Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Oct '17 00:21 / 1 edit
    Some Westerners have compared economic development in Ghana
    with that in the Republic of Korea since about 60 years ago.
    Why has Ghana developed much more slowly than the Republic of Korea?

    http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156852194x00315

    "Ghana and South Korea"
    --Herbert Werlin (1994, 'Journal of African and Asian Studies' )

    "This article attempts to explain the reasons for the widening economic disparities
    between Ghana and South Korea from a 1957 level of near equal per-capita income.
    It builds upon the writing of Carl Rosberg, suggesting the need to go
    beyond for the factors stressed in the 1982 Jackson/Rosberg book:
    socialism, clientelism, and authoritarianism. In addition to an analysis
    of policy selection and orientation, three case studies are presented
    comparing program implementation (regarding rural development,
    industrial parks, and public enterprises), using political elasticity theory.
    While lack of political will, more than anything else, seems responsible
    for Ghana's slow economic progress, the search for additional explanations
    (inspired by Rosberg) must continue."

    _Personal Rule in Black Africa: Prince, Autocrat, Prophet, Tyrant_
    by Robert Jackson and Carl Rosberg (1982)

    "I happened to come across economic data on Ghana and South Korea in
    the early 1960s, and I was astonished to see how similar their economies were then.
    These two countries had roughly comparable levels of per capita GNP;
    similar divisions of their economy among primary products, manufacturing,
    and services....Also, they were receiving comparable levels of economic aid.
    ...
    How could this extraordinary difference in development be explained?
    Undoubtedly, many factors played a role, but it seemed to me that culture
    had to be a large part of the explanation. South Koreans valued thrift,
    investment, hard work, education, organization, and discipline.
    Ghanaians had different values. In short, cultures count."
    --Samuel Huntington (_Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress_, p. xiii)
  2. 09 Oct '17 00:58 / 2 edits
    Let's compare some facts about the Ghana and the Republic of Korea:

    1) History before foreign colonial rule
    Both Ghana and Korea had significant civilizations arise there *before* foreign colonial rule was imposed.
    Clearly, both Ghanaians and Koreans are capable of governing themselves successfully.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ghana
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashanti_Empire

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korea

    2) Colonial rule: Ghana was ruled by the British Empire; Korea by the Japanese Empire.

    It's true that slavery (and the slave trade) was practiced in Ghana, both by the native Africans and the British.
    But this came to an end in the early 19th century, so it's very hard to argue that the history
    of slavery should have a major influence on Ghana's modern economic development.

    "t is important to mention, however, that the supply of slaves to the Gold Coast was entirely in African hands.
    Most rulers, such as the kings of various Akan states engaged in the slave trade, as well as individual local merchants."
    --Wikipedia

    "In 1807, Britain used its naval power and its diplomatic muscle to outlaw trade in slaves
    by its citizens and to begin a campaign to stop the international trade in slaves."
    --Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule

    Japanese colonial rule (1910-45) in Korea was brutal and racist, arguably at least as
    oppressive as British colonial rule (which tended to be indirect, relying upon local chiefs)
    in Ghana during the same period.

    3) 20th century wars
    Ghana did not have to fight a war against the UK in order to gain its independence in 1957.
    The Korean War (1950-53) devastated Korea, leaving most of Korea in ruins.
    Koreans clearly have been less fortunate than Ghanians with their experiences of war.

    4) Political leadership after postwar independence.
    Ghana was led by Kwame Nkrumah, a charismatic 'socialist' who was determined to oppose
    tribalism and modernize his country. He initially was very popular in Ghana and widely
    admired outside it, particularly by leftist Westerners. He was overthrown in a military coup d'etat in 1966.

    South Korea was led by Syngman Rhee, a brutal corrupt right-wing client dictator of the USA,
    who was loathed by many of his own people. He was admired by hardly anyone outside
    his own country except right-wing Americans. A student-led revolution forced him to resign in 1960.
    So it seems to me that the Republic of Korea began with a worse leader than Ghana had.

    5) External threats
    How much of a country's resources need to devoted toward foreign military aggression?
    Ghana never has had significant worries about being invaded by any of its own neighbors.
    The Republic of Korea has been obsessed with the threat of invasion by the DPRK.
    The Republic of Korea has a much heavier burden of national defence than Ghana.

    So, by several measures in the late 1950s, Ghana seemed better situated than the
    Republic of Korea to embark upon its path of economic development and modernization.
    We all know that the Republic of Korea today's much more advanced and wealthy than Ghana.
    So why did this happen?

    Are differences between Korean and Ghanaian cultures sufficient to explain this?
  3. 09 Oct '17 01:21
    How many US military bases are in Ghana as opposed to South Korea. Those bases pump money into the economy, especially over time.

    The other aspect is the general IQ of the population which shows up in other factors you have already mentioned.
  4. 09 Oct '17 01:59
    Originally posted by @eladar
    How many US military bases are in Ghana as opposed to South Korea. Those bases pump money into the economy, especially over time.

    The other aspect is the general IQ of the population which shows up in other factors you have already mentioned.
    Eladar greatly overrates the importance of US military bases to an economy of any size.
    The Philippines did *not* become significantly poorer after it refused to renew its major US military bases.

    An exception could be a tiny island such as Diego Garcia, which is dominated by its military base.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

    It's not healthy for a national economy to depend upon supplying drinks, drugs, and prostitutes to US military personnel.
  5. 09 Oct '17 15:43
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Eladar greatly overrates the importance of US military bases to an economy of any size.
    The Philippines did *not* become significantly poorer after it refused to renew its major US military bases.
    Eladar overrates, as you say, the importance of bases, but generous US aid was a decisive factor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/nov/28/south-korea-development-model

    South Korea, however, benefited from big injections of foreign aid, first from the US, then Japan. A briefing paper from KoFID, a South Korean network of civil society organisations, and ReDI, a South Korean thinktank, points out that the US offered about $60bn in grants and loans to South Korea between 1946 and 1978. In the same period, the total amount of aid provided by the US to the entire African continent was $68.9bn.
  6. 09 Oct '17 19:47 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @teinosuke
    Eladar overrates, as you say, the importance of bases, but generous US aid was a decisive factor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/nov/28/south-korea-development-model

    South Korea, however, benefited from big injections of foreign aid, first from the US, then Japan. A briefing paper from KoFID, a South Korean ne ...[text shortened]... iod, the total amount of aid provided by the US to the entire African continent was $68.9bn.
    "Generous US aid was a decisive factor."
    --Teinosuke

    I have to say that this statement is, at best, quite misleading.

    The Republic of Korea was a US client state, and US aid was largely aimed at improving its
    security against the DPRK, including building the infrastructure needed to sustain US military bases
    (at the comfort levels to which Americans were accustomed). US aid was *not* aimed at making
    the Republic of Korea into a major competitor with the USA in exporting manufactured goods,
    but that has happened to a substantial extent. I would add that the Republic of Korea's
    economic performance did not take off dramatically soon after the Korean War, despite US aid.
    Indeed, the (now poor) DPRK's economy seemed moderately close to the ROK's into the 1970s.
    And I would point out that the Republic of Korea's population is still about twice Ghana's,
    so it would be misleading to compare total aid rather than aid per capita.

    On the other hand, Ghana was a British colony, toward which the USA felt no 'moral obligation' to help.
    As I recall, Ghana has received considerably more of its aid from the UK than the USA.
    And some British observers believe that has been money generally well-spent.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/15/ghana-aid-10-years

    "'In 10 years' time, Ghana may not require any aid at all'
    Ghana is one of Africa's great successes – a stable and thriving country that is testament to the impact of aid."

    "By any measure Ghana is a success story. The first African country to gain independence in 1957
    following 83 years of colonial rule by the British, it is now a stable democracy whose last
    five elections have been deemed free and fair. It has made huge progress in reducing poverty,
    having already met the millennium development goals on poverty and hunger, and
    boasts a growth rate that places it among the best-performing economies in the world."

    So does not seem that Ghana has been starved of (largely non-US) aid.

    The Republic of Korea obviously is in a much more important geopolitical position than Ghana.
    Therefore, it's natural that it should receive more attention. But even if it's true that the
    Republic of Korea has received more non-military-related aid per capita than Ghana,
    I don't know of any academic who regards that factor as 'decisive' (most important) in explaining
    the great disparities in economic development between Ghana and the Republic of Korea.
    Ghana has done well by post-colonial African standards; the Republic of Korea today has
    done even better by anyone's standards.
  7. 09 Oct '17 20:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @eladar
    How many US military bases are in Ghana as opposed to South Korea. Those bases pump money into the economy, especially over time.

    The other aspect is the general IQ of the population which shows up in other factors you have already mentioned.
    "The other aspect is the general IQ of the population..."
    --Eladar

    Eladar wades into the political minefield (where most scholars--angels or otherwise--fear to tread).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

    "IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a 2002 book by Richard Lynn, Professor of Psychology,
    and Tatu Vanhanen, Professor of Political Science.[1] The authors argue that differences
    in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) are correlated with
    differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). They further argue that
    differences in average national IQs constitute one important factor, but not the only one,
    contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth.
    Critical responses have included questioning of the methodology and of the incompleteness
    of the data, as well as of the conclusions.[2][3] The 2006 book IQ and Global Inequality
    is a follow-up to IQ and the Wealth of Nations by the same authors."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

    "IQ and Global Inequality is a 2006 book by psychologist Richard Lynn and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen.[1]
    IQ and Global Inequality is follow-up to their 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations,[2]
    an expansion of the argument that international differences in current economic development
    are due in part to differences in average national intelligence as indicated by national
    IQ estimates, and a response to critics."

    "In IQ and Global Inequality Lynn and Vanhanen argue that intelligence, as measured by
    IQ tests, is a major contributor to national wealth as well as to various measures of social
    well-being. They base this argument on the finding that nations' average IQs have a
    strong correlation with several such factors, among them adult literacy (0.64), tertiary
    education (0.75), life expectancy (0.77), and democratization (0.57)."

    "The book received a mixed reception with most academics criticizing both the methodology and conclusions."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

    "The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized
    intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day."
    "There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications."
  8. 09 Oct '17 20:22
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "And I would point out that the Republic of Korea's population is still about twice Ghana's,
    so it would be misleading to compare total aid rather than aid per capita.
    Perhaps the word "decisive" was ill-chosen, since I didn't mean to say that it was the most important factor, only that it was AN important factor.

    However, the statistic I quoted in raw dollars didn't compare US aid to South Korea with US aid to Ghana - as the passage quoted from your post seems to imply. They compared US aid to South Korea with US aid to the whole of the African continent!

    The article I cited that paragraph from also offers a number of other possible explanations of South Korea's success.
  9. 09 Oct '17 20:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @teinosuke
    Perhaps the word "decisive" was ill-chosen, since I didn't mean to say that it was the most important factor, only that it was AN important factor.

    However, the statistic I quoted in raw dollars didn't compare US aid to South Korea with US aid to Ghana - as the passage quoted from your post seems to imply. They compared US aid to South Korea with US ai ...[text shortened]... hat paragraph from also offers a number of other possible explanations of South Korea's success.
    I can reply only to what you write, however misleadingly, not to what you wish later that you had written.

    "They compared US aid to South Korea with US aid to the whole of the African continent!"
    --Teinosuke

    I already knew that. Obviously, US aid to Ghana would be a subset of US aid to Africa.
    But it's misleading to dwell upon US aid to Ghana as though the USA's only source of aid to it.
    As far as I know, Ghana has received much more aid from non-US sources, such as the UK.
    I hope that you don't imagine that all former French colonies in Africa receive more aid from the USA than from France!

    It may be politically expedient to conclude that Ghana today's much poorer than the Republic of Korea
    mainly because the USA has given much less aid to Ghana than to the Republic of Korea,
    but I would submit that notion fits in, at best, with an extremely simplistic model of economic development.

    Now I have come across some Africans who like to argue (though they usually seem ignorant
    of Korean history) that it's unfair to compare Ghana with the Republic of Korea in terms of
    economic development, but even they don't seem to put the great emphasis on differences
    in US aid that you do. Indeed, they tend to agree that Ghana could have done better.
  10. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    10 Oct '17 07:51
    Originally posted by @eladar
    How many US military bases are in Ghana as opposed to South Korea. Those bases pump money into the economy, especially over time.

    The other aspect is the general IQ of the population which shows up in other factors you have already mentioned.
    Please Mr President can we have a US base in NZ?
  11. 10 Oct '17 09:36
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    I already knew that. Obviously, US aid to Ghana would be a subset of US aid to Africa.
    Well, alas, I can reply only to what you write, not to what you might wish later you had written. You made a comparison between the population of South Korea and Ghana. This was irrelevant in terms of the comparison made in the article.

    However, the points you make about non-US aid to Africa are of course valid and well-taken.

    To what do you primarily attribute the difference?
  12. 10 Oct '17 12:04
    I think the reasons that the Koreans are more prosperous than those in Ghana are obvious.

    While the Koreans were greatly impoverished by colonialism and expereinced extended feudal stagnation prior to that, they have always had relatively high cultural infrastructure and have valued education. They were a developed society in so many other ways.

    We could also say that there are some differences in the genes.
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Oct '17 14:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @jacob-verville
    I think the reasons that the Koreans are more prosperous than those in Ghana are obvious.

    While the Koreans were greatly impoverished by colonialism and expereinced extended feudal stagnation prior to that, they have always had relatively high cultural infrastructure and have valued education. They were a developed society in so many other ways.

    We could also say that there are some differences in the genes.
    Korea used to be the country of scholars, 'Seonbi' (virtuous scholar) but not any more according to this Korean report:

    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160823000651

    He found inputting the name of a university president, for instance, the first four pictures and blurbs are movie stars, atheletes and then a small picture of the university president and has found that several times in Korean media.
  14. 10 Oct '17 20:15
    Originally posted by @teinosuke
    Well, alas, I can reply only to what you write, not to what you might wish later you had written. You made a comparison between the population of South Korea and Ghana. This was irrelevant in terms of the comparison made in the article.

    However, the points you make about non-US aid to Africa are of course valid and well-taken.

    To what do you primarily attribute the difference?
    It's an obvious logical inference that US aid to Ghana must be a subset (likely a small one) of US aid in Africa.
    It's so obvious that I felt no need to point it out explicitly.

    Again, it was misleading and disingenuous for Teinosuke to harp upon US aid to Africa
    as though the USA must be the only or even the main source of all aid to Africa.

    After Angola gained its independence from Portugal and its government emerged after
    winning a civil war against forces backed by the USA and apartheid South Africa, the USA
    gave no aid to Angola. Angola received substantial aid from the USSR, Cuba, and GDR (East Germany).

    The (arguably) single largest aid project in Africa--building a railway in Tanzania and Zambia--was
    undertaken by China practically alone, perhaps with minor participation by any local workers.
    (After designing the railway, the Chinese preferred to employ trained, experienced workers
    from China rather than relying upon (and having to train) inexperienced local Africans
    for the often hazardous work.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAZARA_Railway

    "The TAZARA Railway, also called the Uhuru Railway or the Tanzam Railway, is a railroad
    in East Africa linking the port of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania with the town of Kapiri Mposhi
    in Zambia's Central Province. The single-track railway is 1,860 km (1,160 mi) long."

    "The project was built from 1970 to 1975 as a turnkey project financed and supported by China.
    At the time of its completion, two years ahead of schedule, the TAZARA was the single
    longest railway in sub-Saharan Africa.[2] TAZARA was the largest single foreign-aid project
    undertaken by China at the time, at a construction cost of US $500 million (the equivalent of
    US $3.08 billion today)[3]"

    The railway was built through much extremely difficult terrain, imposing hazardous working conditions.
    (Some Westerners had assumed it could, at best, be completed much later than the Chinese had planned.)
    I don't know how many Chinese workers died in accidents while building this railway.
    At that time, China's government held that Chinese workers on the railway might have to
    regard themselves almost as the equivalent of soldiers and be willing to sacrifice their lives.

    "To what do you primarily attribute the difference?"
    --Teinosuke

    I don't know if I would *primarily* 'attribute the difference' between development in Ghana
    and the Republic of Korea to *any single factor*. I believe, however, that people should
    *not* be treated as only figures on paper, and it's important to consider cultural differences.

    After Korea was devastated by war (an experience from which Ghana was spared),
    many, if not most, Koreans became imbued with the ethos that they had to work and study
    extraordinarily hard to rebuild their society (at last freed from Japanese imperialism) and
    make it better than ever. (In Ghana, most people lacked the same consuming motivation.)
    Not only postwar Germans can embrace the (apolitical) spirit of "Auferstanden aus Ruinen".
  15. 10 Oct '17 20:18
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59 to Eladar
    Please Mr President can we have a US base in NZ?
    Does Wolfgang59 want the local economy around that US military base to depend largely
    upon supplying drinks, drugs, and prostitutes (their usual needs) to the Americans there?