Serious Question: Part II (continued)

Guatiao

El Leon de los Cacicazgos
Mar 27, 2004
474
8
0
38
Due to the server failure any thread posted on the 18th got erase, I will arise once again my serious question.
I was wondering if you DR1 posters really classified as DR as a 3rd world country. Could the DR be classified as something else? I ask because everything I go to SD or my moms little campo in Puerto Plata, I see alot of technology thats available in the USA, internet, digital TV, cable, etc. Even though I know theres alot of poor, poor education, little public healthcare sysytem, I wonder is the DR really that behind. Personally I believe 3rd world countries are Haiti, some African countries, some Middle Eastern and Asian countries where there are little or no technology or food. The DR is a land blessed with the ability to produce food, great fertile soil, minerals, etc. I really think the DR (in the future) can be a serious contender among Latin America & the Carribean, I think it only needs light 24/7 & less government corruption.

So once again do you believe the DR is a 3rd world country or can it classify something in between 1st world & 3rd world?

Good Day,
Capo
:bandit: :ninja:
PS This is a reposting of my original question, I don't remember the exact phrasing of my first post but it's something like what I stated above. If anybody posted in the first thread can you please provide your thoughts or information in this thread. Thank You.
 

Malibook

Bronze
Jan 23, 2002
1,951
167
0
www.yourtraveltickets.com
Serious question?

What difference does it make?

Opinions on the definitions will vary greatly so obviously the opinions on which is most accurate will vary even more, not to mention the varying degrees within each classification.

3rd world, 2nd world, 4th world, why do you care what we think?
Personally, I have never given this any thought.

When I go to the Dominican Republic, I feel like I am amongst my fellow human beings.
I don't try to classify them as 2nd world, 3rd world, or whatever world.
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
the DR and LA are 3rd world countries- you need to understand the history

This was my original response. I may add more as the discussion unfolds.

===========

Capo,

In my opinion not only the DR but all Latin American countries and Mexico are third world nations. When determining whether a country fits into this category or not you need to consider some of the attributes of third world nations. My list is not exhaustive but just to give you an idea:

(Traditional) Attributes of a third world country:

* Economically underdeveloped with great economic disparity
* High rate of poverty BUT normally with a wealthy elite class
* Dependency on first world nations
* Traditionally rural societies (some are now urbanized) Eg. the DR and Central America
* Control of the economy is usually in the hands of multinational corporations (rather than the Nation-state)
*Poor trading power- import vs export. Import costs exceed revenue from export.
*Poor infrastructure/ incompetent governments/ corruption
*Illiteracy

History plays an important role. I will comment on one aspect:
Latin America historically has struggled politically and economically since gaining independence. I think history played (plays) an important role in determining the (economic) successes and failures. Since there are several years of history to analyze which can not be discussed here at length; I always think it's best to pick a starting point and go forward thus the analysis has a point of reference. However, in general terms each century left it's impact -good and bad- on Latin America.

When briefly analyzing LA and why it keeps failing economically my starting point is usually the Wars of Independence because I think both the motive and the impact are ironic in nature. The motive for each country was to free itself from Spanish rule (colonization) but at the same time each country destroyed itself economically in lengthy and hard fought wars to become free. As a result, its own economic independence was set back due to the destruction, damage, and cost of rebuilding which was in the hands of new and under experienced governments. This unfortunately was only part of a complicated puzzle. Most Latin American countries endured long dictatorships or "mano dura" style governments. Off hand I could name three countries-Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela - whose dictatorships were long, brutal and to the detriment of the country based on what was achieved. Although most Latin American countries achieved independence in the 19thC (Cuba being the last to become independent) their independence was stifled (stymied) by powerful dictator(ships) that were difficult to overthrow and in some cases led to civil war. Civil war led to destruction and to a certain extent history repeated itself-i.e. rebuilding. I think Colombia is a prime example of a country that had potential for success (and may be even a model for other Latin American countries) until "el bogotazo" a.k.a the start of 50 yrs + of guerrilla warfare.

Continuous failure:
I believe evaluating modern day Latin American governments is not where the analysis lies when measuring degrees of (economic) success or failure. I say this with respect to my observation of historical events. If most past LA governments were not successful (in broad terms) and over time the appointed political leaders did not change their way of thinking or modus operandi, this means that modern day governments were formed (and still are formed) from the same ideology, basis, mind set, operating structure, your choice to define, as past ones thus are predestined to failure. The DR is no exception. In simplified terms, I think the political and economic success or failure of LA depends heavily on their ideology- a change in their way of thinking is desperately needed or they will continue to fail. The DR is a prime example. Every four years when a new government is elected band aid solutions are sought to remedy some of the urgent problems but then what?......the cycle repeats itself and has for many decades. Many urgent social, political, educational and environmental issues get swept under the table and the society continues to be the victims of its government's incompetence. That in itself is history.

A few hints of technological advancement does not make a country first world. It must have an independent economy, trading power in the world markets, a competent infrastructure just to mention a few attributes of first world nations. Quite frankly the DR is far from being a first world nation. As for Haiti and some African nations they simply do not rank because they are completely non-industrialized. Capo, honestly, I think the scope of your question is too broad and very difficult to answer in one post.

-Lesley D-
 

millard

New member
Jan 12, 2005
28
0
0
Left Out Rule of Law

Excellent post Lesley D. But you omitted one chief characteristic of "third world" countries, which is extremely weak legal institutions. There is little or no respect for the rule of law, and the law is applied haphazardly, it at all. This is not just in the the criminal setting, but in everyday life.

The naked arbitrariness with which the government may act against its citizens, the lack of effective legal recourse for damages suffered at the hands of another (who do you sue when someone sells you land they don't really own?), and the selectivity with which the law is applied, all distinguish "third world" countries from those in the "first" world.

The Quirino narco-trafficking case is about to give the Dominican legal system a major test. The fact that the U.S. has already asked for extradition, and the Dominican Attorney General has hinted that Quirino will be tried in the U.S. first, gives a sense of the regard in which Dominical legal institutions are held.

The real question, it seems to me, is whether the D.R. will ever become a "first" world countries, or whether those with a vested interest in keeping things the same will ever allow real change.

Millard
 

Rocky

Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Apr 4, 2002
13,993
208
0
111
www.rockysbar.com
I know nothing about the true definitions and pre-requisites, but I mostly hear of us being refered to as a developing nation.

As per a Google search that describes it as...

A developing country is a country with low average income compared to the world average. The term has tended to edge out earlier ones, including the Cold War-defined "Third World".

The "developing" part of "developing country" may be considered euphemistic or perhaps optimistic, as many of the poorest countries are hardly developing at all; some have even experienced prolonged periods of negative economic growth. A developed country usually has an economic system based on continuous, self-sustaining economic growth. Development entails developing a modern infrastructure (both physical and institutional), and a move away from low value added sectors such as agriculture and natural resource extraction.
 
Last edited:

stallion

Mr. Main Event
May 28, 2004
813
0
0
To some it don't matter to them that Dr is 1st or 3rd world. To me it's a great country. As long as you like it, it don't matter. They have almost everything that we have in north america.
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
Millard,

Thanks for pointing that out. I completely agree. Legal institutions tend to be weak in third world countries (or developing nations). Laws are either not enforced, partially enforced or there is "corruption" in the legal system.


-Lesley D-


millard said:
Excellent post Lesley D. But you omitted one chief characteristic of "third world" countries, which is extremely weak legal institutions. There is little or no respect for the rule of law, and the law is applied haphazardly, it at all. This is not just in the the criminal setting, but in everyday life.

The naked arbitrariness with which the government may act against its citizens, the lack of effective legal recourse for damages suffered at the hands of another (who do you sue when someone sells you land they don't really own?), and the selectivity with which the law is applied, all distinguish "third world" countries from those in the "first" world.

The Quirino narco-trafficking case is about to give the Dominican legal system a major test. The fact that the U.S. has already asked for extradition, and the Dominican Attorney General has hinted that Quirino will be tried in the U.S. first, gives a sense of the regard in which Dominical legal institutions are held.

The real question, it seems to me, is whether the D.R. will ever become a "first" world countries, or whether those with a vested interest in keeping things the same will ever allow real change.

Millard
 

Mr_DR

Silver
May 12, 2002
2,506
60
0
capodominicano said:
Personally I believe 3rd world countries are Haiti, some African countries, some Middle Eastern and Asian countries where there are little or no technology or food.

List of Countries of the First World
The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, nations within the United States' sphere of influence. Member states of the NATO.
!!! For terms and definition please have a look at: First, Second and Third World

Andorra :: Australia :: Austria
Belgium
Canada :: Cyprus
Denmark
Finland :: France
Germany :: Greece
Holy See (Vatican City State) :: Hungary
Iceland :: Ireland :: Israel :: Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein :: Luxembourg
Malta :: Monaco
Netherlands :: New Zealand :: Norway
Portugal
Spain :: Sweden :: Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom :: United States
Vatican

SECOND WORLD COUNTRIES

List of Countries of the Second World
The term "Second World" refers to the (former) communist-socialist, industrial states, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic.
!!! For terms and definition please have a look at: First, Second and Third World

A
Albania :: Armenia :: Azerbaijan

B
Belarus :: Bosnia and Herzegowina :: Bulgaria

C
China :: Croatia (Hrvatska) :: Czech Republic

E
Estonia

G
Georgia

H
Hungary

K
Kazakhstan :: Korea (North) :: Kyrgyzstan

L
Latvia :: Lithuania :: Macedonia

M
Moldova :: Mongolia

P
Poland

R
Romania :: Russia

S
Serbia and Montenegro :: Slovakia :: Slovenia

T
Tajikistan :: Turkmenistan

U
Ukraine :: Uzbekistan

V
Viet Nam

Y
Yugoslavia


THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES


List of Countries of the Third World
The Third World, a term often used to describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
!!! For terms and definition please have a look at: First, Second and Third World

A
Afghanistan :: Algeria :: Angola :: Antigua and Barbuda :: Argentina :: Azerbaijan

B
Bahrain :: Bangladesh :: Barbados :: Belize :: Benin :: Bhutan :: Bolivia
Botswana :: Brazil :: Brunei :: Burkina Faso :: Burma (Myanmar) :: Burundi

C
Cambodia :: Cameroon :: Cape Verde :: Central African Republic :: Chad :: Chile
China :: Colombia :: Comoros :: Congo (Brazzaville) :: Congo (Kinshasa) :: Costa Rica :: Cote d'Ivoire :: Cuba

D
Djibouti :: Dominica :: Dominican Republic

E
East Timor :: Ecuador
Egypt :: El Salvador :: Equatorial Guinea :: Eritrea :: Ethiopia

F
Fiji

G
Gabon :: Gambia, The :: Ghana :: Grenada :: Guatemala
Guinea :: Guinea-Bissau :: Guyana

H
Haiti :: Honduras

I
India :: Indonesia :: Iran :: Iraq

J
Jamaica :: Jordan

K
Kenya :: Kiribati :: Korea (North) :: Korea (South) :: Kuwait

L
Laos :: Lebanon :: Lesotho :: Liberia :: Libya

M
Madagascar :: Malawi :: Malaysia :: Maldives :: Mali :: Mauritania :: Mauritius
Mexico :: Micronesia :: Morocco :: Mozambique

N
Namibia :: Nauru :: Nepal :: Nicaragua :: Niger :: Nigeria

O
Oman

P
Pakistan :: Palau :: Palestine :: Panama :: Papua New Guinea :: Paraguay :: Peru :: Philippines

Q
Qatar

R
Rwanda

S
Saint Kitts and Nevis :: Saint Lucia :: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines :: Samoa
Sao Tome and Principe :: Saudi Arabia :: Senegal :: Seychelles :: Sierra Leone :: Singapore :: Solomon Islands :: Somalia :: South Africa :: Sri Lanka/Ceylon
Sudan :: Suriname :: Swaziland :: Syria

T
Taiwan :: Tanzania :: Thailand :: Tibet :: Togo :: Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago :: Tunisia :: Tuvalu

U
Uganda :: United Arab Emirates :: Uruguay

V
Vanuatu :: Venezuela :: Viet Nam

Y
Yemen

Z
Zambia :: Zimbabwe

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm

IMHO, I think what should determine a third world enviroment should be the money that we have in our pockets because who cares if i live in a third world country aslong as I am living in a city that gives me all the benefits that I may not even be able to afford in a first world.

I have also seen many people in the US living in conditions that are third world enviroment.
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,569
3,234
113
capodominicano said:
Due to the server failure any thread posted on the 18th got erase, I will arise once again my serious question.
I was wondering if you DR1 posters really classified as DR as a 3rd world country. Could the DR be classified as something else? I ask because everything I go to SD or my moms little campo in Puerto Plata, I see alot of technology thats available in the USA, internet, digital TV, cable, etc. Even though I know theres alot of poor, poor education, little public healthcare sysytem, I wonder is the DR really that behind. Personally I believe 3rd world countries are Haiti, some African countries, some Middle Eastern and Asian countries where there are little or no technology or food. The DR is a land blessed with the ability to produce food, great fertile soil, minerals, etc. I really think the DR (in the future) can be a serious contender among Latin America & the Carribean, I think it only needs light 24/7 & less government corruption.

So once again do you believe the DR is a 3rd world country or can it classify something in between 1st world & 3rd world?

Good Day,
Capo
:bandit: :ninja:
PS This is a reposting of my original question, I don't remember the exact phrasing of my first post but it's something like what I stated above. If anybody posted in the first thread can you please provide your thoughts or information in this thread. Thank You.
Most economist would consider the Dominican Republic a lower middle income country because our national GDP falls within that category.

Countries are categorized as low income, lower middle income, upper middle income, and upper income countries.

Low income countries are countries with per capita GDP of less than $3,000, lower middle income countries fall within $3,001 - 9,000, upper middle income countries fall within $9,001 - 18,000 and upper income countries have over $18,000 per capita GDP.

Most countries fall in the lower income group, a small number of countries fall in the middle income group (both upper and lower middle income) and an extremely few countries fall in the upper income group.

Low income countries are technically considered 3rd world, upper income are considered 1st world. Because middle income countries are neither 1st or 3rd, the new term developing country was developed to categorize all non-upper income countries.

Although, its technically incorrect for people to refer to the DR as a 3rd world country, people still refer to it as such because of the perceived high poverty visible to the naked eye.

One little thing most people don't realize is that only 25% of the Dominican population lives in poverty (people who earn less than the minimum needed to buy the basics).

Roughly, another 35% fall in the lower middle class (many earn just above the poverty line thus making them lower middle class, but many are well into this category) and these are the one's constantly assumed as poor when foreigners visit the country, despite these people not being poor per se.

Another 30% fall in the upper middle class (these people live a lifestyle similar to that of upper middle classes in US and Europe, including the habit of living beyond their means thanks to the credit card).

Finally, another 10% of the population fall in the upper class (these people live very opulent lifestyles and are seen driving up and down the country on luxury SUV and luxury vehicles dodging pot holes!

The DR is a country that is often misunderstood.

Other things people don't keep in mind when traveling around the country is that over half the population lives around SDQ and Santiago areas. SDQ is home to 30% and the Cibao Valley is home to 60%, that's 90% of all Dominicans. The rest of the country is only home to the remainding 10% of the population. Many of the expats here live along the North coast where less than 10% of the population lives, most tourist visit the east where less than 10% of the population lives. A small number of tourist (compared to other areas) visit Santo Domingo (where 30% of the population lives, with most being lower middle class and upper middle class) and hardly no tourist visit the Cibao Valley where 60% of Dominicans live. As a result, most foreigners get a wrong impression of the country's development and ethnic composition and general appearance.

Taken by population density, one would clearly notice that the DR is wealthier than commonly perceived because when you drive through many areas of the Cibao, there is alot of affluence on display. Many of the towns are prosperous and plesant, many nice houses both in urban areas and across the countryside and vibrant urban centers with a good economy. Driving through Santo Domingo it's clear that this city is wealthy, though there are some very sharp contrasts, but overall the city is pleasant and that "pleasantness" is mostly due to its prosperity. Only 10% of the city area is covered in Shanty towns, the remaining 90% of the city's area is covered in lower middle class, upper middle class and rich neighborhoods and this is a city of over 400 square kilometers!

Also, Santo Domingo makes up 40% of the entire national economy, the Cibao Valley makes up another 40% of the entire national economy (about half of the Cibao economy is concentrated in Santiago) and only 20% of the economy is found elsewhere in the country, mostly along the Puerto Plata coasts and the East and much of this economy is dominated by tourist resorts and agrarian interests. Contrast that with the predominance of the Cibao economy (mostly agrarian and industrial) and that of Santo Domingo (mostly industrial, trade, and financial).

It's hard to explain this to ordinary people, since many people believe more of what they see. Its hard for them to realize that why you see 50 small impoverished villages and then you see one large metropolis, that most of the people of the country lives in that metropolis and not the villages. Because the villages are scattered across the countryside, that gives the impression of an impoverished place (more so than actuality) and because the metropolis is relatively compact compared to the vast countryside, its easy to assume that such metropolis is only a "bubble" of modernity. Maybe its a bubble, but that bubble is being kept by a good number of the country's population.

That is why the Dominican economy did not collapsed completely during the recent economic blow. A blow of this magnitude that we experienced was to kill the economy completely and put is in Haitian category when it comes to development, and yet, our economy is still relatively strong, its growing again, and its gaining momentum. Why? Because there is more wealth here than its perceived and the reasons I just explained.

Hope this help!

PS. If you want to see what a real 3rd world country looks like, look at our neighbor to our west. As soon that you cross the border into Haiti, life expectancy drops to 53 years, per capita income barely makes $900, 90% of the population are poor (earn less than the minimum needed to buy the basics), there is hardly a middle class to speak of.

In addition to all of this, its very hard to have cell phone conversations in Haiti because they don't have the proper infraestructure, much of Haiti is unconnected when it comes to electricity (exception being Port-au-Prince, though over half the city's population lives in shanty towns and the shanty town Soleil (I think that's the name) is the largest slum in the world).

Many of the main highways in Haiti are nothing more than dirt tracks, many homes in the Haitian countryside are made up of mud and sticks with thatched roof and are not painted (though some nicely painted shacks are present) this is a sharp contrast that the multi colored feast our eyes have when crossing the Dominican Republic, not to mention that main highways and secondary roads are in fabulous conditions compared to Haiti's.

Haiti has the worst indicators in most social and economic statistics in the world, in most of those only a handful of Sub-Saharan African countries have it worst in the entire world.

I truly wished to say more nice things about Haiti, but its hard when so much problems are present. Compared to that, life in the Dominican Republic is a dream... The average Haitian town is world's away from the relatively fashionable Dominican towns.
 
Last edited:

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
Nal0whs said:
PS. If you want to see what a real 3rd world country looks like, look at our neighbor to our west.
With all due respect, Haiti has never really been classified as a Third World country, and cannot be considered representative of the category. Using the old "World" categories, it was considered Fourth World. But generally most institutions refer to it by its official aid classification, Least Development Country (LDC). [The UN defines LDC by a certain level of per capita GDP, a certain percentage of GDP consisting of manufacturing, and a certain adult literarcy rate.]
 

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
Capo,
Last time I posted a long reply explaining the categories formerly and currently used for the DR and how they were defined, which I won't bore people by repeating here. In a nutshell, in the old days when people spoke of First ("industrialized market economies"), Second (communist, statist economies), Third (developing economies) and Fourth (least developed), the DR was classified as Third. Then convention switched to "industrialized" "developing" and "least developed," and the DR was considered "developing." Nowadays international & national aid institutions speak more in terms of "income" categories, which they measure using different indices. In all of these the DR ends out classified as "lower middle income."

But I really prefer to sticking to how I concluded the post: this is probably all as relevant as the midevel debates among theological scholars about how many angels there are on the head of a pin.

No two countries are exactly alike and such attempts to pigeonhole them often do them a disservice. As Nal0whs explains or alludes to, there are more than one DR -- some regions and segments are nearly like their counterparts among the OECD nations, others are nearly as dirt-poor and rudimentary as anything in Haiti. Neat, meaningless categories and sweeping generalizations do not help convey the rich complexity of a country like the DR.

My two cents.

Regards,
Keith
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,569
3,234
113
Keith R said:
No two countries are exactly alike and such attempts to pigeonhole them often do them a disservice. As Nal0whs explains or alludes to, there are more than one DR -- some regions and segments are nearly like their counterparts among the OECD nations, others are nearly as dirt-poor and rudimentary as anything in Haiti. Neat, meaningless categories and sweeping generalizations do not help convey the rich complexity of a country like the DR.

My two cents.

Regards,
Keith

Not just that, but sometimes I wonder what exactly is first world, 3rd world, etc.

For example: I live in a rather large home here in Santo Domingo. My house looks like those found in warm wealthy areas of the US (ie. Palm Beach Florida, Palasides Park California, etc) and I have all of the comforts available to make my life easier after a somewhat stressful day. I wear a Bulova watch, I drive a Mercedes-Benz CLK and a Lexus GX SUV. My income in a given year is alot more than what the average person earns in the US, let alone the DR. I eat at elegant restaurants 3 to 4 times a week, I have two vacation homes (one near Jarabacoa and another in Casa de Campo), I go abroad on exotic vacations from time to time and I donate an x amount of my income to certain charities that benefit Dominican kids who have lost their parents and were homeless.

All of this in a place considered "3rd world" by the average person. When does my lifestyle becomes "1st world"?

In the other hand, I've seen homeless people on my trips to New York City who sleep in the streets under cardboard boxes, they seem to be starving from time to time, they are dirty, they don't take care of themselves, some beg and others scavenge for soda cans, and they look much more miserable than the poorest Dominican!

All of this in a place considered "1st world" by the average person. When does this person's lifestyle becomes "3rd world"?

Another example:

I go to the United States and I buy an interesting book. The last time I was there I bought the book "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow - excellent book from a phenomenal author. I bought the book in New York City and I brought it to Santo Domingo.

When I bought that book in New York City, that book would have been considered part of that "1st world". I took that book with me and I read that book during the flight home in an aircraft that's considered to be part of the "1st world". The aircraft lands in Las Americas Airport and now is in a place considered "3rd world".

The question is this, is the aircraft part of the 3rd world during the time the aircraft lands, taxi to the gate, and is parked until the next flight?

Is my book now part of the 3rd world now that it's in Santo Domingo? Not just that, but I'm in a part of Santo Domingo that rivals the plushest neighborhoods in the world, is the book a part of the 3rd world? Is it still considered 1st world material?

When did the change occured? Why did it occured? The existance of that book did not changed because I brought it to Santo Domingo on an airplane. The book's pages are still clean and new, the cover still looks like new. The content has not been changed in any way.

The difference between the so called 1st world and 3rd world is that there is a higher collection of nice things in the 1st world than in the 3rd world. However, in the 1st world you do find alot of unpleasant things and in the 3rd world you do find plenty of nice things in abundance if you know where to look!

Thus my question, what exactly makes the 1st world different from the 3rd world? It's not the humans composition because we are all built the same with the same organs, hands, eyes, nose, mouth, etc. It's not the trees since the palms that grow in Santo Domingo grow just as tall and green as those that grow in Miami.

Its not the air, since the breeze that caresses Santo Domingo feels just as good as when the breeze caresses Miami. It's not the land since the soil found in Santo Domingo looks and feels the same as the soil in the US or Europe. It's not the mountains because these mountains have the same shapes as mountains in the US. It's not the existence of highrises and skyscrapers, because Santo Domingo is home to over 90 highrises and skyscrapers with many more under construction. Its not the shopping malls since you could not tell if you are in a rich place or poor place in many of the shopping malls in Santo Domingo.

What exactly is 1st world and 3rd world? Are the tourist who visit the Dominican Republic 3rd world or are Dominican immigrants now 1st world? A Merengue CD that you buy in Santo Domingo changes in appearance, quality, or composition as soon that you take the CD to New York?

My point is this, these categorization are nothing more than an illusion. There is no such thing as 1st world/3rd world countries, it's more like 1st world/3rd world areas. There are places in both the US and DR that are extremely poor and then there are areas that are extremely rich. Which one you focus your attention to defines your perception of that place.
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
Unequal wealth distribution goes hand in hand with backwardness and underdevelopment. Developed countries have small poles of extreme wealth and extreme poverty, but in under-developed countries this is more marked.

IIRC Brazil and Sierra Leone were leaders in this field in the 1990s. Don't know where the DR stands: does anyone know where an index of this sort can be found?

I'm told Haiti has a very high rate of millionaires per capita, but as we all know it is one of the least developed nations in the world.

A statistic that was kicking around several years ago: the 70 wealthiest Mexicans had more wealth than the 70 million poorest put together.

Nothing to be proud of.
 

Criss Colon

Platinum
Jan 2, 2002
21,843
191
0
38
yahoomail.com
A Country Should not be judged on the Quality of life of It's "richest" citizens,

but on the quality of life of it's "poorest" citizens!!!
In that respect,the DR is a miserable failure as a Country!!!

Just because a few "American Wanna Bees" have an expensive watch,and a few cars,(doesn't everyone on the "Net"!! ;) ;) )doesn't bring the country out of the "Third World"!

No more need be said!!! :cry:
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
I remember on a thread last year there was a discussion about the DR because a news reporter had described the DR as a country with "pockets of poverty" and the OP was baffled because s/he felt that it should be described as having "pockets of affluence" because of the evidence of poverty, economic disparity, and the wealth & income of the average Dominican. I too agree that the DR can not be classified based on the wealth of the small (percentage wise) elite class.

-Lesley D-
 
Last edited:

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,569
3,234
113
Lesley D said:
I remember on a thread last year there was a discussion about the DR because a news reporter had described the DR as a country with "pockets of poverty" and the OP was baffled because s/he felt that it should be described as having "pockets affluence" because of the evidence of poverty, economic disparity, and the wealth & income of the average Dominican. I too agree that the DR can not be classified based on the wealth of the small (percentage wise) elite class.

-Lesley D-
I remember that too.

One interesting note however, about the income disparity in the DR, it actually mirrors the disparity that exist in the USA.

Why do poor Dominicans living standards are lower than those of poor Americans? Because the DR doesn't redistribute some of the income from the upper echelons of society to the lower section. In the US, much income is redistributed through tax credits and other favorable tax incentives that funnels some wealth to the lower classes.

But, the distribution of income (without the subsidizing of government) is at par in the DR as it is in the US. That is to say, in both countries, the top 10% make 40% of all income with the bottom 10% making around 2%.

I must also point out that among the developed nations, the United States has the widest gap between rich and poor and the gap is getting wider with the middle class being squeezed.

I recently read an article written by an American economist in the magazine "The Economist" stating that the United States no longer has the mobility that it once enjoyed and that the country is becoming ever more stratified in classes. The article mentions that rich Americans gained the most from the economic boom of the 1990s, where as middle class gain was minimal and the poor did not gained anything.

Also, the number of people going from poor to rich or vice versa is lower than in the past and has been lowering since the 1970s in the US. Americans born into the rich are more likely to remain rich and those born in poverty are more likely to remain in poverty.

In addition to all of this, the article also made a point of the developing political class in the US. Most presidents have bloodlines and/or strong connections with other politicians in the political circle, with the connection between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. used as an example of what's to come for the US if things continue as they are.

I read this on the hardcopy, but I'll see if I can find a link to this article for everyone to view it.

Here is the link, however you have to subscribe to see the article. If you decide to subscribe, it will take you directly to the article named "Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend"
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S')(8-RQ/%!@!4

I have a feeling most people will not subscribe, so here are a few quotations I'll take from the hardcopy version of this article...

"The United States likes to think of itself as the very embodiment of meritocracy: a country where people are judged on their individual abilities rather than their family connections."

"To be sure, America has often betrayed its fine ideals. The Founding Fathers did not admit women or blacks to their meritocratic republic. The country's elites have repeatedly flirted with the aristocratic principle, whether among the brahmins of Boston or, more flagrantly, the rural ruling class in the south. Yet America has repeatedly succeeded in living up to its best self, and today most Americans believe that their country still does a reasonable job of providing opportunities for everybody, including blacks and women. In Europe, majorities of people in every country except Britain... believe that forces beyond their personal control determine their success. In America only 32% take such a fatalistic view."

"A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the smae pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap."

"The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184% - and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth.

Thirty years ago the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives was $1.3 million: 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is $37.5 million: over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker. In 2001 the top 1% of households earned 20% of all income and held 33.4% of all net worth. Not since pre-Depression days has the top 1% taken such a big whack."

"The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite - and its growing grip on the political system - is how little comment it arouses. ... Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America... you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, wihth dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majorityof ordinary working stiffs."

"... more and more evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much "stickier" than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining. A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth. Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter."

To further read on this article, click on the link and subscribe.
 
Last edited:

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,569
3,234
113
Criss Colon said:
but on the quality of life of it's "poorest" citizens!!!
In that respect,the DR is a miserable failure as a Country!!!

Just because a few "American Wanna Bees" have an expensive watch,and a few cars,(doesn't everyone on the "Net"!! ;) ;) )doesn't bring the country out of the "Third World"!

No more need be said!!! :cry:
Wouldn't you say that the US is a failure as well then...

After all, the poorest Americans live a subsidized lifestyle. Most of those poor Americans living in Public Housing can't even afford their own toilet on their own!

It's very clear that if the US was to practice pure Capitalism (ie. no socialist social programs) many US cities would have had a belt of misery around their edges.

Of course, this is not the case because many of the poor live subsidized lifestyles. Their standard of living in higher than they can afford on their own... all to create the image of affluence all around, and even still there is a pronounce difference between a Public Housing project in the US and a gated community!
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
Nal0whs,

You make some very valid points. I wish I could expand but I don't have the stats to back myself up.

Thanks though for the post.

However, there is still a big gap when comparing the DR to the US. Based on the traditional attributes alone of a "third world" country or the preferred term "developing nation" makes the comparison night and day.

-Lesley D-




Nal0whs said:
I remember that too.

One interesting note however, about the income disparity in the DR, it actually mirrors the disparity that exist in the USA.

Why do poor Dominicans living standards are lower than those of poor Americans? Because the DR doesn't redistribute some of the income from the upper echelons of society to the lower section. In the US, much income is redistributed through tax credits and other favorable tax incentives that funnels some wealth to the lower classes.

But, the distribution of income (without the subsidizing of government) is at par in the DR as it is in the US. That is to say, in both countries, the top 10% make 40% of all income with the bottom 10% making around 2%.

I must also point out that among the developed nations, the United States has the widest gap between rich and poor and the gap is getting wider with the middle class being squeezed.

I recently read an article written by an American economist in the magazine "The Economist" stating that the United States no longer has the mobility that it once enjoyed and that the country is becoming ever more stratified in classes. The article mentions that rich Americans gained the most from the economic boom of the 1990s, where as middle class gain was minimal and the poor did not gained anything.

Also, the number of people going from poor to rich or vice versa is lower than in the past and has been lowering since the 1970s in the US. Americans born into the rich are more likely to remain rich and those born in poverty are more likely to remain in poverty.

In addition to all of this, the article also made a point of the developing political class in the US. Most presidents have bloodlines and/or strong connections with other politicians in the political circle, with the connection between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. used as an example of what's to come for the US if things continue as they are.

I read this on the hardcopy, but I'll see if I can find a link to this article for everyone to view it.
 
Last edited:

Gregg

New member
Apr 26, 2004
176
0
0
good stuff

nice thread and fantastic input from some very knowledgeable people. a good example of DR1 in fine form. focus on facts and an open discussion (except for you C Colon ;)

now, if the rest of this board could rise to this level...ah, that would be nirvana.

Gregg