I'm wondering if this holds true in the long run. There are a few false comparisons, in my opinion.
1) America and Europe were largely ethically and culturally homogenous territories when they underwent industrialization. Any diversity they had was squashed out or sidelined. The effects of which are still felt today among the native Americans and arguably even the Catalonians that do not identify with Spanish culture. The UK continues to be troubled by the Welsh, Scots and Irish. The global South and it's nationality have it's country-hood constructed through colonial heritage. Their demographic consistency is much lower and therefore would inherently result in differences regarding what development should look like.
2) the other reason that culture is important is because the largest export of the US is not goods but culture. This is something they understood and improved upon from the imperial masters of Europe. This is perhaps the only export metric that India beats China on. Singapore, which is your example, is not known as a cultural hub in the world. It's known for being able to supply commodities of culture via food and art but does not seem to be able to generate a cultural identity of it's own. In that regard it will always be a financial hub first. Unlike Switzerland which is well regarded for both being a financial Haven and a place of unique culture.
3) this model presupposes a certain idea of development which has been heavily contested by the IMF and World Bank experiments that went on through the last 40 years. Industry is good for economic growth. That doesn't ensure that a country becomes well developed. The last 20 years in India would be a good example for this gap between industry and development. The same goes for Nigeria and South Africa. The economics of development and the economics of industrial growth are different, and it's important not to fall into the trap of trickle down economics stated through a different name. Cuba is a counter example, great human development metrics not so great industrial metrics.
Thank you for the detailed thoughts @INDRANEILCH - I agree, this model will not hold up in the long term, you would need reforms but I believe that there needs to be a foundational level of development or the country gets stuck in poverty.
1. Yes there are demographic differences between Europe and the US at the time of their rise vs. global south now but I think the foundations of economic development are the same. I'd love to understand how you think the demographic differences translate to economic development needs? Fundamentally people need education, infrastructure and opportunities to improve their lives - I think that is independent of the ethic mix of the population.
2. I would classify what you are calling here as culture as soft power. I think this is something that gets built after a foundational level of development. It's great if there is a historic thread of culture that can be drawn upon but I would argue with you that America and Europe did not have much or any soft power a few hundred years ago when they were in the dark ages and considered poor and irrelevant by most of the world. It was only through their development that they also created the soft power they enjoy today.
3. I would love to know what these challenges are? I don't think there is a single example right now of a country that is not rich through industrialization. I'm not sure that I would use the example of Cuba as a winner here - about 5% of their population sought refuge to the US in 2021-2023 alone. I agree with you that many countries that have industrialized or in the process face enormous problems of inequality that must be tackled. Again, the ideas in this article are about kickstarting growth and the problem of inequality can only be solved once there is some growth and wealth in the system. I think it has been well documented that bringing up everyone at the same time is almost impossible.
I'm wondering if this holds true in the long run. There are a few false comparisons, in my opinion.
1) America and Europe were largely ethically and culturally homogenous territories when they underwent industrialization. Any diversity they had was squashed out or sidelined. The effects of which are still felt today among the native Americans and arguably even the Catalonians that do not identify with Spanish culture. The UK continues to be troubled by the Welsh, Scots and Irish. The global South and it's nationality have it's country-hood constructed through colonial heritage. Their demographic consistency is much lower and therefore would inherently result in differences regarding what development should look like.
2) the other reason that culture is important is because the largest export of the US is not goods but culture. This is something they understood and improved upon from the imperial masters of Europe. This is perhaps the only export metric that India beats China on. Singapore, which is your example, is not known as a cultural hub in the world. It's known for being able to supply commodities of culture via food and art but does not seem to be able to generate a cultural identity of it's own. In that regard it will always be a financial hub first. Unlike Switzerland which is well regarded for both being a financial Haven and a place of unique culture.
3) this model presupposes a certain idea of development which has been heavily contested by the IMF and World Bank experiments that went on through the last 40 years. Industry is good for economic growth. That doesn't ensure that a country becomes well developed. The last 20 years in India would be a good example for this gap between industry and development. The same goes for Nigeria and South Africa. The economics of development and the economics of industrial growth are different, and it's important not to fall into the trap of trickle down economics stated through a different name. Cuba is a counter example, great human development metrics not so great industrial metrics.
Thank you for the detailed thoughts @INDRANEILCH - I agree, this model will not hold up in the long term, you would need reforms but I believe that there needs to be a foundational level of development or the country gets stuck in poverty.
1. Yes there are demographic differences between Europe and the US at the time of their rise vs. global south now but I think the foundations of economic development are the same. I'd love to understand how you think the demographic differences translate to economic development needs? Fundamentally people need education, infrastructure and opportunities to improve their lives - I think that is independent of the ethic mix of the population.
2. I would classify what you are calling here as culture as soft power. I think this is something that gets built after a foundational level of development. It's great if there is a historic thread of culture that can be drawn upon but I would argue with you that America and Europe did not have much or any soft power a few hundred years ago when they were in the dark ages and considered poor and irrelevant by most of the world. It was only through their development that they also created the soft power they enjoy today.
3. I would love to know what these challenges are? I don't think there is a single example right now of a country that is not rich through industrialization. I'm not sure that I would use the example of Cuba as a winner here - about 5% of their population sought refuge to the US in 2021-2023 alone. I agree with you that many countries that have industrialized or in the process face enormous problems of inequality that must be tackled. Again, the ideas in this article are about kickstarting growth and the problem of inequality can only be solved once there is some growth and wealth in the system. I think it has been well documented that bringing up everyone at the same time is almost impossible.
I'd love to hear your thoughts!