What would it take for there to be more non-European/American first world nations in the world? Could they have formed in ways similar to the East Asian Tigers? Perhaps Latin American nations that were able to remain stable thanks to a Marshall Aid type plan or the same sort of Cold War backing that the Asian Tigers received?
The Asian Tigers and more First World nations
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
Solomaxwell6
Banned
If China had had some cultural shifts relatively early on and industrialized, that'd grant a huge boon to Asia. With an industrialized influence in China, there'd be a lot more pressure for other Asian nations to move in that direction. It wouldn't be very rapid or anything, but given a hundred years, they'd do just fine. I was thinking a POD of something like the Taiping Rebellion succeeding. I'm not sure, but based on what I understand (ie, leader of the rebellion making it a theocratic Christian cult type thing, Qing being very unaccepting of Western culture), a Taiping China would've been more open to industrialization. After China industrialized, we have lots of capital and expertise flowing to the continent. Korea, which was pretty much a Chinese vassal, would've certainly industrialized soon after.
This would, of course, result in HUGE butterflies. Big changes with the First Sino-Japanese War; Japan mostly won because of its modern industry. Scratch that advantage; ITTL, China will hold most of the cards, with more resources, inexhaustible manpower, and similar tech. The Chinese Civil War will be very different. But I think China is the key, given its sheer size, population, resources, and relative influence over nations like Korea and the Indochina region; get China to begin to industrialize in earnest in the 19th century, and Asia in general will be much more industrialized today.
Er slow down there sport I was thinking mainly along the line of post-WWII, Cold War type PODs for say Latin American countries and other places, nothing as drastic as that. With an early industrialized China you might a well butterfly away the USSR and the Cold War and basically destroy any meaningful concept of the First World.
Possible post-WWII differences:
1. The KMT defeat the Communists in the Chinese civil war: It isn't that the KMT would be purely honest and noble stewards of China's public finances and economy, but rather that they'll not be closed off to the world for decades, and have an opportunity to get on the growth train much earlier. Regionally, parts of China would thus resemble OTL South Korea and Taiwan, even with much of the country lagging behind. Incidentally, there might well be only one Korea in this TL. A developed and open Chinese economy adds tremendous wealth to the world, offering vastly larger opportunities for trade, investment, and growth elsewhere thanks to the availability of Chinese investment and consumption.
2. More Peaceful Division of the British Raj: A longshot, but reducing the temperature of Indo-Pakistani relations with a less bitter independence would help in relieving military pressure on both economies, as well as improving regional stability.
3. Morarji Desai is more influential/powerful in early independent India: Neru, love him or leave him, was strongly influenced by Fabian socialism. Under his leadership and those of his successors, India accomplished a fair bit of good in the public sector, while smothering private investment and initiative under the Red Tape Raj. Morarji Desai was unusual for Indian leaders at the time for being relatively right wing on economic questions, and so greater influence from him could help moderate the excesses of Indian economic policy, allowing trade and growth to take off later on. A relatively more prosperous India has similar effects as the Chinese example I gave earlier.
4. Nasser Coup Fails: Or maybe simply never occurs. The idea here being that Arab nationalism or pan-arabism develops in a somewhat more moderate direction, with Egypt leading the way. Instead of Soviet clients in the middle east, there develops a relatively non-aligned block that is quite happy to accept aid and trade from either party of the Cold War. Critical to this scenario would be the avoidance of a violent confrontation over Suez.
5. Better Planned Decolonization(s): The British mostly knew (or feared) Indian independence was coming in the 30s, but the outbreak of WWII sealed the deal. Similarly, the Philippines had been guarenteed independence by 1945 in 1935, there being a one year delay of that final date by the minor issues of WWII and Japanese occupation. Elsewhere however, things were a little messier. French Indo-China, Algeria, the Congo, Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique... The list could go on for a while. Perhaps under the aegis of the then-young UN, some flexible, prefabricated plans could be developed for colonial independence. This wouldn't be an easy solution though, and implementation would be a nontrivial challenge.
6. Survival of South Vietnam: I don't want to get into the how of this supposition myself, given that such threads seem to invariably descend into unproductive depths. However, granting South Vietnam's survival for the moment, we've at least potentially improved the regional economic environment. South Vietnam might not end up classified as an Asian Tiger economy, but even being in the same league as OTL Thailand would prove to be a substantial development.
7. The USSR Reforms Early: Perhaps in a TL without a Cuban Missile Crisis, reformists manage to incrementally relax Soviet economic controls, leading to a situation similar to OTL China by the late '80s and early '90s, at which point I'm guessing Central and Eastern Europe waves goodbye anyway. A good Soviet economy, or at least a less awful one, has positive effects beyond its borders through improved trade, and less harmful economic policy exports to Soviet clients. By the time of (perhaps only partial) political collapse of the USSR or Warsaw Pact, the countries in question would be better off and better able to adapt themselves for more economic growth in the future. The danger with this of course is that the USSR instead gains somewhat more strength from a less sclerotic economy, and the Cold War goes on, causing continued proxy conflicts and higher world military expenses. Not that great, even on the western side of the Iron Curtain, so it's a bit of a risk.
So, I gave it a stab.
Last edited:
wormyguy
Banned
What about Argentina - they were one of the richest nations in the world in the early 1900s. A succession of corrupt regimes, changes in world agricultural markets, and the trade disruption of WWI together managed to bring about its downfall, but assuming more foreign investment in non-agricultural industries, it might well end up first-world.
Argentina could be fixed with a WI in the 1970s. Ditto South Africa. Both of them are fabulously resource-rich and have plenty of skilled people.
Argentina - The Coup to toss over Isabel Peron in 1976 is killed in its cradle or fails. The economic shocks of the 1970s force Argentina to change course, and the West, keen to keep an elected government in power in Argentina that is somewhat acceptable to Western interests, provides the same support they did to the junta. Isabel and her cabinet doesn't squander it like the Junta did. As the world begins coming out of recession in the mid 1970s, Argentina's wealth grows. As this happens, the Argentine government does its best to balance wage concerns and economic growth issues.
Seeing Britain's loss of interest over the Falklands, Isabel offers to negotiate their return in 1982, in return for substantial economic concessions to the British. The military is infuriated and tries to overthrow her, but a series of massive public demonstrations brings the junta down within days, stifling any military plans.
Returned to power, with the military's failure having totally discredited them, Isabel starts seriously negotiating with Thatcher. Thatcher takes a hard line, but Peron points out that if she has her way, the military won't try a coup again, and that Argentine nationalism over the Falklands is a key reason why the coup happened. Thatcher, told by her cabinet that Britain could gain much from economic concessions, agrees to hand back the Falklands. The handover occurs in April 1987.
Without the Junta and the inflation they caused, Argentina's economy picks up a big head of steam in the 1980s. Better relations with neighboring Brazil and Chile help gain access to resources. As with Japan and South Korea, the government's extensive involvement with business and focus on export markets allows for growth to be both swift and effective. Japan's bubble burst in 1990-91 is also helpful, as Japanese investments in Argentina are sold back for peanuts compared to what they had been bought for. In addition, with the stability of more than a decade of strong growth, Argentines start bringing their hard currency back home, which puts a fat stack of money in banks for them to borrow off of.
The 1990s see the Argentine Peso gain value nearly constantly, which hurts Argentine exports but is dramatically helpful to the country's standards of living. Argentina tightens its belt and keeps on going. By now, the country is one of the world's major industrial and agricultural importers and a key link in the world economy.
By 2000, Argentina stands as a first world heavyweight, with a $1.2 Trillion economy and with only Brazil rivaling it as an economic power in Latin America. What imports Argentina needs, they tend to import from Latin America, thus providing a substantial supply of capital for Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru. Argentine industrial goods are increasingly common in Europe and North America, and them and the Brazilians practically own the Latin American markets for white goods.
wormyguy
Banned
Nice scenario - however, I'm not so sure they could quite reach those GDP levels in such a short period of time. Argentina would require an ~9% annual GDP growth to reach your levels, and seeing as it's already a fairly developed country, I'm not sure if it could sustain that level of growth over 24 years.
The best economic POD for South Africa is probably a United Party victory in 1948.
A simple no 1st Word War TL where the 1st Globalisation is maintained accomplishes your goals. Containerisation will get invented at some point in the 30s and the entire off shoring trend will kick off, without the post war protectionism of OTL, bringing many more countries into the the 1st world.
~9% is very high, but keep in mind I'm accounting for currency value growth, traditionally an Argentine weakness. The country, even as it going broke in 1982, had an estimated $200 Billion in foreign bank accounts, which if you eliminate the massive inflation of the 1970s and 1980s wound in itself result in a GDP at least 25% higher than OTL.
Agreed on the United Party victory suggestion, though.
All very interesting, but there are a few problems:
1) Elections had been called for '76, and the coup occurred just three months before they were supposed to take place. Considering the disaster that was Isabel's government, she was not going to win the election, even with Peron's name attached to hers. A better POD I think would be to have the coup fail or just have it not even occur, and the elections go ahead as planned; having Balbin win in those elections (or Alfonsin), or even having a conservative elected so as to permanently stifle any coup plot would be better.
2) The junta that toppled Isabel implemented policies nearly identical to hers, in fact, Lopez Rega was Minister of Economics for both governments, so if Isabel's presidency was extended further, the economy would probably have been ravaged in much the same way. I should also point out that the repressive policies of the junta were continuations of policies begun under Isabel as well (at the behest of Lopez Rega, truly one of the greatest bastards our country has ever known).
3) If you're supposing Argentina remains democratic, Isabel wouldn't have made it to 1987, even if she'd won the special elections called for 76: the presidential term under the 1853 constitution lasted for 6 without the option of reelection (at least not immediately).
The best POD to make sure that Argentina is a first world nation today is earlier anyway, it would require either someone other than Yrigoyen winning the 1928 election, or the coup in 1930 not happening at all. That, or maybe Argentina joins the Commonwealth as a "Dominion of Honor" and benefits from the Ottawa treaty, instead of losing its largest trading partner...
Minifidel - I must admit I know just about squat about Argentine history. I wasn't really focusing on the political aspects, either. You'd be more qualified than me to talk about it. Argentina had by 1970 advanced to being a well-industrialized country, but its near constant civil unrest and turmoil caused much of its economic problems of the last few decades. I was just saying that proper policies could have fixed that problem.
Faeelin
Banned
I find this an interesting idea, but why is protectionism going to die? It was rising as an issue in the 1900s and 1910s, after all. And even after the postwar return (somewhat) to free trade, the 1930s saw a rush to protectionism.
Last edited:
Having Latin American tigers in the context of the Cold War is going to be difficult. The larger nations like Brazil and Argentina maybe, plus those as far away from the US border as possible (so Uruguay maybe). In the Cold War context though it would be nigh on impossible to get places like Guatemala and the Dominican Republic (or Cuba if anyone wants to try a really difficult challenge) to become Latin American tigers. By the time of the Cold War their economies are far too dependent on agricultural and mineral exports and the kind of economic policies that the east asian tigers instituted would require the kind of strong, near-dictatorial (or even dictatorial) leadership that happened in Singapore and I think (don't quote me on it) South Korea. Unfortunately though too often those countries just experienced instability (coups) or dictators who were more interested in lining their pockets.
Out of them though I think Costa Rica was the most stable. I could see it becoming a Latin American Tiger (or would that be "Jaguar"?) given the right POD.
Eurofed
Banned
Technically a pre-WWII PoD but fulfillment after it.
South Africa: the 1924 referendum in Southern Rhodesia goes in favour of union with South Africa. This butterflies close and landmark 1948 election in favor of the Union Party. It then proceeds to implement a rather milder and less outspoken racial segregation of the black population, and it implements a polic favourable to European immigration. Millions of immigrants from European arrive in the 1950s and 1960s, they and their descendants buffer up the ruling white minority and lower its siege mentality, very gradually racial integration is granted to affluent and educated non-whites, racial tensions simmer but never reach the boiling point. SA's "quiet" racism does not antagonize the UK nor the rest of the First World, so SA remains in the Commonwealth, and is allowed to annex South West Africa and Beciuanaland, further expanding its huge resource treasuretrove, and it attracts a lot of foreign investment, its good agriculture and mineral industry is soon joined by an ever-expanding manufacturing industry, more economic growth means more affluent and educated non-whites that are granted equal rights, keeping racial tensions below the boiling point, which attacts even more foreign investment. When Angola and Mozambico decolonize, Greater South Africa makes a military intervention with the blessing of the Western powers, and it crushes the pro-Soviet guerrilla movements and their Cuban backers. Resource-rich Angola and Mozambico become capitalist pro-SA satellites, attract foreign investments and start their own economic devleopment. By 1980s, Greater South Africa are close to first-world status, two-fifths of blacks and the majority of Indians and coloreds meet the wealth-education qualifications for voting, with numbers increasing every year, Angola and Mozambico have started their path to serious economic development, in Pretoria increasing talks are made with the USA and Europe about making an intervention in resource-rich Zambia and Zaire to oust the kleptocracies and pull them into the South African sphere. By 1990s, first-world status is reached, and with the effects of affluence and the census-education requirements for voting being slightly amended, the majority of blacks enjoy suffrage, Angola and Mozambico are acknowledged as "African Tigers" and Zambia and Zaire, after the SA-sponsored regime change, as being on the right track.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
Mexico actually was doing fairly well industrializing from the 40s to the 70s, but the gains were wiped out by population increase. Have a population control program as well and they could potentially be as well off as some southern European nations.
The big problem of course would be continuing PRI corruption and brutality, and instability could well set everything back again.
I wonder if a Cuba without Castro could be a first world nation today... I'm thinking no because of the huge wealth gap, but possibly?
Other Latin American candidates would be Costa Rica, Argentina, and Chile, and to a lesser extent, Mexico and Brazil...
In Africa, perhaps Botswana in the world without AIDs?
Other Latin American candidates would be Costa Rica, Argentina, and Chile, and to a lesser extent, Mexico and Brazil...
In Africa, perhaps Botswana in the world without AIDs?
I'm not convinced this will help. British politicians were quite willing to offload the Falklands for free in the 1970s - the government didn't particularly want to deal with a little flyspeck on the other side of the world. The trouble is the Falklanders themselves considered themselves British, were quite loud about not wanting to be Argentinian, and public and backbench opinion backed them. 'Economic concessions' aren't going to change that, however much the Foreign Office might wish they did. There are some interesting parallels with modern-day Gibraltar.
Cuba wouldn't even be as well off as it is today without Castro, Batista was a bloody and ruthless dictator interested only in lining his own pockets, all with the USA's blessing, and Cuba would probably have stayed another Caribbean backwater.
CanadianGoose
Banned
I did a comparison a decade ago (1999-2000) of Cuban GDP per capita of the day and in 1959 versus other Caribbean countries, and results amused me. Cuba in 1999 (when they just started to climb out of economic abyss collapse of ComEcon threw them into) had roughly the same relative to surrounding region as it did in 1959. Cuban today is probably better off comparing to Jamaican today than his grandfather was in 1959 comparing to a Jamaican of the day.
None of modern First World countries were backward in 1939 (Greece might be kinda sorta exception), Marshall Plan or no. Last (chronologically) of them, Japan, started the climb half-century before that. So, I don't see how post-WWII POD might create more First World countries.