Topic: Will African countries be developed? - page 3. (Read 1654 times)
Compared to any part of the world, Africa has got something different in terms of resource, the climatic conditions, the lifestyle and food. More to go, but the corruption within the country is the cause for such a negative growth of Africa and more people trying the best, to get out and reach grown countries. People risk their life, believing the lives will be better reaching the next part of the world.
African countries will thrive as they focus more on education and health.
For many years they have been invested in by capitalist countries but are resource stripping, ethnic conflicts, and many other bad things. There are not many works or practical benefits from these investments.
They need to be smarter in choosing partners for economic development.
The crime rate is also very high and the root cause for all the of this is the lack of high-quality education. I believe the dictatorship is a big reason and there is a dire lack of governance and there are just too many wars that never let African countries develop to their true potential.For many years they have been invested in by capitalist countries but are resource stripping, ethnic conflicts, and many other bad things. There are not many works or practical benefits from these investments.
They need to be smarter in choosing partners for economic development.
I believe somewhere they have themselves to blame because they did not made right choice for leaders and they pick the wrong people to rule them and now they are just not getting any opportunity to grow. I believe dictatorship can be good as an example we can say China, but they always work for their country and the corruption is really negligible there.
China might be bad for other countries but they are strong together and a feeling of togetherness is there.
China is one interesting exception economy-wise, but they may project prosperity a lot more than may be experiencing it. For one, they have built giant ghost cities as a way to spur economic development, but there is not enough natural economic activity to support populating those cities and it may take decades to grow into them. Their control on information makes it difficult to assess. But for sure they posture like every other country to project strength that may not actually be there.
Yeah.. there are ghost cities in almost every province of China, and the Western media has covered some of these stories. The demand was there when these housing units were being constructed, but a sudden economic slump meant that there are few takers. And this is also one of the reasons why China is focusing on Africa. For them, Africa is a glowing economy, compared to China where it is at near saturation level.
African countries will thrive as they focus more on education and health.
For many years they have been invested in by capitalist countries but are resource stripping, ethnic conflicts, and many other bad things. There are not many works or practical benefits from these investments.
They need to be smarter in choosing partners for economic development.
For many years they have been invested in by capitalist countries but are resource stripping, ethnic conflicts, and many other bad things. There are not many works or practical benefits from these investments.
They need to be smarter in choosing partners for economic development.
But as others have mentioned, if corruption will not be eradicated or at least reduced to large percentage, it would be very hard for them to really progress. This is a chronic problem of most corrupt countries, the advancement is very slow because the leaders have their own agenda. Well, most politicians really have their own cards why they ran for office in the first place. I don't know if corruption can be addressed by their new generation. But someone should make a radical change and change the path of their generation. I believe one way to attack this is, education as you already mentioned. The more educated is their people, the better is their preference in life.
It isn't just Africa though. You see bad economies and underdevelopment in a lot of countries that have autocratic and corrupt leadership. Usually, they go hand in hand. The governments are autocratic because the corrupt leaders are looting the countries resources for personal gain, and the autocratic nature of the country prevents political opposition that might make things free and fair and based on meritocracy.
In most cases, authoritarian countries will be having weak economies, but there can be exceptions. A perfect example is that of China. Democracy doesn't exist in that country, and yet they managed to achieve staggering amount of economic growth in the 1990s. On the other hand, their democrat neighbors (such as India, Philippines, Vietnam, Laos.etc) grew at a much smaller pace during the same period.
China is one interesting exception economy-wise, but they may project prosperity a lot more than may be experiencing it. For one, they have built giant ghost cities as a way to spur economic development, but there is not enough natural economic activity to support populating those cities and it may take decades to grow into them. Their control on information makes it difficult to assess. But for sure they posture like every other country to project strength that may not actually be there.
African countries will thrive as they focus more on education and health.
For many years they have been invested in by capitalist countries but are resource stripping, ethnic conflicts, and many other bad things. There are not many works or practical benefits from these investments.
They need to be smarter in choosing partners for economic development.
For many years they have been invested in by capitalist countries but are resource stripping, ethnic conflicts, and many other bad things. There are not many works or practical benefits from these investments.
They need to be smarter in choosing partners for economic development.
^^^^ After the collapse and disintegration of the USSR, the Chinese realized that Communism is not the way forward. The current economic system in China is not Communist and it is more in line with a capitalist system. All that said, there have been no change in the political system. The communist party still rules the country in an authoritarian manner. They just separated the economy from the political system.
State capitalism in China is very strong. Business in China is divided into two parts, domestically controlled by the private sector while abroad, almost entirely controlled by state-owned enterprises. China's State-Owned Enterprises are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), so the high-ranking party bureau politicians get the highest position and control of the company. The government provides financial support, facility support to Chinese state-owned enterprises.
The large population makes the government have to ensure the availability of food and jobs for its people so that there is a China is not a country, China is civilization policy which encourages the Chinese diaspora to all parts of the world.
^^^^ After the collapse and disintegration of the USSR, the Chinese realized that Communism is not the way forward. The current economic system in China is not Communist and it is more in line with a capitalist system. All that said, there have been no change in the political system. The communist party still rules the country in an authoritarian manner. They just separated the economy from the political system.
In most cases, authoritarian countries will be having weak economies, but there can be exceptions. A perfect example is that of China. Democracy doesn't exist in that country, and yet they managed to achieve staggering amount of economic growth in the 1990s. On the other hand, their democrat neighbors (such as India, Philippines, Vietnam, Laos.etc) grew at a much smaller pace during the same period.
Capitalists explain that a liberal democratic system will be positively correlated with economic progress, in other words, to build an economy that is indicated by high economic growth, the political system must be supportive, and in that context liberal democracy becomes a suitable partner.
China is the center of world civilization that still exists, China has basically changed completely, it is no longer like the communist country that appeared during Mao Ze Dong reign. China has a new face that is different, starting from different Chinese Communist political systems and Chinese-style democracy, so China is very adaptive, the communist political system applied but the economy is capitalist. In addition, the one-party system maintains consistency in the goal of achieving economic growth.
The main key to China's success, because China is a copycat country, China imitates America's steps as a developed country, not following America, especially the habit of printing money and its static and dynamic model of infrastructure development, plus the model of American exploitation in China, now China also implementing it in Africa, with modification so that Africa cannot be separated from China.
It isn't just Africa though. You see bad economies and underdevelopment in a lot of countries that have autocratic and corrupt leadership. Usually, they go hand in hand. The governments are autocratic because the corrupt leaders are looting the countries resources for personal gain, and the autocratic nature of the country prevents political opposition that might make things free and fair and based on meritocracy.
In most cases, authoritarian countries will be having weak economies, but there can be exceptions. A perfect example is that of China. Democracy doesn't exist in that country, and yet they managed to achieve staggering amount of economic growth in the 1990s. On the other hand, their democrat neighbors (such as India, Philippines, Vietnam, Laos.etc) grew at a much smaller pace during the same period.
The development of one country like Africa is depend on the hands of their leader with the help of their community. But if corruption is rampant specially to the leaders of their country and the people are lazy and don't want to make their life better, then i can say that it's difficult for this country to become well develop unlike other countries.
a country will be developed if it is free from greed (corruption) in fact most countries in Africa have bad leaders.. one more thing, the role of foreign investors greatly influences the development of a country, if investors look at a country a lot, the country will advance because it gets incoming money from outside and also creates jobs. The political conditions and human resources in the average African country are still far from good, this is the reason African countries find it difficult to advance..It isn't just Africa though. You see bad economies and underdevelopment in a lot of countries that have autocratic and corrupt leadership. Usually, they go hand in hand. The governments are autocratic because the corrupt leaders are looting the countries resources for personal gain, and the autocratic nature of the country prevents political opposition that might make things free and fair and based on meritocracy.
The development of one country like Africa is depend on the hands of their leader with the help of their community. But if corruption is rampant specially to the leaders of their country and the people are lazy and don't want to make their life better, then i can say that it's difficult for this country to become well develop unlike other countries.
a country will be developed if it is free from greed (corruption) in fact most countries in Africa have bad leaders.. one more thing, the role of foreign investors greatly influences the development of a country, if investors look at a country a lot, the country will advance because it gets incoming money from outside and also creates jobs. The political conditions and human resources in the average African country are still far from good, this is the reason African countries find it difficult to advance.. It's impossible to understate the role of imperialism in delaying the emergence of Africa in its own right as an economic power. For hundreds of years, western powers looted the natural resources of the continent to build the wealth of their own nations and enslaved the populace both on the continent and while shipping millions of Africa's inhabitants off of it. With that kind of systemic oppression and looting of resources, it's not hard to envision how much of a setback the western powers dealt Africa.
Western nations continue to loot African countries. Look at the oil-rich nations such as Nigeria, Angola and Gabon. Most of the oil wells are being operated by Western corporations such as Shell and Exxon. And look at the gold, diamond and coltan mines. Once again, most of them are under the ownership of western corporations. China is a recent entrant and they have managed to disrupt the equilibrium.
Sure, the "capitalism" that is developing and exporting the natural resources now, which is owned by western corporations, is the direct beneficiary of past imperialism. It's just more palatable now because the resources aren't being taken by force and the work isn't being done through forced labor, but through voluntary jobs where the corporations hire local workers. But the ownership of those resources come from a legacy of imperialism of the 1800s and 1900s, which is why they were in a position to own those resources today.
It will always start with one person. If they will be able to at least elect a competent and empathetic leaders, African countries will surely be developed. Leader who understand what the problem and what the country needs, development will surely follow. This is also why i think Africa should invest on improving their education to raise new gen. The continent is already blessed with natural resources, the only thing they need is to know how utilize it to its full potential and it will start with competent leaders.
To be fair, Africa had its share of good leaders. Examples are Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara. Apart from Mandela, most of them were assassinated by the Western powers, when they attempted to free the natural resources of their country from the foreign corporations. Sankara in particular was targeted by France, after he had a fight with the French president François Mitterand. Lumumba on the other hand was finished off by the Belgians, after he tried to nationalize some of the mining assets in Congo. These leaders were replaced with puppet-leaders who are loyal to the Western powers. In case of Sankara, he was succeeded by the pro-French dictator Blaise Compaoré. Lumumba was replaced with the corrupt US-puppet Mobutu Sese Seko.
It's impossible to understate the role of imperialism in delaying the emergence of Africa in its own right as an economic power. For hundreds of years, western powers looted the natural resources of the continent to build the wealth of their own nations and enslaved the populace both on the continent and while shipping millions of Africa's inhabitants off of it. With that kind of systemic oppression and looting of resources, it's not hard to envision how much of a setback the western powers dealt Africa.
Western nations continue to loot African countries. Look at the oil-rich nations such as Nigeria, Angola and Gabon. Most of the oil wells are being operated by Western corporations such as Shell and Exxon. And look at the gold, diamond and coltan mines. Once again, most of them are under the ownership of western corporations. China is a recent entrant and they have managed to disrupt the equilibrium.
Despite all natural resources embedded in Africa, they are always lacking and behind other continents. Most if not all the countries in Africa are regarded as third world country (poor nations). Why are Africa countries remaining underdeveloped or developing when they have what they can use to grow and develop.
It's impossible to understate the role of imperialism in delaying the emergence of Africa in its own right as an economic power. For hundreds of years, western powers looted the natural resources of the continent to build the wealth of their own nations and enslaved the populace both on the continent and while shipping millions of Africa's inhabitants off of it. With that kind of systemic oppression and looting of resources, it's not hard to envision how much of a setback the western powers dealt Africa.
It's certainly true that Belt and Road involves elements of colonialism, and is very different to the historic European approach of send in the soldiers and take the country by force. From a moral perspective, superficially at least, China can defend themselves against accusations by pointing to all the development and infrastructure they've paid for. The question of whether wresting control of a country and asset-stripping it through semi-legal means is any more legitimate than doing so by brute force is open to debate. Certainly though they are making themselves much more inextricable than the Europeans did. In the end, Western empires collapsed and the soldiers and administrators went home - the effects on the colonised nations were certainly strong, but in the end (in most cases) manageable - but it's difficult to see how for example the Chinese presence in Africa can ever be removed.
Nationalism vs hungry stomach, for most African people, China's long-term infrastructure development in Africa certainly promises opportunities, especially the addition of jobs in the manufacturing sector, China's development means hope for many workers in Africa, so the African people do not see China as a colonizer and do not see themselves as victims of exploitation. The African people are aware that their main enemies are their own governments and their brothers. China has something to offer their government that cannot be realized, namely the delivery of services and infrastructure.
China's unconditional cooperation has allowed African governments to enjoy access to finance, expertise and development assistance. China's soft loans have enabled many African governments to evade pressure from global governing bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, to comply with Western accountability norms and requirements relating to political and economic reform, such as notorious structural adjustments that do not always serve interests. African country.
African people are more receptive to China because there is no history of physical colonization by China in Africa, so Africans learn about economic development and growth and ensure sovereignty from China.
Africa was a very developed country but this effect is due to the inequality between the rich and the poor.
Exactly this one mate,Africa is one of the most richest country in terms of Minerals and nature but this was not been distributed equally.African suffers even from the british and until now from their own countryman.
Quote
Much improved in terms of production system including agriculture of poor people. Unaccountable American and European agrochemical and seed companies are helping Africans to develop. We need global trade financial and justice to reassert Africa's position in the global economy and give us the opportunity to build our future democratically which will help them improve.
Crypto is one of the better option to help african people if they will only believe and adopt this,am sure there are more chances that they will get along and change their life forever. 
China carried out colonialization 5.0 through the OBOR program
It's certainly true that Belt and Road involves elements of colonialism, and is very different to the historic European approach of send in the soldiers and take the country by force. From a moral perspective, superficially at least, China can defend themselves against accusations by pointing to all the development and infrastructure they've paid for. The question of whether wresting control of a country and asset-stripping it through semi-legal means is any more legitimate than doing so by brute force is open to debate. Certainly though they are making themselves much more inextricable than the Europeans did. In the end, Western empires collapsed and the soldiers and administrators went home - the effects on the colonised nations were certainly strong, but in the end (in most cases) manageable - but it's difficult to see how for example the Chinese presence in Africa can ever be removed.
all countries in the world have the potential to become developed countries but for countries in Africa it will take a long time, maybe 60 - 100 years again.
There are conditions that must be passed by a country to be called a developed country that is the high income per capita, quality human resources and high infrastructure. in fact these conditions are not found in almost all countries in Africa.
Africa was a very developed country but this effect is due to the inequality between the rich and the poor. Much improved in terms of production system including agriculture of poor people. Unaccountable American and European agrochemical and seed companies are helping Africans to develop. We need global trade financial and justice to reassert Africa's position in the global economy and give us the opportunity to build our future democratically which will help them improve.
almost all countries in Africa can not say developed countries...There are conditions that must be passed by a country to be called a developed country that is the high income per capita, quality human resources and high infrastructure. in fact these conditions are not found in almost all countries in Africa.
Jump to: