Why some countries are Poor while some are Rich?

This has been a question in my mind for a long time. Every country, be it America, UK, France, Sudan, Somalia, India or China exist on the same planet. Neither of these countries consists of Super Humans, nor magicians. Then why do some countries always remain poor and the others get richer?

The richer countries keep helping the poorer countries by providing financial and economic support. The World Bank provides billions of dollars as development fund to the poor countries. Very recently, the G20 summit held in UK this year, in fact injected economic stimulus and made more provisions to help the poorer countries. Here comes a question again. Where does the fund of the World Bank go? The countries like India and China were also called poor countries around half a century ago. Today these countries are known to be the fastest developing economies in spite of the two most populated countries.

Most of the poor countries which still remain poor after getting billions of dollars of Aid from the World forums actually do not use the money in the development activities. A country’s backbone is its education standard. Education is only possible if there is infrastructural development. Foreign investment will take place only if infrastructural development exists. Roads, electricity, water, communication, social security etc are the foremost requirement to attract foreign investments. When the government of a country presents a requirement of funds to the World Bank, it has to do so by presenting a project report or say a Road map of development activities for which the certain amount of fund is required. When the fund is provided, it is eaten up by the government and nothing is passed on to the people of the country. Probably there is a necessity of a high level audit team to inspect whether the utilization of the funds provided is done as per the projections. Only then the poor countries will become rich eventually. The governments which eat up the money of the World Community should be banished and the United Nations or such a council should take over the country for a term of minimum 5 years to initiate the development process. Once it is observed that the development activities are moving in the right direction, there should be an in-house team set up and trained to gradually transit the whole process. After the transition is completed, the United Nations team should eventually phase out from the said country and stand at the sideline to observe. People of that country should then evaluate the progress made by the ad hoc in-house team and should choose their own government eventually.

This process sounds a bit corporate but I guess this is a way out to bail out the poor countries from the vicious circle of becoming poorer day by day. Hence, the whole story of why some countries remain poor while other nations become rich is a simple case study of mismanagement and corrupt politics. The rich countries perform Capital Management while the poor countries are tied up with crisis management, that’s the difference.

Linus Orakles
http://www.authorclub.info/