Is Canada a Developing Country?

[Billy jowl]

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

So Canada started the fire?

[Targovia]

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.

Very good point.

[Cetacea]

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.

taking the normal measures of developed vs developing then yes I would tend to agree that Canada along with Australia and New Zealand are developing countries. Although Australia could argue that much of its interior desert is uninhabitable and thus its habitable regions are developed.

New Zealand is about 268,000 square kilometers (larger than UK and approximately the size of California) but has a population of only 5 million people which means huge areas of undeveloped farm, its manufacturing sector is negligible and its main industries are Agriculture and Tourism. That however becomes a major factor Tourism trades on the undeveloped 'green' image of New Zealand and so it can be argued that Undeveloped areas are commercially valuable tourism asset in their own right. Theres also arguments to be made for the humanitarian 'quality of life factors' inherent in low population density

So I suppose my thesis as it applies to Canada is that the measures of Development are flawed in as much as they do not factor in Humanitarian factors nor the economic scenic value of undeveloped lands

[Tamsien]

It's largely because of infrastructure deficit, too much land to cover, and too much land that is inaccessible with efficiency or cost effectiveness.

And the social issues with First Nations and other aboriginal populations are also a contributing factor to poverty as well as a shitty record in dealing with social issues period (save for legalization of SSM, public healthcare, and whatnot).

Even then public healthcare is underfunded, line ups are a bit on the long side.

But everything else shoves Canada into 'developed' just these three major issues can be considered as well to label Canada as developing. But that's really moving goalposts, since the first issue is pretty much is simply due to blatant inaccessibility and lack of efficient methods that won't be a detriment to the environment, which Canada has been working on for a while now (although Harper administration was wibbly wobbly on it).

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

taking the normal measures of developed vs developing then yes I would tend to agree that Canada along with Australia and New Zealand are developing countries. Although Australia could argue that much of its interior desert is uninhabitable and thus its habitable regions are developed.

New Zealand is about 268,000 square kilometers (larger than UK and approximately the size of California) but has a population of only 5 million people which means huge areas of undeveloped farm, its manufacturing sector is negligible and its main industries are Agriculture and Tourism. That however becomes a major factor Tourism trades on the undeveloped 'green' image of New Zealand and so it can be argued that Undeveloped areas are commercially valuable tourism asset in their own right. Theres also arguments to be made for the humanitarian 'quality of life factors' inherent in low population density

So I suppose my thesis as it applies to Canada is that the measures of Development are flawed in as much as they do not factor in Humanitarian factors nor the economic scenic value of undeveloped lands

That's fair. I agree with you that it doesn't seem like a necessarily important fact when compared to humanitarian factors, but that it should nonetheless be acknowledged for the reason alluded to in the OP.
(That applying "developed" nation economic principles to Canada may backfire.)

[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

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.

i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings (i'm not but idk what else to say) but canada partakes in the looting and exploitation of third world countries. still i'm not gonna discuss this with you because you definitely don't know anything about international power relationships as evidenced by the fact that you summed all i said up in "oppressor or oppressed dichotomy" or the fact that you don't even know what a developing country is

bye canadian friend

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

even if some land can be eliminated in this way, you've still got habitable land left that's hundreds of times larger in area than the UK and France; it still reveals massive under-utilisation of resources

much of Canada is frozen, but not THAT MUCH

[Internet Freedom Republic]

Yes, but it isn't infested with terrorists or pirates so I'd classify it as first world.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it's possible that one of the reasons people have historically not noted this about Canada (And other nations perhaps) is that it's a White country, and there might be some level of racism going along with that and a refusal to view White people in the same category as non-whites in terms of development. (Which, for many centuries, was synonymous with Civilization.).

Yes, but it isn't infested with terrorists or pirates so I'd classify it as first world.

I agree it's first world. So it's developing first world.

[Tamsien]

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.

even if some land can be eliminated in this way, you've still got habitable land left that's hundreds of times larger in area than the UK and France; it still reveals massive under-utilisation of resources

much of Canada is frozen, but not THAT MUCH

It's largely for tourism anyways.

Tourists like untouched wastelands and forests.

[Napkiraly]

Having untapped resources doesn't make you a developing country. The standards are, generally speaking, high GDP, good GDP per capita, and high standards of living. All of which Canada has.

It's infrastructure deficit is in comparison to other developed countries, in which yes we are not up to where we should be. However, we are far ahead of developing countries.

[Major-Tom]

I almost feel bad, you seemingly spent a fair amount of time compiling data regarding the Canadian economy, even if that data has nothing to do with whether or not Canada is a developed nation.

After all, Canada is truly third world. The slums of Vancover and Toronto are world hubs for dysentery and malaria, Canada truly needs our aid.

[Napkiraly]

I think it's possible that one of the reasons people have historically not noted this about Canada (And other nations perhaps) is that it's a White country, and there might be some level of racism going along with that and a refusal to view White people in the same category as non-whites in terms of development. (Which, for many centuries, was synonymous with Civilization.).

Yes, but it isn't infested with terrorists or pirates so I'd classify it as first world.

I agree it's first world. So it's developing first world.

Or maybe because it's a developed country.

[Great Feng]

tough...
I'd say it depends on perspective.

[Ostroeuropa]

Having untapped resources doesn't make you a developing country. The standards are, generally speaking, high GDP, good GDP per capita, and high standards of living. All of which Canada has.

It's infrastructure deficit is in comparison to other developed countries, in which yes we are not up to where we should be. However, we are far ahead of developing countries.

Its not just the infrastructure deficit, but the nature of the economy being heavily based around primary resources, rather than services, secondary, or tertiary goods. That's a defining characteristic of developing countries too.

High GDP, good GDP per capita etc are also true of some middle eastern countries, but those aren't typically considered developed, because those numbers come from an Oil Economy. Canada is not really different in that respect, except its more diversified in the resources it exports.

This all suggests a lack of physical development. (Not enough factories, banks, railways, etc.)
What canada has is humanitarian ethics that mask this lack of development.

[Tamsien]

Having untapped resources doesn't make you a developing country. The standards are, generally speaking, high GDP, good GDP per capita, and high standards of living. All of which Canada has.

It's infrastructure deficit is in comparison to other developed countries, in which yes we are not up to where we should be. However, we are far ahead of developing countries.

Its not just the infrastructure deficit, but the nature of the economy being heavily based around primary resources, rather than services, secondary, or tertiary goods. That's a defining characteristic of developing countries too.

High GDP, good GDP per capita etc are also true of some middle eastern countries, but those aren't typically considered developed, because those numbers come from an Oil Economy. Canada is not really different in that respect, except its more diversified in the resources it exports.

Except Canadian tourism industry.

[Napkiraly]

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.

Developed status has nothing to do with population size.

[Shakal]

While I agree with some points in the OP I must argue the opposite. While I agree that the vast amount of land holds resources that should be tapped into and used, the issue is that their simply is not a large enough population at this point to support it. For instance I typically work in Alberta or northern BC and the whole thing is that the lands here are basically totally uninhabitable by any sizable human population with the exception of a few centers of commerce.

I sometimes drive 3-4 hours without seeing a place where anyone could farm or build a community. This makes it an unrealistic expectation on the country to build any roads, railways, and so on in these areas. The cost to 'develop' these areas beyond a gravel road to get to the jobsite would not really be worth it.

Now the cities and such in the south (500km and less drive to the US border) contain most of the population and as such require the most resources. I would argue that the country should be considered developing economically but shouldnt be considered developing socially at this point. As a blue collar worker it becomes difficult sometimes to live thanks to low commodity prices and such, but when that happens we have Unemployment insurance and if all else fails social assistance to help. To me these seem like staples of a developed country as opposed to a developing one. We also get free health care, free school up to grade 12 for every child, and are generally well off.

I think in another 20-30 years when Canada hits 50-60 million the tax base will have grown big enough to support the countries infastructure and perhaps expand resource use, but as was said about New Zealand a large part of the draw of the country is is wide untouched lands.

[Napkiraly]

Having untapped resources doesn't make you a developing country. The standards are, generally speaking, high GDP, good GDP per capita, and high standards of living. All of which Canada has.

It's infrastructure deficit is in comparison to other developed countries, in which yes we are not up to where we should be. However, we are far ahead of developing countries.

Its not just the infrastructure deficit, but the nature of the economy being heavily based around primary resources, rather than services, secondary, or tertiary goods. That's a defining characteristic of developing countries too.

High GDP, good GDP per capita etc are also true of some middle eastern countries, but those aren't typically considered developed, because those numbers come from an Oil Economy. Canada is not really different in that respect, except its more diversified in the resources it exports.

This all suggests a lack of physical development. (Not enough factories, banks, railways, etc.)
What canada has is humanitarian ethics that mask this lack of development.

The service sector employs 3/4 of Canadians and 78% of our GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada#Service_sector

Yes and that's because those countries have low industrialisation and tertiary sectors. Their economies are essentially oil. Oil and gas make up an important part of the Canadian economy, but it doesn't even contribute the most to our GDP or employment.

[Napkiraly]

Its not just the infrastructure deficit, but the nature of the economy being heavily based around primary resources, rather than services, secondary, or tertiary goods. That's a defining characteristic of developing countries too.

High GDP, good GDP per capita etc are also true of some middle eastern countries, but those aren't typically considered developed, because those numbers come from an Oil Economy. Canada is not really different in that respect, except its more diversified in the resources it exports.

Except Canadian tourism industry.

Banking, retail, real estate all exist here.

[Cetacea]

Yes, but it isn't infested with terrorists or pirates so I'd classify it as first world.

but it does have pirates

[Ostroeuropa]

Its not just the infrastructure deficit, but the nature of the economy being heavily based around primary resources, rather than services, secondary, or tertiary goods. That's a defining characteristic of developing countries too.

High GDP, good GDP per capita etc are also true of some middle eastern countries, but those aren't typically considered developed, because those numbers come from an Oil Economy. Canada is not really different in that respect, except its more diversified in the resources it exports.

This all suggests a lack of physical development. (Not enough factories, banks, railways, etc.)
What canada has is humanitarian ethics that mask this lack of development.

The service sector employs 3/4 of Canadians and 78% of our GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada#Service_sector

Yes and that's because those countries have low industrialisation and tertiary sectors. Their economies are essentially oil. Oil and gas make up an important part of the Canadian economy, but it doesn't even contribute the most to our GDP or employment.

It didn't occur to me that, ofcourse, retail wouldn't show up on export charts, so that was a derp.

[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.

Developed status has nothing to do with population size.

But it does have something to do with utilisation of existing resources. If the existing resources are nowhere near maxed out, then you are still Developing, not Developed.

There's no reason why Canada's lands couldn't support many times more people than France or the UK if it were governed properly.

[Benxboro]

...Will it no longer be when Iqaluit, Fort McMurray, Whitehorse and Dawsons Creek all have populations close to or over half a million, and Calgary and Vancouver are closer in size to Los Angeles?
Will it no longer be when the population density is equivalent to that of the US?
Will it no longer be a developing country when their raw materials exporting age of glory and their manufacturing age of glory have gone by the wayside and a part of the country is a rusted-out wasteland forgotten by the elite in the big cities?
Will it no longer be a developing country when its' politicians crow about the death of the manufacturing industry?

[Billy jowl]

Developed status has nothing to do with population size.

But it does have something to do with utilisation of existing resources. If the existing resources are nowhere near maxed out, then you are still Developing, not Developed.

There's no reason why Canada's lands couldn't support many times more people than France or the UK if it were governed properly.

Is that why Canada needs autocracy?