Is Canada a Developing Country?

[Tamsien]

Except Canadian tourism industry.

Banking, retail, real estate all exist here.

IT, R&D, and media (all those films being shot in BC, so scenic, much wow)

Yeah. Something tells me that Canada is TOTALLY a developing country.

smh just because the gov't is apathetic to natives and inaccessible oil and not reaching 'full potential' and moving goalposts

[Lynerida]

Everyone needs to stop! You are making your own definitions for a "developing country". A developing nation is a country with a lower average income than most industrialized countries and relies on a few export crops and where farming is conducted by primitive methods. In many developing nations, rapid population growth outpaces the supply of food. That is the actual definition. So no, Canada is not a developing nation. A developing nation depends on the HDI; Healthcare, education, safety, average income, life expectancy. Those things affect a countries category, not the diversity of the economy.

[Ostroeuropa]

...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?

You've got it!

[Kelinfort]

This is a pretty odd argument, especially since a nation like the United States has far higher rates of childhood poverty and lower infrastructure investment.

However, Canada is clearly a developed nation. Based solely on its GDP per capita, it's obvious to see Canada is a developed nation.

[Valystria]

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

Does the alleged looting and exploitation of other countries have anything to do with developing and developed status? It doesn't. That isn't what the categories refer to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

A developing country, also called a less developed country or underdeveloped country, is a nation with a less developed industrial base, and a low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries.

If you are going to reject the proposition that Canada is a developed country, do so around the established meanings of developed and developing instead of pitching something about oppression and exploitation.

As the OP demonstrates, there is a knowledge of what a developing country is, which is why part of the focus of the proposition is on how the deeply flawed HDI accomplishes little other than obscuring Canada's reality of only being a developing country.

You have presented no evidence for how your claims revolving around notions of oppression and exploitation would somehow refute the proposition presented in the OP.

Your refusal to discuss it further is clearly to mask how you're keenly aware of your lack of evidence to support your position, and that you're aware of how a narrative about oppression and exploitation isn't applicable to the thread.

[Olivaero]

Could you define, what you consider the criteria a country has to meet to be developed OP? Countries are pretty unique entities, What is developed for one in my mind would not be for the other. Quality of life of the average citizen is probably the main determining factor in my mind, I would say a developing country with a quality of life which is higher in general than some developed countries is impossible. The child poverty is a salient point to me but I imagine this is partly because of the size of Canada I would imagine something that would be much harder for Canada to fix than say it is for the UK to do so. As for the purchasing power comparisons between other developed countries it has a GDP Per capita of $45,488 which is higher than other developed countries another key indicator for me that theres a general good standard of living when a country has a relatively large population such as Canada as oppposed to countries with small populations who's GDP per capita is a bit distorted.

Another major argument for Canada being developed is that it has undergone a Demographic transition like the rest of the developed world http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-229-x/2009001/demo/int1-eng.htm Low fertility rates combined with low general mortality rates are one of the key hall marks of a developed country also represented in the average canadian lifespan https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=average%20life%20span%20canada which is 81 years of age and rising. Note it does have a relatively high growth rate but this is in large part to open immigration policies.

And finally albeit from wikipedia

According to a 2012 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada is the most educated country in the world;[221] the country ranks first worldwide in the number of adults having tertiary education, with 51 percent of Canadian adults having attained at least an undergraduate college or university degree.[221] Canada spends about 5.3% of its GDP on education.[222] The country invests heavily in tertiary education (more than 20 000 USD per student).[223] As of 2014, 89 percent of adults aged 25 to 64 have earned the equivalent of a high-school degree, compared to an OECD average of 75 percent.[161]

I don't see anything to be gained by classifying a country which can boast that level of education in it's workforce as developing.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is a pretty odd argument, especially since a nation like the United States has far higher rates of childhood poverty and Lowe infrastructure investment.

However, Canada is clearly a developed nation. Based solely on its GDP per capita, it's obvious to see Canada is a developed nation.

Qatar? Kuwait?

[Kelinfort]

This is a pretty odd argument, especially since a nation like the United States has far higher rates of childhood poverty and Lowe infrastructure investment.

However, Canada is clearly a developed nation. Based solely on its GDP per capita, it's obvious to see Canada is a developed nation.

Qatar? Kuwait?

Both would be considered developed, by world standards. HDI and GDP per capita are very good measurements.

[Napkiraly]

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.

Or maybe it has something to do with most people not wanting to live in quite hostile environments. There is a reason why 90% of the Canadian population lives within 160km of the US border.

[Ostroeuropa]

Qatar? Kuwait?

Both would be considered developed, by world standards. HDI and GDP per capita are very good measurements.

Neither are developed according to sources I can find from a quick glance. Do you have one?

I would say that if your economy is based on resource extraction, that isn't development.

It's like as saying a mud hut on top of a diamond mine is the pinnacle of a developed nation.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

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 isn't necessarily true. You also need to take relative prices into account. Canada's GDP per capita is higher than the UK's even after adjusting for purchasing power parity. It also has more wealth equality, which is why its GDP per capita is more heavily weighted in the HDI scale. Child poverty is also inflated by the Aboriginal population, which is growing quickly and is generally extremely poor. That's not to excuse the child poverty rate, but Canada has unique circumstances in that respect. Also this ranking from the World Economic Forum puts Canada at 13th place in terms of quality of infrastructure, well above the UK and the US. It is 14th in this ranking, below the UK and the US (I guess infrastructure quality isn't easy to measure, surprise, surprise), but still strong internationally.

[Kelinfort]

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 isn't necessarily true. You also need to take relative prices into account. Canada's GDP per capita is higher than the UK's even after adjusting for purchasing power parity. It also has more wealth equality, which is why its GDP per capita is more heavily weighted in the HDI scale. Child poverty is also inflated by the Aboriginal population, which is growing quickly and is generally extremely poor. That's not to excuse the child poverty rate, but Canada has unique circumstances in that respect. Also this ranking from the World Economic Forum puts Canada at 13th place in terms of quality of infrastructure, well above the UK and the US.

Thank you for addressing that, it was driving me crazy.

[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?

You've got it!

I'm not sure, though, if the northern half of the country will melt into a cold marsh as a result of such a transformation.
Heh, it'd probably be developed once everyone flees the South, Texas, Mexico and California after those become scorching deserts. Then we can repeat the cycle all over again 'til we're dead.

This is a pretty odd argument, especially since a nation like the United States has far higher rates of childhood poverty and Lowe infrastructure investment.

However, Canada is clearly a developed nation. Based solely on its GDP per capita, it's obvious to see Canada is a developed nation.

...I got the feeling that in order to be developed, you had to have wasted the upper mile or so of natural resource reserves in the crust and possess a population density in the hundreds, among other things.
Also, I wonder what the OP would consider a developed infrastructure. Would a national freeway network be part of that?

[Dakini]

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.

Using your "logic" regarding resource use, Bangladesh is a highly developed nation.

Not all land needs to be developed and not all resources need to be tapped.

[Valystria]

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

First world sure, but a developing part of it.

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.

To that I would say Canada is merely the most developed of the developing countries, but not in the developed category.

Being the most developed of the developing gives Canada superficial similarities to developing countries.

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.

The economic data is part of what goes into categorizing a country as developed or developing, so it unfortunately is relevant data in the context.

Canada may not be overrun with malaria, but that doesn't mean Canada isn't deserving of foreign aid. With Canada officially downgraded to developing status, it would open up a path for foreign aid to provide the funds needed to close Canada's out of control infrastructure gap.

Canada having an infrastructure gap is a result of lacking a developed economic base.

[Kelinfort]

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.

That statement really makes no sense. You could have a commune of hippies and a Randian utopia both be considered developed countries. There's no hard and fast measurement, but HDI is basically that measurement.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mulcair suggested penalizing primary resource exports, which suggests that at least the NDP is aware that canada could be more industrially developed.

This would have meant it became far cheaper to turn the primary resources into secondary or tertiary goods in canada rather than exporting them to be used elsewhere, and would have industrially developed canada.

That's a fairly classic economic move to develop a country. That it was suggested by one of the major party leaders should be telling.

[Charellia]

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.

I don't see what proper governing has to do with it. Even if the government were to increase immigration levels, it would be difficult to fill that much land.

[Zoice]

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.

Because nature must be conquered, rainforests and tundra razed to parking lots, otherwise the country isn't developed. *Nod*

[Kelinfort]

Mulcair suggested penalizing primary resource exports, which suggests that at least the NDP is aware that canada could be more industrially developed.

This would have meant it became far cheaper to turn the primary resources into secondary or tertiary goods in canada rather than exporting them to be used elsewhere, and would have industrially developed canada.

That's a fairly classic economic move to develop a country. That it was suggested by one of the major party leaders should be telling.

Manufacturing doesn't necessarily make a nation more developed.

Also, primary exports are more prone to shifts in supply and demand. Especially resources like oil. That can really hurt a current account.

[Dakini]

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.

I don't see what proper governing has to do with it. Even if the government were to increase immigration levels, it would be difficult to fill that much land.

It also doesn't need to be filled.

There are some communities in Canada that exist in environmentally sensitive areas and actually don't allow more people to move there (e.g. Banff), never mind all the land that's actually used for things like growing food or the land that isn't particularly habitable or useful for growing food (e.g. the Canadian shield with its thin topsoil and short growing seasons).

[Olivaero]

Mulcair suggested penalizing primary resource exports, which suggests that at least the NDP is aware that canada could be more industrially developed.

This would have meant it became far cheaper to turn the primary resources into secondary or tertiary goods in canada rather than exporting them to be used elsewhere, and would have industrially developed canada.

That's a fairly classic economic move to develop a country. That it was suggested by one of the major party leaders should be telling.

There is no reason a developed county cannot have a large primary sector if it has massive amounts of resources like Canada does.

[Jumalariik]

no

We agree on something.

[Valystria]

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 isn't necessarily true. You also need to take relative prices into account. Canada's GDP per capita is higher than the UK's even after adjusting for purchasing power parity. It also has more wealth equality, which is why its GDP per capita is more heavily weighted in the HDI scale. Child poverty is also inflated by the Aboriginal population, which is growing quickly and is generally extremely poor. That's not to excuse the child poverty rate, but Canada has unique circumstances in that respect. Also this ranking from the World Economic Forum puts Canada at 13th place in terms of quality of infrastructure, well above the UK and the US. It is 14th in this ranking, below the UK and the US (I guess infrastructure quality isn't easy to measure, surprise, surprise), but still strong internationally.

Those are additional reasons for why the HDI is severely flawed and shouldn't be part of categorizing a country's development status. The poor being better off ought to take more weight than wealth equality. Unequal prosperity everyone benefits from is surely more desirable than equal poverty.

While the UK and US may be ranked lower for infrastructure, they indisputably have economies that conform to what would be expected of a developed country, while for Canada infrastructure is a larger categorization factor due to lacking a developed economy.

[Charellia]

I don't see what proper governing has to do with it. Even if the government were to increase immigration levels, it would be difficult to fill that much land.

It also doesn't need to be filled.

There are some communities in Canada that exist in environmentally sensitive areas and actually don't allow more people to move there (e.g. Banff), never mind all the land that's actually used for things like growing food or the land that isn't particularly habitable or useful for growing food (e.g. the Canadian shield with its thin topsoil and short growing seasons).

I wasn't suggesting it did, just that it would be incredibly hard to do if you wanted to, for some reason.