Explanation for Infrastructure

[Imperator Romani]

To start off, I don't mean this to be racist, at all. So, that said, to the question.

Why in third world countries, after thousands of years, do they still not have running water, sewers, paved roads, communications, or even decent buildings?

Why, since in ancient times, as in Rome and even periods before them, did they have these when our third world countries, after thousands of years, do not.

What's the history behind it, what's kept them from doing so? Is it war, lack of food, lack of labor? What is it, and why isn't it fixed(I know there are efforts, but trying and doing are different).

So, explanations? (I know some of the reasons, and I listed 2 of what I thought were causes, but I'm wanting a deeper explanation)

[Theseus1234]

Underdevelopment due to the advancement of society at that time. If you notice, most advanced cities are those in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia (notable China and Japan), and Europe by-products (aka USA. I don't mean it as a literal term, just a figurative term). Most of African nations remained relatively unadvanced until the European colonization. What you get are countries like South Africa which work structurally. The heartland of Africa was never truly explored and exploited by European colonists and thus was never developed. That's just my theory anyway

[antaeus]

the history behind why some parts of the world are poor and some are not? that's a dozen doctorates and theses waiting to be written.. certainly more than one post on a forum can sort..

several factors i think must be looked at... i'll be quick and simplistic.. and as this isnt the political forum i'll use simple terms like 'the west' and 'the third world' we all know what they mean.

issues in the present:

corruption: poorer countries tend to be more likely to be affected by corruption. i dont mean corruption doesnt happen in wealthy countries.. i mean poor countries have fewer developed resources so corruption is more damaging as it's stealing from a smaller pool of funds. corruption makes it very difficult for nations to advance... it sucks resources and funds out of nations and into pockets. countries with endemic corruption will always struggle to supply basic resources like fresh water, electricity, functioning health care etc.

exploitation of resources by foreign powers: the poorest nations on the planet have less say over the development of their own resources than some multi national corporations do... eg: angola is one of africas largest oil porducers, the oil is drilled off shore, and shipped from off shore. no locals are employed in the industry, no oil workers come ashore to spend their money. the oil companies buy the right to drill, the money is then lost through corruption... because the industry is based off shore there is no flow on effect of having a large industry. no money spent in local shops, no local produce bought etc etc.

aid: the current system of aid encourages corruption and poverty. just giving money to third world countries doesnt work. when people are given things, they dont have ownership of them.. if unicef drills a well for a village.. they'll use it while it's there, but wont bother when it breaks down. nobody owns it so nobody cares. people just go back to getting water how they did previously. aid generally focuses on emergency aid... which is actually demeaning to people... nobody, not even staring africans want to be on food handouts for ever. it's the whole "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, give him a net and he eats for ever" theory

strings attached financial assistance... organisations give financial help to the poor nations.. but do it in such a way that no western nation would accept. loans are tied to governments changing financial policies and introducing free market reforms that no western nation would allow. poor nations aren't allowed to develop their own economic policy.. rather IMF and world bank officials demand policy changes, and they do this in such a way as to ensure they get their return with interest... not so that the country gets the best out of their loans.

trade barriers.. most western nations... where the biggest markets are, have barriers to trade... tariffs and subsidies which prevent poor countries from being able to match the prices of western grown products. this means no money flowing into poor nations from trade, meaning no money to build roads, railways, water systems, electricity etc. trade barriers are probably the single biggest contributor to poverty in the third world. nations which have managed to cross the barrier from poor to developed have done so by selling goods to western markets - thailand, malaysia, taiwan, south korea etc etc have all crossed over from being undeveloped poor nations into modern developed (or developing) nations... and they've done this by selling stuff in the west - and for them it was a fight all the way. french farmers and american car assembly line workers have done their best over the last 50 years to ensure as few third world products as possible are sold in western stores.

power politics.... the world's poorer nations have been the battleground over the last 70 years. in the post colonial world, wars have tended to be fought by proxy - rather than direct confrontation between the united states and the soviets (and now russia) we see the two sides arming and destabilising each others poorer friends. the united states had assisted non democratic coups in places line chile and iran... the soviets did the same in return in cuba and pretty much all of africa. it's difficult for a nation to develop in a situation of political instability that lasts for decades. war sucks all money available... and leaves nothing but devastated land and people.

basically, the haves dont want to give up their position to the have nots and they'll do anything to keep it that way. this leaves poor nations struggling over the scraps... resulting in corruption, war etc etc.

historic issues

the starting point... when london had running water, a sewage system, railway lines, immunisation etc etc... most africans were wearing loin cloths. you cant just develop overnight.. it took western nations centuries...

colonialism... a hundred years ago, most of the modern worlds poor nations were owned by the rich few. there was only one reason for this.. exploitation of resources. while some good did come of colonialism... generally it wasn't good for the colonised.

i should stop here.. could go on all night...

[Imperator Romani]

Great post Antea, very descriptive and well organized. + rep of course.

So, do you see any of these third world countries getting over these problems and start developing? Or do most of these have a poor outlook, probally going to stay this way for a long time unless something drastic happens(major influence or war, warlord killed, etc.)

[Theseus1234]

Great post Antea, very descriptive and well organized. + rep of course.

So, do you see any of these third world countries getting over these problems and start developing? Or do most of these have a poor outlook, probally going to stay this way for a long time unless something drastic happens(major influence or war, warlord killed, etc.)

From what I know about Africa, there is too much violence and terror for anyone to be working on infrastructure or economy. Zimbabwe (ruled by a power-hungry dictator) has probably the worst hyperinflation since the Wiemar Republic. Not very good for building infrastructure. Most of the money is probably going to the military anyway

[antaeus]

Great post Antea, very descriptive and well organized. + rep of course.

So, do you see any of these third world countries getting over these problems and start developing? Or do most of these have a poor outlook, probally going to stay this way for a long time unless something drastic happens(major influence or war, warlord killed, etc.)

i think in poor countries war and warlords are a symptom of poverty rather than the cause of it...

countries can cross the barrier.. we have seen it - particularly in asia where countries like thailand, malaysia, south korea, taiwan etc have gone from being poor to comparatively wealthy. it has been a struggle, and they have all been the proxy battlegrounds between the americans and russians and had warlords and insurrections... most of these countries still struggle from levels of corruption and political instability.. but their manufacturing sectors have enabled wealth to flow in so even with political instability the people have managed to make their lives better.

africa is going to be quite a different situation in the future.. until the economic crisis china had been increasing it's presence there and i see the chinese going back there after the recession. i see this as a good thing as chinese aid doesnt come with strings attached. they dont care about what government they deal with, or what that government does. they simply invest in infrastructure, manufacturing, and resource extraction. they employ locals to do their work... so the wealth of society increases without handouts and the money goes directly to the people as wages, the infrastructure is improved because the chinese build it. they make roads, they make hospitals etc and employ locals to build them. money doesnt go to corrupt officials as it does with western aid, and most importantly, the money that comes in is buying things. the chinese go there to make money... so a nation is being improved profitably - and far more sustainably. i think it's important to let african nations sort out their own governance and keep it separate from improving society...

of course i dont really support china, or it's politics... but i think they have the right in africa. but i think it's naive to force democratic western free market politics on nations with no history of them and expect it to work.

however we're not really looking at this from a historical perspective now are we... hahah

[bushbush]

To start off, I don't mean this to be racist, at all. So, that said, to the question.

Why in third world countries, after thousands of years, do they still not have running water, sewers, paved roads, communications, or even decent buildings?

Why, since in ancient times, as in Rome and even periods before them, did they have these when our third world countries, after thousands of years, do not.

wait, i am pretty sure what you have now in developed countries aren't there thousands of years ago...in fact, i am pretty sure they were only there a few decades ago (for one thing most of the buildings you live in today are not older than 100 years).

[antaeus]

wait, i am pretty sure what you have now in developed countries aren't there thousands of years ago...in fact, i am pretty sure they were only there a few decades ago (for one thing most of the buildings you live in today are not older than 100 years).

true, i dont recall the romans having fluoride in their water..

[bushbush]

true, i dont recall the romans having fluoride in their water..

i bet 5 dollar that OP thought of this topic only after seeing that awful picture of comparing africa today with a computerized image of rome from the movie gladiator....

i mean come on, the empire outside of rome and its other cities was all stone and glamor too? It's a silly comparison. I might as well compare the capital of some african countries with the worst place of Europe and say HEY Africa BETTER!!! its logic is as stupid as that original image anyways.