also, "developing countries" tries to establish an absolute rank and a division between countries. What are you taking into account when you say "developed", money? health? happiness? depending on what you use you'll get way different groups of countries
back
1 comments
I would be happy to deep dive on this one, as I several of my 1000-level poltical science courses covered what we think of and how we classify and rank countries.
The most basic thought is to begin at the lowest common denominator. What is it that all countries will agree to when placed into comparison. That is the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). It contains Life expectancy at birth. Education index: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling. A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP US$).
Now from here you could rank GROSS DOMESTIC HAPPINESS, but that is a garbage index if you ask me as a political scientist and a champion of the free world. The top grossing country on that list is a country that imprisons and tortures.
But I gather it makes sense to triangulate the facts from the CIA World Factbook, Heritage Foundation Freedom Index which covers press freedom and the extent of freedom of speech, and a sprinkle of transparency thus the Corruptions Perception Index from Transparency International. Now whether you're east thinking or west thinking you might also want to include another sprinkle of Amnesty International and quantify or qualitatively add its reportings to the mix.
What you will find that the initial HDI gives a pretty darn clear and precise estimate of where you would want to live and where in the world could be deemed as "developing" as in not yet reached the top-end of the list.
This is a scientific endavour, and it is not meant to hurt anybody's feelings.
Also: You can downvote me or upvote me as much as you want. This is how the real world approached this problem.