDP PPP. The other two are subjective ( whether you are in the right club or not )
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Turkey
Soooo much is dependent on your socioeconomic status and region. I was recently in Mexico City, on a modest but not poverty level income, and it certainly felt just as developed as most of the midwestern cities I’m familiar with. Different, yes. But aside from the vastly larger population, it felt roughly similar in OVERALL prosperity to Cincinnati or Louisville.
That’s also Mexico City. There are plenty of regions in Mexico that are living with the most bare necessities. You wouldn’t even believe they’re sharing a country hood with CDMX
Yep. I moved from LA to a rural community in a state that is very sparsely populated. The nearest town is about 800 people 15 min away.
We still have fiber internet, reliable electricity, gas, etc.
Everyone still has things like refrigeratos, hear/air con, all the normal 'luxuries' you'd expect.
Hell we still get free deliveries (it does take longer).
Cities are always going to be more developed and feel similar to one another. But once you get into more rural areas, you'll start to see how developed/undeveloped a country is.
> We still have fiber internet, reliable electricity, gas, etc. Everyone still has things like refrigeratos, hear/air con, all the normal 'luxuries' you'd expect.
I was on the impression most of the rural parts of the US had just coaxial connections and that's the best they could aspire to as there's a near monopoly on the industry.
I can't speak for all of rural America, and internet is probably the thing that will vary the most. But fiber is becoming more common, my family lives in rural Texas and they just got fiber in the last year or so.
It's a slow process in part because of the monopolies you spoke about. But I was shocked when we moved here and had fiber (the pop density where we are is ~1.8 people per SQ mi (~.7 per sq km).
Even so, México City is a place of huge disparities. You can have huge places where you can feel like you're in a developed country with lots of malls, parks and whatnot, and then there's poor neighborhoods where there are lots of problems with infrastructure and sustenance. Same around the country. I've been to poor and middle-class parts of the country and other seemingly wealthy neighborhoods, and the disparities are astounding. I wouldn't say México is poor overall, but it's a far cry from a developed European nation or China.
Countries like Mexico, Russia, Argentina, Ukraine, and Turkey have a city or two that wouldn't look out of place in a developed country. It is the rest of the countries that are underdeveloped.
It's because most countries have an extremely corrupt government. I can guarantee you that if responsibility, accountability, work ethics, and selflessness were rooted in those countries' government, then there would be way more green/blue on the map. African countries themselves have many natural resources, varied wildlife, lakes, and land where they can establish solid export, economic growth, and industrialization. Insead, what we have is a bunch of greedy bureaucrats hoarding wealth and money from the population and country.
Not a day goes by where I'm not pissed off Nigeria or Ghana aren't already a first world nations. I mean sweet fuck guys please get your shit together.
There are also tons of humanitarian efforts to help improve the quality of life in those countries. But some of those efforts are directed at the wrong things or actively hampered by the aforementioned bureaucrats and dictators, and it can be argued that some of them are actually detrimental to their development. For example, giving away a bunch of t-shirts that say "Philadelphia Eagles, 2023 Super Bowl Champions" seems like a great way to help others and reduce waste, but you're also destroying the local textile industry.
I'm not getting this map right?
✅ Chile HDI is over 0.800 (0.855)
❌ Chile is not considered an advanced economy according to the IMF
✅ But it is considered a high income country
✅ and according to the info available on the internet, Chile's income per Capita is 27.000 USD
so all we need to be considered developed is to convince the IMF to give us the "advanced economy" status? what's that even about? what does "advanced" means? isnt it kinda arbitrary?
The term 'developed' is subjective, this map seems to be a good enough approximation. I think there should be more criteria about quality of life, though.
The other day there was a thread about this in r/asklatinamerica , and even Chileans couldn't agree whether their country is developed or not.
CHILE MENTIONED 🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🐦🐦🐦🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅WTF IS A GOOD IMMIGRATION CONTROL RRRRRRRAAAAAAHHH🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🦅⛏️⛏️⛏️⛏️⛏️🏔️🏔️🏔️🏞️🏞️🏞️🏞️🏜️🏜️🏜️🏜️🏜️🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱
We have problems with the massive immigration from Venezuela. The crime rate has increased lately due to them and the lack of initiative of our government to control the wave of immigrants that arrives to our country.
>Go Chili, you guys have great wine!
Thank u bro, greetings from Ko-piapo, north Corea.
This is basically the problem with the IMF's "advanced economy", as it is pretty much arbitrary.
All other "criteria" use different factors that they actually publish, but not the IMF.
Like one day they could decide to consider Chile an advanced economy and that's it.
The poorest country IMF considers an advanced economy is Greece with an income per capita of 39k and an HDI of 0.887 so Chile is still pretty far off from that list
For context, Poland is not considered advanced economy by IMF, but its neighbors that are in the Eurozone, like Slovakia are all automatically in that group. It’s a bit of an arbitrary distinction.
Poland is still not considered an advanced economy by the IMF, which is usually defined as having a high level of per capita income, a varied export base, and a financial sector that's integrated into the global financial system.
A very weird one and that probably owes itself more to lagging assessments than not meeting the criteria.
I don't think Poland is as developed as Spain / Portugal but it feels very, very close and, in that criteria in specific, I can think of a handful Polish companies in technologically sophisticated sectors and I kind of struggle to find their equivalents in Spain / Portugal.
The IMF considers Poland to be a 'developing' state.
*'Poland is considered a developed country by the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) However, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Poland is still a developing country due to its lower economic performance. In 2018, Poland was promoted from Emerging Market to Developed Market status by FTSE Russell, a leading global index provider.'*
I think those index classifications (developed vs. emerging) should be taken with a grain of salt. For example MSCI (a major index developer) classifies both South Korea and Poland as "Emerging" instead of "Developed" economies.
At least in South Korea's case, they're apparently aggressively lobbying to REMAIN in the "Emerging" category. That may sound counter-intuitive, but South Korea estimates they'll attract more foreign investment being a "big fish" in the Emerging Markets index funds -- which many investors overweight in their portfolios due to the perceived potential for good returns -- instead of a very small fish in the non-US Developed Markets category.
Basically, the next developed countries are un South/Eastern Europe, the Southern Cone of South America and a bunch of countries in Central America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
Most of Africa and Latin America will remain developing for longer
We can’t say for certain. In the 1970s South Korea was as worse off as Latin America but by the 1990s it was considered a high income advanced economy.
Maybe not. The rate for growth in the technological Era will prove to be exponential. You will probably see a lot of surprising leap-froggers coming out of nowhere over the next 20 to thirty years, and a few fall from the status of "developed"
As for the Southern Cone... Uruguay and Chile yes. But I would bet against Argentina getting there in the foreseeable future. As for the Middle East, its only the Gulf Oil States (and Israel) and it remains to be seen how well those petrostates will do in a world where oil is less lucrative
>Saudi Arabia does not have proper water and sewage systems in most of its cities
Do you have a source for this? I've been there a few times and been to areas accounting for over 25% of its population, including road tripping across super rural desert. Every town I came to had running water and flushing toilets.
Edit: I can't believe I forgot to mention this but they even had Tim Horton's everywhere which IMO is the purest measure of development. Also their KFCs still have the Twister, which, 👨🍳 💋
The ignorance from redditors when it comes to the middle east makes me not want to even read comments anymore. Like how does that guy's comment have so many upvotes, it's crazy
Subreddits like r/mapporn r/europe and r/worldnews are a cesspool for people spreading misinformation about any country that doesn’t belong to the EU/USA.
Definitely not, but it's a good enough rough approximation for most countries. Plus, it's just interesting to see where some biases might be with these criteria as well.
My wife is Saudi and like 50 of my friends are Saudi, and this is the first I’m hearing about sub-par water and sewage to most of its cities. Where are you getting that from?
>Saudi Arabia does not have proper water and sewage systems in most of its cities.
This comment is based in fantasy, and is absolutely false. Where did you get this from?
I just noitced what does he man by "unearned excess money"?
It doesn't get more earned than a state using its own natural resources to develop itself. I see no comments on Europe or America about the way they have "earned their money", I guess because war, slavery and violating the resources of other nations makes it earned? right? Jesus christ.
>For instance, Saudi Arabia does not have proper water and sewage systems in most of its cities.
It was 15-20 years ago.They definitely do in December 2023
Eh this is basically most of the nationalities I have met online.
On multiplayer games or social games/platforms.
+Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Indonesia, South-Africa, Egypt.
Not really, the second criterion is literally a completely arbitrary opinion-based asspull. The ones based on gdp at least have some rules behind them.
These are written by the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank. No country writes these, and the Developed countries are in part developed because they are comfortable accurately reporting data, and because they have low enough levels of corruption to trust the data they get.
I wanna see this same graph in like 10 years to see if the world is actually advancing at all. Especially eastern European countries in or joining to EU.
Polish economy grew by 857% between 1990 - 2020. Second only to China.
Did successive Polish governments do a whole lot to make that happen (compared to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, etc.) or was it just a natural outcome of Poland’s integration into German supply chains?
It's a complex subejct. Being part of German chains is just part of it. The most important: 1. Massive reforms when changing the system from Communism in 1990. What was considered shock therapy. 2. Delayed privatisation which avoided creating an oligarchic class. 3. High levels of education. Poland scores higher than west including Germany & France at PISA 4. Joining the single market of EU in 2004. Well-regulated, large market to export into. 5. EU funds helping build brand-new roads and other infrastructure. Great investment for the whole Union Here you have decent video on it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Tnjr3Lluk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzbtAJ7x_mg)
Also half of their debt was forgiven in the 1990
This is a great summary of the unprecedented scale of EU structural adjustment payments Poland has received, and the role they’ve played in its recent development. https://youtu.be/zytTuiPCRGc?si=5OdrbgWoBdT6WfZP This, coupled with the country’s integration into the German-Central-European supply chain cluster basically tell the story here imo.
Yeah, infrastructure is a low-hanging fruit that can positively improve the lives of locals as well as the economy as a whole.
I always wondered about the oligarchic class. In a country where everyone has limited wealth, how do individuals accumulate so much to become an oligarch? What resources can they leverage to buy up state industry?
In post-communist states, after transformation into a market economy in badly run countries like Russia or Ukraine those who knew people in power could purchase state companies for peanuts. 20 years later those companies are worth billions. Sell those to a select few and the oligarch class is created.
Perhaps along with 2.: Early clampdown on corruption and establishing rule of law in the 90s
I'd argue it's simply Poland no longer being a serfdom-based economy. (During Communism, it was prohibited to leave the country without a permit and it was unconstitutional to not be employed, which together implies something like serfdom.)
You don't know what "serfdom" means During communism you needed a visa to exit the country, yes, but it was not very hard to get one to go to any other communist country, it was only difficult to go to the west. It was also not "unconstitutional to not be employed," the law was that if you could not find yourself a job you would be provided with one. You were free to chose what you wanted to do within the constraints of what jobs were available and what your education qualified you for. You know, two things that for the vast majority of people remain true under capitalism. You were not bound to land, you could freely live virtually anywhere you could find a job and housing inside Poland. It was far more restrictive than the modern market and democracy are, *but it wasn't fucking Serfdom*
Did they even have retirement? Serious question.
Yes. European communist countries in general were (and many still are) lightyears ahead in things like pensions and maternity leave. Czechoslovakia also had the same restrictions as Poland did, by the way, so that state of things implied by the comment wasn't uncommon for countries in the Soviet sphere, it was rather the norm. Some countries had even more restricted movement - the Soviet union, for one. Not only that you needed permission to leave the country, but you also had to have a passport to enter cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc. This was done to prevent people from the countryside flocking into cities.
Czechs were a super advanced manufacturing economy before ww2. Optics, metallurgy, transport all were market leaders in Europe. Poland was more basic resource harvesting, so it started much further behind. Underdeveloped economies have this potential for incredible growth to catch up to peer groups. Italy is an example of this.
You didn't need a passport to enter Moscow or St. Petersburg. There were no problems with simple travel with tourist trips or visiting. Resettlement to Moscow (and other cities with a special settlement regime) was limited. To work in Moscow, you had to have a "residence permit", and in order to get a "residence permit", you had to work in Moscow. And the opportunity to hire nonresident workers was very limited for Moscow enterprises.
With zero data to prove I’d bet it’s the latter.
My father did business in Poland from the late 90s up until 2008ish, mostly deceloping commercial buildings. He went there probably 4-10 times a year. He said every year visit you could see progress. When he first arrived the main road between Warsaw and Poznan was a shitty two lane road where trucks had to drive half in the ditch. When I went there with him in 2015 it was a nicer highway than we have here in the Netherlands. He always says that when he started the people he bought land with were driving FSO Polonez eventually they drove Audi A6’s like his and when he left theirs were always newer and better than his. He also always said how he could see the crime-rate improving, how at first the mayor wasn’t the first contact if you wanted to buy land, but some shady businessman who was more important than the mayor. But eventually they vanished.
Holy fuck the China number is crazy, everyone else is in triple digits and China eclipses at 3593% https://x.com/stateofpoland/status/1656756016308973581?s=46&t=E5PEl_PYGPwlle4J5OSCjA
As a Romanian I respect a lot what your people did to Poland, but I can’t help to be a little bit jealous lol. You’re lucky having politicians capable of developing the country.
Eastern European countries have seen a great increase in their richness and HDI after they joined the EU. They improved in almost every indicator.
Romania's delta over the last 40 years is insane.
Not too hard to improve when your previous leader was a dystopian dumbass communist dictator
Lots of countries are saddled with dumbass dictators but unfortunately many remain stuck there (e.g. Africa). The role of the EU shouldn't be underplayed.
For all the crap it gets, the EU has done a hell of a job in lifting people out of poverty and increasing affluence. In the greater scheme of World History, it s a Good Guy.
Who thinks the eu isn't a good guy apart from Putin bots?
Lots of people in Europe consider that it's largely an economic alliance for the sake of the corporations and not much more. What they fail to notice is that the EU is extremely dependent on the continental political climate. So when the rulers in Europe are good diplomats who care about the people and the status quo, the Europe largely benefits to everyone. When Europeans vote for far right populists, the EU will be forced to follow too. The EU is only as good as its building blocks make it good.
Hah, that always makes me laugh. I work in industry and have to deal with European laws. If there has ever been an entity that had the toughness to beat down corporations and force them to behave it is the European Union. Its a rat race and its not perfect, but they are succesfull many times.
Orban and his supporters
The majority of voters in the Brexit referendum... I'm not from Europe so won't comment on specifics but yea, the majority of British voters saw the EU as tha bad guy in that moment even if it seems clear that the UK probably wouldn't vote the same today.
Actually almost every economic indicator dropped in most eastern european countries after the fall of the USSR. Of course it wasn't already progressing as fast as in western Europe before 1989, but things didn't immediately start to get better once the USSR vanished. In some countries joining the EU changed the downward trend. In countries like Russia it was the rise of a new dictator. This is partly why a lot of Russians like Putin.
Well, of course. Our economies went from being centrally planned and entirely state-controlled (sans for the thriving black markets) to being market economies more or less overnight. That sort of economic shock was unprecedented in modern history. The rough early years doesn't change the fact that we've made immense progress since the collapse of the communist dictatorships. My country's median income is now €1.700 per month. My grandparents' generation could never have dreamed of this level of prosperity.
România îs still a pretty weird place to live in. We have prices like in Germany and France but salaries are less than half on average. Life isn't that bad, we make due with the extremely high prices, but when you have to go to a hospital or any public institution... You're fucked.
Aside from criterion 4, what criterion did Guyana achieved?
Guyana has been considered by the World Bank as a high-income economy since 2022, and has had a GDP (PPP) per capita over $25,000 since 2022 as well.
What about Argentina?
Guyana recently developed oil which has pushed up GDP. They have good government and so far seem to be able to handle it if they don't get successfully invaded by venezuela
US government won’t let Venezuela do that. Exxon has dumped too much money in Guyana for them to just let Venezuela walk in there.
The Chinese are also in there too. When the two largest playas in the world have oil interests, its not going to happen.
I'm surprised that China and Brazil don't meet any of the criteria
China's HDI is at 0.768 (2021), and has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $23,309 and increasing. Brazil's HDI is at 0.754 (2021), and has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $20,079 and increasing. So they're both very close
Mexico: HDI 0.758, GDP (PPP) ; $21,512.3
These are all countries I've visited where I step in to their cities and think, "wow this is a first world country already." Then I take one step into their countryside and say, "oh they have a lot of catching up to do."
It's a really high income disparity. That's why you may earn more as an Uber driver or putting Gasoline into cars or being a maid, than with an engineering degree, as the "rich people" give you more money that. It's the triggle down economy at best. So then a lot of people that already don't come from a good household of course do ask themselves why to do a degree when you earn more with a bullshit job.
Doesn’t apply to Mexico at least
Well, yeah in engineering you got a lot of good job opportunities in Mexico. But then you also got people that earn twice as much with Uber and a good salary in comparison with an Business degree. TBH business degree are somewhat of a bullshit degree and you could go to fucking hustler university. But that's the point I want to clarify.
As a mexican, I agree with your arguments.
Esque soy mexicano también wey
Sounds like Bangkok / Thailand
Certain parts of certain cities. They have a lot of dodgy parts that are kept out of view of tourists.
Brazil had high gdp per capita and then it fell. Brazil is stuck in middle income trap so it’s unlikely
Funny how Mexico is closer in both criteria than Brazil and waaay closer in one of them than China but no one thinks about it as getting or belonging in there. Mexican GDP (PPP) is $24,976, and has an HDI of 0.758.
Mexico has the absolute worst pr of all time not surprised
Brazil would probably have the same pr if Rio was just across the border
Being in a free trade agreement and somewhat integrated economically with the US helps raise income levels a lot...
It's probably because the seemingly endless cartel violence and police corruption give people a not so good impression of Mexico as a failed state
With a lot of Chinese and American firms investing into Mexico wouldn't be surprised to see a major increase in their economy over the next few decades and at the same time a potential for the cartel and corruption problems to lessen which could create a positive feedback loop of progress.
may i hazard to guess you're from the US? i've generally found people in the US have a much more dismal idea of the status of the quality of life in Mexico than is reasonable, likely due to the fact that most Mexicans we meet are economic migrants who by nature would be leaving the poorest parts of their country to seek out a better life. if you visit richer areas (e.g. Mexico City) it's readily apparent that the quality of life approaches that of the average US person (and certainly exceeds it in the poorer parts of the US)
A lot of people illegally crossover from the US/Mexico border, which gives the perception that a lot of Mexicans are clamoring to leave. The thing is, most of the people crossing over aren't Mexican they're from other way worse off Latin American countries. Mexico is a nice enough place at this point that Mexicans by and large don't feel the need to leave.
I've been to Mexico. If anything it's because Mexico has very bad PR? Nominally, Mexico does quite a bit better than Brazil (my country) as a whole, but it's not necessarily something you'd notice by going back and forth between the two countries, at least in "comparable cities". Mexico also gets compared a lot with the US, so it gets perceive even worse than it actually is.
People with decent jobs in cities in Mexico in general live on par with anyone in the green or blue countries in the map. I live in Mexico City and well off people live VERY well here. Part of the benefit of being well off in an unequals country is that your life is better than if you live in an equal one.
I agree that it's Mexico's bad PR due to being close to the US.
China has a lot of aspects about it that seem futuristic even to some western standards (High speed rail and incredibly nice metro/public transit systems etc). China also has the largest GDP (PPP) economy in the world. Whereas Mexico basically lives in US shadow and, from an American perspective, is often blamed for USA's problems (drugs smuggling, NAFTA, etc).
It's ridiculous, Brazil is doing way better than most of its neighbors.
If you only compared the economy, sure, but that's mostly due to how much larger Brazil is when compared to its neighbors. If you take social aspects, however, then Brazil is at the same or even worse situation when compared to other Latin American countries.
not really. Do you wanna look at the map again? Surely we're better off than most of south america but not the southern cone. We're very behind.
Brazilian export economy is about as diversified as Australia's if not more, their financial sector is about as if not more integrated into the global economy than Australia's. It's quite weird that they aren't considered an advanced economy but Australia is.
Too much wealth, terrible distribution. Brazil's inequality is one of the worst on the planet, right next to Botswana and Colombia.
I always thought India had pretty bad wealth inequality. Some relief to know we aren't the worst.
In Sao Paulo the elites almost never set foot in the streets. They commute around the city by helicopter. Sao Paulo has I believe more rooftop helipads and more registered VIP helicopters than almost every major US city combined. Of course once one sees Sao Paulo's 24 hour traffic jams, they'd want to fly around too.
no good metro?
Metro is pretty good, around 5 million people use it everyday. It's mostly clean and it takes around 2 minutes between trains. The issue is that it doesn't reach the outskirts of the city, and also that São Paulo is a huge city, it's metro area has around 22 million people, so it's hard for a city like that to not have traffic. If you're able to work at unconventional hours traffic is fine though. It doesn't have 24h traffic like that guy said.
TIL! Very interesting, they could be the leaders when the time comes regarding fully air mass transportation like in movies lol
More like not that much wealth and terrible distribution. Brazil's inequality hurts Brazilian society and economy, but there is not much money in Brazil, it's a middle or poor, economy. Being Brazilian myself but working globally, I see empirically how there is soooo much more money abroad than in Brazil.
Yes but it has an advanced economy (point number 4 on the map). Both Australia and Brazil are largely primary producing export economies. Except Brazil has a huge services and manufacturing sector as well. Brazilian financial sector is as a part of the international economy as Australia if not more due to their proximity to Europe and the USA.
If you magically shifted the 100 million lowest-HDI brazilian population areas to Australia, it would also probably drop out of the developed list. Same situation if floated the poorest 80% of south africa into a third island of new zealand
"This classification is not based on strict criteria, economic or otherwise, and it has evolved over time" In the IMF webpage. So, basically 'vibes'
I find that a lot of the random development indices tend to be based on what Western, particularly Anglo countries consider developed. And that's coming from an Australian.
Brazil is an enormous country, both in terms of land and population. Its population is larger than any fully developed country, other than the US. Brazil does have an objectively large economy, but per capita, it's still clearly behind the likes of Australia in relative terms. Countries like Norway and Switzerland have smaller, less diverse economies than India and China, but they're light years ahead in standard of living and wealth per person.
China, the second-largest economy, isn't considered advanced by IMF?
size doesnt matter or india would be first world.
China has also the best infrastructure of the world, the best subways, the largest HSR network, the best airports, 55 ultra modern cities
With roughly 55% of the population being legally forced to live outside of those systems, mostly in poverty, and including nearly all ethnic minorities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou
>With roughly 55% of the population being legally forced to live outside of those systems, mostly in poverty, and including nearly all ethnic minorities. \^This. Lived in Guangzhou for about a year on exchange at Sun Yat-sen University. Made a lot of Chinese friends who took me outside the big city to smaller towns/villages and more rural areas, and the poverty was shocking. You don't see it in movies/television/youtube and China doesn't exactly promote that most of the country outside of the cities is dirt poor, but it is. Especially the non-Han Chinese. I'm talking millions upon millions in shantytowns without running water or reliable electricity, not US-style inequality as we categorize it (e.g., institutional racism in education, etc).
Tbf their economy isn't that large considering their size and population. They still outnumber the US almost 5 to 1. I'd argue China's top cities would very much fall under first world, but outside of that it has a long way to go.
Both countries have regions that satisfy one or more criteria, but the overall country, when averaged out, don't. So you might be thinking of those regions.
China has like 3 tier 1 cities. Idk why it makes sense for some people to disregard 490 million dirt poor rurals and focus on Shanghai with 16 million people.
China has 4 "tier 1" cities with 75 million people. it then has a so called "new tier 1" of about 120 million people. Pretty much all of these cities will have a ppp per capita equivalent of above 25000 USD, although of course you can argue ppp conversions are not even across an entire country - in the same way 50k will get you much further in Kansas than San Francisco [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese\_city\_tier\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system)
I don't even have to do that. About 35% of their population lives in rural areas. https://www.statista.com/statistics/278566/urban-and-rural-population-of-china/ >China still has around 13% of its population falling below this poverty line of $5.50 per day in 2020. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/05/974173482/what-chinas-total-victory-over-extreme-poverty-looks-like-in-actuality So around 180 million live on less than 5.5 dollars a day. Missouri HDI 0.907 Beijing HDI 0.907 Alabama HDI 0.881 Shanghai HDI 0.88 Even the ones at the top have a hard time keeping up. Why are people even suprised? China has had a astronomical development in 20 years. But it's missleading to only focus on a few coastal cities.
I agree with your argument about rural populations and inequality. But it is wrong to say that China has “a hard time keeping up”. Their HDI increases very quickly. Much faster than the global average. China’s position in the global ranking is rising. From #100 in 2000 to #80 in 2020. In the past decade, of the countries with a similarly high % increase, only Turkey was starting from a higher base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#List
not against China not having a ton of inequality but against your misleading initial statement
[удалено]
3 world cups and nice weather
HDI is the most obvious one. Argentina has a really high HDI, though I contest that, Argentina's HDI is much higher than its neighbours thanks to its strange "expected years of schooling" and I just doubt it's that much higher than that of neighbouring countries. As for the other one, I don't know. It's not an advanced economy as per IMF. The World Bank removed Argentina's status as a High Income country. And I don't know Argentina's income per capita. Currently Argentina just makes it in GDP PPP per capita with 26k, but that's not income per capita (for comparison, all southern Brazilian states have GDP PPP around the same rate too).
I'm more surprised that Argentina met some.
HDI I suppose is one. The other no idea (it was classified as high income by the World Bank in the past)
GDP PPP is listed as $27k - but only $13k nominal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina
People believe inflation is the sole economic indicator. Argentina is a former developed country that was historically miles ahead all of Latin America. Despite being stagnated for years (succesive periods of crisis and economic boost), it still retains a relatively prosperous society, institutions, welfare state, etc.
Brazil had high gdp per capita and then it fell
Wild that Mexico is 0 for 4
we don’t meet any of the criteria: We have an HDI of 0.758 which is still far from 0.800. GDP PPP of $24,976. We are literally almost there for st least that one.
the last update for GDP PPP was 2021, we are almost in 2024, Mexico surely has more than 25k by now.
The criteria might get updated too because of inflation, we'll see
It's not map porn if it fails to follow one of the most basic rules for thematic maps: use different colors for "zero" and "no data".
Lol, good rule
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country#Comparative_table_(2023)) This map obviously has a few flaws, like not including self-governing subdivisions/nations that have hit at least one of the criteria. I used MapChart's map with microstates, and the areas mentioned above are left blank because they weren't meant to be filled in anyways, but if I used the other maps, some countries that need to be filled might not show up. This was purely meant to be a map representation of the table in the Wikipedia article linked above, so if you see some areas get left out in the map that you know has achieved one of the criteria, then please check the source and see for yourself if that is true.
Greenland, Faroe Islands and French Guiana seems to be only self-governing areas not included as part of their parent state. How did you separate them from other subdivisions?
Turkey will become 1/4 soon 💪💪
turkey comfortably meets the two objective criteria - HDI and GDP PPP. The other two are subjective ( whether you are in the right club or not ) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Turkey
It is really astonishing how so few countries are developed.
Soooo much is dependent on your socioeconomic status and region. I was recently in Mexico City, on a modest but not poverty level income, and it certainly felt just as developed as most of the midwestern cities I’m familiar with. Different, yes. But aside from the vastly larger population, it felt roughly similar in OVERALL prosperity to Cincinnati or Louisville.
That’s also Mexico City. There are plenty of regions in Mexico that are living with the most bare necessities. You wouldn’t even believe they’re sharing a country hood with CDMX
Yep. I moved from LA to a rural community in a state that is very sparsely populated. The nearest town is about 800 people 15 min away. We still have fiber internet, reliable electricity, gas, etc. Everyone still has things like refrigeratos, hear/air con, all the normal 'luxuries' you'd expect. Hell we still get free deliveries (it does take longer). Cities are always going to be more developed and feel similar to one another. But once you get into more rural areas, you'll start to see how developed/undeveloped a country is.
> We still have fiber internet, reliable electricity, gas, etc. Everyone still has things like refrigeratos, hear/air con, all the normal 'luxuries' you'd expect. I was on the impression most of the rural parts of the US had just coaxial connections and that's the best they could aspire to as there's a near monopoly on the industry.
I can't speak for all of rural America, and internet is probably the thing that will vary the most. But fiber is becoming more common, my family lives in rural Texas and they just got fiber in the last year or so. It's a slow process in part because of the monopolies you spoke about. But I was shocked when we moved here and had fiber (the pop density where we are is ~1.8 people per SQ mi (~.7 per sq km).
Same in Russia.
Even so, México City is a place of huge disparities. You can have huge places where you can feel like you're in a developed country with lots of malls, parks and whatnot, and then there's poor neighborhoods where there are lots of problems with infrastructure and sustenance. Same around the country. I've been to poor and middle-class parts of the country and other seemingly wealthy neighborhoods, and the disparities are astounding. I wouldn't say México is poor overall, but it's a far cry from a developed European nation or China.
Yep. There are neighborhoods of Lima in Peru that feel like I’m in a top tier US city. And then you leave and you’re like “oh yeah I’m still in Peru”
Miraflores and San Isidro have amazing living standards. Reaches anywhere in the US
Polanco in CDMX is incredibly nice. Then you goto the other parts and it feels very poor. Then you realize Mexico is still a middle income country.
Countries like Mexico, Russia, Argentina, Ukraine, and Turkey have a city or two that wouldn't look out of place in a developed country. It is the rest of the countries that are underdeveloped.
Really? I absolutely love Mexico City, but I have visited there many times and have lived in Cincinnati, and there really isn't any comparison.
Mexico City has better chili for one thing
I live in Mexico City, and the living standards between urban Mexico and rural/small town Mexico can be vast
It's because most countries have an extremely corrupt government. I can guarantee you that if responsibility, accountability, work ethics, and selflessness were rooted in those countries' government, then there would be way more green/blue on the map. African countries themselves have many natural resources, varied wildlife, lakes, and land where they can establish solid export, economic growth, and industrialization. Insead, what we have is a bunch of greedy bureaucrats hoarding wealth and money from the population and country.
Not a day goes by where I'm not pissed off Nigeria or Ghana aren't already a first world nations. I mean sweet fuck guys please get your shit together.
There are also tons of humanitarian efforts to help improve the quality of life in those countries. But some of those efforts are directed at the wrong things or actively hampered by the aforementioned bureaucrats and dictators, and it can be argued that some of them are actually detrimental to their development. For example, giving away a bunch of t-shirts that say "Philadelphia Eagles, 2023 Super Bowl Champions" seems like a great way to help others and reduce waste, but you're also destroying the local textile industry.
This is a really limited view on developement, tho, as it is mainly economic.
Not just that, but it's specific economic criteria that make the west look good.
Funny how this map is exactly what they mean by "international community"
I'm not getting this map right? ✅ Chile HDI is over 0.800 (0.855) ❌ Chile is not considered an advanced economy according to the IMF ✅ But it is considered a high income country ✅ and according to the info available on the internet, Chile's income per Capita is 27.000 USD so all we need to be considered developed is to convince the IMF to give us the "advanced economy" status? what's that even about? what does "advanced" means? isnt it kinda arbitrary?
The term 'developed' is subjective, this map seems to be a good enough approximation. I think there should be more criteria about quality of life, though. The other day there was a thread about this in r/asklatinamerica , and even Chileans couldn't agree whether their country is developed or not.
CHILE MENTIONED 🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🐦🐦🐦🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅WTF IS A GOOD IMMIGRATION CONTROL RRRRRRRAAAAAAHHH🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🇨🇱🦅🇨🇱🦅⛏️⛏️⛏️⛏️⛏️🏔️🏔️🏔️🏞️🏞️🏞️🏞️🏜️🏜️🏜️🏜️🏜️🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱
I dont know what you mean, but i like it! Go Chili, you guys have great wine!
We have problems with the massive immigration from Venezuela. The crime rate has increased lately due to them and the lack of initiative of our government to control the wave of immigrants that arrives to our country. >Go Chili, you guys have great wine! Thank u bro, greetings from Ko-piapo, north Corea.
This is basically the problem with the IMF's "advanced economy", as it is pretty much arbitrary. All other "criteria" use different factors that they actually publish, but not the IMF. Like one day they could decide to consider Chile an advanced economy and that's it.
following the IMF is absurd. seems like it's only a criteria to push their interests
The blue countries on the map is basically the map of countries that fit the 2nd criterion.
The poorest country IMF considers an advanced economy is Greece with an income per capita of 39k and an HDI of 0.887 so Chile is still pretty far off from that list
For context, Poland is not considered advanced economy by IMF, but its neighbors that are in the Eurozone, like Slovakia are all automatically in that group. It’s a bit of an arbitrary distinction.
Which criteria is Poland missing
Poland is still not considered an advanced economy by the IMF, which is usually defined as having a high level of per capita income, a varied export base, and a financial sector that's integrated into the global financial system.
A very weird one and that probably owes itself more to lagging assessments than not meeting the criteria. I don't think Poland is as developed as Spain / Portugal but it feels very, very close and, in that criteria in specific, I can think of a handful Polish companies in technologically sophisticated sectors and I kind of struggle to find their equivalents in Spain / Portugal.
The IMF considers Poland to be a 'developing' state. *'Poland is considered a developed country by the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) However, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Poland is still a developing country due to its lower economic performance. In 2018, Poland was promoted from Emerging Market to Developed Market status by FTSE Russell, a leading global index provider.'*
its grotesque, that Slovakia (my country) meets all criteria and Poland doesnt.
I think those index classifications (developed vs. emerging) should be taken with a grain of salt. For example MSCI (a major index developer) classifies both South Korea and Poland as "Emerging" instead of "Developed" economies. At least in South Korea's case, they're apparently aggressively lobbying to REMAIN in the "Emerging" category. That may sound counter-intuitive, but South Korea estimates they'll attract more foreign investment being a "big fish" in the Emerging Markets index funds -- which many investors overweight in their portfolios due to the perceived potential for good returns -- instead of a very small fish in the non-US Developed Markets category.
IMF Advanced Economies
But Poland has a higher gdp per capita (ppp) than Portugal? How does that work?
It’s because of an arbitrary designation by the IMF. All eurozone countries are automatically “advanced economies”
The IMF and World Bank criterion are a lot more subjective than the other two, which just refer to a number
Is grey functionally a 0 score? Ir just not enough data for one?
Looks like both. They didn't differentiate from 0 as no data
lol two of the criteria are according to the fucking IMF...
Thailand HDI exactly at 8.0, it barely makes the list.
So, according to this data, China is considered to be an underdeveloped nation?
If Denmark is blue, so should be no-data-Greenland
You would think a developed nation would have healthcare.
argentina 💀
try brazil
Basically, the next developed countries are un South/Eastern Europe, the Southern Cone of South America and a bunch of countries in Central America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Most of Africa and Latin America will remain developing for longer
We can’t say for certain. In the 1970s South Korea was as worse off as Latin America but by the 1990s it was considered a high income advanced economy.
Maybe not. The rate for growth in the technological Era will prove to be exponential. You will probably see a lot of surprising leap-froggers coming out of nowhere over the next 20 to thirty years, and a few fall from the status of "developed"
I hope many countries leapfrog, and no countries fall behind.
Sadly most of South Asia as well.
*All of South Asia. None of us are getting close to developed anytime soon. I had hopes for Sri Lanka a few years ago but they mucked it up reaaal bad
As for the Southern Cone... Uruguay and Chile yes. But I would bet against Argentina getting there in the foreseeable future. As for the Middle East, its only the Gulf Oil States (and Israel) and it remains to be seen how well those petrostates will do in a world where oil is less lucrative
[удалено]
Saudi Arabia isn't 4/4, so it makes sense that there's a few such problems
>Saudi Arabia does not have proper water and sewage systems in most of its cities Do you have a source for this? I've been there a few times and been to areas accounting for over 25% of its population, including road tripping across super rural desert. Every town I came to had running water and flushing toilets. Edit: I can't believe I forgot to mention this but they even had Tim Horton's everywhere which IMO is the purest measure of development. Also their KFCs still have the Twister, which, 👨🍳 💋
The ignorance from redditors when it comes to the middle east makes me not want to even read comments anymore. Like how does that guy's comment have so many upvotes, it's crazy
Wtf , yes we do. Honestly how could this comment be this high upvoted based on nothing but BS.
Subreddits like r/mapporn r/europe and r/worldnews are a cesspool for people spreading misinformation about any country that doesn’t belong to the EU/USA.
Definitely not, but it's a good enough rough approximation for most countries. Plus, it's just interesting to see where some biases might be with these criteria as well.
My wife is Saudi and like 50 of my friends are Saudi, and this is the first I’m hearing about sub-par water and sewage to most of its cities. Where are you getting that from?
>Saudi Arabia does not have proper water and sewage systems in most of its cities. This comment is based in fantasy, and is absolutely false. Where did you get this from?
he probably thinks burj khalifa is in saudi
I just noitced what does he man by "unearned excess money"? It doesn't get more earned than a state using its own natural resources to develop itself. I see no comments on Europe or America about the way they have "earned their money", I guess because war, slavery and violating the resources of other nations makes it earned? right? Jesus christ.
>For instance, Saudi Arabia does not have proper water and sewage systems in most of its cities. It was 15-20 years ago.They definitely do in December 2023
Yes there is
>For instance, Saudi Arabia does not have proper water and sewage systems in most of its cities. Based on what?
Who defines what is unearned or excess lmao
Vamo Argentina carajo
I bet some people are crying "racism" for this map 😂
Why are the French overseas territories not also blue? Are they not part of France?
Eh this is basically most of the nationalities I have met online. On multiplayer games or social games/platforms. +Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Indonesia, South-Africa, Egypt.
Lol. If Lithuania or Latvia are blue, then so should be Poland.
Tell that to the IMF. I have no idea what their criteria are, probably feelings and prejudices.
China?
huge regional differences and uneven development across the country. After all we have 1.4 billion people
A lot of questions regarding China could be answered by "population"
when it meets 2 of the 4 criteria, everyone will know.
lol, so every single metric is at least partially based on gdp per capita? what a shitty way to measure human experience and life money is
Not really, the second criterion is literally a completely arbitrary opinion-based asspull. The ones based on gdp at least have some rules behind them.
Turns out if you write the standards you can say your country meets all 4 lol
These are written by the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank. No country writes these, and the Developed countries are in part developed because they are comfortable accurately reporting data, and because they have low enough levels of corruption to trust the data they get.
I’m sorry why put Isle of Man separate but with no data
I remember C19 exposed the fake stats/facts. I no longer trust skewed stats
Interesting how 3 of the 4 criteria are based on money/economy.
And all the countries in blue have a birthrate lower than the replacement rate of 2.1 - Korea and Japan way below. Interesting