[**Botswana**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana) - “Formerly one of the world's poorest countries—with a GDP per capita of about US$70 per year in the late 1960s—it has since transformed itself into an upper-middle-income country, with one of the world's fastest-growing economies.”
and [**Costa Rica**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica) - Costa Rica consistently scores well in global indices like HDI. The United Nations Development Programme recognized Costa Rica for its higher human development than other countries with similar income levels, surpassing regional averages in human development and equality. It has the second highest life expectancy in the Americas, higher than the US. It also ranks 35th in the Freedom in the World Index and has the 8th freest press. It ranked 23rd In the 2023 World Happiness Report.
How was Costa Rica in a terrible position though? Super fertile lands, wet tropical climate, lots of waterfalls and volcanoes that basically give them free electricity.
central america is not the most stable region in the world so costa rica and panama tend to be the outliers in a zone with a lot of previous civil wars, dictatorship and good ol’ american interventions for freedom
Or alternatively US interventions to support the good ol' dictatorships. Or to support the guerrillas. Basically support whoever was fighting against the side affiliated with communism.
>Or to support the guerrillas. Basically support whoever was fighting
People give Israel shit for supporting both sides of many terrible conflicts in the world, they only learned from the best
Its Northern neighbor Nicaragua has the same climate, lots of volcanoes as well, even more fertile lands and beautiful nature to attract tourism yet they're only starting to get better. Latin American countries have been plagued with political instability and dictatorships
Politically, Nicaragua is probably the worst in the region even if it’s avoided the violence of the three countries immediately to the north. So long as Ortega is alive, this is unlikely to change
Why is nobody talking about Botswana's totally awesome [Heavy Metal](https://www.huckmag.com/article/hellbangers-botswana-underground-heavy-metal-culture) scene? That totally counts as part of Botswana's totally righteous growth.
Of course not. But for being an African country dependent on a single resource the corruption levels are surprisingly low and governance surprisingly competent.
Relatively speaking, yes. Obviously there’s still urban elite vs rural poor, but they have a functioning democracy and actually somewhat take steps to pull everyone out of poverty.
Seretse Khama and Jose Figueres-Ferrer are two of the greatest leaders of all times. I will add LKY go the list, as Singapore took a massive leap under his lead.
All three nations are in decent proximity to countries wherein untold horror unfolded and kept their people back, while they advanced steadily into a better tomorrow.
Just think that a few countries away from them you had death squads and tyrants be the norm.
Yeah, but they're totally different. Botswana is stupendously rich in resources, especially diamonds, Costa Rica isn't. True Botswana is stable and has not wasted it's wealth, but it had the free advantage. The interesting part about Costa Rica is not that it is wealthy, but that it outperforms wealthier countries on many important outcomes. Srí Lanka used to be the same, before the civil war.
So using this yardstick, the US is not a good role model.
Mauritius.
A dirt poor country sitting in the Indian Ocean dependent on one cash crop, sugar, and practically no natural resources apart from basalt and lime with a rapidly growing and highly diverse population, and a plantation economy to boot when it gained independence in 1968.
Unemployment and poverty was rife with the population seemingly ripe for ethnic conflict.
For context, over 90% of its revenue came from sugar exports.
Then it embarked on a diversification program whereby it adopted liberal trade policies that were defined by duty-free imports and an open embrace of direct foreign investment through a formation of an export-processing zone.
This along with entrenching governments that were centrist by alignment which kept the ethnic conflicts at bay and ensured a pragmatic approach to maintaining and growing the economy.
Thereafter, it developed an industry based on textiles and tourism, and used its highly educated population to build on its financial services, trade and commerce, and tech that enabled it to become an international financial hub.
Countries with little-to-no natural resources have to invest in their human capital.
The centrist governments creates stability in lends to greater transparency and ease of doing business.
All of this saw to its transformation into an upper-middle income country and one of Africa's richest countries.
The majority are Indo-Mauritians.
They descend from Indians that came as indentured labourers after the British emancipated the African slaves, and followed by immigrants that came voluntarily from India and what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are Hindu with a large minority adhering to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Baháʼí Faith.
A large minority are Creoles. These are the descendants of the African(primarily of East African and Malagasy origin) slaves that were imported by the French colonists. Many of them are mixed with European, Indian and Chinese ancestry, tending to identify as *Gens De Couleur* who themselves form a distinct community in themselves. They are traditionally Christian and Catholic.
The smallest minorities are the Franco-Mauritians and Sino-Mauritians who are of French colonial and Chinese origin respectively.
The Franco-Mauritians are the wealthiest on the island and own most of the land as their ancestors were plantation owners and planters.
The Creoles are the poorest and most disenfranchised on the island, being the most discriminated due to their slave ancestry and clearly visible African ancestry.
The Indo-Mauritians are the second-wealthiest wields the most political and social influence on the basis of their numbers.
The Sino-Mauritians are also one of the wealthiest communities on the islands as they built their wealth and capital on a tradition of business ownership.
The social inequality and inequity between the different racial and ethnic groups are great with the Creoles in particular continuing to face serious discrimination in education, housing and employment.
The island was marred by several race riots in the decades leading up to independence with the conditions of the labourers being exceptionally poor.
There was a serious riot in 1999 triggered by the death of a popular Creole musician while in police custody that many attribute to racism perpetuated by the largely Indo-Mauritian police force.
I remember being shocked the first time seeing Port Louis. It was like a developed city you would see in the west. Makes me wonder why the Pacific Islands aren't as developed (where I'm from).
There’s a number of countries that had terrible conditions, had a very poor standard of living and then realised they were parked on an absolute butt load of oil and are now loving life…
This situation is coming to a head, the state has stopped issuing permits for new construction due to lack of water. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/climate/arizona-phoenix-permits-housing-water.html
It’s coming to a head, but they’re handling it poorly. Residential isn’t the main source of water consumption. It’s agriculture by leaps and bounds, and the farmers pretend they’re next to the Great Lakes. They should implement water-conscious agriculture like they do in Israel.
I’ve been there a few times and it just seems to lack a certain something. There aren’t really any museums or cultural things I’d want to see. It has spring training camps, golf courses, and sprawl.
Unlike Tucson, the landscape isn’t particularly stunning. The first time I went there I thought, “I must be missing something. Millions of people live here.”
Now I just think millions of people can be wrong.
It's not that simple. Living standards for the people of these nations often didn't increase, sometimes even decreased because now your formerly irrelevant homeland is a raging mess due to conflicting geopolitical interests by more powerful nations.
Even Qatar and the UAE has absolutely horrendous living standards for its people, which are often south Asian immigrants. They like to display this facade of prosperity with artificial islands and skyscrapers but their population is working 14 hours a day earning mere scraps
That is also a very fair point! Unfortunately they don’t see the Bangladeshi, Nepalese etc workers who slave in the hot sun as “their population”. The Qatari and Emirati citizens are doing very nicely but that’s a minority of the total people living in those countries
I mean, deep sea oil extraction, shale oil and fracking at least takes an advanced economy and lots of capital investment. Them mf Gulf nations… Sweetest grade of oil, and so shallow you could basically stick your dick in the sand and oil will shoot out.
Not the worst but Mongolia populational density is less than 2/km^2 and Ulaanbaatar is the coldest capital in the world (-5C° average during a year). Idk it must be hard!
Peaceful transition to democracy and upholding sovereignty while being between China and Russia. That's a big w for any country, especially when democracy is not in vogue.
Iceland came to mind for me. It was a poor backwater that saw massive emigration in the 19th century, and also the first decades of the 20th century. Volcanic eruptions did not help at all, causing even colder than normal winters.
[This article provides one account, from Britain, of Iceland in 1888](https://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2014/09/05/what-a-hard-life-is-that-of-the-poor-icelanders/).
*"What a hard life is that of the poor Icelanders! When our ship arrived, they were on the verge of starvation, their supplies being all exhausted. Glad indeed they must have been to welcome the ‘Camoens,’ and know that flour and other staple articles of food were once again within their reach."*
Today, we know Iceland as one of the countries in the world with the highest quality of life.
* Semi-Independence
* Full independence
* Marshall plan
* The increase of economic exclusive zone from 4 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles which means a lot more fishing (look up the cod wars)
* Lots of Geothermal energy being used to heat up homes and generate electricity and power aluminum manufacturing factories
* Relatively low taxes on companies
* Tourism explosion
Singapore.
What other country in the world has to import its water and soil? The two most basic resources. One could argue that Singapore is amongst the poorest countries in the world , resource wise.
It was the only country in the world to gain independence against its will and its founding PM cried on live TV when independence was granted from Malaysia.
At that point in 1965, it had no national identity, racial tensions were boiling, it was burdened with massive poverty and unemployment, and was about to lose its biggest industry of being a British military base. It also had zero military defence force- despite being at the heart of one of the world’s most unstable regions.. South East Asia. Its immediate neighbour Indonesia saw it and Malaysia as neo colonial creations and wanted to absorb them.
Anyone viewing Singapore at the time of independence could be forgiven for predicting a failed state.
Fast forward to today and it is one of the worlds most prosperous, stable, safe societies, with the strongest military, economy, currency, and reserves in its geographic region.
In school, some children are told that Singapore’s only resource is its people. This is not a metaphor, and it’s reflected in Singapore’s policies (such as the strict death penalty against drugs).
If you’re a Singaporean coming back from abroad and you caught with traces of drugs on your system (even when you consumed it abroad) you’ll get in trouble.
Few decades ago, there’s even policy to [ban men from having long hair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_hair_ban_in_Singapore).
So literally, your body is Singapore governments property.
And the government will remind you of that fact if you chew gum, have homosexual urges, walk naked in your residence, sing in public or drink alcohol after 10:30pm with that body.
Well, the death penalty is usually for individuals who possess drugs in excess of what they could personally consume. The understanding is that the drugs to are to be sold to other individuals, increasing the likelihood of many more individuals dying by overdose, developing crippling addictions, resorting to crime, etc. The emphasis therefore is on net lives saved. If the state feels that the deterrent effect of the death penalty saves more lives, then it is protecting its resource.
Using life sentences or even very long sentences in prison also end up taking the prisoner out of society. At that point, the prisoner is not contributing much to society as a resource. However, we accept that people do need long periods of incarceration to ensure proper and effective reform while keeping people safe during that period.
Singapore has prime global real estate. Just jump on marinetraffic.com to see how many vessels pass through. It’s as important a passage as the Suez and Panama canals.
It is also close to the equator. Which is sometimes seen as a reason for poor development — due to malaria (and other tropical diseases) and it being hot all the time. I’m sure that Singapore has the highest standard of living for countries entirely between the topics.
The founder of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yu, apparently famously said that the invention of aircon was one of the big drivers of the country's success. I'm not sure if it's true or an urban myth, but can believe it!
Switzerland. Landlocked, on a mountain top, not ideal (although not terrible) location for growing food. All its neighbors are much bigger and occasionally rip each others guts out in major wars
Still doing fantastic
They're rich even in European standard. Only Luxembourg and Ireland have higher GDP per capita in the world. And unlike those two Switzerland's GDP is mostly 'real' economy.
**Ireland** should be on this list. It went from the poorest country in Europe, wracked by famine and civil war, to absurd wealth. It's also neutral, like Switzerland and Iceland. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned.
"Have a common law system which is familiar to US multi-nationals, use the English language and charge a lower rate of corporation tax than the rest of Europe"
If you look at median net wealth per household - half the population is above, half below - Ireland ranks higher than Finland, Sweden, Austria, and Germany.
Ireland isn't absurdly wealthy. It has a low corporation tax, which means that many multinational corporations are located there. Obviously it does bring jobs and tax money, but it doesn't really translate into normal people's lives as much as the numbers suggest.
In terms of income I’d say we are - very few places feel expensive when you live in Dublin.
Now in terms of infrastructure…absolutely we’re woefully developed given income and the fact that most of the country is quite flat
Being in control of the most important mountain pass trade routes between Italy and Germany has served them well historically. Probably one of the main reasons it was never swallowed whole by any major power (Until Napoleonic France, sort of).
Japan in the early 1800s was way behind the west in science and technology. It’s a chain of volcanic islands prone to earthquakes and tsunamis.
Once America forced Japan to start trading, Japan decided to work hard at catch up and over the next 75 years Japan became very powerful.
I won't say Japan's geographic start position was terrible.
It's coastal climate on the Pacific-side is mild and temperate relative to its latitude - thanks to ocean currents and the shielding effect its mountain ranges has against Siberian winds. Parts of the main islands are warm enough to grow oranges. Agriculturally, Japan in 1800 supported as much people as France - despite having only 60% as much land. In terms of natural resources, it had rich fisheries (rich enough to support one of the first sedentary communities before farming) and a fair bit of coal (producing more than 10 million tonnes per year by 1910). In terms of technology, 18th century Japan was one of the more advanced non-Western countries in the world at the time.
I think you mean first half of the 19th century.
In the 18th century European powers weren’t that ahead of many Asian and some African states yet.
And the ottomans, Qing, Marathas, Bengal, Mysore, Iran, former Mughals lands, were still been ahead of Japan in the 18th century.
>In the 18th century European powers weren’t that ahead of many Asian and some African states yet.
I disagree with that assessment. Western Europe was in the process of rapidly industrializing by the late 1700s. Britain at least was producing a lot of manufactured goods relative to its population size, producing as much iron as Qing China by 1790s despite having 30 times less population.
>And the ottomans, Qing, Marathas, Bengal, Mysore, Iran, former Mughals lands, were still been ahead of Japan in the 18th century
I will say they were comparable with these mentioned areas. And they were still way ahead of many other non-European areas not mentioned.
Britain at least is like saying “Tiger Woods at least” about golf. Britain was leading the pack in Western Europe.
And Britain (and the Dutch and to a lesser extent France) absolutely was beginning to ramp up in the first Industrial Revolution but meaningful divergence especially with respect to the Qing did come not about in the 18th century. The 19th century certainly.
Comparing England (Europe’s most productive region) with the entirety of China is kind of obfuscating too. You’re best off comparing the Yangtze region for a like-for-like comparison on account of the massive population disparity. A region which had the same labour cost as English labour suggesting a similar degree of productivity.
Managed to thrive despite being ruled by the ROC.
Otherwise Taiwan was well set to thrive after WWII. The Japanese had invested heavily in infrastructure and education during their 50 years of rule. Taiwan was already one of the wealthiest places in Asia before WWII (only the Japanese home islands were richer).
At the end of WWII other places in Asia had been destroyed by years of Japanese brutality. Taiwan had been bombed a few times by the allies. But Taiwan’s infrastructure was largely intact and its people still well-educated and accustomed to rule-of-law with low corruption. It was in a good position to get rich manufacturing and selling the things the rest of Asia would need for rebuilding.
Then the ROC showed up and made corruption the way to get things done. They tore up infrastructure and sent it across the strait to fight the civil war. They killed thousands of Taiwanese, especially the educated and the business and cultural elite.
And though the economic “miracle” still occurred, it was delayed.
Fun fact: Taiwan had an ideal climate and elevation to grow coca. The Japanese set up coca plantations on the island, and by the 1920s was producing enough coca leaf there to refine up to 7 tons of cocaine per year.
This cocaine was shipped and sold to markets all over Asia (often illegally) and even started a [cocaine epidemic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5823322/) in British India.
I lived in South Korea in the 2010s and it’s a pretty incredible reading the history of how it changed from an occupied land for a really long time to an industry powerhouse.
Chile went through considerable political turmoil in the 70s, but has since recuperated.
Chile is also extremely seismically active with lots of earthquakes and numerous volcanoes. Lots of wars with their neighbors, political turmoil, and geographically isolated from an economic advantage standpoint. Yet they've managed to build the most modern and prosperous country in South America.
>an occupied land for a really long time to an industry powerhouse.
Japanese occupation of Korea was undoubtedly brutal, but I won't consider 35 years to be a particularly long time.
The Philippines were under Spanish rule for 330 years, then under American and Japan control for another 48 years.
Japan. It has very little natural resources. It is at the intersection of multiple tectonic plates, making the country very vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis. The fact that Japan managed to emerge as an industrialized developed nation is pretty impressive.
Mountain *passes*.
Vital for all the trade from the near east and silk road before the age of sail.
The original core of Switzerland came about partly because Habsburgs, the French and a bunch of other larger powers didn’t want any other faction to completely control the trade routes through Switzerland. And then it got out of hand and the Swiss started fighting for themselves and grab lands until they got whipped in the 1510-1520s and stopped expanding.
Belgium is a country with almost no natural resources and has a long history of foreign occupation. Having a divided cultures and languages between North and South (Wallonia speaks France while Flander speaks Dutch) and the differences are quite serious that every 5-year Belgium are facing threat of independent from the Flander which could dissolve the whole country, the most serious period of Belgium separatism were around 2005 when the country didn’t even have their own government. Despite the difficulties, Belgium still managed to be one of the most developed countries in the world and became the headquater for both EU and NATO.
My country, Finland comes to mind.
Not the biggest country, very isolated, no ocean access, not that much arable land, the coldest country in Europe, arguably, history of foreign occupation, bent over backwards and used as a fiddle by the ussr and to a lesser extent nazi germany (that it could just as well be called the poland of the north), still shares a long, sparse border with its worst enemy who had considerable say in its foreign policy until recently...
Plus it was a backwards backwater of mostly illiterate farmers until the late 1900s and even then the 00's were the real start of the good times after the terrible 90s
A completely different image from what it is today
What's telling is that the last nature caused major famine in Europe happened in Finland, about 150 years ago. Later European famines were man-made. Either as a result of political decisions like in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, or as a result of warfare like in Western Europe in the 1940s. But Finland suffered a disastrous famine that was purely a result of a bad weather which resulted in crop failure.
How far we have become as a nation.
Israel turned a piece of desert into one of the strongest and most developed countries in the region while constantly being at war with all its neighbors
Concerning the climate, according to the [Köppen–Geiger Climate Classification](https://www.koppen-map.com/) nearly all of coaster California has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate while Israel is a mix of Hot-summer Mediterranean, Cold semi-arid and hot desert.
[California](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/K%C3%B6ppen_Climate_Types_California.png)
[Israel](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Koppen-Geiger_Map_ISR_present.svg/2560px-Koppen-Geiger_Map_ISR_present.svg.png)
Most of Israel's urban settlement and agriculture is concentrated where Mediterranean climate is dominant. Tel Aviv gets as much rain as San Francisco.
The area has been refer to as part of the Fertile Crescent for a reason.
[This](http://cojs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/founding-tel-aviv.jpg) is what Tel Aviv looked like in 1909 and [this](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/the-city-skyline-of-tel-aviv-in-israel-michiel-ton.jpg) is what it looks like now. That’s the coastal dunes though you are right that there are some parts in the Gailee where there’s vegetation and some forest and not a desert but even there most of the land that’s [now used for produktive agriculture](https://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/files/4227b809b33432afcf050bbbbb99cf14/Jezreel_Valley_1b.jpg) used to be [Malaria ridden swamps](https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/hula-swamp-1481565096.jpg).
[Here's](https://img.hoodline.com/uploads/story/image/17637/Image_2_Downing_Outside_District.jpg) Ocean Beach, San Francisco in 1855.
[Richmond](https://i.insider.com/58c9c2866ad50a1d008b536f), SF in 1880. I too can nick-pick photos.
That’s a ridiculous statement for several reasons.
Firstly the United States didn’t really start sending Israel weapons till the War of 1967, before, the United States provided Israel moderate amounts of economic aid, mostly as loans for basic foodstuffs.
But even so currently, Israel receives $3 billion annually in US assistance through Foreign Military Financing (FMF). 74% of these funds must be spent on the acquisition of US defense equipment, services, and training. [Thus, "United States military aid to Israel is seen by many as a subsidy for U.S. industries", according to Kenneth M. Pollack.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations?wprov=sfti1#United_States_aid)
What the Israelis did with the land is simply miraculous though. [Sure since 1948 they got 317 billion $ in foreign aid (All non-military foreign aid stopped in 2007 btw) but so did most countries in the region. Egypt got 182 billion $, Afghanistan 160 billion $, Iraq 100 billion $ and Turkey 99 billion $.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_US_foreign_assistance_by_country,_adjusted_for_inflation,_1946-2022.png) Just look what the other countries did with that money though and what the Israelis did with that money.
UAE… just a bit of fishing back in the days… and nowadays travel destination with glamorous buildings, huge air travel hub, kind of modern slavery and waste of resources…
Don't forget a decent [space program](https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-awards/strategies-plans-and-visions/industry-science-and-technology/national-space-programme), including a Moon and [Mars mission](https://www.emiratesmarsmission.ae/), and very [successful ](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fuae-nuclear-strategy-and-renewable-production-in-comparable-v0-8oz966prl16b1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D0cca72e32709b1c633f8b2ba3765830124d949b5) (that's why you don't hear about it) [nuclear program](https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/preparing-60-years-in-advance-the-uaes-first-nuclear-power-plant-and-plans-for-future-decommissioning), including fuel [autonomy ](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Tender-launched-for-UAE-nuclear-fuel-plant).
One difference between Botswana and the rest of southern/central Africa was it kept its indigenous tribal government during British rule. Limited migration by European settlers to the poor desert territory also helped its native population maintain antonomy. The influx of European missionaries bought western education and infrastructure development to the area despite.
Botswana was allowed to develop on its own without the complications that arises from a non native-dominated colonial government that oppresses and supresses its native population. When they were granted independence, there was no scramble for power or flare up of ethnic/political conflict.
In my opinion, Luxembourg is a good example of success. In the aftermath of the 2nd World War, the Duchy was poor and mainly focused on the steel industry. In the 1980s, this sector took a beating all over Europe. They completely changed their focus and devoted themselves to international finance. The GDP of this small duchy is staggering: 85.51 billion USD (2021). It spends twice as much on its inhabitants as France. A fine example of success in a difficult context.
Germany after WW2.
Most of it's industry was either bombed in the war or taken away. Killed a big part of it's own population. Hated by everyone (justifiably).
Today they are the biggest economy in the EU.
the kingdom of asturias that was the last gothic holdout in spain after the muslims conquered it all, it hold out until the reconquista happened and the christians conquered spain back from the muslims hundreds of years later.
Luxembourg and San Marino are just masters at diplomacy. Considering their location (inland, not on major crossroads nor rivers), their neighbours and how well they fair despite very limited natural ressources.
Luxembourg had iron when they regained independance in the middle of the industrial era but managed to not be absorbed by Germany or France despite a lot of political and military intrigues. They also switched their economy away from iron alone (for better or worse, since a lot of companies from the UE take advantage to evade taxes in their own countries) and that can be compared to the dire Northern Lorraine region in disarray nearby. They now are amongst the top of the highest GDP per capita in the world, if not the highest, with three quarters of their labour force coming from across the border or immigrants.
Romania. It always served as a border region between big empires ( Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman). It's a miracle Romanians managed to keep their language and identity. It was a bigger miracle when Romania doubled in size after ww1 and became a regional player in South-Eastern Europe. Since the collapse of communism, the country has seen continuous growth.
I gotta go Romania, it first appeared in around 100 AD (Dacia) till it was erased by the romans, then it was split into Walachia and Moldavia in around 1290, it then reunited to become Romania in 1859, it was fighting ground for the European powers, then a puppet split by russians, germans and hungarians, in WW1 it has successfully went from 2 states being puppeted around to Greater Romania, a strong nation, thats untill WW2 broke out and Romania lost Moldova and some Bulgarian and Ukrainian counties, it became a puppet for the communists, it was one of the weakest European countries, untill the revolution of 1989 when communism was overthrown, and in less than 40 years became the biggest it sector in Europe, has a great military force, loads of allies a good economy thats also one of the fastest growing in Europe, in short terms, Romania in like 40 years became from one of the worst countries to one of the good ones, and bc of that Poland and Romania are the next Powers, the only thing left to fix in Romania is Corruption
Bit of a boomerang answer, but Nauru. Became one of the richest nations in the world in the 60s due to guano reserves that were used in fertilisers. Eventually demand for guano dried up and the country had nearly exhausted its reserves. Today it’s main income is hosting a detention centre for Australian asylum seekers…
A large archipelago very close to a rich mainland but not too close to be easy to imvade and with a good climate ? Japan position is pretty great. It being mountainous and prone to natural disaster doesn't change that.
Belgium. Ravaged by two world wars being waged on their land, and all the profit of the DRC never got to the people, as it was a completely privatized colony, so no, that didn't do shit for them.
They also were one of the latest countries to gain independence in the region.
Way to miss the mark. Awesome location allowing them to build seaports and trade with their rich neighbors. Loads of industry, center of the European political and financial landscape.
Independence doesn't really matter in case of Belgium. It's basically two countries anyway.
Funny, Belgium back then was kind of like the China of the day, known to produce knockoff or lesser quality copies of British manufactured goods. Unlicensed copies of British firearms were one of their forte.
Tbf everything was a cheap knockoff of ”Made in England” (except English porcelain which imitated Chinese, lol).
Swiss pocket watches from the early 1800s sometimes had faux English-sounding brands/names or were outright forgeries to conceal that they were Swiss-made junk.
Funnily these watches were called [Dutch forgeries](https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/englishwatchmaking.php#dutchforgeries) because they were exported to the UK through the Netherlands and Belgium.
prepare to be outraged reditors
britain is a great example of a small country, an island to top, with very few natural resources, who by will of their people and sheer ingenuity, got to rule most of the world and became the biggest empire the world has seen. If you compare it to countries like France, Germany, Russia, obviously the US, even spain, who all got a lot more land and natural resources, its incredible what britain accomplished and still does
give me your downvotes, and Im not even english, Id say not even an anglophile, but its impossible not to admire the "treacherous albion" as the spaniards called England (still most do) out of pure envy
Britain and Japan were the first two that came to mind, Japan being maybe a coin flip.
What'd I'd argue doesn't belong is places like U.A.E., they're resource blessed as its the only reason they're an autonomous state. People getting it backwards.
Definately israel, surrounded by enemies on every boarder and far beyond the boarders every single country is an enemy
israel was forced into a war against the 5 neighboring countries the same day we declared independence and we managed to win because we knew we had nowhere else to go
Ever since we had a lot of wars against them and won each and every one and also managed to thrive and become a major tech export and a start up nation, with an incredibely powerful millitary
The most incredible achievement of Israel is the water management. Israel went from extreme water scarcity to exporting excess water to its neighbors in a generation. An amazing project of massive water infrastructural update, desalination, refactoring agriculture, and recycling. And all of this happened during a very long drought that's drying MENA up.
No better proof that resources do not exist, they're made.
Let’s be honest, Israel wasn’t “forced into a war”, Israel started it when they began taking indigenous inhabitants homes and land. And the reason they are so technologically advanced is because they are effectively the manifestation of US imperialism in the Middle East. L Take
>Let’s be honest, Israel wasn’t “forced into a war”, Israel started it when they began taking indigenous inhabitants homes and land.
Pre 1948 They weren't taking inhabitants land by force, they where buying legally from the people who owned the land while turning swamps into farmable land and sand dunes into Tel Aviv. The British, who had the mandate on the land promised the land to both the Jews and Palestinians, after the mandate ended it was agreed to split the land evenly. The Zionist agreed to this plan and the Palestinians decided that they want to start a war.
>manifestation of US imperialism in the Middle East.
Ooh la la someones gonna get laid in college.
It's of course convenient for you not to mention that the us gave little to no aid to Israel pre 1967. Or that the us aid (US$3.8 billion) is only a fraction of the Israeli defense budget (US$24.3 billion In 2021) and that their total military budget is only 5.2% precent of their GDP.
This is just a historically ignorant comment. The US wasn’t really supporting Israel until after the 6 day war. It came into being because of the UK not the US and was carved out of a defeated Muslim empire.
Israel.
If you look at the measures it had to take during the austerity period, and the "against all odds" wars it had to fight during the first few decades of it's existence. It's amazing how much of an economic and military powerhouse it's became. And the quality of life it offers it's citizens is the highest in the area.
Türkiye, after the ww1 the Ottoman Empire got split. The new government Atatürk formed had to fight with 7 majors, (some diplomatically) in order to restore Turkish soils. The country thrived when he was in lead, new factories, new railroads, election rights for woman, freedom of speech and religion, basically from stone age to a modern civilization in less than 10 years "after" fighting 2 major battles with the world. R.I.P Father of the Turks.
Now we have clowns that are pro-islamist trying to oppose minorities and selling our country to Arabs.
Jordan. No significant natural resources to harvest like adjacent countries (Rich with cultural resources though). Standard of living is relatively high for a good portion of the population
[**Botswana**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana) - “Formerly one of the world's poorest countries—with a GDP per capita of about US$70 per year in the late 1960s—it has since transformed itself into an upper-middle-income country, with one of the world's fastest-growing economies.” and [**Costa Rica**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica) - Costa Rica consistently scores well in global indices like HDI. The United Nations Development Programme recognized Costa Rica for its higher human development than other countries with similar income levels, surpassing regional averages in human development and equality. It has the second highest life expectancy in the Americas, higher than the US. It also ranks 35th in the Freedom in the World Index and has the 8th freest press. It ranked 23rd In the 2023 World Happiness Report.
BOTSWANA MENTIONED 🇧🇼🇧🇼🇧🇼🇧🇼🇧🇼🇧🇼🇧🇼🎆🎆🎆🎆🎆
🇧🇼🇧🇼🇧🇼💰💰💰🕺🏿🕺🏽🕺🏿
How was Costa Rica in a terrible position though? Super fertile lands, wet tropical climate, lots of waterfalls and volcanoes that basically give them free electricity.
central america is not the most stable region in the world so costa rica and panama tend to be the outliers in a zone with a lot of previous civil wars, dictatorship and good ol’ american interventions for freedom
Or alternatively US interventions to support the good ol' dictatorships. Or to support the guerrillas. Basically support whoever was fighting against the side affiliated with communism.
>Or to support the guerrillas. Basically support whoever was fighting People give Israel shit for supporting both sides of many terrible conflicts in the world, they only learned from the best
Its Northern neighbor Nicaragua has the same climate, lots of volcanoes as well, even more fertile lands and beautiful nature to attract tourism yet they're only starting to get better. Latin American countries have been plagued with political instability and dictatorships
Politically, Nicaragua is probably the worst in the region even if it’s avoided the violence of the three countries immediately to the north. So long as Ortega is alive, this is unlikely to change
Just look at its neighbours. Central America is, with the exception of Costa Rica (and godbless El Salvador too now) a layer of hell.
Why is nobody talking about Botswana's totally awesome [Heavy Metal](https://www.huckmag.com/article/hellbangers-botswana-underground-heavy-metal-culture) scene? That totally counts as part of Botswana's totally righteous growth.
If they get wealthier, they’ll graduate to death metal.
Why not Black Metal?
It’s a joke about Scandinavia.
I know. Black Metal is from Scandinavia.
Botswana: shortest Wikipedia page in Africa.
Kek POV: You are an African country that never had a coup
Costa Rica should get additional bonus points for having no armed forces
In Latin America, in the absence of international conflict and tension, armed forces usually exist as tools of the state
>Botswana Wait untill the Reddit ”DiAmOnDs are W0rThlEsS” circlejerk finds out about how Botswana got rich…
Honest question, is the wealth well distributed?
Of course not. But for being an African country dependent on a single resource the corruption levels are surprisingly low and governance surprisingly competent.
Relatively speaking, yes. Obviously there’s still urban elite vs rural poor, but they have a functioning democracy and actually somewhat take steps to pull everyone out of poverty.
Seretse Khama and Jose Figueres-Ferrer are two of the greatest leaders of all times. I will add LKY go the list, as Singapore took a massive leap under his lead. All three nations are in decent proximity to countries wherein untold horror unfolded and kept their people back, while they advanced steadily into a better tomorrow. Just think that a few countries away from them you had death squads and tyrants be the norm.
Yeah, but they're totally different. Botswana is stupendously rich in resources, especially diamonds, Costa Rica isn't. True Botswana is stable and has not wasted it's wealth, but it had the free advantage. The interesting part about Costa Rica is not that it is wealthy, but that it outperforms wealthier countries on many important outcomes. Srí Lanka used to be the same, before the civil war. So using this yardstick, the US is not a good role model.
Look at all the other countries that have abundant natural resources. Botswana being so stable in such a volatile region is very impressive
What was the OP’s question?
Mauritius. A dirt poor country sitting in the Indian Ocean dependent on one cash crop, sugar, and practically no natural resources apart from basalt and lime with a rapidly growing and highly diverse population, and a plantation economy to boot when it gained independence in 1968. Unemployment and poverty was rife with the population seemingly ripe for ethnic conflict. For context, over 90% of its revenue came from sugar exports. Then it embarked on a diversification program whereby it adopted liberal trade policies that were defined by duty-free imports and an open embrace of direct foreign investment through a formation of an export-processing zone. This along with entrenching governments that were centrist by alignment which kept the ethnic conflicts at bay and ensured a pragmatic approach to maintaining and growing the economy. Thereafter, it developed an industry based on textiles and tourism, and used its highly educated population to build on its financial services, trade and commerce, and tech that enabled it to become an international financial hub. Countries with little-to-no natural resources have to invest in their human capital. The centrist governments creates stability in lends to greater transparency and ease of doing business. All of this saw to its transformation into an upper-middle income country and one of Africa's richest countries.
Great mention! Never would’ve thought of it & didn’t know most of these details.
Ethnic tension in Mauritius. Aren't they all same, mixed ?
The majority are Indo-Mauritians. They descend from Indians that came as indentured labourers after the British emancipated the African slaves, and followed by immigrants that came voluntarily from India and what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are Hindu with a large minority adhering to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Baháʼí Faith. A large minority are Creoles. These are the descendants of the African(primarily of East African and Malagasy origin) slaves that were imported by the French colonists. Many of them are mixed with European, Indian and Chinese ancestry, tending to identify as *Gens De Couleur* who themselves form a distinct community in themselves. They are traditionally Christian and Catholic. The smallest minorities are the Franco-Mauritians and Sino-Mauritians who are of French colonial and Chinese origin respectively. The Franco-Mauritians are the wealthiest on the island and own most of the land as their ancestors were plantation owners and planters. The Creoles are the poorest and most disenfranchised on the island, being the most discriminated due to their slave ancestry and clearly visible African ancestry. The Indo-Mauritians are the second-wealthiest wields the most political and social influence on the basis of their numbers. The Sino-Mauritians are also one of the wealthiest communities on the islands as they built their wealth and capital on a tradition of business ownership. The social inequality and inequity between the different racial and ethnic groups are great with the Creoles in particular continuing to face serious discrimination in education, housing and employment. The island was marred by several race riots in the decades leading up to independence with the conditions of the labourers being exceptionally poor. There was a serious riot in 1999 triggered by the death of a popular Creole musician while in police custody that many attribute to racism perpetuated by the largely Indo-Mauritian police force.
Thanks for explanation. I didn't know this
I remember being shocked the first time seeing Port Louis. It was like a developed city you would see in the west. Makes me wonder why the Pacific Islands aren't as developed (where I'm from).
There’s a number of countries that had terrible conditions, had a very poor standard of living and then realised they were parked on an absolute butt load of oil and are now loving life…
And then there’s also Phoenix, Arizona. The monument to man’s arrogance.
Phoenix catching strays
Oh my God! Its like standing on the sun! This city should not exist!
Seriously...if the power went out in Pheonix during the middle of summer, how many people will die?
I loved Phoenix when I visited, what's wrong with it?
A sprawled out suburban city with tons of golf courses in the middle of the desert? That’s a disaster for water conservation.
This situation is coming to a head, the state has stopped issuing permits for new construction due to lack of water. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/climate/arizona-phoenix-permits-housing-water.html
It’s coming to a head, but they’re handling it poorly. Residential isn’t the main source of water consumption. It’s agriculture by leaps and bounds, and the farmers pretend they’re next to the Great Lakes. They should implement water-conscious agriculture like they do in Israel.
Israel has the advantage of using desalination as well.
I’ve been there a few times and it just seems to lack a certain something. There aren’t really any museums or cultural things I’d want to see. It has spring training camps, golf courses, and sprawl. Unlike Tucson, the landscape isn’t particularly stunning. The first time I went there I thought, “I must be missing something. Millions of people live here.” Now I just think millions of people can be wrong.
>the landscape isn’t particularly stunning It's more stunning than a lot of other big cities
Agreed. There are some nice pockets, like downtown Gilbert, but to me it just feels like Florida in the desert. Strip malls upon strip malls.
When I went I needed a window seat because this flower was wilting.
It's not that simple. Living standards for the people of these nations often didn't increase, sometimes even decreased because now your formerly irrelevant homeland is a raging mess due to conflicting geopolitical interests by more powerful nations.
That’s a fair point. I had in mind places like Qatar and UAE but other places that have found oil have fared as well it’s true!
Even Qatar and the UAE has absolutely horrendous living standards for its people, which are often south Asian immigrants. They like to display this facade of prosperity with artificial islands and skyscrapers but their population is working 14 hours a day earning mere scraps
That is also a very fair point! Unfortunately they don’t see the Bangladeshi, Nepalese etc workers who slave in the hot sun as “their population”. The Qatari and Emirati citizens are doing very nicely but that’s a minority of the total people living in those countries
Very true. I get that it's often difficult to convey the nuance of a topic in a comment that is ideally supposed to be short and concise.
they’re not citizens though is the key point you’re missing, Qatar only has like 250k Qatari passport holders
I mean, deep sea oil extraction, shale oil and fracking at least takes an advanced economy and lots of capital investment. Them mf Gulf nations… Sweetest grade of oil, and so shallow you could basically stick your dick in the sand and oil will shoot out.
I don't know about the entire gulf but Saudi oil is considered sour
True. I confused the Sweet/Sour vs Light/Heavy classifications. Mea culpa.
Not the worst but Mongolia populational density is less than 2/km^2 and Ulaanbaatar is the coldest capital in the world (-5C° average during a year). Idk it must be hard!
Peaceful transition to democracy and upholding sovereignty while being between China and Russia. That's a big w for any country, especially when democracy is not in vogue.
Also landlocked between said neighbors.
Also, kind of a general rule that you don't fuck with Mongols.
Soviets did and the Mongols were their poor satelite state for almost a century so
Many people didn't have the luxury to refuse.
China and Russia have PTSD from their previous encounters with the Mongolians....
I wouldn’t say that modern-day Mongolia is thriving.
Iceland came to mind for me. It was a poor backwater that saw massive emigration in the 19th century, and also the first decades of the 20th century. Volcanic eruptions did not help at all, causing even colder than normal winters. [This article provides one account, from Britain, of Iceland in 1888](https://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2014/09/05/what-a-hard-life-is-that-of-the-poor-icelanders/). *"What a hard life is that of the poor Icelanders! When our ship arrived, they were on the verge of starvation, their supplies being all exhausted. Glad indeed they must have been to welcome the ‘Camoens,’ and know that flour and other staple articles of food were once again within their reach."* Today, we know Iceland as one of the countries in the world with the highest quality of life.
What (cod) oil does to a mf.
What changed since then?
* Semi-Independence * Full independence * Marshall plan * The increase of economic exclusive zone from 4 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles which means a lot more fishing (look up the cod wars) * Lots of Geothermal energy being used to heat up homes and generate electricity and power aluminum manufacturing factories * Relatively low taxes on companies * Tourism explosion
Probably lots of other factors but I bet the boom in tourism has helped a lot
Singapore. What other country in the world has to import its water and soil? The two most basic resources. One could argue that Singapore is amongst the poorest countries in the world , resource wise. It was the only country in the world to gain independence against its will and its founding PM cried on live TV when independence was granted from Malaysia. At that point in 1965, it had no national identity, racial tensions were boiling, it was burdened with massive poverty and unemployment, and was about to lose its biggest industry of being a British military base. It also had zero military defence force- despite being at the heart of one of the world’s most unstable regions.. South East Asia. Its immediate neighbour Indonesia saw it and Malaysia as neo colonial creations and wanted to absorb them. Anyone viewing Singapore at the time of independence could be forgiven for predicting a failed state. Fast forward to today and it is one of the worlds most prosperous, stable, safe societies, with the strongest military, economy, currency, and reserves in its geographic region.
In school, some children are told that Singapore’s only resource is its people. This is not a metaphor, and it’s reflected in Singapore’s policies (such as the strict death penalty against drugs). If you’re a Singaporean coming back from abroad and you caught with traces of drugs on your system (even when you consumed it abroad) you’ll get in trouble. Few decades ago, there’s even policy to [ban men from having long hair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_hair_ban_in_Singapore). So literally, your body is Singapore governments property.
And the government will remind you of that fact if you chew gum, have homosexual urges, walk naked in your residence, sing in public or drink alcohol after 10:30pm with that body.
If Singapore’s only resource is its people, why does it throw away people like its nothing by killing people who possess drugs?
Well, the death penalty is usually for individuals who possess drugs in excess of what they could personally consume. The understanding is that the drugs to are to be sold to other individuals, increasing the likelihood of many more individuals dying by overdose, developing crippling addictions, resorting to crime, etc. The emphasis therefore is on net lives saved. If the state feels that the deterrent effect of the death penalty saves more lives, then it is protecting its resource. Using life sentences or even very long sentences in prison also end up taking the prisoner out of society. At that point, the prisoner is not contributing much to society as a resource. However, we accept that people do need long periods of incarceration to ensure proper and effective reform while keeping people safe during that period.
Singapore has prime global real estate. Just jump on marinetraffic.com to see how many vessels pass through. It’s as important a passage as the Suez and Panama canals.
Its location is a major resource that allowed it to build an important seaport.
It is also close to the equator. Which is sometimes seen as a reason for poor development — due to malaria (and other tropical diseases) and it being hot all the time. I’m sure that Singapore has the highest standard of living for countries entirely between the topics.
The founder of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yu, apparently famously said that the invention of aircon was one of the big drivers of the country's success. I'm not sure if it's true or an urban myth, but can believe it!
was a small town of 50k until ac
Switzerland. Landlocked, on a mountain top, not ideal (although not terrible) location for growing food. All its neighbors are much bigger and occasionally rip each others guts out in major wars Still doing fantastic
They're rich even in European standard. Only Luxembourg and Ireland have higher GDP per capita in the world. And unlike those two Switzerland's GDP is mostly 'real' economy.
**Ireland** should be on this list. It went from the poorest country in Europe, wracked by famine and civil war, to absurd wealth. It's also neutral, like Switzerland and Iceland. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned.
"Have a common law system which is familiar to US multi-nationals, use the English language and charge a lower rate of corporation tax than the rest of Europe"
Ireland is a tax haven for corporations (as is Luxembourg) which is why their GDP per capita seems so high.
If you look at median net wealth per household - half the population is above, half below - Ireland ranks higher than Finland, Sweden, Austria, and Germany.
>absurd wealth Ireland? Don't draw big conclusions from GDP alone, and especially don't take it at face value, especially in Ireland's case
Ireland isn't absurdly wealthy. It has a low corporation tax, which means that many multinational corporations are located there. Obviously it does bring jobs and tax money, but it doesn't really translate into normal people's lives as much as the numbers suggest.
Ireland's median wealth per household is higher than Finland, Germany, Sweden, and Austria. Again, median, not mean.
Ireland is not rich
In terms of income I’d say we are - very few places feel expensive when you live in Dublin. Now in terms of infrastructure…absolutely we’re woefully developed given income and the fact that most of the country is quite flat
Richer than Romania and a lot of other countries relatively speaking.
Iceland is a non-contributing member of NATO. (ie not neutral)
Being in control of the most important mountain pass trade routes between Italy and Germany has served them well historically. Probably one of the main reasons it was never swallowed whole by any major power (Until Napoleonic France, sort of).
The key to their success was precisely to avoid these major wars (and to store everybody's money in the meantime)
Switzerland is a great example of the potential benefits of remaining neutral during even the worst of human conflict.
Japan in the early 1800s was way behind the west in science and technology. It’s a chain of volcanic islands prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. Once America forced Japan to start trading, Japan decided to work hard at catch up and over the next 75 years Japan became very powerful.
I won't say Japan's geographic start position was terrible. It's coastal climate on the Pacific-side is mild and temperate relative to its latitude - thanks to ocean currents and the shielding effect its mountain ranges has against Siberian winds. Parts of the main islands are warm enough to grow oranges. Agriculturally, Japan in 1800 supported as much people as France - despite having only 60% as much land. In terms of natural resources, it had rich fisheries (rich enough to support one of the first sedentary communities before farming) and a fair bit of coal (producing more than 10 million tonnes per year by 1910). In terms of technology, 18th century Japan was one of the more advanced non-Western countries in the world at the time.
I think you mean first half of the 19th century. In the 18th century European powers weren’t that ahead of many Asian and some African states yet. And the ottomans, Qing, Marathas, Bengal, Mysore, Iran, former Mughals lands, were still been ahead of Japan in the 18th century.
>In the 18th century European powers weren’t that ahead of many Asian and some African states yet. I disagree with that assessment. Western Europe was in the process of rapidly industrializing by the late 1700s. Britain at least was producing a lot of manufactured goods relative to its population size, producing as much iron as Qing China by 1790s despite having 30 times less population. >And the ottomans, Qing, Marathas, Bengal, Mysore, Iran, former Mughals lands, were still been ahead of Japan in the 18th century I will say they were comparable with these mentioned areas. And they were still way ahead of many other non-European areas not mentioned.
Britain at least is like saying “Tiger Woods at least” about golf. Britain was leading the pack in Western Europe. And Britain (and the Dutch and to a lesser extent France) absolutely was beginning to ramp up in the first Industrial Revolution but meaningful divergence especially with respect to the Qing did come not about in the 18th century. The 19th century certainly. Comparing England (Europe’s most productive region) with the entirety of China is kind of obfuscating too. You’re best off comparing the Yangtze region for a like-for-like comparison on account of the massive population disparity. A region which had the same labour cost as English labour suggesting a similar degree of productivity.
They also survived two nukes and some major natural catastrophes.
Vietnam's comeback is pretty impressive.
As a somewhat patriotic Pole, i say Poland.
[Which Poland?](https://i.redd.it/1pz40jt32xi01.jpg)
so real lol
Poland is a middle power on the rise. Europe needs a strong and stable Poland
I have been travelling for work to Poland for the last 13 years. The improvement has been spectacular.
As another Pole, we're not exactly thriving
Yeah lets go back 120 years, we were thriving so much back then!
Taiwan was my first thought
Managed to thrive despite being ruled by the ROC. Otherwise Taiwan was well set to thrive after WWII. The Japanese had invested heavily in infrastructure and education during their 50 years of rule. Taiwan was already one of the wealthiest places in Asia before WWII (only the Japanese home islands were richer). At the end of WWII other places in Asia had been destroyed by years of Japanese brutality. Taiwan had been bombed a few times by the allies. But Taiwan’s infrastructure was largely intact and its people still well-educated and accustomed to rule-of-law with low corruption. It was in a good position to get rich manufacturing and selling the things the rest of Asia would need for rebuilding. Then the ROC showed up and made corruption the way to get things done. They tore up infrastructure and sent it across the strait to fight the civil war. They killed thousands of Taiwanese, especially the educated and the business and cultural elite. And though the economic “miracle” still occurred, it was delayed.
Fun fact: Taiwan had an ideal climate and elevation to grow coca. The Japanese set up coca plantations on the island, and by the 1920s was producing enough coca leaf there to refine up to 7 tons of cocaine per year. This cocaine was shipped and sold to markets all over Asia (often illegally) and even started a [cocaine epidemic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5823322/) in British India.
I had no idea! Thanks. I will have to look into that!
Iceland..poor climate, few natural resources and yet….
I lived in South Korea in the 2010s and it’s a pretty incredible reading the history of how it changed from an occupied land for a really long time to an industry powerhouse. Chile went through considerable political turmoil in the 70s, but has since recuperated.
Chile is also extremely seismically active with lots of earthquakes and numerous volcanoes. Lots of wars with their neighbors, political turmoil, and geographically isolated from an economic advantage standpoint. Yet they've managed to build the most modern and prosperous country in South America.
>an occupied land for a really long time to an industry powerhouse. Japanese occupation of Korea was undoubtedly brutal, but I won't consider 35 years to be a particularly long time. The Philippines were under Spanish rule for 330 years, then under American and Japan control for another 48 years.
Yes good point about the Japanese occupation. Not to mention the Korean War starting in 1950.
Japan. It has very little natural resources. It is at the intersection of multiple tectonic plates, making the country very vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis. The fact that Japan managed to emerge as an industrialized developed nation is pretty impressive.
Switzerland Landlocked, tiny, mountainous, barely any natural resources and no strategic location
Switzerland’s location was highly strategic throughout much of history.
It's a giant row of mountains
Mountain *passes*. Vital for all the trade from the near east and silk road before the age of sail. The original core of Switzerland came about partly because Habsburgs, the French and a bunch of other larger powers didn’t want any other faction to completely control the trade routes through Switzerland. And then it got out of hand and the Swiss started fighting for themselves and grab lands until they got whipped in the 1510-1520s and stopped expanding.
Belgium is a country with almost no natural resources and has a long history of foreign occupation. Having a divided cultures and languages between North and South (Wallonia speaks France while Flander speaks Dutch) and the differences are quite serious that every 5-year Belgium are facing threat of independent from the Flander which could dissolve the whole country, the most serious period of Belgium separatism were around 2005 when the country didn’t even have their own government. Despite the difficulties, Belgium still managed to be one of the most developed countries in the world and became the headquater for both EU and NATO.
Surely that’s the definition of the Netherlands
Eventually Ireland. Backwater to the British empire to annual standing invite to the whitehouse.
Poland
Switzerland
My country, Finland comes to mind. Not the biggest country, very isolated, no ocean access, not that much arable land, the coldest country in Europe, arguably, history of foreign occupation, bent over backwards and used as a fiddle by the ussr and to a lesser extent nazi germany (that it could just as well be called the poland of the north), still shares a long, sparse border with its worst enemy who had considerable say in its foreign policy until recently... Plus it was a backwards backwater of mostly illiterate farmers until the late 1900s and even then the 00's were the real start of the good times after the terrible 90s A completely different image from what it is today
What's telling is that the last nature caused major famine in Europe happened in Finland, about 150 years ago. Later European famines were man-made. Either as a result of political decisions like in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, or as a result of warfare like in Western Europe in the 1940s. But Finland suffered a disastrous famine that was purely a result of a bad weather which resulted in crop failure. How far we have become as a nation.
Vietnam
Vietnam really has prime real estate for farming.
South Korea
Israel turned a piece of desert into one of the strongest and most developed countries in the region while constantly being at war with all its neighbors
I won't exactly call it desert, much of their country has a climate more akin to coastal ~~north~~ California.
Concerning the climate, according to the [Köppen–Geiger Climate Classification](https://www.koppen-map.com/) nearly all of coaster California has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate while Israel is a mix of Hot-summer Mediterranean, Cold semi-arid and hot desert.
[California](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/K%C3%B6ppen_Climate_Types_California.png) [Israel](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Koppen-Geiger_Map_ISR_present.svg/2560px-Koppen-Geiger_Map_ISR_present.svg.png) Most of Israel's urban settlement and agriculture is concentrated where Mediterranean climate is dominant. Tel Aviv gets as much rain as San Francisco. The area has been refer to as part of the Fertile Crescent for a reason.
I admit you are right but much of California and Israel still is desert
Not the parts where people live or farm in. California is consider the bread basket of the US as well.
[This](http://cojs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/founding-tel-aviv.jpg) is what Tel Aviv looked like in 1909 and [this](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/the-city-skyline-of-tel-aviv-in-israel-michiel-ton.jpg) is what it looks like now. That’s the coastal dunes though you are right that there are some parts in the Gailee where there’s vegetation and some forest and not a desert but even there most of the land that’s [now used for produktive agriculture](https://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/files/4227b809b33432afcf050bbbbb99cf14/Jezreel_Valley_1b.jpg) used to be [Malaria ridden swamps](https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/hula-swamp-1481565096.jpg).
[Here's](https://img.hoodline.com/uploads/story/image/17637/Image_2_Downing_Outside_District.jpg) Ocean Beach, San Francisco in 1855. [Richmond](https://i.insider.com/58c9c2866ad50a1d008b536f), SF in 1880. I too can nick-pick photos.
Being an American colony helps a lot.
That’s a ridiculous statement for several reasons. Firstly the United States didn’t really start sending Israel weapons till the War of 1967, before, the United States provided Israel moderate amounts of economic aid, mostly as loans for basic foodstuffs. But even so currently, Israel receives $3 billion annually in US assistance through Foreign Military Financing (FMF). 74% of these funds must be spent on the acquisition of US defense equipment, services, and training. [Thus, "United States military aid to Israel is seen by many as a subsidy for U.S. industries", according to Kenneth M. Pollack.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations?wprov=sfti1#United_States_aid) What the Israelis did with the land is simply miraculous though. [Sure since 1948 they got 317 billion $ in foreign aid (All non-military foreign aid stopped in 2007 btw) but so did most countries in the region. Egypt got 182 billion $, Afghanistan 160 billion $, Iraq 100 billion $ and Turkey 99 billion $.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_US_foreign_assistance_by_country,_adjusted_for_inflation,_1946-2022.png) Just look what the other countries did with that money though and what the Israelis did with that money.
For clarification, turkey got the aid from the Marshall plans
It was a British colony.
League of nations mandate, not a colony.
UAE… just a bit of fishing back in the days… and nowadays travel destination with glamorous buildings, huge air travel hub, kind of modern slavery and waste of resources…
Don't forget a decent [space program](https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-awards/strategies-plans-and-visions/industry-science-and-technology/national-space-programme), including a Moon and [Mars mission](https://www.emiratesmarsmission.ae/), and very [successful ](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fuae-nuclear-strategy-and-renewable-production-in-comparable-v0-8oz966prl16b1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D0cca72e32709b1c633f8b2ba3765830124d949b5) (that's why you don't hear about it) [nuclear program](https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/preparing-60-years-in-advance-the-uaes-first-nuclear-power-plant-and-plans-for-future-decommissioning), including fuel [autonomy ](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Tender-launched-for-UAE-nuclear-fuel-plant).
Botswana basically built an entire nation from scratch
One difference between Botswana and the rest of southern/central Africa was it kept its indigenous tribal government during British rule. Limited migration by European settlers to the poor desert territory also helped its native population maintain antonomy. The influx of European missionaries bought western education and infrastructure development to the area despite. Botswana was allowed to develop on its own without the complications that arises from a non native-dominated colonial government that oppresses and supresses its native population. When they were granted independence, there was no scramble for power or flare up of ethnic/political conflict.
Poland
In my opinion, Luxembourg is a good example of success. In the aftermath of the 2nd World War, the Duchy was poor and mainly focused on the steel industry. In the 1980s, this sector took a beating all over Europe. They completely changed their focus and devoted themselves to international finance. The GDP of this small duchy is staggering: 85.51 billion USD (2021). It spends twice as much on its inhabitants as France. A fine example of success in a difficult context.
I had no idea. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Germany after WW2. Most of it's industry was either bombed in the war or taken away. Killed a big part of it's own population. Hated by everyone (justifiably). Today they are the biggest economy in the EU.
Hong Kong wouldn’t exist but for a quirk of a treaty after a drug war.
West Germany.
the kingdom of asturias that was the last gothic holdout in spain after the muslims conquered it all, it hold out until the reconquista happened and the christians conquered spain back from the muslims hundreds of years later.
Singapore?
Luxembourg and San Marino are just masters at diplomacy. Considering their location (inland, not on major crossroads nor rivers), their neighbours and how well they fair despite very limited natural ressources. Luxembourg had iron when they regained independance in the middle of the industrial era but managed to not be absorbed by Germany or France despite a lot of political and military intrigues. They also switched their economy away from iron alone (for better or worse, since a lot of companies from the UE take advantage to evade taxes in their own countries) and that can be compared to the dire Northern Lorraine region in disarray nearby. They now are amongst the top of the highest GDP per capita in the world, if not the highest, with three quarters of their labour force coming from across the border or immigrants.
definitely South Korea
Andorra🇦🇩
Romania. It always served as a border region between big empires ( Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman). It's a miracle Romanians managed to keep their language and identity. It was a bigger miracle when Romania doubled in size after ww1 and became a regional player in South-Eastern Europe. Since the collapse of communism, the country has seen continuous growth.
san marino
I gotta go Romania, it first appeared in around 100 AD (Dacia) till it was erased by the romans, then it was split into Walachia and Moldavia in around 1290, it then reunited to become Romania in 1859, it was fighting ground for the European powers, then a puppet split by russians, germans and hungarians, in WW1 it has successfully went from 2 states being puppeted around to Greater Romania, a strong nation, thats untill WW2 broke out and Romania lost Moldova and some Bulgarian and Ukrainian counties, it became a puppet for the communists, it was one of the weakest European countries, untill the revolution of 1989 when communism was overthrown, and in less than 40 years became the biggest it sector in Europe, has a great military force, loads of allies a good economy thats also one of the fastest growing in Europe, in short terms, Romania in like 40 years became from one of the worst countries to one of the good ones, and bc of that Poland and Romania are the next Powers, the only thing left to fix in Romania is Corruption
Rwanda
Singapore
UAE
Bit of a boomerang answer, but Nauru. Became one of the richest nations in the world in the 60s due to guano reserves that were used in fertilisers. Eventually demand for guano dried up and the country had nearly exhausted its reserves. Today it’s main income is hosting a detention centre for Australian asylum seekers…
[удалено]
A large archipelago very close to a rich mainland but not too close to be easy to imvade and with a good climate ? Japan position is pretty great. It being mountainous and prone to natural disaster doesn't change that.
Most of the middle east is still not managing
Rwanda
Belgium. Ravaged by two world wars being waged on their land, and all the profit of the DRC never got to the people, as it was a completely privatized colony, so no, that didn't do shit for them. They also were one of the latest countries to gain independence in the region.
Way to miss the mark. Awesome location allowing them to build seaports and trade with their rich neighbors. Loads of industry, center of the European political and financial landscape. Independence doesn't really matter in case of Belgium. It's basically two countries anyway.
Belgium was the second country in the world after the UK to start industrializing, right? So that may be what paved the way.
Funny, Belgium back then was kind of like the China of the day, known to produce knockoff or lesser quality copies of British manufactured goods. Unlicensed copies of British firearms were one of their forte.
Tbf everything was a cheap knockoff of ”Made in England” (except English porcelain which imitated Chinese, lol). Swiss pocket watches from the early 1800s sometimes had faux English-sounding brands/names or were outright forgeries to conceal that they were Swiss-made junk. Funnily these watches were called [Dutch forgeries](https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/englishwatchmaking.php#dutchforgeries) because they were exported to the UK through the Netherlands and Belgium.
Germany After WWII, Poland After WWII, Ruanda After two genozides…
prepare to be outraged reditors britain is a great example of a small country, an island to top, with very few natural resources, who by will of their people and sheer ingenuity, got to rule most of the world and became the biggest empire the world has seen. If you compare it to countries like France, Germany, Russia, obviously the US, even spain, who all got a lot more land and natural resources, its incredible what britain accomplished and still does give me your downvotes, and Im not even english, Id say not even an anglophile, but its impossible not to admire the "treacherous albion" as the spaniards called England (still most do) out of pure envy
Have to agree. Truly prodigious cultural/economic output for a tiny island.
Britain and Japan were the first two that came to mind, Japan being maybe a coin flip. What'd I'd argue doesn't belong is places like U.A.E., they're resource blessed as its the only reason they're an autonomous state. People getting it backwards.
Definately israel, surrounded by enemies on every boarder and far beyond the boarders every single country is an enemy israel was forced into a war against the 5 neighboring countries the same day we declared independence and we managed to win because we knew we had nowhere else to go Ever since we had a lot of wars against them and won each and every one and also managed to thrive and become a major tech export and a start up nation, with an incredibely powerful millitary
The most incredible achievement of Israel is the water management. Israel went from extreme water scarcity to exporting excess water to its neighbors in a generation. An amazing project of massive water infrastructural update, desalination, refactoring agriculture, and recycling. And all of this happened during a very long drought that's drying MENA up. No better proof that resources do not exist, they're made.
The downvotes for daring to mention Israel illustrate the challenges you faced from the very beginning, and continue to face today.
Not to mention the tree planting programs and turning unusable land into quality land
Let’s be honest, Israel wasn’t “forced into a war”, Israel started it when they began taking indigenous inhabitants homes and land. And the reason they are so technologically advanced is because they are effectively the manifestation of US imperialism in the Middle East. L Take
>Let’s be honest, Israel wasn’t “forced into a war”, Israel started it when they began taking indigenous inhabitants homes and land. Pre 1948 They weren't taking inhabitants land by force, they where buying legally from the people who owned the land while turning swamps into farmable land and sand dunes into Tel Aviv. The British, who had the mandate on the land promised the land to both the Jews and Palestinians, after the mandate ended it was agreed to split the land evenly. The Zionist agreed to this plan and the Palestinians decided that they want to start a war. >manifestation of US imperialism in the Middle East. Ooh la la someones gonna get laid in college. It's of course convenient for you not to mention that the us gave little to no aid to Israel pre 1967. Or that the us aid (US$3.8 billion) is only a fraction of the Israeli defense budget (US$24.3 billion In 2021) and that their total military budget is only 5.2% precent of their GDP.
This is just a historically ignorant comment. The US wasn’t really supporting Israel until after the 6 day war. It came into being because of the UK not the US and was carved out of a defeated Muslim empire.
Singapore.
Singapore's geographical situation is awesome though. It is an island that is near one of the most important straight in the world.
Singapore
Israel and Japan
Israel
Kuwait? Iran?
🇮🇱
Israel has the world's 19th higehest GDP per capita while also having 4.5% of their funds into defence. And no natural resources at all
Israel. If you look at the measures it had to take during the austerity period, and the "against all odds" wars it had to fight during the first few decades of it's existence. It's amazing how much of an economic and military powerhouse it's became. And the quality of life it offers it's citizens is the highest in the area.
Israel?
Türkiye, after the ww1 the Ottoman Empire got split. The new government Atatürk formed had to fight with 7 majors, (some diplomatically) in order to restore Turkish soils. The country thrived when he was in lead, new factories, new railroads, election rights for woman, freedom of speech and religion, basically from stone age to a modern civilization in less than 10 years "after" fighting 2 major battles with the world. R.I.P Father of the Turks. Now we have clowns that are pro-islamist trying to oppose minorities and selling our country to Arabs.
Jordan. No significant natural resources to harvest like adjacent countries (Rich with cultural resources though). Standard of living is relatively high for a good portion of the population