You implied that developing countries aren't reforming their institutions because they aren't subject to military competition in the same way Germany, Japan and Russia was. I half agree with your statement. Developing countries are actually growing faster than ever before. Global inequality has been falling since the 90s and we currently at pre WW1 levels of inequality. Much of it has to do with the death of feudalism in Asia from the 50s to 80s which, I'd argue, was more motivated by nationalism.
You could argue the lack of development in Africa is a product of lack of military competition. I can also argue it is the result a weaker sense of national identity.
When I wrote this article, I was not thinking specifically about developing nations, but since you asked I do not believe that material progress is dependent upon nations reforming their institutions due to military competition. This only happens in certain circumstances.
The military competition of first European imperialism (except Japan) and then Soviet imperialism likely had a negative impact.
Yes, developing nations since 1990 have experienced a great deal of economic growth, and I think the global trade system that replaced zero-sum military competition with peaceful economic competition is a big part of it:
Yes, a strong national identity can give political elites the incentive to stop their old zero-sum extraction of resources from the masses and shift towards economic development. And in Africa this is very hard because of tremendous ethnic diversity that does not coincide with national borders. I don't think it makes economic development impossible, but it does make it easy for elites to just try to redistribute wealth to their ethnic group instead.
You implied that developing countries aren't reforming their institutions because they aren't subject to military competition in the same way Germany, Japan and Russia was. I half agree with your statement. Developing countries are actually growing faster than ever before. Global inequality has been falling since the 90s and we currently at pre WW1 levels of inequality. Much of it has to do with the death of feudalism in Asia from the 50s to 80s which, I'd argue, was more motivated by nationalism.
You could argue the lack of development in Africa is a product of lack of military competition. I can also argue it is the result a weaker sense of national identity.
Thanks for the comment.
When I wrote this article, I was not thinking specifically about developing nations, but since you asked I do not believe that material progress is dependent upon nations reforming their institutions due to military competition. This only happens in certain circumstances.
The military competition of first European imperialism (except Japan) and then Soviet imperialism likely had a negative impact.
Yes, developing nations since 1990 have experienced a great deal of economic growth, and I think the global trade system that replaced zero-sum military competition with peaceful economic competition is a big part of it:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/lets-preserve-the-global-trade-system
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/our-global-trade-system-is-the-best
Yes, a strong national identity can give political elites the incentive to stop their old zero-sum extraction of resources from the masses and shift towards economic development. And in Africa this is very hard because of tremendous ethnic diversity that does not coincide with national borders. I don't think it makes economic development impossible, but it does make it easy for elites to just try to redistribute wealth to their ethnic group instead.