Is Thailand A 3rd World Country Still?

[kat]

And by the way, here are some facts about South Korea (from economywatch.com). Essentially, it is a high-income, OECD country, but this status is relatively new, hence the confusion and ambiguity. And Steve, as for your point about women leaders in the developed world, it is a good one for different reasons other than as a comparison to Asia. In almost every case, the female leaders of state in Asia are the daughters, wives, or sisters of former male leaders. This is a widely documented commentary, so don't contest this with me personally. That is why you can have a former female prime minister in Pakistan. Now, are you going to argue that this is indicative of a more equal playing field for women -- hardly.

"KEY ECONOMIC INDICATORS

South Korea is characterized among the high-income countries of the world. Total gross national income in 2003 was $ 576426 million. Per capita income was $ 12,020, however, in terms of purchasing power parity, it was slightly higher at $ 17930 in 2003. The growth rate of GDP was 3.1 % in 2003 as against 7 % in 2002 and 8.6 during 1983-93. Unemployment rate was 3.4% (2003)

STRUCUTURE OF THE ECONOMY

According to World Bank estimates, in 2003, agriculture accounts for 3.6% in total GDP, while industry and services had a share of 36.4% and 60% respectively. Similarly, maximum number of labour force was employed in services 72.1%. Agriculture employed 8.8% and industry 19.1% of country's work force. Since the early 1960s, South Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth and integration into the high-tech modern world economy. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-99 exposed longstanding weaknesses in South Korea's development model, including high debt/equity ratios, massive foreign borrowing, and an undisciplined financial sector. Growth plunged to a negative 6.6% in 1998, then strongly recovered to 10.8% in 1999 and 9.2% in 2000. Growth fell back to 3.3% in 2001 because of the slowing global economy, falling exports, and the perception that much-needed corporate and financial reforms had stalled. Led by consumer spending and exports, growth in 2002 was an impressive 6.2%, despite anemic global growth, followed by moderate 2.8% growth in 2003. In 2003 the National Assembly approved legislation reducing the six-day work week to five days. "

[thedude]

steve, i applaud you on your well researched and well articulated rebuttal. i know some people will pay serious money for work of that quality.

i wish BAF would just come to the point and tell us what those social-polical or cultural inadequacies are thats keeping countries like south korea from ascending to the lofty "1st world" heights of countries like Italy. i'm sure many of my south korean friends would be eager to hear the same.

[steveromagnino]

steve, i applaud you on your well researched and well articulated rebuttal. i know some people will pay serious money for work of that quality.

i wish BAF would just come to the point and tell us what those social-polical or cultural inadequacies are thats keeping countries like south korea from ascending to the lofty "1st world" heights of countries like Italy. i'm sure many of my south korean friends would be eager to hear the same.

Thanks, but it isn't particularly well researched; to be honest the amount of data available from UN etc is jsut overwhelming, and each little fifedom likes to trumpet their way of doing things. I've examined the women's rights issue, and BAF does have a valid point on that one; women rank pretty low on the scale below in Korea.

I actually did do some research and analysis once for the World Bank in conjunction with the person I suspect BAF may be (who is a great practical joker in this type of way); not really my sort of thing, but if you want to talk about energy pricing and deregulation that is one of the few things i have more than a passing interest in.

Kat

I am not sure political representation is the best indicator, but it is a realatively easy one to find.

Arroyo is certainly the child of politicians, as were Aquino, Ghandi, et al but then again....so is Bush. And in the case of Arroyo, the reason she got into power probably had less to do with her family legacy than say Indhira Ghandi. Given the VERY small number of female world leaders in the world (USA never, Australia never, ) that some of Asia have had any at all is interesting in itself, no matter who their relatives might be (looking at USA, you could note that Bush, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Taft, all are somewhat political family dynasties). I take your point though, just tempering it a little to point out it is a matter of magnitude rather than a black and white situation.

Out of interest... you don't think that Bhutto did most of the ground work herself then stepped into power, because most of the other ones definitely seem to be as you say, women carrying on the dynasty of their family?

And how about interim leaders South Korea Prime Minister Chang Sang (2002) and Mongolia Prime Minister Tuyaa Nyam-Osoryn (1999)? I do not know enough of them to comment, but like Jenny Shipley first female PM of NZ, they WERE female leaders at one time and both seem to be without connections....

Interesting to note though, that there are only 9 countries who have had 2 female leaders, and Sri Lanka, Philipines and Bangladesh are all Asian and up there. That I can find, Italy for instance, has never had an appointed or elected female leader, unlike Korea, for instance.

If we look at numbers of female MPs in Asia (UNESCO says Asia is 16%) and compare this to the rest of the world, it is pretty disturbing for women - other than Nordic region (40%) most of the rest aren't much better - America (20%), Europe excluding Nordic (17%), Pacific (14%), Arab states (8%).

Worldwide, only 27 women lead the house of parliaments of the 187 existing parliaments, and most of these are tiny countries - Japan, Austria and South Afica are the big countries in this situation.

But this is a very poor inticator on gender equality, however it certainly is easy :-) So no, not going to argue on this basis. However, let's just say other than the Nordic region, the world has a long way to go in equality, Asia included.

According to the World Economic Forum (I know I know, amatuerish searching on the net for information, but what the hel_l, I have just completed a kick butt analysis of the Phuket property market for which I am going to get well paid for my late night, now I can actually surf the net briefly ;-) you can rank women's equality on this basis:

1) economic participation – equal remuneration for equal work;

2) economic opportunity – access to the labour market that is not restricted to low-paid, unskilled jobs;

3) political empowerment – representation of women in decision-making structures;

4) educational attainment – access to education;

5) health and well-being – access to reproductive healthcare.

Here is the link....

http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf...in+58+Countries

Nordic countries took the top 5 spots, no surprise. Let's bear in mind they ONLY viewed the OECD plus selected emerging market, with a total of 58 countries.

Now contrary to what I expected, check this out!!! (these are in order)

Sweden 1

Norway 2

Iceland 3

Denmark 4

Finland 5

New Zealand 6 (guess my old boss wasn't part of the survey :-)

Canada 7

United Kingdom 8

Germany 9

Australia 10

Latvia 11

Lithuania 12

France 13

Netherlands 14

Estonia 15

Ireland 16

United States 17

Costa Rica 18

Poland 19

Belgium 20

Slovak Republic 21

Slovenia 22

Portugal 23

Hungary 24

Czech Republic 25

Luxembourg 26

Spain 27

Austria 28

Bulgaria 29

Colombia 30

Russian Federation 31

Uruguay 32

China 33 (first of the Asian countries, and somewhat hard to believe other than economically, and in fact economically women are up there at 9th best country for equal economic participation)

Switzerland 34

Argentina 35

South Africa 36

Israel 37

Japan 38 (2nd Asian)

Bangladesh 39 (3rd Asian)

Malaysia 40 (4th Asian)

Romania 41

Zimbabwe 42

Malta 43

Thailand 44 (5th Asian country, and tops the poll in women's economic participation)

Italy 45 (Ohmifrigginlord - this developed country which was specifically held up regarding women's rights as opposed to Asia is a total laggard compared to the rest of Europe and is right next to Thailand and Indo...the absolute <deleted> shame.. actually nil surprise to the people in the office here; we work with Italian men - Italy was particularly relatively strong (9th) at health and wellbeing, but 51st in economic participation)

Indonesia 46 (6th Asian country)

Peru 47

Chile 48

Venezuela 49

Greece 50

Brazil 51

Mexico 52

India 53

Korea 54 (not so hot on the women, far behind Thailand even)

Jordan 55

Pakistan 56

Turkey 57

Egypt 58

So... it seems women's equality in Asia is stemming from economic participation, and one would hope that like Khunying Pojaman, their role becomes one of equals (or better) as a result. More pragmatic perhaps, and not so much the result of legislation as family roles - interesting to see what happens next.

If indeed culture drives economic wealth, then Asian economies (at least China and Thailand) are using the female half of the population to work to drive wealth as entrepreneurs presumably. Certainly, the number of powerful women CEOs far outnumbers what I encounterered in New Zealand (where I worked in one company whose CEO systematically eliminated all female executive management over 2 years, on the basis that he thought they 'weren't company men'. And that was one of the country's top performing companies on the stock market).

One hopes improving education and economic opportunities would also make a difference long term, Thailand ranks terribly on the education front for women (54th).

I realise this is a thinktank type group, do you agree with their methodology (I can shoot countless holes in it) and the results overall (somewhat surprising in part)?

Edited February 28, 2006 by steveromagnino

[thedude]

i reckon singapore would rank very high on that list if it was included in the study. i lived in singapore for several years before the present stint and i think the female influence in executive circles there is definitely more palpable then even here in thailand.

[steveromagnino]

i reckon singapore would rank very high on that list if it was included in the study. i lived in singapore for several years before the present stint and i think the female influence in executive circles there is definitely more palpable then even here in thailand.

Yes. I also worked in Singapore for a while (although as model/actor, so you don't get a complete exposure as to how the place works swanning around the place!) but I did feel the same vibe; that like here women were the people actually doing much of the work in senior management.

There are plenty of female entrepreneurs, at one point both Microsoft and IBM I think it was were locally headed up by women; Temasak was (until recently if I not mistaken) run by a woman and CFO of Singtel is also a woman..plenty to choose from.

Business person of the year Olivia Lum was also a woman in 2005...perhaps small acheivements but at least something.

Interestingly, are women better at leading? I would argue, no, just the same. But there are some researchers arguing that women are more likely to be treated poorly in promotion, thus only the best of the best end up leading companies, and thus are likely to outperform men as CEOs.

This research showed the opposite; that female CEOs tended to underperform men by around 20% in the first year, and then about equal thereafter measured by stock price.

http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/glucksman/docs/Srelcova_2005.pdf

The sample size is crazily small, and there are so many other factors to consider, but food for thought anyway.

I'm not sure why Singapore is left out, because it is about the same size as NZ, and yet they usually include NZ.....

Lest anyone think that the developed world is far ahead, check dis b4 yo' reck yo'self: in USA women make up almost 1/2 the worldforce, but only 2 fortune 500 companies have female CEOS and I think one of them was the HP woman who was fired Carly something or rather.

Edited February 28, 2006 by steveromagnino

[BAF]

OK, I would respond point by point, but it makes more sense to summarise my issues with your posts into 3 areas:

No, the only thing which makes sense is replying point by point because that would force you to stay close to the topic, close to the fine details being discussed and close to the line of reasoning we are following.

Let's cut through the crap:

1- after your researches (the UN websites, Wikipedia etc) have you verified the correspondence between the expressions "third world country" and "developing country"? YES [] NO []

2- do you agree that Thailand is still a "developing country"? YES [] NO []

3- how do you answer to this thread's topic "Is Thailand a 3rd world country still"? YES [] NO []

Your milk shake of words is just designed to avoid giving a direct, clear, easy, simple, honest answer to these questions.

Well, in reality you have already convolutely replied YES to all of those questions, you are just refusing to state so in a CLEAR manner. Come on, you are almost there.

[BAF]

As for the HDI from the UNDP, I mentioned earlier that it is one alternative measure that compares other forms of development. It is a supplement and not a replacement of other financial and socio-political measures.

I do quite like the HDI, nice formula, easy and well explained. The official classifications are far richer in detail though, for sure.

I thought we have already ascertained that the HDI classification is based on just three (3) criteria and is just an extremely partial socio-economic approach.

The HDI is based on just:

1- life expectancy

2- two education indicators

3- GDP per capita

You came up with it in our discussion on what differentiate a 1st world country from a NIC, I have told you to look for socio-political indicators and you came back with GDP per capita...

The HD Index is completely USELESS in the context we were discussing, if you were replying point by point you wouldn't have missed my replies on this HDI issue: what does the HDI tell us about a country's women's rights? what does the HDI tell us about a country's stance in the area of the human rights, from the protection granted by the law to the minorities to the rights granted to foreigners?

[BAF]

According to the World Economic Forum (I know I know, amatuerish searching on the net for information, but what the hel_l, I have just completed a kick butt analysis of the Phuket property market for which I am going to get well paid for my late night, now I can actually surf the net briefly ;-) you can rank women's equality on this basis:

Let's see, to compare Italy's and South Korea's women's rights you have thought the greatest idea to be to look at the World Economic Forum and specifically at their "first ever study that attempts to quantify the size of the “gender gap” in 58 countries. " (copied word by word from their website).

The fact that in their "first ever attempt" countries like Latvia and Lithuania score better than countries like France and the US, countries like Uruguay and China score better than countries like Switzerland and Israel, countries like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe score better than countries like Italy and Greece and that even Pakistan scores better than Turkey hasn't, of course, raised any red flag with you...

Maybe a look at the Human Rights Division of the United Nations, and specifically at its Section on the Status of Women (which, dating back to 1946 is hardly at their "first ever study" on the matter that you are trying to discuss) may shed some much needed light.

I know you like, as you said, "easy" and "easy to find" formulas and I've tried to tell you over and over that the description of complex realities requires complex definitions. Trying to take the easiest and shortest way like pretending to acquire a knowledge in socio-political matters and on countries you have never set foot in through the reading of a couple of internet links and a couple of misread, misunderstood and (in this context) meaningless stats like the HDI and the "first ever study" of the WEF just leads you to the result that China scores better than Switzerland in the area of the women's rights...

So, I'm sorry but I can't point to you a single "easy" and "easy to find" link where you can find a country and its "score" or ranking position. You, thedude and the others who think that South Korea or Singapore are not only 1st world, but even "more 1st world" than true 1st world countries like, for example, Italy, have to go, by yourselves, through the DAW's reports and the CEDAW's conclusions therein reported. (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/index.html)

DAW = Division for the Advancement of Women

CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

You lack the professional cultural background to correctly interpret those data and relativize their meaning to the local realities nonetheless you will discover interesting things like the fact that what western countries are usually asked by the UN is essentially to establish or accentuate the so called "positive discriminations" (which are still themselves discriminations) in order to force, through the introdution of mandatory quotas, the presence of women in politics and in the higher managerial positions of the economy (the main subject of your WEF's "first ever study").

There isn't much else to ask from countries where the women have long been "liberated" and where it's mainly their choice to dedicate their life to their careers (like men have always done, relatively speaking) or to their families and where the feminists are left to fight over their husbands' surnames...

What the DAW questions in countries like South Korea or Singapore or Thailand is "somewhat" different and regards "slightly" more important matters, considering as an example South Korea, the country which scores better among those three, I have randomly picked:

- South Korea

. "The most serious social and cultural obstacle to improving the status of women in Korea is the sex role stereotypes of the patriarchal society. Gender roles are learned in childhood, and the gap in gender identity is reflected in a dichotomy of male and female roles in the family and society. The result has been social, economic, legal, political, and cultural discrimination: disadvantages in employment, promotion, and wages; discriminatory provisions still remaining in the Family Law," - from the introduction to the Fifth Periodic Report of the Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

. The sex ratio of newborns shows that female infants have unequal opportunities to be born. The normal sex ratio at birth is of 105-106 males per 100 females, in South Korea it can reach the 204%.

Such practices are stronger in the traditionally more conservative regions and also in the case of the lastborn. Such imbalance in sex ratio is due to gender discriminatory social attitudes and practices. The government has made efforts to address the attitudes of male preference.

Recognizing the gravity of the problem of the growing imbalance in sex ratio, the Seoul Metropolitan City started a campaign in 1999 to celebrate the birth of the female infant by planting a tree but detection and punishment is difficult, since these practices take place covertly in hospitals.

. The Republic of Korea has maintained the family head succession system, whereby the family head is succeeded based on the paternal lineage (Civil Code, Articles 980-995). The family head system has far-reaching implications on marriage and family relations, and has stood in the way of realizing gender equality in many aspects of society.

. When there is no son and only daughter(s), the family cannot be succeeded for generations unless a man is taken into marriage and his son is made to succeed the family.

. A divorced woman can either return to the family registry of her parents or establish a new family registry under her name. But she cannot register her child on her registry. The child has to remain on the husband’s family registry, even when the mother is designated as legal custodian and guardian of the child and lives with the child. Even when the divorce was brought about because the husband abused the child and/or did not carry out his role as father and therefore the mother was awarded custody of the child, the child cannot be transferred to the family registry of the mother.

. Children born out of wedlock to an unmarried mother can be registered on her family registry only when they are not recognized by the biological father. If so recognized, they are registered on the father’s family registry regardless of what the mother wants. The child is registered in the family registry of the father through the unilateral act of the father, even if the mother has no intention of marrying or maintaining contact with him, and he is not engaged in rearing the child at all.

The husband can register on the family registry a child born to him by a woman other than his wife, regardless of what the wife wants. It is not so rare that the wife is not even aware that the husband has registered a child that she did not give birth to. Meanwhile, when the wife wants to register a child born out of wedlock with another man, she must get consent not only from the husband but also from the head of the family that the child biologically belongs to.

. a male may get married when he reaches 18 years of age, and a female 16 years of age.

. A movement to use the surnames of both parents started in 1997 among women’s organizations, and the number of women using both parents’ surnames is increasing. But there is not enough public support or research back-up to turn the movement into law at this point. (thedude, are you reading?)

. gender-restrictive recruitment and advertisements is allowed

. inheritance laws still favors males

. "violence against women is still pervasive in Korean society." in the CEDAW's concluding comments, General Assembly - Official Records - Fifty-third session

. among the CEDAW's areas of concerns: "Insufficient social protection of female workers in the private sector; Situation of women in agriculture, especially of elderly women and in rural areas;"

. among the CEDAW's recommendations: "Provision of equal social protection for women in both the public and private sectors including extension of paid maternity leave to the private sector to bridge the gap between the working conditions in these sectors;" (steveromagnino, are you reading? it seems that the Korean 3 months at 100% isn't better than the Italian 5 months at 80% + 13th and 14th wages + normal holidays allowances + normal maturation of seniority "points" for the private sector and the 1 year leave at 80% + 13th and 14th wages + normal holidays allowances + normal maturation of seniority "points" for the public sector)

. until 2000 female offspring couldn't continue to benefit from family pension after marriage.

. until 1999 family leave for wedding or funeral granted to civil servants depended on the paternal or maternal side of the relation with the defunct.

. the first explicit reference ever to the prohibition of gender discrimination was made in the law in 1999 with a reference in a revised Penal Administration Law provision

. until December 2000, married daughters or granddaughters couldn't receive the assistance provided by the AHTCDSI and the ACACDSS unless there were no other remaining family members and there was no son in the father’s family.

. until 2004 married women didn't have the right to choose their own nationality, a wife automatically and involuntarily acquired Korean nationality upon acquisition of the same nationality by her husband and married women were prohibited from obtaining naturalization without their husbands also being naturalized.

. until 2004 a child could obtain Korean nationality only if the father was a Korean citizen at the time of the child’s birth

. until 2001 pregnant women and women within one year of childbirth as well as children under 18 years of age could be assigned to physically or ethically hazardous or dangerous work; women over 18 years of age who were not pregnant could be assigned to work that was detrimental to their reproductive health; worker consent wasn't required when a woman over 18 years of age was assigned to work at night (10:00 pm - 6:00 am) and on holidays; assigning pregnant women and

children under 18 years of age to work at night or on holidays was allowed; women weren't

entitled to 90-day paid maternity leave (it was 60 days paid + 30 days unpaid)

. the concepts of indirect discrimination and sexual harassment at work were introduced in the Equal Employment Act in 1999

This is my last OT post in this thread, I haven't time to waste with uneducated children who pretend to maintain that a country in which females are so unimportant, disregarded and unwanted that they are still being killed by their parents in public hospitals can aspire to compare on the human rights area to Italy or any other western country which has founded, has inspired, is supporting and is leading the action of the very UN Division for the Advancement of Women and UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

A last warning to steveromagnino and thedude, have you ever declared your love to a woman (who knows you and who is used to see you everyday) and kissed her on the cheek? If she is an Italian lass, you kiss her in Italy and she is not pleased with it you will get 8 months of jail and a fine of the equivalent of € 1000 plus the expenses of the judgement. Have you ever jokingly made sexual allusions to one of your female coworkers? If she is an Italian lass, you do it in Italy and she is not pleased with it you will get 3 months of jail and a fine of the equivalent of € 800 plus the expenses of the judgement.

On the other hand if all you want to do is just killing the female baby your wife is carrying in her belly, South Korea is the place to go, you will find there plenty of accommodating hospitals and helpful hospital staffs...

[meadish_sweetball]

And BTW, in Italian "analyst" is "analista" and "analysis" is "analisi". Try to guess whether the Italian comes from the English or the English comes from the Italian...

Neither is true from a linguistic point of view.

The original word is Latin, which is not the same as Italian, even though Italian clearly derives from Latin whereas English is a primarily Germanic language with extremely strong influences from Latin, mainly via French.

[Bung]

Just want to know, not that it matters, just got asked by my mate and i dont know if it is or not.

For all the talk here about this I would love to see what an average Thai would say.

I think they would have a bemused look and think how the crazy Farang loves to "phoot maak" and then just get on with their lives not caring either way.

The OP is correct, it doesn't matter.

To think you spend all that time and money at university and this is the result.

[BAF]

And BTW, in Italian "analyst" is "analista" and "analysis" is "analisi". Try to guess whether the Italian comes from the English or the English comes from the Italian...

Neither is true from a linguistic point of view.

The original word is Latin, which is not the same as Italian, even though Italian clearly derives from Latin whereas English is a primarily Germanic language with extremely strong influences from Latin, mainly via French.

Can you explain to me where the Latin originated, which population spoke it, who brought the Latin to France and who have been speaking Latin in Britain for almost half a millenium? Thanks.

Hint: the French is a "lingua Romanza" (probably translated in English as "Roman language", from "Roma") and the group of "lingue Romanze" ("Roman languages") is part of the "lingue Italiche" ("Italic languages", from "Italia", "Italy") which comprises among others the Latin (spoken in what is today's Lazio), the Osco (spoken in today's Toscana) the Umbro (spoken in today's Umbria) and other dead Italian dialects. The Italic languages are part of the Indoeuropean languages which comprises among others Celtic languages, Germanic languages etc

Other lingue Romanze are the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Provencal, the Catalan, the Romanian etc

The Italian is one of the original Latin dialects (the one spoken in Firenze, "chosen" over the others for its particular literary prestige, just think about Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio...), the French (and the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Provencal, the Catalan, the Romanian etc) is derived from the Latin.

For all the talk here about this I would love to see what an average Thai would say.

I think they would have a bemused look and think how the crazy Farang loves to "phoot maak" and then just get on with their lives not caring either way.

The OP is correct, it doesn't matter.

To think you spend all that time and money at university and this is the result.

The result is that those who, after 160 posts, are still unable to comprehend and answer the simple OP's question are those who haven't spent time and money at university.

Like the "average Thai" you are talking about.

[cobra]

Well we all know the empirical standards and benchmarks that determine where / if said nation is emerging or not.

It's all based on their toilets.

[Boon Mee]

To think you spend all that time and money at university and this is the result.

Exactly...

Get a degree in one of the 'hard' sciences.

Who cares about all the semantics - 2nd world, 3rd world etc.

[BAF]

Well we all know the empirical standards and benchmarks that determine where / if said nation is emerging or not.

It's all based on their toilets.

The 1st world countries would be all the "Latin" countries (Italy, France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Latin America) plus (recently) Japan then, since we are the ones using bidet in our toilets. All the rest of you just wipe hard their asses with a piece of toilet paper, if that

[BAF]

Get a degree in one of the 'hard' sciences.

Who cares about all the semantics - 2nd world, 3rd world etc.

And you know what? I actually agree with you.

After having lived extensively abroad (the US and SEA) I am now back in Italy getting a degree in a sanitaryan profession which is what will allow me to permanently move back to the USA or any other of the countries that interest me (Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

Life in old socialist Europe is boring while living in the US was under certain aspects even more exciting than Cambo...

I know from Americans living here that they find living in Europe very fascinating so it's probably just a question of "exotic is exciting".

[steveromagnino]

BAF

This information you have sent through is very interesting, thanks for that.

I have never pretended to be a political scientist, I haven't ever studied it, and in fact the standing joke at the university I attended was

Q 'What did the BA graduate (i.e. political science, philosophy, sociology) say to the business grad?'

A 'Would you like fries with that order?'

This is in part because New Zealand has almost no need to these disciplines due to its size so people study these subjects for fun, for various family reasons there was never an option for me to study things at university 'for fun'

I'll take your advice if I ever go to Italy regarding unwanted sexual advances; where I come from you probably wouldn't do any of these things, but good to know that there are punishments if I do

BTW that world economic forum study was the one economist chose to publish; us business grads have to stick with what we know. I'd say the big learning from your post and from this study (that I pointed out has many flaws) is that for economic participation, particularly at a senior level, there seems to be no more glass ceilings here than other places; there are plenty of chairpeople, CEOs CFOs and so on that are women here; my guess is probably on par with many other developed countries. At a poor level, that is where there is significant exploitation, and yes, the WEF study fails to cover any of that. But then again, there is massive exploitation in general of the poor here, but it certainly is worse for women. Those are some useful sites you mention; I will have a look around and probably can learn more than this 'uneducated fumbling'.

In answer to your questions.....

1- after your researches (the UN websites, Wikipedia etc) have you verified the correspondence between the expressions "third world country" and "developing country"? YES [] NO []

NO (if your question is are they the same thing) (of course I found that there is correspondence mentioning both terms). Developing countries include China, Cuba and North Korea (by your own definition second world because they are communist). Third world also includes by your own admission less developed countries which I suppose could be a subset of developing countries, but that's not how the UN seems to look at it.

Your groups intersect, but they are not the same. You also fail to make it clear which ex communist countries are the 2nd world, and some of these may be migrated in the developing countries and some to the developed countries.

UN websites make minimal references to 1st - 4th world that I can find... enlighten me where for instance on the UNCTAD site I can find this system of yours as I cannot find it easily. I am surprised you would reference wikipedia, given your damning judgement of it, however they point out third world nowadays 'Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status.' (again, that index you also claim is useless in this sort of classification). Furthermore, they go on to point out:

'it is seen as being out of date, colonialist, othering and inaccurate. In general, Third World countries are not as industrialized or technologically advanced as OECD countries.

Terms such as Global South, developing countries, least developed countries and the Majority World have become more popular in many circles, due to the potentially offensive and out of date connotations of describing a 'Third' world.'

Jus to remind you of your definitions:

1st world = "most developed countries", "developed countries"

2nd world = communist and, in part (see my previous posts), ex-communist countries

3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries"

4th world = "least developed countries"

Being a Pol Science person, I would have thought your textbooks and colleagues would have covered this one off with you. After all, it even made its way into the Wikipedia.....

2- do you agree that Thailand is still a "developing country"? YES [] NO []

This was never in question, as I have pointed out about 10 times to you already. That must be someone else.

3- how do you answer to this thread's topic "Is Thailand a 3rd world country still"? YES [] NO []

YES

Well obviously yes, because since it is not western, nor one of the communist countries; my point is that using the term to describe backwardness is not particularly useful, especially since so few people understand what 3rd world is.

As I pointed out stating that is about as useful as saying America is licencious because a lot of Americans have licenses (second post of mine). To use this phrase as a point of cliassifcation for development is basically pointless.

The fact that you yourself refuse to define it on the one hand (it is a complex combination blah blah blah) then above define it 3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries" suggests that sticking with the UN system, at least for me, is far more useful, and certainly helped in explaining this debate to a non-English speaker who was interested to know what I was typing.

My questions to you then (and the 2nd two are drawing on your knowledge, which I freely admit I do not have):

why do you still use terms that are seemingly obsolete and which major organisations continue to use your terminology? (1st - 4th world?)

what aspects of culture require change for Asian countries to become developed?

why do you believe that wealth stems from 'your way' (i.e. western way) of doing things? (specifically referencing Korea, Singapore, Japan, Saudi, UAE)

Edited March 1, 2006 by steveromagnino

[kat]

Let's see, to compare Italy's and South Korea's women's rights you have thought the greatest idea to be to look at the World Economic Forum and specifically at their "first ever study that attempts to quantify the size of the “gender gap” in 58 countries. " (copied word by word from their website).

The fact that in their "first ever attempt" countries like Latvia and Lithuania score better than countries like France and the US, countries like Uruguay and China score better than countries like Switzerland and Israel, countries like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe score better than countries like Italy and Greece and that even Pakistan scores better than Turkey hasn't, of course, raised any red flag with you...

Maybe a look at the Human Rights Division of the United Nations, and specifically at its Section on the Status of Women (which, dating back to 1946 is hardly at their "first ever study" on the matter that you are trying to discuss) may shed some much needed light.

I know you like, as you said, "easy" and "easy to find" formulas and I've tried to tell you over and over that the description of complex realities requires complex definitions. Trying to take the easiest and shortest way like pretending to acquire a knowledge in socio-political matters and on countries you have never set foot in through the reading of a couple of internet links and a couple of misread, misunderstood and (in this context) meaningless stats like the HDI and the "first ever study" of the WEF just leads you to the result that China scores better than Switzerland in the area of the women's rights...

So, I'm sorry but I can't point to you a single "easy" and "easy to find" link where you can find a country and its "score" or ranking position. You, thedude and the others who think that South Korea or Singapore are not only 1st world, but even "more 1st world" than true 1st world countries like, for example, Italy, have to go, by yourselves, through the DAW's reports and the CEDAW's conclusions therein reported. (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/index.html)

DAW = Division for the Advancement of Women

CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

You lack the professional cultural background to correctly interpret those data and relativize their meaning to the local realities nonetheless you will discover interesting things like the fact that what western countries are usually asked by the UN is essentially to establish or accentuate the so called "positive discriminations" (which are still themselves discriminations) in order to force, through the introdution of mandatory quotas, the presence of women in politics and in the higher managerial positions of the economy (the main subject of your WEF's "first ever study").

There isn't much else to ask from countries where the women have long been "liberated" and where it's mainly their choice to dedicate their life to their careers (like men have always done, relatively speaking) or to their families and where the feminists are left to fight over their husbands' surnames...

What the DAW questions in countries like South Korea or Singapore or Thailand is "somewhat" different and regards "slightly" more important matters, considering as an example South Korea, the country which scores better among those three, I have randomly picked:

- South Korea

. "The most serious social and cultural obstacle to improving the status of women in Korea is the sex role stereotypes of the patriarchal society. Gender roles are learned in childhood, and the gap in gender identity is reflected in a dichotomy of male and female roles in the family and society. The result has been social, economic, legal, political, and cultural discrimination: disadvantages in employment, promotion, and wages; discriminatory provisions still remaining in the Family Law," - from the introduction to the Fifth Periodic Report of the Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

. The sex ratio of newborns shows that female infants have unequal opportunities to be born. The normal sex ratio at birth is of 105-106 males per 100 females, in South Korea it can reach the 204%.

Such practices are stronger in the traditionally more conservative regions and also in the case of the lastborn. Such imbalance in sex ratio is due to gender discriminatory social attitudes and practices. The government has made efforts to address the attitudes of male preference.

Recognizing the gravity of the problem of the growing imbalance in sex ratio, the Seoul Metropolitan City started a campaign in 1999 to celebrate the birth of the female infant by planting a tree but detection and punishment is difficult, since these practices take place covertly in hospitals.

. The Republic of Korea has maintained the family head succession system, whereby the family head is succeeded based on the paternal lineage (Civil Code, Articles 980-995). The family head system has far-reaching implications on marriage and family relations, and has stood in the way of realizing gender equality in many aspects of society.

. When there is no son and only daughter(s), the family cannot be succeeded for generations unless a man is taken into marriage and his son is made to succeed the family.

. A divorced woman can either return to the family registry of her parents or establish a new family registry under her name. But she cannot register her child on her registry. The child has to remain on the husband’s family registry, even when the mother is designated as legal custodian and guardian of the child and lives with the child. Even when the divorce was brought about because the husband abused the child and/or did not carry out his role as father and therefore the mother was awarded custody of the child, the child cannot be transferred to the family registry of the mother.

. Children born out of wedlock to an unmarried mother can be registered on her family registry only when they are not recognized by the biological father. If so recognized, they are registered on the father’s family registry regardless of what the mother wants. The child is registered in the family registry of the father through the unilateral act of the father, even if the mother has no intention of marrying or maintaining contact with him, and he is not engaged in rearing the child at all.

The husband can register on the family registry a child born to him by a woman other than his wife, regardless of what the wife wants. It is not so rare that the wife is not even aware that the husband has registered a child that she did not give birth to. Meanwhile, when the wife wants to register a child born out of wedlock with another man, she must get consent not only from the husband but also from the head of the family that the child biologically belongs to.

. a male may get married when he reaches 18 years of age, and a female 16 years of age.

. A movement to use the surnames of both parents started in 1997 among women’s organizations, and the number of women using both parents’ surnames is increasing. But there is not enough public support or research back-up to turn the movement into law at this point. (thedude, are you reading?)

. gender-restrictive recruitment and advertisements is allowed

. inheritance laws still favors males

. "violence against women is still pervasive in Korean society." in the CEDAW's concluding comments, General Assembly - Official Records - Fifty-third session

. among the CEDAW's areas of concerns: "Insufficient social protection of female workers in the private sector; Situation of women in agriculture, especially of elderly women and in rural areas;"

. among the CEDAW's recommendations: "Provision of equal social protection for women in both the public and private sectors including extension of paid maternity leave to the private sector to bridge the gap between the working conditions in these sectors;" (steveromagnino, are you reading? it seems that the Korean 3 months at 100% isn't better than the Italian 5 months at 80% + 13th and 14th wages + normal holidays allowances + normal maturation of seniority "points" for the private sector and the 1 year leave at 80% + 13th and 14th wages + normal holidays allowances + normal maturation of seniority "points" for the public sector)

. until 2000 female offspring couldn't continue to benefit from family pension after marriage.

. until 1999 family leave for wedding or funeral granted to civil servants depended on the paternal or maternal side of the relation with the defunct.

. the first explicit reference ever to the prohibition of gender discrimination was made in the law in 1999 with a reference in a revised Penal Administration Law provision

. until December 2000, married daughters or granddaughters couldn't receive the assistance provided by the AHTCDSI and the ACACDSS unless there were no other remaining family members and there was no son in the father’s family.

. until 2004 married women didn't have the right to choose their own nationality, a wife automatically and involuntarily acquired Korean nationality upon acquisition of the same nationality by her husband and married women were prohibited from obtaining naturalization without their husbands also being naturalized.

. until 2004 a child could obtain Korean nationality only if the father was a Korean citizen at the time of the child’s birth

. until 2001 pregnant women and women within one year of childbirth as well as children under 18 years of age could be assigned to physically or ethically hazardous or dangerous work; women over 18 years of age who were not pregnant could be assigned to work that was detrimental to their reproductive health; worker consent wasn't required when a woman over 18 years of age was assigned to work at night (10:00 pm - 6:00 am) and on holidays; assigning pregnant women and

children under 18 years of age to work at night or on holidays was allowed; women weren't

entitled to 90-day paid maternity leave (it was 60 days paid + 30 days unpaid)

. the concepts of indirect discrimination and sexual harassment at work were introduced in the Equal Employment Act in 1999

...

BAF's post saved me the effort of having to make some similar points, especially the highlighted parts. I don't have the time to respond in a way that I would like to right now, so I'm just going to make some fast points, besides what is already stated above.

I think the terminology is just a matter of PC semantics in most cases, except in places where using the term is actually a mistake, such as Singapore. However, for this reason and others, it is an outdated terminology.

In terms of South Korea, and anywhere else for that matter, the financial indicators are important, but they are also shaped by the enforcement and regulatory environment. This is almost always legal, which incorporates the issue of contracts, judiciaries, and yes, culture, which is basically the backbone and source of these issues, i.e. - a law is passed largely because of political pressure or necessity, but attitudes change at a much slower pace. And if there is no enforcement or regulatory environment, attitudes never change and the laws are simply window dressing for potential investors. The pace of development is always uneven, with economic indicators often leading, but the other issues need time to catch up, which is another reason why South Korea is still on the cusp in many ways. You cannot seriously compare development with facile facts and statistics that essentially only show us the growth rate and debt/ratio of an economy. There is a legal and political framework that goes along with development. If you want an example, simply look at Saudi Arabia for a moment. Exactly where would this country be without an abundance of a highly exportable natural resource? Developed or not?

And I have to say again, this is not a slur; if it makes you feel any better, both my parents are from "2nd and 3rd world" countries. I'm from the South Bronx, which many new visitors often compare to the third world But, as a development person, simply defending my personal position does nothing for an honest argument, or the South Bronx, for that matter.

Steve: I don't have time to go over your response about female leaders point-by-point right now. But as I have said, I think almost every (if not every) example of female presidents and PMs in Asia have been daughters and widows. It is not a judgement value to say that the culture of patriarchical nepotism has a lot to do with this, but fact. As for female CEOS and a glass ceiling, I think that is more true in the West. But then again, you have to take things apart and examine the mechanics of why that is so, because you are comparing two different systems. Again, most female heads of large companies in Asia are relatives - not a value judgement - but a factual observation of how things are done here. Fortune 500 companies are not family empires, but public companies - completely different. There is also the issue of many women who take time off to have and raise families. There was a study that showed how this impacted the glass ceiling.

But, from what I can see, I have to agree that Olivia Lum seems exceptional.

This was fast and dirty, sorry.

Just want to know, not that it matters, just got asked by my mate and i dont know if it is or not.

To think you spend all that time and money at university and this is the result.

To think you spend all that time and money at university and this is the result.

Exactly...

Get a degree in one of the 'hard' sciences.

Who cares about all the semantics - 2nd world, 3rd world etc.

Actually, I went to a liberal arts undergraduate college, and to a top science university for graduate studies. There is top value in both degrees. If you don't believe me, I'll tell you this: I spent 3 years of my graduate school education thinking through solutions to 20 problems that were a result of the 1 problem solved by top engineering students in the world

[PeaceBlondie]

Does anyone who posts a 9,743-word post expect to get much response?

[Sing_Sling]

Does anyone who posts a 9,743-word post expect to get much response?

Does that inlcude the quotes?

[PeaceBlondie]

Yes, because in the above example, the responses were in direct reply to the quotes.

But here on TVisa, when there are a whole chain of quotes upon quotes, who bothers to read more than the last two? I like to remove the top quotes in that case, if they're irrelevant, irrevalant, or irreligious. Irregardless.

[thedude]

BAF, you have pointed to some issues raised by DAW pertaining to women's rights in S Korea as if they are the defining difference in the argument so far. Are these the only issues dividing S Korea from the 1st world? What other social-political issues separate S Korea from the 1st world? Education? Crime Rate? Press freedom? At what point will an eastern NIC country be deemed western enough to assume 1st world status? You have not answered this, and i suspect you don't have the answer because it all sounds terribly subjective to me so far. You have rejected what seems to be fairly acceptable measures suggested by Steve (which cover more than just women's rights) because those measures fail to prove your point, but you offer no standard measure yourself. You know very well that you can pretent to hold your position as long as you do not agree on a standard meansure.

I'd venture that gender equality in Japan is also an issue by western standards but why have they made the grade? What was the difference there? How different are they really compared to South Korea? Maybe the truth is they have become so economically important that the hypocrasy of denial was just too obvious for other less developed 1st world countries? What disturbs me about your position is that you think western culture and social standards are what makes them superior to eastern countries, and that eastern countries have to somehow change and adapt and live up to these western standards before they are deemed to be 1st world, otherwise, they are forever in NIC purgatory. nevermind that many of these eastern countries make countries like italy look absolutely backward. sorry for not being PC but you are a cultural chauvanist.

i have friends from south korea, singapore, hong kong, taiwan who would like to visit europe but would never want to live there. why? show them how equal you treat women, how much maternity leave they get paid by the state, how few hours they have to work, how fairly treated should they end up in court. do you think they will be impressed? people i know from these countries do not feel the least bit inferior to old european so called "1st world" cultures, in fact they would be downright amused to read your feeble attempt to hang on to your imagined measures of superiority.

Edited March 1, 2006 by thedude

[kat]

Yes, because in the above example, the responses were in direct reply to the quotes.

But here on TVisa, when there are a whole chain of quotes upon quotes, who bothers to read more than the last two? I like to remove the top quotes in that case, if they're irrelevant, irrevalant, or irreligious. Irregardless.

Yeah, it was a long quote, but I highlighted the areas I was talking about.

... sorry for not being PC but you are a cultural chauvanist.

i have friends from south korea, singapore, hong kong, taiwan who would like to visit europe but would never want to live there. why? show them how equal you treat women, how much maternity leave they get paid by the state, how few hours they have to work, how fairly treated should they end up in court. do you think they will be impressed? people i know from these countries do not feel the least bit inferior to old european so called "1st world" cultures, in fact they would be downright amused to read your feeble attempt to hang on to your imagined measures of superiority.

I think "cultural chauvanist" is a great term. And on many levels, I can relate to what you are saying. But, I think it's more revealing to look at if from many sides. For example, Korean society is very xenophobic and culturally chauvinist, to say the least. They say far worse things about foreign people and foreign societies in public than what we are discussing here. So, I wonder how long the amusement would last if a foreigner could actually have an open and honest debate in their societies. I can tell you that in South Korea at least, it wouldn't last very long at all.

* I don't know as much about the other examples, except for Singapore and Japan. Singapore is a developed, industralized, authoritarian country, and does not have a free press. Japan recently had a ruling (several months ago), that a long-term, legal Korean resident of more than 30 years could not accept a promotion to a top nursing managerial post in Japan, because a Korean or foreigner could not exert that kind of authority over *higher-level Japanese employees.

*edit

Edited March 1, 2006 by kat

[skylar]

I have never pretended to be a political scientist, I haven't ever studied it, and in fact the standing joke at the university I attended was

Q 'What did the BA graduate (i.e. political science, philosophy, sociology) say to the business grad?'

A 'Would you like fries with that order?'

This is in part because New Zealand has almost no need to these disciplines due to its size so people study these subjects for fun, for various family reasons there was never an option for me to study things at university 'for fun'

That is ridiculous and single-minded. Just because someone does arts at uni doesn't mean the only thing they are fit for is fast food service. There is a romantic Western notion that places importance on happiness and self-fulfilment that I rarely see in Asian culture unless it is among the elite. I'm not saying all Westerners subscribe to this notion - I myself did a Commerce degree for utalitarian reasons but if I do a Masters, it will purely be for my own enjoyment and not just 'useful' at face value.

Plus there's many people who do BAs in conjunction with degrees such as Law and Medicine precisely because majors like philosophy, sociology, political science, Latin and Greek add value to those degrees. And as for those who do it for the pleasure - good on them. They are the lucky ones.

It's you who makes the qualification, not the other way around. A close relative of mine was a chartered accountant and was a CFO, owner of an Indian restuarant in South America, a real estate business owner and various other things.

And my qualifications work for me, too. Who says that you have to be what your qualifications (or lack thereof) dictate? We all have opportunities to some extent and the onus is on us to find and utilise them.

[thedude]

... sorry for not being PC but you are a cultural chauvanist.

i have friends from south korea, singapore, hong kong, taiwan who would like to visit europe but would never want to live there. why? show them how equal you treat women, how much maternity leave they get paid by the state, how few hours they have to work, how fairly treated should they end up in court. do you think they will be impressed? people i know from these countries do not feel the least bit inferior to old european so called "1st world" cultures, in fact they would be downright amused to read your feeble attempt to hang on to your imagined measures of superiority.

I think "cultural chauvanist" is a great term. And on many levels, I can relate to what you are saying. But, I think it's more revealing to look at if from many sides. For example, Korean society is very xenophobic and culturally chauvinist, to say the least. They say far worse things about foreign people and foreign societies in public than what we are discussing here. So, I wonder how long the amusement would last if a foreigner could actually have an open and honest debate in their societies. I can tell you that in South Korea at least, it wouldn't last very long at all.

* I don't know as much about the other examples, except for Singapore and Japan. Singapore is a developed, industralized, authoritarian country, and does not have a free press. Japan recently had a ruling (several months ago), that a long-term, legal Korean resident of more than 30 years could not accept a promotion to a top nursing managerial post in Japan, because a Korean or foreigner could not exert that kind of authority over *higher-level Japanese employees.

*edit

point taken. in fact i'd go so far as to say that most cultures are predisposed to xenophobia. difference in the case of S Korea is that they are naive in thinking they are talking among themselves and no one is listening in. they wouldn't openly broadcast their biases and expect the world to follow their standards. that would be truly chauvanistic, and that is the crux of my issue with BAF.

interesting Japanese ruling. so what makes Japan a 1st world country according to BAF? according to BAF, Japan is a 1st world country because they have shown that they are able to "mix" their culture with enough "westerness". puhlease.

BAF's interpretation of the 1st to 3rd (or 4th) world is stupid on so many levels, not only because he is trying to justify and perpetuate what was originally a categorisation along cold war ideological lines, but more so because he attemps to add his chauvanistic western social-political notions to be measured along his invisible measuring tape and he expects us all to accept it.

[gurkle]

Why are people spending so much time obsessing about semantics?

If I were running the country, I would call it third-world if I could get better lending rates and aid. Otherwise, people can call Thailand whatever they want.

[BAF]

BAF's interpretation of the 1st to 3rd (or 4th) world is stupid on so many levels,

It's amusing seeing how bold you manage to remain after having just made a tit of yourself mantaining, until a few posts ago, how superior South Korea is to Italy in the area of the women's rights

Well, don't worry, I will address both of your last couple of posts later when I have the time.

Point by point, as always.

[steveromagnino]

Why are people spending so much time obsessing about semantics?

If I were running the country, I would call it third-world if I could get better lending rates and aid. Otherwise, people can call Thailand whatever they want.

Actually, for Thailand this is a fascinating point.

On the one hand, you have Herr Thaksin "Il Cavaliere of Thailand" proclaiming our upcoming move out of developing into developed country status within just a few years (although other than pain free hand outs which do nothing to develop the poor of Thailand, his action points aren't exactly extensive) and you have IMF closing their office in 2003 while Thailand has been accepting/ requiring less foreign aid than previous.

But on the other hand...if I recall correctly, Thailand have been also lobbying at the same time to be a poor ol' developing country needing assistance in the Generalised Tariff Preference system, which basically provides benefits in quotas and taxes to developing countries - I think it was specifically for USA that they were pitching about 3 years ago that Thailand was far too poor to have preferential rates removed, even when locally 'ai liam' was also saying how we had paid off the IMF and were developing super quick, and didn't need foreign help..... hmmm....

It is like the guy wants his cake and also wants to eat it too..... and all the while he is feathering his own nest at the same time - or should i not say that, is that a bit too Silvio to say in this thread?

Regarding my comment on political science, I will clarify that New Zealand has minimal requirement in the work place or the civil service for people with arts degree knowledge specifically; the reality is most of the arts students do just fine getting jobs in either teaching at school (usually another subject) or sales or some other area which is not specifically related to whatever they studied. I am sure that if many people studied the arts, the country would probably be a bit better off in some way, and a major property developer Robert Jones used to only hire BAs for this reason (his company is since going bust, I don't think the two are related ).

As with many of those sorts of subjects, the demand for people who know a little about that subject is basically very low other than the Asian language specific courses (e.g. Mandarin), while there is some demand for people who know a lot about a subject (e.g. a PhD can lecture it, or move overseas to work for people like the UN). By comparison law, finance, accounting, food technology, engineering and architecture are all inherently practical practioner type subjects at undergrad level and therefore the small amount of knowledge acquired in an undergrad degree is quite applicable to what someone would need to know to do a job in that discipline in NZ. Plus language is usually an elective these days for biz grads....

If you still are not believing this.... go into a New Zealand jobs website, and I doubt all the bachelor of arts related jobs would even match just the accounting jobs. In other countries it is probably very different, and this is not my joke, it was the standard joke. And it isn't helped by the issue that when I graduated, there were 2000 biz students and about 20,000 arts students, and I don't knw of a single arts one personally that went into a career using their major.

Incidentally, the joke that the arts students used to tell in retaliation was to write BCOM (bachelor of commerce) on each sheet of a roll of toilet paper (i.e. that the degree was that easy to get, which for the most part it was). Well, hard to believe that this university is supposedly in the top 300 in the world, but there you have it.

Kat:

Saudi Arabia is very under developed with regards to many of the measures of development, but it is fairly rich and GDP per capita purchasing power parity - $12,900 (2005 est.) or take UAE with GDP per capita purchasing power parity - $29,100 (2005 est.) which is almost the same as Italy. In both cases, you are talking about countries without freedom of press, and by western standards, UAE fails to meet developed country standards with abuse of migrant workers (which make up most of the workforce) and various problems with leadership selection and many other areas - it seems like neither country has made its wealth through adopting 'our way' that BAF referred to, and instead have used oil (which is 45% of Saudi's GDP and 30%+ of UAE's GDP) as the way to wealth. Therefore, there is evidence that there is more than one way to 'get rich' other than cultural development. Nauru would be another example of a country that struck it rich without needing to develop culturally through phosphate (and is now broke since it ran out). Bear in mind in this specific case, we are only talking about wealth, because it was suggested that only the 'western way' (our way) was the road to wealth. The Sheiks seem happy enough in UAE with their way.

There is a host of literature to suggest that easily acquired money is not necessarily good for development, specifically regarding the curse of oil, and the Thai equivalent is 'there is fish in the streams and rice in the fields' often given as an explanation for why Thai people aren't as hard working or ambitious as Chinese. but it doesn't undo the point that there are more ways to wealth than the so called 'western way' (which incidentally I still do not understand, given the vast difference in the way western countries run, which way are we talking about?)

'Singapore is a developed, industralized, authoritarian country'

I totally agree, but while it is ranked in the top 10 in the world for competitiveness and on par with the richest European economies on a GDP/capita basis, in fact according to the UN it is a developing country, a SIDS in fact (small island developing state) if I read correctly. It is a financial hub of the world, but presumably the lack of press freedom and authoritarian nature of its rule (even though it is a republic in theory) as well as the desire of LKY to stay as developing until all aspects of their economy become developed is why it is supposedly not a developed country.

I'd hate for us to forget that we cannot look in economic terms alone

[skylar]

Regarding my comment on political science, I will clarify that New Zealand has minimal requirement in the work place or the civil service for people with arts degree knowledge specifically; the reality is most of the arts students do just fine getting jobs in either teaching at school (usually another subject) or sales or some other area which is not specifically related to whatever they studied. I am sure that if many people studied the arts, the country would probably be a bit better off in some way, and a major property developer Robert Jones used to only hire BAs for this reason (his company is since going bust, I don't think the two are related ).

As with many of those sorts of subjects, the demand for people who know a little about that subject is basically very low other than the Asian language specific courses (e.g. Mandarin), while there is some demand for people who know a lot about a subject (e.g. a PhD can lecture it, or move overseas to work for people like the UN). By comparison law, finance, accounting, food technology, engineering and architecture are all inherently practical practioner type subjects at undergrad level and therefore the small amount of knowledge acquired in an undergrad degree is quite applicable to what someone would need to know to do a job in that discipline in NZ. Plus language is usually an elective these days for biz grads....

If you still are not believing this.... go into a New Zealand jobs website, and I doubt all the bachelor of arts related jobs would even match just the accounting jobs. In other countries it is probably very different, and this is not my joke, it was the standard joke. And it isn't helped by the issue that when I graduated, there were 2000 biz students and about 20,000 arts students, and I don't knw of a single arts one personally that went into a career using their major.

Incidentally, the joke that the arts students used to tell in retaliation was to write BCOM (bachelor of commerce) on each sheet of a roll of toilet paper (i.e. that the degree was that easy to get, which for the most part it was). Well, hard to believe that this university is supposedly in the top 300 in the world, but there you have it.

I think you're missing the point. You don't go to a decent university simply to learn content and spew forth on exam papers. That's what high school is for. It's also meant to be about learning how to learn without being spoonfed, how to meet deadlines, how to be proactive, how to write with precision, clarity, good grammar and syntax etc., teamwork, and working under pressure and time constraints. Any decent university should enforce and instil these things in their students. I never went through with my accounting major because the knowledge I obtained through the minor is enough for me.

You can do an accounting minor in an Arts degree. hel_l, you can do an accounting major in an Arts degree here, providing the other major is an Arts major. At one time I thought doing accounting would be great as I could always find a job, but the reality is the reason why so many jobs in accounting are out there is because it is as boring as hel_l. Most people leave it within a year because they don't want to be stuck in auditing or doing tax returns for people with infinitely more interesting jobs than theirs. I worked in tax in my first year of uni. I asked my manager in my first week what he did when all the tax returns were done. To my naive suprise, his answer was to do them all over again. He had already done this for 25 years. Yawn!

I'm seriously doubting the value of a NZ degree here after seeing you write volumes of theoretical diarrhoea. Don't forget, 69.96% of statistics are all made up.

Maybe you would also like to know that most 'news' in the States (especially!), the UK, NZ and Australia you see is simply media release content that was penned by some PR company with very good connections.

[steven w]

It aspires to be a post-western country.

what it aspires to and what it actually is are 2 different things!

[BAF]

1- after your researches (the UN websites, Wikipedia etc) have you verified the correspondence between the expressions "third world country" and "developing country"? YES [] NO []

NO (if your question is are they the same thing) (of course I found that there is correspondence mentioning both terms).

This answer is the perfect paradigm of your way to discuss: they are not the same thing but "of course" you found that there is correspondence between these expressions...

Crystal clear.

Furthermore, since you insist on refusing to argue in a logical and consequential way (replying point by point) which may actually lead us to some sort of conclusion, the rest of your post (and the following others) is just the umpteenth repetition of the same old arguments to which I have already TWICE or THRICE replied. You haven't offered any kind of counter-argument, you just keep repeating them.

What's the point in keeping copying&pasting myself and the posts in which I gave my answers if you will keep on making the exact same points in your next milk shake post?