Is Canada a Developing Country?

[Valystria]

Canada is generally categorized as a developed country. But is that a fair assessment? Is Canada perhaps in actuality only a developing country? There is a case to be made for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_Canada

Canada's exports consisting mostly of primary resources indicates its exports conform to what would be expected of a developing country.

The exports of countries such as the US, the UK, France and Germany instead consist mostly of secondary and tertiary exports, as is to be expected with a developed country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_Germany

As can be seen, a developed country is not one sorely lacking in secondary and tertiary exports. But some may set that aside and refer to other features such as Canada being ranked highly on the HDI at #9.

Meanwhile, the UK sits at #14, despite the Pound Sterling being at roughly twice the value of the Canadian Dollar, resulting in Canadians having far less purchasing power than Brits despite Canada being ranked higher. This in itself will indicate the HDI is not measuring quality of life, and is not measuring the economic development of a country. The HDI cannot be considered a meaningful or useful measure of a country's development in any way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_high_human_development

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/against_the_hum.html

Then there is the child poverty rate of Canada.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx

At 15.1 per cent, Canada’s child poverty rate is over four percentage points higher than the 17-country average. More than one in seven Canadian children live in poverty. Canada ranks 15th on this indicator and scores a “C” grade.

Is the child poverty rate declining in Canada?
Not according to the latest statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Transportation and infrastructure? Dangerously lacking, as would be expected of a developing country.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3206550

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents Canadian mayors, estimates the country has fallen behind in infrastructure spending by $123 billion since the 1950s. In some years, it would argue, there hasn't been enough invested to maintain what already exists, let alone build for the future.

That has led to what some economists call Canada's infrastructure deficit or infrastructure gap.

To assume Canada is already developed would mean overlooking it lacks the necessary economic base to close the infrastructure gap, and will be unable to do so unless Canada recognizes it is a developing country and readjusts its policies accordingly.

As a matter of public policy it's important to base decisions around the realities of a country's development status, otherwise policies will be misguided and failing to accomplish their objectives.

Given all of this, I am unable to deny that Canada is a developing country. Do you find yourself in agreement?

[United States Kingdom]

This should be interesting..

[MERIZoC]

no

[Infected Mushroom]

I would say Canada is a developing country. Its over 100 times bigger than the UK and France yet it only has close to half of the population as EITHER one of them (35 million to 65 million).

This suggests MASSIVE under-utilisation of resources and land... this suggests that Canada is still on the developing curve and not on the Developed end. Even if you argue that most of Canada's land is frozen all year round and uninhabitable, Canada still has hundreds of times more habitable land than the UK.

There's no reason why BC or Alberta couldn't each house at least as many people as Ontario for instance.

Development is not finished, nowhere close.

[The balkens]

Yes, as in they dont have enough American flags yet.

*nods.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is perhaps the most developed developing country, but the export figures are fairly damning when viewed in combination with the infrastructure deficit.

no

Cool argument.

[Targovia]

I would argue no.

While economically, yes, it does seem that Canada is developing, Canada has one of the highest Human Development Index scores in the world.

[Infected Mushroom]

no

Please explain

[Zurkerx]

no

[MERIZoC]

It is perhaps the most developed developing country, but the export figures are fairly damning when viewed in combination with the infrastructure deficit.

no

Cool argument.

It's hard to argue against the Kult.

[Infected Mushroom]

I would argue no.

While economically, yes, it does seem that Canada is developing, Canada has one of the highest Human Development Index scores in the world.

So if a country has a high HDI, you can completely overlook the fact that its lands and resources are criminally under-utilised and under-developed?

I mean, most of Canada isn't even touched yet. Its simply not fair to compare it to the UK or Japan; Canada has tons of untapped lands and resources, tons and tons and its nowhere near close to its full development. Furthermore, Canada's industrial base is simply not up to standard, at this point its more or less a raw materials exporter.

[Valystria]

no

I assume that if you had any evidence to back up your position, you would have mentioned it by now. Otherwise your "no" is only an unfounded opinion that holds no weight against the presented evidence.

[Ostroeuropa]

I would argue no.

While economically, yes, it does seem that Canada is developing, Canada has one of the highest Human Development Index scores in the world.

I would say that this only indicates that Canada is a humanitarian developing nation that puts its focus and resources toward quality of life, but that nonetheless, it is only a developing nation.
Its economy and infrastructure are not developed and its population is not utilized to the extent that they would be if it were a developed nation. (With a bigger focus on secondary, service, and tertiary jobs and exports.).

It's sort of like it getting 1 dollar each day when its earning potential is 2 dollars, but since it spends that one dollar on books, we think "Oh, it's developed."
but it isn't.

[MERIZoC]

no

I assume that if you had any evidence to back up your position, you would have mentioned it by now. Otherwise your "no" is only an unfounded opinion that holds no weight against the presented evidence.

There wasn't any real evidence presented, just a list of facts and conclusions. Your OP, which failed to even consider the usefulness and applications of the term "developing/developed country" deserved the response it got.

[Valystria]

I would argue no.

While economically, yes, it does seem that Canada is developing, Canada has one of the highest Human Development Index scores in the world.

As demonstrated in the OP, the HDI isn't measuring quality of life or economic development. It is only as Ostro says, an indication that the country has humanitarian priorities. Case in point, Canada has public healthcare and affordable education. And yet lacks the necessary economic base to develop or even maintain the country's infrastructure.

As for other problems with the HDI, the link provided in the OP goes into brief detail on the main flaws of the HDI;
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/against_the_hum.html

So what are the main problems with the HDI?

1. I can see giving equal weights to GDP per capita and life expectancy. But education? As a professor and a snob, I understand the appeal (though a measure of opera consumption would be even better). But in terms of the actual if not professed values of normal human beings, televisions and cars are a lot more important than books.

2. When you take a closer look at the HDI's education measure, it's especially bogus. 2/3rds of the weight comes from the literacy rate. At least that's not ridiculous. But the other 1/3 comes from the Gross Enrollment Index - the fraction of the population enrolled in primary, secondary, or tertiary education. OK, I feel a reductio ad absurdum coming on. To max out your education score, you have to turn 100% of your population into students!

3. The HDI purportedly gives equal weights to three different outcomes, but bounding the results between 0 and 1 builds in a massive bias against GDP. GDP per capita has grown fantastically during the last two centuries, and will continue to do so. In reality, there's plenty of room left for further improvement even in rich countries. But the HDI doesn't allow this. Since rich countries are already close to the upper bound, the HDI effectively defines their future progress on this dimension out of existence.

To a lesser extent, the same goes for life expectancy: While it's roughly doubled over the last two centuries, dying at 85 is not, contrary to the HDI, approximately equal in value to immortality.

The clear winners from this weighting scheme, of course, are the literacy and enrollment measures, both of which have upper bounds that are imposed by logic rather than fiat.

4. The ultimate problem with the HDI, though, is lack of ambition. It effectively proclaims an "end of history" where Scandinavia is the pinnacle of human achievement. Admittedly, I've never visited Scandinavia. But when I see it for the first time this August, I'm pretty sure I won't say to myself, "Wow, it can't get any better than this!"

[Targovia]

I would argue no.

While economically, yes, it does seem that Canada is developing, Canada has one of the highest Human Development Index scores in the world.

So if a country has a high HDI, you can completely overlook the fact that its lands and resources are criminally under-utilised and under-developed?

I mean, most of Canada isn't even touched yet. Its simply not fair to compare it to the UK or Japan; Canada has tons of untapped lands and resources, tons and tons and its nowhere near close to its full development. Furthermore, Canada's industrial base is simply not up to standard, at this point its more or less a raw materials exporter.

Problem is, in Canada's case, most of the country is nearly impossible to tap into. Hauling millions of dollars of equipment into a godforsaken frozen wasteland is a really big hurdle to overcome you know.

[Ostroeuropa]

So if a country has a high HDI, you can completely overlook the fact that its lands and resources are criminally under-utilised and under-developed?

I mean, most of Canada isn't even touched yet. Its simply not fair to compare it to the UK or Japan; Canada has tons of untapped lands and resources, tons and tons and its nowhere near close to its full development. Furthermore, Canada's industrial base is simply not up to standard, at this point its more or less a raw materials exporter.

Problem is, in Canada's case, most of the country is nearly impossible to tap into. Hauling millions of dollars of equipment into a godforsaken frozen wasteland is a really big hurdle to overcome you know.

One of the problems Canada suffers from is an infrastructure deficit, which exacerbates this problem.
Look at the trans-siberian railway.

[APR Alliance]

Well less of one than Peru.

[Valystria]

I assume that if you had any evidence to back up your position, you would have mentioned it by now. Otherwise your "no" is only an unfounded opinion that holds no weight against the presented evidence.

There wasn't any real evidence presented, just a list of facts and conclusions. Your OP, which failed to even consider the usefulness and applications of the term "developing/developed country" deserved the response it got.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Evidence has been presented. The definition of evidence is very clear, and you aren't denying the facts involved.

You have merely entered into the thread to say "no", done an ad hom against the thread maker, and have then said the available body of facts and information indicating the proposition presented is true somehow isn't evidence despite being evidence according to the definition of evidence.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

no, canada is an actor (sometimes primary, sometimes secondary) and not a victim in the economic and political exploitation of the so called third world. if they can't provide for their children while doing so they must be extremely incompetent. but most children in poverty situations in canada are probably first nations anyway so it's not like the government cares

[Viking Confederacy]

In my opinion, developed countries must also be developing countries, or they will falter and decline.

So, yes, I think Canada is a developing country - for now.

[Ostroeuropa]

no, canada is an actor (sometimes primary, sometimes secondary) and not a victim in the economic and political exploitation of the so called third world. if they can't provide for their children while doing so they must be extremely incompetent. but most children in poverty situations in canada are probably first nations anyway so it's not like the government cares

To be clear, your definition of "Developing" is that it is a nation exploited by the western world, irrespective of the level of infrastructure, exports, etc?

[Ashworth-Attwater]

In my opinion, developed countries must also be developing countries, or they will falter and decline.

So, yes, I think Canada is a developing country - for now.

you have a gift to take terms and twist their meanings have you ever thought of becoming a politician?

[Valystria]

no, canada is an actor (sometimes primary, sometimes secondary) and not a victim in the economic and political exploitation of the so called third world. if they can't provide for their children while doing so they must be extremely incompetent. but most children in poverty situations in canada are probably first nations anyway so it's not like the government cares

You haven't stated how or why Canada isn't a developing country. You've only attached to the tern some kind of oppressor or oppressed dichotomy which is nowhere to be found, as it's not what developed and developing refer to.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

no, canada is an actor (sometimes primary, sometimes secondary) and not a victim in the economic and political exploitation of the so called third world. if they can't provide for their children while doing so they must be extremely incompetent. but most children in poverty situations in canada are probably first nations anyway so it's not like the government cares

To be clear, your definition of "Developing" is that it is a nation exploited by the western world, irrespective of the level of infrastructure, exports, etc?

no my definition of a third world country is a country where the proletariat does not receive above the value of the goods and services exchanged throughout the world-economy in a given period divided by the quantity of labor through which it is produced