Which Next Developed Country Will DOWN GRADE to Deloveping Country

[Acosta]

Spain is really far from being a developing country. I can see this risk for Portugal and Greece and even in some way for Italy (but very hard to happen as it's also very developed), but not for Spain. They only have a big problem with the unemployment.

[hseugut]

error

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by isakres

Althought Spain´s income relies heavily in such sectors as Tourism (or Construction as Dida has told), I do think its economy is more complex and more robust than lets say, Portugal or Greece. I do think Spain will stagnate for some extra years, but I dont expect a drop as deep as to delist it from the developed countries.

Yes, northern Spain especially has a decent industrial base to complement the tourism and construction sectors that are important elsewhere.

[orangutangulis]

Originally Posted by khoojyh

There is a possibility of this to happen?

Soviet Union (Russia) is developed country before end of Cold War, but this century, many resources classified Russia to be developing country. This considering as down grade in Modern World?

it is misconseption that Soviet Union (which by the way was not exactly Russia) was developed country if you consider "developed" as equal to USA, Canada or Western Europe. Soviet Union was great military power and its science, education and technology was outstanding - that mesmerised the west to consider USSR as developed. But the truth was that REAL Soviet GDP per capita (if to exclude arms production that one can not eat or consume) was the same that of Brazil....The same it is now. So in aspect of development there is no changes or downfall in Russia since Soviet times. More to that - living standards of Russians in today's Russia have actually improoved as compared to those in Soviet Union. I think that those ratings (both of those that rated USSR as "developed" and those that now claim that there is any deterioration in Russia as compared to USSR are propaganda stuff - the truth is that USSR was always "developing" the same as Russia now is "developing" (along with Latin America for example).

In modern world there is only one example of real downgrade - it is Argentina which was "developed" in the begining of 20th century by those standards, but then lagged behind and is considered "developing" now....Also some ex-Soviet "stans" that had been supported by federal Soviet government before 1991 have actually degradated since collapse of Soviet Union - Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgizstan - and became UNDERdeveloped countries with 50-70% of male workforce migrating to Russia and Kazahstan to earn their living and total collapse of local industry and infrastructure.

[isakres]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Yes, northern Spain especially has a decent industrial base to complement the tourism and construction sectors that are important elsewhere.

Indeed Jonessy, overall i do expect stagnation (maybe recession) all over Europe but not such a catastrophic situation with Big European economies collapsing (at least as a result of the current crisis). Nevertheless, I do think that less prepared European economies (just a few of them) may experience a drop in their living standards that may lead them right to the verge of what we currently consider as minimum levels of developed standards.

[Robi_damian]

Originally Posted by KillerZavatar

lol europeans sailing with a boat over the middle sea to get to north africa, because europe is too poor and they dont see a future anymore.

Nah, but the images of poor Spanish peasants boarding their Talgos and AVEs and Puento Aereas with goats and donkeys to sell in the village market will be epic.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by isakres

Indeed Jonessy, overall i do expect stagnation (maybe recession) all over Europe but not such a catastrophic situation with Big European economies collapsing (at least as a result of the current crisis). Nevertheless, I do think that less prepared European economies (just a few of them) may experience a drop in their living standards that may lead them right to the verge of what we currently consider as minimum levels of developed standards.

I guess Portugal would be the one western Europe country in danger of being passed by countries now thought of as 'developing'. PPP per capita is around $23,000 I think, behind Czech Rep, not that far ahead of Poland or Argentina. They do have good life expectancy though.

[Atomicus]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Yes, northern Spain especially has a decent industrial base to complement the tourism and construction sectors that are important elsewhere.

Also Madrid And Southern Spain despite not having a strong industrial sector they do export a lot of food (specially olive oil). I once heard that Spain also exports a lot regarding carbon fiber (which is basically why we take part in the Airbus consortium, for instance). Also many Formula One teams (which move MILLIONS) also import from Spain to England a lot of carbon fiber stuff.

I think we have problems, and our growth will be very small for a lot of time, but yeah, I don't think we'll collapse or something.

[ssiguy2]

I can't imagine Spain ever becoming an Argentina of the 21st century.
Greece on the other hand never was a developed country. Let's face it outside of food exports Greece relies on tourism and even more on transfer payments from the rest of the EU.
I also have a problem with the term "developing nations". That term essentially implies that unless you are completely developed like Western Europe, Can/USA/Aus/Jap then you are stuck in the same economic category as Ethiopia.
To me it's more like 4 levels of devlopment
1} Fully developed like countries I listed
2} Near devloped like Arg/Uru/Pol/Rus/Baltic countries where their GDP levels are not as high but still afford most of their citizens a high quality of life.
3} Developing like China, Brazil, Turkey, Mex, much of the Middle East most of Latin America where educational, social, and health services are substandard but extreme poverty and malnutrion. has nearly been eradicated and access to clean water/sanitation is nearly universal.
4} Undeveloped where the standard of living it very low. Educational, health, water/sewage, educational, and transportation/communication infrastructure is completely underdeveloped. Disease and abject poverty is severe, wide spread mal/undernutrion. These nations also ussually have high corruption levels, poor human rights records, low levels of woman's integration and full participation, and substandard civil and legal institutions. Nearly all of Africa, Pakistan, Haiti, parts of India and Bangladesh all qualify. Some countries are obviously between those development stages and some excel in some parts and woefully inadequate in others.
I think you get the underlying meaning of what I am saying. By just saying "developed or developing" you basically are lumping countries together which are completely different in their stages of economic, social, technological, health, education, and legal institutions and development.

[Ulpia-Serdica]

Originally Posted by isakres

Althought Spain´s income relies heavily in such sectors as Tourism

Actually this is a common misconception. For construction I agree, but the tourism receipts of Spain represent $47.10 per $1,000 of GDP, so basically around 5% of the economy.

[isakres]

Originally Posted by Ulpia-Serdica

Actually this is a common misconception. For construction I agree, but the tourism receipts of Spain represent $47.10 per $1,000 of GDP, so basically around 5% of the economy.

Lower percentage than expected, so I would expect Spain s economy to be even more diversified and complex.

[Ulpia-Serdica]

Originally Posted by isakres

Lower percentage than expected, so I would expect Spain s economy to be even more diversified and complex.

The problem with the Spanish economy is really the archaic labor laws that do not encourage employers to employ new workers and it makes it difficult for them to fire older workers. Although the boom to bust construction sector really did not help in the equation.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Ulpia-Serdica

The problem with the Spanish economy is really the archaic labor laws that do not encourage employers to employ new workers and it makes it difficult for them to fire older workers. Although the boom to bust construction sector really did not help in the equation.

This is true. But I suspect that the tourism numbers don't pick up the construction jobs related to tourism (hotels, condos, etc.). Moreover, tourism is very labor intensive, especially among the lower skilled workers, who tend to have fewer employment choices. And agricultural employment is still far in excess of what is needed.

This is actually a classic pattern for partly developed countries.

[Acosta]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

I can't imagine Spain ever becoming an Argentina of the 21st century.
Greece on the other hand never was a developed country. Let's face it outside of food exports Greece relies on tourism and even more on transfer payments from the rest of the EU.
I also have a problem with the term "developing nations". That term essentially implies that unless you are completely developed like Western Europe, Can/USA/Aus/Jap then you are stuck in the same economic category as Ethiopia.
To me it's more like 4 levels of devlopment
1} Fully developed like countries I listed
2} Near devloped like Arg/Uru/Pol/Rus/Baltic countries where their GDP levels are not as high but still afford most of their citizens a high quality of life.
3} Developing like China, Brazil, Turkey, Mex, much of the Middle East most of Latin America where educational, social, and health services are substandard but extreme poverty and malnutrion. has nearly been eradicated and access to clean water/sanitation is nearly universal.
4} Undeveloped where the standard of living it very low. Educational, health, water/sewage, educational, and transportation/communication infrastructure is completely underdeveloped. Disease and abject poverty is severe, wide spread mal/undernutrion. These nations also ussually have high corruption levels, poor human rights records, low levels of woman's integration and full participation, and substandard civil and legal institutions. Nearly all of Africa, Pakistan, Haiti, parts of India and Bangladesh all qualify. Some countries are obviously between those development stages and some excel in some parts and woefully inadequate in others.
I think you get the underlying meaning of what I am saying. By just saying "developed or developing" you basically are lumping countries together which are completely different in their stages of economic, social, technological, health, education, and legal institutions and development.

I agree, but I also divide the "fully developed countries" in 4 categories.

1. Developped as heaven: Scandinavia, Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Switzerland
2. Very developed: USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, UK, Ireland, Singapore
3. Developed: France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Slovenia, Taiwan, Israel, HK
4. Developed, but not very much: Czech Republic, maybe Slovakia, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, some arab countries like Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Brunei, Kuwait

____

Nearly developed: Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Baltic countries, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, (Turkey and Lebanon?)

Developing: Most of the balkan countries, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, most of Southeastern Asia countries, most of Latin America (with the exception of Bolivia, Paraguay, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti), South Africa, Namibia, Botswana

Undeveloped:

1. Almost developing: countries like India
2. Completely undeveloped (as hell ): countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo

Cheers.

[Jonesy55]

What makes NZ or South Korea two categories higher than France??

[Acosta]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

What makes NZ or South Korea two categories higher than France??

You seem to be very surprised, but hm... NZ and South Korea are a lot safer (yes, France is safe, but your chances to be mugged there are astronomically higher than in NZ or SK) and they offer better standards to its citizens. Both are very equal and tecnollogical-developed countries and you won't find the same poverty as in France. Overall infrastructure is also better, they have less corruption and also higher disposable income.

[Jonesy55]

NZ has better infrastructure than France? How is their high speed rail or motorway network?

Poverty is also a problem in NZ at least and you don't seem to be taking into account that South Koreans have to work 50% longer hours than French people. Extra leisure time is a huge factor in living standards imo.

Do you have sources for the disposable income claim by the way?

[Acosta]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

NZ has better infrastructure than France? How is their high speed rail or motorway network?

Poverty is a problem in NZ at least and you don't seem to be taking into account that South Koreans have to work 50% longer hours than French people. Extra leisure time is a huge factor in living standards imo.

Yes, NZ has better infrastructure than France. Of course, not as large, but it's better considering its size. Also public transportation seems to be very good (I've never been there, but it's what it looks like).

Poverty, a problem in NZ???

As for working longer hours, that doesn't change that those countries have better standards.

[Gorky]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

What makes NZ or South Korea two categories higher than France??

He is Spanish my friend

Spain at the same level of France???!! Poor guy

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Acosta

Yes, NZ has better infrastructure than France. Of course, not as large, but it's better considering its size. Also public transportation seems to be very good (I've never been there, but it's what it looks like).

Poverty, a problem in NZ???

As for working longer hours, that doesn't change that those countries have better standards.

Everybody I've known who's lived in NZ says public transport is not good at all, one of the country's weakest points. It simply can't compare with France imo.

And yes, of course there is poverty there.

Having to work 50+ hour weeks with few holidays is not an indication of high standards either, it is crazy to suggest that does not affect quality of life imo.