Poor Countries Are Somehow \"Different\" Than Wealthy

¶ … poor countries are somehow "different" than wealthy countries seems absurd. Of course they are different, and their differences are incredible. The people in wealthy countries are generally able to afford a better quality of life and have better access to education than people in poorer countries. Both of these innovations give people in wealthier countries greater access to leisure time, which can result in them being more political and more philosophical. As Sousken points out, "For many people, the alternative to work is starvation. This is particularly true in underdeveloped nations" (2010). When one is concerned about sustenance living, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to find the time and energy to devote to political or philosophical issues. This marks a huge difference between poorer and wealthy countries. It can also change the moral approach that people in poor countries take to certain issues. For example, to many Westerners, the idea of child labor is horrifying, though they will knowingly support firms that use child labor in underdeveloped nations. However, for the parent of a starving child, the idea of outlawing child labor without first solving the underlying problems that would promote child labor may seem even more immoral.

While there are significant differences between poor and wealthy countries, many of these differences disappear as financial differences disappear. Firms and markets can increase the wealth of poor countries, but they cannot do it simply by investing in the countries. Instead of simply making investments that capitalize on the economic dependence of those countries, they need to invest in ways that raise the standard of living of the workers. This is not an impossible or unrealistic goal, because some companies or industries have already made efforts to pay suppliers, growers, and manufacturers living wages and have contributed to an increase in the standard of living in specific areas.

While the laws of economics seem universal to many, I agree with those social scientists that suggest that Third World countries should reject models based on economic laws of universal validity. Most of the modern world economy is based on free market economics, but the free market is notorious for taking advantage of people of lesser economic means. For example, one economic law is that resources are scarce. Many poor nations are actually very resource-rich, but these resources are controlled by wealthy people who control those resources, including much of the human capital available for production possibilities. Redistributing many of these resources might address underlying issues of scarcity.

Of course, when one begins discussing things like redistributing resources, it is impossible not to consider the political implications of such a policy, which raises the specter of socialism/communism. Yes, these poorer countries may be better-served by adopting socialist or even communist governments, but that does not mean that they should not be democratic and free. While the American model of democracy links democracy to a free market economy, there are several other representative governments that embrace a different economic system. It seems clear that people in every nation, regardless of their market orientation, should be entitled to the freedom of self-government and some form of democracy.