Rich Country, Poor Country

Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States..............attributed to Porfirio Díaz

One of the oldest and thorniest questions in economics is what makes one country rich and another poor. It's not too hard to come up with laundry lists of things that seem to be pluses and others that seem to be minuses. Good government, check. Good education, check. Business friendly legal system, check. Solid economic infrastructure, check. On the negative side: corruption, endemic disease, social conflict and civil war, external interference. So how do you get out of the bad stuff and into the good? That's not easy.

To these lists I would add my sociobiological favorite: low fertility. It appears to be nearly impossible for a country to become and stay rich with a high fertility level and consequent high population growth rate. The most spectacular examples of rapid economic growth occur in countries with low to very low fertility rates. Check out Gapminder World for multiple examples.

In Mexico's case, it's easy to find reasons for it's relative poverty: historical, political, social, and other. It has frequently suffered invasions and massive territorial theft and other interference from its powerful neighbor to the North, not to mention other powers. It has long been ruled by a corrupt oligarchy and suffered frequently from internal conflicts. Poor education and cultural fragmentation are also problems. Finally, many of its most ambitious and talented emigrate to the United States, and frequently stay.

However, its fertility rate is now down to approximately the replacement rate, and infrastructure has been rapidly improving. Corruption is a downer, but a politically influential cement maker can do a good job of promoting road building. I would be a little surprised if Mexico's GDP/capita doesn't improve significantly over the next twenty years.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more