Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where did South Africa - consisting of both a fairly small and developed white sector and a much bigger, underdeveloped nonwhite sector - fit in the well-known economist Simon Kuznets's assertion of there being four types of countries, "developed, developing, Japan, and Argentina" at the time that he made that comment in the late 1960s or so?
Because on the one hand, at that time South Africa was often classified as a developed country (and it was - and remains - by far the most industrialized country in Africa) and the apartheid regime and the whites in general built lots of infrastructure, giving the impression of a developed country. And through to the end of apartheid in the early/mid 1990s, it had far less inflation and debt than Latin American countries (such as Brazil) with similar per capita incomes, social structures, inequality, and crime rates. But on the other hand, most of the people (and even more of the non-whites) have been every bit as poverty stricken as in any underdeveloped country.
Thus, did Kuznets classify South Africa as a developed country or an underdeveloped country? Or did he (or was he going to) put it in a unique category like Argentina or Japan?
I think it was an is an example of a country where the developed and underdeveloped sectors are parallel, in a way that is not seen elsewhere.
We visited SA in 1998 when it was just emerging from apartheid and we returned earlier this year. The wealthy are no longer all white but the contrasts are staggering. What saddened us was that we have seen many Asian countries develop greatly in that amount of time whereas in SA things seem to be getting worse, especially with the ongoing loadshedding (power shortage) issues.
So it would think it was and is still in a category of its own.
I think it was an is an example of a country where the developed and underdeveloped sectors are parallel, in a way that is not seen elsewhere.
Or rather, South Africa may not be alone among middle-income countries that have parallel developed and underdeveloped sectors - countries like Brazil come to mind - but the paralleling of these sectors has been institutionalized (thanks in part to apartheid in the past) to a degree not quite seen in those other countries.
Or rather, South Africa may not be alone among middle-income countries that have parallel developed and underdeveloped sectors - countries like Brazil come to mind - but the paralleling of these sectors has been institutionalized (thanks in part to apartheid in the past) to a degree not quite seen in those other countries.
Yes, and because it has a lot of decent infastructure, albeit often in a poor state of repair, it is easy to forget the depth of the poverty. When roads were closed due to an armed robbery and our bus detoured through a township, it hit home. As it did when one of our group observed that there were not a lot of bicycles being used. The response was that most people cannot afford them. Whereas here and no doubt in most wealthy countries, abandoned bikes connected with bike sharing apps are a major problem.
It is such a beautiful country with such lovely people and the situation is just so sad. Especially with the load shedding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
