It’s a graph of regional GDP per capita as a percentage of the U.S. Latin America was around 40% around 1950, but has declined to around 25% by 2018. Sub-saharan africa has slowly lost ground since 1950. Southeast asia has gone from almost as poor as Africa in 1950 to almost as rich as southern europe (50% of US GDP per capita).
What makes some countries rich and some countries poor? In the modern era, I think political dysfunction explains a lot. Developing countries with neoliberal governments that started out authoritarian (Singapore, Korea, Taiwan) have done well. Countries that can’t maintain a stable government have suffered.
In my home country, they were experiencing 5-6% per capita GDP growth for about 15 years. But then a motley coalition of idealistic students and Islamists overthrew the government. I suspect that will lead to a lengthy period of slow growth, because who wants to invest in a country where people regularly overthrow the government?
This graph just shows the different outcomes from Monroe Doctrine vs. Marshall Plan and other stimulus.
Since the 50's, Europe and select Asian countries received large investments from the US; Latin America received coups supported by CIA and governments that sold out to foreign interests.
The Marshall Plan was a very small amount of money. It was about $150 billion in today’s money, or about 5% of GDP of the recipient nations. The U.S. and its allies spent far more in Iraq for far fewer people. And the U.S. has nothing like that for Singapore, Korea, or Taiwan.
And Monroe Doctrine was primarily in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That doesn’t explain why Latin America got relatively rich during that period, and then fell behind once most of the intervention stopped.
Also, what counts as “support” is extremely nebulous. Which countries in Latin America had a coup where the U.S. was the but-for cause?
Hasina had gone nuts and was torturing people. I don’t think people are gonna wanna invest in a country where someone like that is in charge plus Adani already has them over a barrel.
China does that and people are fine investing there. Bangladesh isn’t Vermont, you can’t apply the same rules. However many people Hasina killed will pale in comparison to the excess child deaths that will result from interrupting GDP growth.
It’s a graph of regional GDP per capita as a percentage of the U.S. Latin America was around 40% around 1950, but has declined to around 25% by 2018. Sub-saharan africa has slowly lost ground since 1950. Southeast asia has gone from almost as poor as Africa in 1950 to almost as rich as southern europe (50% of US GDP per capita).
What makes some countries rich and some countries poor? In the modern era, I think political dysfunction explains a lot. Developing countries with neoliberal governments that started out authoritarian (Singapore, Korea, Taiwan) have done well. Countries that can’t maintain a stable government have suffered.
In my home country, they were experiencing 5-6% per capita GDP growth for about 15 years. But then a motley coalition of idealistic students and Islamists overthrew the government. I suspect that will lead to a lengthy period of slow growth, because who wants to invest in a country where people regularly overthrow the government?