This question just flashed through my mind when I read the different opinions of people on LYK - why does democracy seem to be only effective in rich western countries but not other places around the world?
Would someone share his/her thoughts and tell me the reason why?
In economic terms, democracy provides the most efficient platform to lower the transcation cost as compared with other systems. It's related to the efficiency and the fairness for wealth allocation within the society, and the effectiveness very well depends on how ease people can abuse the rights and how fast corrections can be made upon mistakes.
I agree with rainbow it's not all about rich of not......
lo_pak 發表於 2011-4-15 07:35
Yes, it certainly not all about rich or not. For example, the middle east oil countries are certainly rich and they did not adopt western democracy system.
I am talking about the phenomena (相象) that we actually see.
I am expecting Lik, Somewhereintime and M boy to share their thoughts as well.
It is all about rapid economic growth is associated with a period of little democracy.
Examples: UK, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
In UK, the system of universal suffrage did not exist in the United Kingdom until 1928. However, UK grew rapidly during the industrialization revolution.
Democracy is not good for developing countries. Examples: India, Mexico, Phillippines which are corrupted
And developed education and less corruption requires a strong economy to support.
That means economic development has priority now.
Good integrity among the citizens is required to lower the corruption. It is possible to build up such good integrity even the country is poor if the government was good and the people weren't so selfish at the beginning.
Education requires good economic support, which can't be avoided.
發表於 2011-4-14 22:51
| 
