Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
CHAPTER 7
Less developed countries: Argentina,
India
and the former Soviet Union
There are some major differences to note between the development structure and
pattern identified in Europe, and those of the less developed countries or LDCS.
These differences suggest that distinctive development policies may be required
in such countries, and indeed standard European-type policies have not been
successful when applied to these countries. The terms “North” and “South” are
sometimes used as a shorthand for the rich-poor division, but this term is not
used here as it has political connotations, being the logical sequence to the
“Third World”, which places the poorer countries as a third bloc lying outside
the First World (North America and Europe) and the Second World (the
Communist bloc). North-South suggests a confrontation and an acceptance of the
dependency arguments, whereas in fact the LDCS that have been able to link
well to the developed countries (like the NICS) have been development
successes, while others such as Cuba and for a while Tanzania, which tried to cut
themselves off from the West, have a poor record.
One set of differences about LDCS relates to the course of development. For
many of these countries, the concept of development is scarcely relevant-they are
unable to make any progress in the material standards of living, and stand at
subsistence level over long periods of time. Their income levels, at under US
$1000 per capita per annum in sub-Saharan Africa, and around $2000 in Latin
America, stand at a quarter or a fifth that of the developed countries of Europe,
and seem to have been at that level over a long period of time. Data collected for
Latin America suggest the income gaps between the regions of each country
have had no obvious trend at all over the last 30 years, so that there is no
convergence internally. These gaps can also be very large, much larger than the
1:1.5 level (the ratio of the poorest region's per capita income to that of the
richest region) of Britain, or the 1:3 level in Spain, and reaching 1:10 in a
country like Argentina. Such data are totally dependent on the units of definition,
but they differ so widely as to make very likely the existence of major
differences.
This may be interpreted in terms of Williamson's (1965) convergence model
for interregional difference, which envisages an increase, then a gradual
convergence of regional per capita incomes over time. Countries such as India
and China may be regarded as furthest behind on the development trajectory, so
