Advancement of Countries

[journaldan]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but the conversation about the Itali caused me to reflect for a moment on the state of modern-day Italy.

 

Since Italy was unified as one kingdom, in the 1860s, roughly the same time as the U.S. Civil War, it has kind of just muddled along, never quite able to enjoy the economic and political succes of some of its other European neighbors. Italy's closest move to the head of the line was a brief period of efficiency under the Mussolini government. Obviously, that didn't turn out so well in the end.

 

Italy has always had to make due with being kind of a 1-B type of nation. Advanced compared to the third world, but not quite on par with the big boys.

 

It fascinates me how a small handful of nations, perhaps 20?, have managed to advance so far, head and shoulders above the rest in just about every scale you might care to measure by, and most of the world continues to struggle. While the advancement of some countries has come at the expense of others, to a certain extent, this is clearly not the only explanation. England would be no less well off today if Italy was stronger. England did advance in part because of exploitation of India, but the continued economic struggles of India today have no direct bearing on England today. Likewise, England also benefited in part because of exploitation of the U.S. and Canada at one point, but clearly those countries seperated from England, grew to strength, not hurting England's own ability to grow in the process.

 

I admit to not being an expert on modern Italy, but I wonder what it is that has prevented them from moving from the "almost" category to the top of the list?

 

On the other hand, maybe I am just being an ugly American and should not be judging other countries by the standard of my own.

[Viggen]

Hi journaldan,

 

i was so free to split it this from the Italics thread, and move it here (i believe it deserves it's own thread)

 

First of all i live about 15 minutes from the Italian Border, so i believe i can speak a bit about my neighbour country. Second Italy is not everywhere the same (just like the USA) I remember when i was in the US for a brief period of time back in the early ninties visiting once West Virginia i was thinking wow this looks more backwards then Eastern Europe.

 

There is within Italy a huge north/south divide, While the North is one of the richest places on earth and the majority of americans (and europeans) would love to have the kind of lifestyle they have, the south lacks infrastructure and is far behind. If one looks at the income of Italy one can see (coincident?) that it drops conciderable where once the "Holy Roman Empire" ended (south of Rome). One must also define "to be rich" mediteranean countries like greece, spain or italy have a total different lifestyle and way of life then for example central europeans. (i am generalizing of course here).

 

However I don't think anyone in europe conciders Italy a 1B nation but a wonderful place which gives us one of the best cars in the world, a leading powerhouse in fashion and style and not to mention the italian kitchen. If you look at the GDP and compare it between UK, France and Italy then you will see they are virtually the same. So i am not sure what you concider a 1A nation

 

In any case, thanks for bringing up an interesting topic.

 

cheers

viggen

 

...oh and if you don't like the topic title i made (not very creative i admit), feel free to suggest a better one

[kama]

Lol, you went to west virginia? no wonder it was backwords. i went out there a few times and its full of red necks and hicks.

 

The thing is, countires cant get rich off of agriculture, its impossible. Industrialization had made these coutries rich. The saying goes, " it takes money to make money" but if you have no money, you cant make any,

[journaldan]

I may not have GDP numbers in front of me, but I would have to say that, trying to look at it objectively, Italy does not have the power/prominence/whatever that is possesed by France, U.K., Germany and several others.

 

When it comes to influence on the world stage, Italy doesn't seem to be in the upper echelon.

 

Take the Iraq conflict, as an example. While I have heard U.K., France, Germany, Denmark, even Spain, having influence on that situation, I can't recally any comments re: the Italians. I admit that my knowledge of world affairs comes through the filter of American media, but nonetheless these other countries have been inluential in policy making/actions in Iraq there and Italy has not -- at least according to what I have heard/seen reported. (I am fortunate enough to live in Michigan, near the northern border, where I am able to view the Canadian national news, where I get a different, though still Western, take on world events.)

 

You also raise an interesting observation when you compare the boundaries of the former Holy Roman Empire to the line dividing the wealthier portion of Italy from the less wealthy.

[Viggen]

I may not have GDP numbers in front of me, but I would have to say that, trying to look at it objectively, Italy does not have the power/prominence/whatever that is possesed by France, U.K., Germany and several others.

 

Here are the stats from the 5 biggest european countries (CIA fact book)

Germany - GDP - $2.16 trillion / per capita $26,200

France - GDP - $1.558 trillion /per capita $26,000

UK - GDP - $1.528 trillion / per capita $25,500

Italy - GDP - $1.455 trillion / per capita $25,100

Spain - GDP - $850.7 billion / per capita $21,200

 

When it comes to influence on the world stage, Italy doesn't seem to be in the upper echelon.

Take the Iraq conflict, as an example. While I have heard U.K., France, Germany, Denmark, even Spain, having influence on that situation, I can't recally any comments re: the Italians. I admit that my knowledge of world affairs comes through the filter of American media, but nonetheless these other countries have been inluential in policy making/actions in Iraq there and Italy has not -- at least according to what I have heard/seen reported. (I am fortunate enough to live in Michigan, near the northern border, where I am able to view the Canadian national news, where I get a different, though still Western, take on world events.)

 

 

Italy has great influence in european affairs, always had and especially since Berlusconi (controversial multi billionaer) is president. Italy has with Spain (they withdrawed now) and UK troops in Iraq (3000 italian soldiers as far as i know) Italy was one of the first "big" countries to ease tension with Lybia for example and played a big role in getting the Lockerbie situation somewhat settled and helped so the return of Gaddafi to the USA I believe Italy is (at least in europe) undisputed an equal of the Top 5 european countries.

 

You also raise an interesting observation when you compare the boundaries of the former Holy Roman Empire to the line dividing the wealthier portion of Italy from the less wealthy.

 

 

Shot in the dark, and i can't proof any of it, but it is quiet a coincident, isn't it. It might have something to do with the existence of the Fugger and Welser (Families who had an empire of Banking and Trade) who had offices throughout northern Italy but not in the south. It was I believe the earliest time of real capitalism together with the Hanseatic League in europe and southern Italy might have missed out on that. Another reason is that the south has relative little industry and relied heavily on agriculture...

 

cheers

viggen

[journaldan]

Thanks for the input.

 

While you have referenced some important events in Italy's recent actions on the world stage, I still say Italy would probably be a close also-ran if I were to make a list of the top nations in the world. How one defines "top" may have some influence on that list.

 

In no paticular order, here's my list:

 

USA (economic power, etc, UN security council veto)

Canada (closely tied to the Americans, wealth of natural resources)

Japan ( economic powerhouse)

China (based on population as much as anything, emerging power, UN security council veto)

Russia (former Super power still has world influence, UN security council veto)

U.K. (Economic power, influence in former empire states, UN security council veto)

Germany (biggest economy in Europe)

Belgium (home to several international body headquarters, World Court, NATO, I think the

European offices of the U.N.)

Denmark (See Belgium)

Egypt (Carries an important voice in the Muslim world. Has played a role linking the West to the

Middle East)

France (Center of culture, UN security council veto)

India (A billion or so people, and a nuclear power. Growing economy)

Saudi Arabia (See Egypt, plus oil reserves make it a power player.)

 

I could easily accept the argument to knock Belgium or Denmark off the list.

 

Interestingly, not a single South American country even comes close.

[Primus Pilus]

No offense to my northern neighbors, but I think putting Canada second has to rank as some sort of North American bias. Canada has very little major influence on the world stage. Yes, they have a wealth of natural resources, but it is largely untapped.

 

The others I tend to agree with, though my ranking would likely be different. Seeing as how oil seems to be an important factor on your list I might include Venezuela some day, if they ever straighten out their own socio-political issues. Brazil would really be the only South American nation with any chance at the moment, but they have their own problems (hell who doesn't).

 

Israel might also be considered, not because of their power, but because of their everyday influence on world events. You've got to admit that they are often the center of world attention, regardless of the reasons. Of course, that has nothing to do with economics, I'm only factoring 'influence' into my equation.

[journaldan]

My list included the disclaimer:

 

In no particular order.

 

I agree Canada would be down toward the bottom of that list.

 

Another way to look at that list: not a single nation from below the Equator.

[Viggen]

IMO Italy is defenitely playing a bigger role in the world then Denmark or Belgium.

 

If you want include Belgium or Denmark then Switzerland should be defenitely on, (Bank, Chemicals, many many International Offices are based there) A list should always include Australia (then you have below the equator), also South Korea or inspiring South Africa (mandela, transition of white apartheit to democracy, huge mineral resources, regional powerhouse) is missing. I would also put Turkey on that proverbial list, (one of the few muslim allies with the west which makes big steps towards capitalism and it is close to becoming a potenital canditate for membership in the EU ),

 

I agree that Israel is playing a huge role in international affairs,

 

The list is of course biased towards where i am from, as Turkey, Italy or Switzerland is having a bigger impact on my life then Canada..

 

cheers

viggen

[Ursus]

<i>I admit to not being an expert on modern Italy, but I wonder what it is that has prevented them from moving from the "almost" category to the top of the list?</i>

 

Mafia leeches? Just kidding. Well, maybe not completely.

 

 

With the discovery of the New World, the fortunes of Western Europe lay with those countries that had better access to the Atlantic. At first Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands, and then later France and especially England. Italy, being stuck in the Mediterranean, didn't stand a chance. Also, I believe the rise of hostile Islamic powers in the Mid east and North Africa seriously put a cramp on Italy's formerly profitable trade with the Far East.

 

Then too was the cultural climate. Protestant countries were generally more tolerant and innovative, and it was in the Netherlands and later England where capitalism, industrialism, and scientific progress really started off.

 

I think all those things put Italy at a serious disadvantage for centuries. But they've obviously caught up considerably. These days it's better to look at Western Europe as a whole rather than as separate economies. The European Union does have a GDP larger than America.

[journaldan]

Good point about the access to the Atlantic stifling the growth of Italy and fueling the growth of others.

 

As to the EU's GDP vs. the USA, the EU is far, far away from being a cohesive single unit.

[Viggen]

Still wondering why it is from Italy expected to be the major power in the world, they are a small country (about the size of Montana) with 55 million people, they are in the G8 (8 most important Economic powers) so not sure what is expected from them...

 

cheers

viggen

[Demson]

Simple. You almost never hear from Italy through the media. Probably because it has no serious influence on your region/country. That doesn't neccesarily mean they're economically not important - just not directly.

[Valens]

I'm curious(I know so little about modern militaries), how does everyone think Italy's military would rank in a list of the best militaries?

 

I know their military was sub par in the Second World War, but I assume they've had some sort of military reforsince then?

[journaldan]

The U.S. has by far and away the largest, most advanced military in the world. Britain has a strong military and North Korea has enough "toys" to make me worried.

China is also to be reckoned with, based on size of its Army if nothing else.

 

Without doing any research, my gut guess would be that, in no particular order, the top 5 militaries in the world are:

USA

Russia

China

North Korea

Britain

 

This assumes we are talking about organized, uniformed militaries, not irregulars/guerillas/terror agents.

 

The difficulty in ranking military strength is what do you go on? Number of personnel in uniform? Number of fighter aircraft, and if so, do you break out aircraft purchased after a certain year (assuming that the more recent the year, the more advanced the weapon systems). How do you determine overall comperative strength of modern Armies, vs. modern Navies vs. modern Air Forces. If country A has a big Army and strong Air Force but a weak Navy, does country B's strong Navy but moderate Army & Air Force trump that?

 

As a side note, I happened to be in San Diego this past week and witnessed the first homeporting of the US Navy's newest aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan. I read in the program from the ceremony that the U.S. Navy has the same number of aircraft carriers as all other world navies combined and each of the US carriers are larger/more capable than any of the foreign makes & models.