Is the Dominican Republic a Third World Country?

SantiagueroRD

Bronze
Apr 20, 2011
766
1
38
I often see references to the DR being a Third World country. Without using academic or statistical citations what do you think? I think 2nd world would be more appropriate.
 

Africaida

Gold
Jun 19, 2009
7,775
1,341
113
You know officially Third world country is an obsolete term: developed and developing is preferred instead.
The DR is considered a developing country (there are various degrees also there) and I see it.
 

greydread

Platinum
Jan 3, 2007
17,477
488
83
1. Power fluctuations and unplanned outages, even in the Capital (sometimes, especially in the Capital)

2. Tap water is not potable

3. Official corruption is widely practiced and accepted at every level

4. Economically heavily dependent upon foreign aid, loans and remittances.

3rd World

Places like Brazil which still have massive poverty, unemployment and disparity of wealth but offset those shortcomings with (7.5% in 2010) better than average GDP growth and huge infrastructure improvements would be a better example of 2nd (transitioning from developing to developed) World.
 

zoomzx11

Gold
Jan 21, 2006
8,367
842
113
Any country that is unable to provide its citizens with 24 hour electricity is third world. IMHO>
 

london777

Bronze
Dec 22, 2005
786
29
28
I often see references to the DR being a Third World country. Without using academic or statistical citations what do you think? I think 2nd world would be more appropriate.
"Second World" meant the former Communist bloc so would not be appropriate. That's how the expression originated in the Cold War days. All developed and (more or less) democratic countries were First World. Any country not First World or Communist was "Third World" so obviously that catch-all group included some countries twenty times richer and more developed than others (Argentina v Ha?ti, for example).

If you want to simply rank countries into strata, then "Fourth World" might be about right for the DR, or am I being too generous?
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
No difference. It's their refusal to pay that contributes to their status as a perpetually-developing nation.
It has nothing to do with capability.

It's a social issue as much as anything else. It's not an economic issue, and "Third World" is a eco/political metric.

But opinions vary.
 

greydread

Platinum
Jan 3, 2007
17,477
488
83
They can, but folks don't want to pay for it.

Big difference.

This is a huge point. It illuminates the effect of the mindset of any nation's citizens on the overall productivity and development of that nation. Just to use the US as an example, before every surge in national productivity and transition (agrarian to manufacturing to scientific and technical development) there was some national crisis (usually a major war or economic upheaval) which required national unity and individual sacrifice. The individual dedication to the public good is what separates the countries which progress and prosper regardless of the obstacles before them (great depression, dust bowl or other natural disasters, wars, etc.).

As the collective spirit wanes, so does the national fortune.
 

london777

Bronze
Dec 22, 2005
786
29
28
This is a huge point. It illuminates the effect of the mindset of any nation's citizens on the overall productivity and development of that nation. Just to use the US as an example, before every surge in national productivity and transition (agrarian to manufacturing to scientific and technical development) there was some national crisis (usually a major war or economic upheaval) which required national unity and individual sacrifice. The individual dedication to the public good is what separates the countries which progress and prosper regardless of the obstacles before them (great depression, dust bowl or other natural disasters, wars, etc.).

As the collective spirit wanes, so does the national fortune.
Great post and so true. In the UK, for example, despite being near bankrupt after fighting the Nazis (for a long period alone, apart from the British Empire), within a decade they had an advanced social welfare system, good(ish) free education for all, and had rehoused tens of millions in vastly better homes.

As the decades passed, people got lazy and complacent and by the time Thatcher came along the only way she could remain popular was by "selling off the family silver" (i.e. national assets) on the cheap to fund tax cuts for the middle classes, and other bread and circuses. Which is why the UK economy is now in the pooper.

Back to the DR, what "collective spirit" exists? Apart from a few comic-opera flag-waving days which are so lame they would embarrass even Sicilians, I can think of only one uniting factor. "Look at the Haitians, at least we are not like that". Very true, but not a great basis on which to make a great leap forward.

Dominicans will bend over backwards to help their own families but have nil civic sense, let alone being prepared to make sacrifices for a national project.
 

Anastacio

Banned
Feb 22, 2010
2,965
235
0
When I think about what makes up a third world country I think lack of human rights, of lawlessness, corruption, huge class divides and serious lack of basic services, anything done or involving the government doesn't actually work, serve any purpose or is very poor. It seems that behind any third world country is a bad government.
Do I think this country qualifies? How many of the above do you think qualify?
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
Great post and so true. In the UK, for example, despite being near bankrupt after fighting the Nazis (for a long period alone, apart from the British Empire), within a decade they had an advanced social welfare system, good(ish) free education for all, and had rehoused tens of millions in vastly better homes.
The Marshall Plan certainly helped.

Assets were sold because the social welfare system couldn't be sustained.

Same as is happening all across Europe. The problem is after assets are sold and the credit cards are maxed out...sovereign equity has been depleted and the Piper has come to be paid.
 

greydread

Platinum
Jan 3, 2007
17,477
488
83
When I think about what makes up a third world country I think lack of human rights, of lawlessness, corruption, huge class divides and serious lack of basic services, anything done or involving the government doesn't actually work, serve any purpose or is very poor. It seems that behind any third world country is a bad government.
Do I think this country qualifies? How many of the above do you think qualify?

Leadership helps but only when it effectively challenges a population to reach for the best in themselves ("Ask not what your country can do...) and that challenge is accepted. People who take their role in the uplifting of society seriously are not very prone to being victimized by official abuses because the more one demands from themselves, the more they tend to demand of others around them.
 

greydread

Platinum
Jan 3, 2007
17,477
488
83
The Marshall Plan certainly helped.

Assets were sold because the social welfare system couldn't be sustained.

Same as is happening all across Europe. The problem is after assets are sold and the credit cards are maxed out...sovereign equity has been depleted and the Piper has come to be paid.

Every deck needs to be reshuffled occasionally. I don't think that "socialism" should be a scary term. It describes family and community life that is functioning normally. It doesn't work very well at the national level though unless it is sensibly applied, however some of the guiding principles of social responsibility should be applied as national standards. It tends to keep the honest honest.



Bad socialism: Maximum travel speed on all County, State and Interstate roads in the country = 55mph.

Good socialism: All road markings and traffic laws are enacted in compliance within a set of Federal guidelines as deemed appropriate by State or local jurisdictional authority.



Bad socialism: Government owned, taxpayer funded barns provided at subsidized rates to qualifying farmers.

Good socialism: An old fashioned barn raising with Bar-B-Que and moonshine provided by the farmer's family.



Bad socialism: Telephone party lines

Good socialism: Cellular family plan



I know the concept isn't easily digested by those who are aware of the damage that misuse of the concept of socially based legal applications can cause. Every time you think "socialism" try thinking "friendship" instead.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w7BO_hqe_q0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w7BO_hqe_q0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
Every deck needs to be reshuffled occasionally. I don't think that "socialism" should be a scary term.
I disagree. It implies the Collective is more important than the individual, and some faceless gubmint bureaucrat gets to decide what's "best" for the individual.

It is the opposite of being a Free Man. It's a form of benign slavery, the "Master" telling those unable to escape bondage how he will live his life.

But opinions vary. Some folks LIKE being told what to do. It makes them feel secure. They think freedom is a good trade for security.
 

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
429
0
Santiago
When I was in Port au Prince last year after the earthquake I was chatting with an American missionary who lad lived their with his Haitian wife the last 40 years and mentioned I understood the difficulties of living in a third world country and he said the DR wasn't third world but second. After thinking about this a little bit I had to agree.
 

Kipling333

Bronze
Jan 12, 2010
2,528
829
113
london777 ,,your version of history is very questionable and uneven ..firstly when you say almost as an aside apart from the British Empire , you should remember that even Hitler said that England had been saved by the empire providing food , supplies and troops ..Canada, Australia , new Zealand and South Africa, nepal and India deserve more than a postscript,
Secondly , the problem with England pre Thatcher is that it was inefficient and lazy and had with honour paid all its war debts . It was not so much the social programmes that were causing it problems but total inefficiency .Thatcher changed all that .
Threason that UK is in the pooper has absolutley nothing to do with the Thatcher years ,,,since there have been numerous governments but because of the labour party policies under the last two prime ministers. And the crunch came with the need to increase sovereign debt in order to save banks and insurance companies and other companies in the private sector
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,964
936
113
Bad socialism: Maximum travel speed on all County, State and Interstate roads in the country = 55mph.

Good socialism: All road markings and traffic laws are enacted in compliance within a set of Federal guidelines as deemed appropriate by State or local jurisdictional authority.
Driving is a priviledge, not a mandate. One proper function of gubmint is safety of the infrastructure.



[quote='read]Bad socialism: Government owned, taxpayer funded barns provided at subsidized rates to qualifying farmers.

Good socialism: An old fashioned barn raising with Bar-B-Que and moonshine provided by the farmer's family.[/quote]Voluntary, funded by a private individual.



[quote='dread]Bad socialism: Telephone party lines

Good socialism: Cellular family plan
[/quote]Voluntary consumer choice made and paid by a nuclear family, not a gubmin mandate paid for by someone else.