Why do some countries develop and other not..!!!

Introduction:

How individuals and societies develop over time is a key question for citizens of the world. Too many people in the world still live in extreme poverty. About one billion people live on less than $1.25 a day (the World Bank's definition of extreme or absolute poverty) while about 2.2 billion people live on less than $2 a day. What can you do about it? Development studies as an academic discipline is relatively new, but the questions it asks are not – philosophers have pondered it for millennia. There are many definitions of development, and the concept itself has evolved rapidly over the past decades. Evolution means growth, which many economists and policy makers have taken to mean economic growth. However, development is not limited to economic growth. Development is no longer the preserve of economists, and the discipline itself has undergone rapid evolution, becoming the subject of interdisciplinary scholarship in politics, sociology, psychology, history, geography, anthropology, medicine, and many others.

Main Reasons:

A hundred years ago, Argentina was among the seven richest nations in the world, but now it ranks 43rd in terms of real income per capita. In 1950, Ghana's per capita income was higher than that of South Korea; Now South Koreans are more than 11 times richer than citizens of Ghana. Meanwhile, more than 20 failed countries and over one billion people have seen little progress in development in recent decades, while over three billion people have seen remarkable improvements in health, education and income. Within countries, the variance is greater than the variance between countries. The extraordinary achievements enjoyed by some occur alongside the absolute and relative deprivation of others. What is true for some developed societies, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, is true for most, but not all, developing countries. Many factors explain the successes and failures in the extreme inequality of development outcomes. There is a wealth of literature that seeks to explain the results on the basis of natural resource endowments, geography, history, culture or otherwise. Overall, the data point to divergence, rather than convergence, in recent decades, although there are some differences between geographic subgroups, with a number of Southeast Asian ('tiger') countries showing signs of convergence. In 1993, Parent and Prescott studied 102 countries from 1960 to 1985. They found that wealth gaps between rich and poor countries persisted despite average income increases, although there was some evidence of dramatic disparities in Asia, consistent with some Southeast Asian economies - Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand - catching up with the West. Li and Xu highlight that between 1970 and 2010, real income growth in seven Southeast Asian economies was 3.5 times (Malaysia) to 7.6 times (China) faster than that of the US and G10 economies. The World Bank attributed the "East Asian Miracle" to sound macroeconomic policies with low deficits and low debts, high levels of savings and investment, universal primary and secondary education, low agricultural taxes, export promotion , promote selected industries, technological citizens. services, and authoritative leaders. However, the Bank failed to highlight the extent to which the gains came at the expense of civil liberties, and that far from free markets, concerned governments subjugated the market (and suppressed organized labor), often with the generous support of the United States . and other development and military assistance programs after the Korean and Vietnam wars. Others have argued that Southeast Asia's relative success has to do with moving forward strategically rather than with "closer" forms of integration with the world economy. In other words, rather than opting for economic liberalization in favor of a Neoclassical market-friendly approach to development, countries such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have selectively intervened in economy in an effort to ensure that markets thrive. Several well-known commentators, including Ajit Singh, Alice Amsden and Robert Wade, have documented the full range of measures adopted by these countries, which appear to constitute a targeted and comprehensive industrial policy. These measures include the use of long-term credit (at negative real interest rates), heavy subsidization and coercion for exports, strict controls on multinational investment and foreign participation in industry.

2.1 Poverty and Inequality Income measures are only one dimension of poverty. Other indicators, including those related to infant and child mortality, illiteracy, infectious diseases, malnutrition and school attendance are also important. Many countries have made great strides in overcoming poverty. In some, progress has been across the board, while others have been able to achieve significant progress in one direction but have regressed in others. With similar levels of average per capita income, the average life expectancy in Bangladesh is 71 years, while it is 60 years in Zimbabwe and 61 years in Tanzania. Inequality between countries and within countries requires analysis that goes beyond the main economic indicators. While average per capita incomes are rising in most countries, inequality is also rising almost everywhere. The richest 20% of the world's population accounts for three-quarters of global income and consumes about 80% of the world's resources, while the poorest 20% of the world's population consumes far less than the global 2%. Where poor people are is also changing. Twenty years ago more than 90% of the poor lived in low-income countries; Today, nearly three quarters of the world's estimated one billion people living on less than $1.25 a day live in middle-income countries. 2.2 Explain different developmental trajectories Every country is unique. Nevertheless, it is still possible to identify a range of factors influencing the rate of growth. A number of economic historians have shown that patterns of resource endowment can reinforce inequality and favor elites, which in turn leads to “capture” and predatory institutional development. The resource curse has been explored by Paul Collier (2007), Jeffrey Frankel and others who have shown that sufficient natural resource endowments can be associated with institutional retardation, especially in the case of mining and oil extraction. In mining and oil, multinational or local investors have often operated behind a veil of secrecy. Awarding extractive industry contracts provides a source of power and shelter for corrupt leaders. Evidence of corruption by international firms making offshore payments through international banks is a clear example of how both developed and developing countries have a responsibility to crack down on corrupt practices, not least in the diminution of natural resource extraction associated risks.