Does Third World Growth Hurt First World Prosperity?

Human capital is what makes us work, and working is what establishes are living conditions. That’s why productive countries have had increases in income, which made for increases in education and labor training. This is especially beneficial to third world countries, because as women receive more education, the more they learn about their roles in society, independence, family, and contraceptives - which, in turn, decreases the infant mortality rates. However, in order to be productive for a society’s economy, you need to possess certain skills. Skilled individuals have to work together to achieve success. Those who are talented come to the realization that their skills are more valuable in countries that already have a great amount of skilled workers. Being skilled helps trade, and not practicing trade, or being a closed off economy, has a damaging effect. An open economy will grow

According to the World Bank, from 1993 to 1998, poverty rate has reduced by 14 percent in developing countries, similar to about 107 million people. This may result from receiving foreign investment that plays an important role in local economy growth. For example, the proportion of population living in poverty in India decreased by half in the two decades, from the 1970s to 1990s, while the number of Chinese in poverty declined by approximately 210 million during twenty-one years, from 1978 to 1999 (Healey 2008). In other words, the standard of living is improving due to the benefits of international economic activities.

There are faults within Zakaria’s argument. Throughout the book, assumptions are made on the likelihood of the prosperous future of the U.S. and emerging powers. These predictions are based on assumptions, therefore lack solid evidence. Zakaria builds his argument based on the assumption that America “will remain a vital, vibrant economy at the forefront of the next revolutions in science, technology and industry” (Zakaria 182). Although there are some statistics that can support this assumption, the future remains unpredictable. Furthermore, Zakaria weakens his credibility by including personal opinions in the book. Particularly the claims made towards India give insight to his bias towards India over China. Zakaria has undermined the economic

First, I will explain the role of empowered institutions and countries in limiting the economic activities of developing countries, impeding on their ability to survive. Afterwards I will explain the obligation people in privileged positions have to improve the lives of those in compromised positions, at a certain degree of self-sacrifices. Finally, I will critically analyze and disprove the counter argument, which attempts to relieve us of the aforementioned duties, by discrediting the roles of institutions and developed countries in the prolongation of impoverishment.

on page 168, we continue borrowing money from China to go to war with other nations

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are

Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, economies and governments of different nationalities. Globalization is not new, over thousands of years globalization has progressed through travel, migration and the spread of culture. Globalization has an overwhelmingly positive impact to most countries in terms of economy, political, and culture. In the article “Foreign Affairs; Politics In the age of Nafta” by Thomas L. Friedman, he stated that when he went to Asia, where Australians held their national election campaign, the campaign revolved around biscuits and bathing suits.

However, I do not necessarily agree with everything he says. I found Thing 7 “Free-market policies rarely make poor countries rich” particularly disturbing and pessimistic to say the least. Indeed, history has shown that most of the nations that are doing well today were protected by various policies that might have contributed to their growth. However, that does not mean there is no hope for emerging economies, especially in Africa. In reality, some of these countries have no resources, and those that do, cannot deal with the openness of the market, a factor that has been promoted greatly by globalization (Mason, 2010). But that does not mean they have to excel in the same areas as other nations used such as manufacture, as Chang (2010) suggests in thing 11 “Africa is not destined for underdevelopment”. However, focus on emerging fields such as the services industry could be their way out. Maybe, all they need is a little nudge to the right direction, a little more boost for resources, and we can have economies running on tourism-generated revenue. In addition, his lack of insight on sustainability, one of the most important aspects of the economy, is

It seems inevitable that the United States has fallen from the peak of economic supremacy, and it is unable to change the trend of development of the world economy in this current century even if its economy could resurge (Green, 2008).

“Since the beginning of the 20th century, global life expectancy has increased by 118%, infant mortality has declined by 81%, per person income has improved by 403% (in real dollars), all while human population has increased by more than 4x from 1.7 billion to 7.1 billion” (Allis). From that quote, it is shown that the statistics revolving around life have all improved. Education has become a factor that the majority of the population has access to. “The rates of literacy have also risen, going from 42% in 1900, to 84% in 2012; doubling themselves in a little over a century” (Allis). “According to a Harvard study, higher levels of education result in economic growth” (Aghion, Boustan, Hoxby, Vandenbussche). Following with this idea, the gross domestic product (GDP), the main indicator of the standing of an economy, has steadily been on the rise. The GDP per capita started at about $15,000 in 1950 and has reached a staggering $53,000 today” (Roser). This basically means that the total value of all produced goods in the world divided by the population has risen by that much. “The average world income per person has also reached a pinnacle $10,070- five times that of a century ago. Reducing death and disease and incomes rising sufficiently to enable access to food, water, shelter, sanitation, healthcare, and electricity increases the quality of

The concept of ‘sustainable development’ is one that has faced heated debates for decades now. A seemingly harmless concept, it raises a lot of questions as to what it really entails and how exactly it can be achieved. But with more than 1.3 billion people living in abject poverty (less than $1.25 a day), and with a reported 22,000 children dying every day as a result of poverty (UNICEF), the debate for Sustainable Development becomes interesting as it questions the extremity of economic growth policies, in the war against poverty. Many note economic growth and development as the only tool for poverty alleviation. Roemer and Gugerty, for example, report that GDP growth of 10% per year is associated with income growth of 10% for the poorest 40% of the population. However, others question the extent to which economic growth should be put above other socio-economic factors. Lele points out that the focus on economic growth has led to important ecological and social sustainability, taking the backseat. He argues that due to strong emphasis on economic growth, not enough attention is paid to social equity, and economic stability within the development discourse.

Raising peoples’ living levels, i.e. incomes and consumption, levels of food, medical services, education through relevant growth processes. 2. Creating

In the new global economy, the US may no longer easily dominate. As a result of the flat world, new parts of the world are beginning to successfully compete. Two of the more powerful ones are India and China. These emerging nations are now competing not just for low-wage manufacturing and information labor but, increasingly, for the highest-end research and design work as well. As Friedman mentions in his triple convergence, roughly 3 billion people from India, Russia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia are now joining this, "plug and play" world in which they can basically compete and collaborate equally. While these nations certainly pose a threat to historical U.S. and European prosperity and power, the proper response is not to fight it, but rather to embrace it, in order to thrive in the new world.

This research also shows that economic growth, on average, raises incomes for both the rich and the poor. It helps to lift the poorest in society out of absolute poverty and does not automatically increase inequality. More importantly, no country has managed to lift itself out of poverty without integrating into the global economy.

In the face of intensified global competition and liberalised trade, productivity has emerged as a key indicator of successful restructuring and upgrading by firms and industries. Traditionally, productivity growth has been regarded as one of the main sources of income growth, along with the factors such as capital accumulation and the deepening of human capital development. Over the past two decades, liberalisation has become an important part of many countries' development strategies. The present study analyses the review of earlier studies on productivity