Is Canada a Developing Country?

[Giant-Death-Robots]

Yes, Canada and America are not developed countries, and that's the way things should be.

lol

[Kxcd]

There's not much room for debate on development if we use the official means of deciding it: the Human Development Index. And Canada is extremely developed by that standard.

But HDI is obviously flawed in that it doesn't consider money enough (or something). And everyone knows how much money matters to the Kult.

what is the Kult?

[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.

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

How do you know I'm not one already?

[Reagan-land]

There's not much room for debate on development if we use the official means of deciding it: the Human Development Index. And Canada is extremely developed by that standard.

But HDI is obviously flawed in that it doesn't consider money enough (or something). And everyone knows how much money matters to the Kult.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableau ... 8a-eng.htm

not converted to USD

[The Serbian Empire]

If it was third world, then its citizens would not be educated as much, die prematurely, and have poor economies. Canada is NOT Africa. Not sure the OP defines Canada right.

If it was "developing" liberals wouldn't constantly be threatening to move there

Or is it that the economy is developed enough that they see Canada as having even more potential than the US even though it's far from fully developed.

[Reagan-land]

If it was "developing" liberals wouldn't constantly be threatening to move there

Or is it that the economy is developed enough that they see Canada as having even more potential than the US even though it's far from fully developed.

As I said, its up to interpretation on what a developing country is. And no, Canada does not have anywhere near as much potential as America, the population gap alone proves that. And no, I have never spoken to a liberal who threatened to move to Canada because they sincerely believe that it has the potential to outgrow the United States, that is an entirely new concept to me.

edit: so congratulations your the first

[Kxcd]

If it was "developing" liberals wouldn't constantly be threatening to move there

Or is it that the economy is developed enough that they see Canada as having even more potential than the US even though it's far from fully developed.

my parietal lobe just exploded

[USS Monitor]

Large areas of Canada have underdeveloped infrastructure because they are too sparsely populated to justify the expense of building and maintaining it -- especially since maintenance in a harsh climate is expensive.

The high quantity of raw material exports is also due to the large amount of mostly-empty land that Canada controls.

Most of the actual population lives in areas that are quite developed. An average Canadian citizen has a decent standard of living and a decent amount of purchasing power. Just because you can name a handful of countries that have more money doesn't change this. You don't have to be number one in the world at everything to be a developed country.

[Nerotysia]

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.

Kinda irrelevant when considering whether a country is developed or developing (which are broad and fuzzy terms anyway). Trade is certainly far less important than the domestic economic activity of a nation.

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.

Not really how currency works.

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.

Differences in the value of currency don't radically shape a nation's wealth. The game of international commerce is not really a competition to see who can have the most valuable currency. See: China, which deliberately keeps its currency weak in order to maintain a highly favorable balance of trade.

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

A lot of this stuff is rather blunt and silly, but he doesn't mention currency value.

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).

Okay, so Canada has a poverty problem. Almost like it's neighbor to the south, AKA the United States, AKA the richest nation on the planet. Your source even illustrates this. I suppose the US is a developing nation too?

Also, and more importantly, poverty is difficult to compare from country-to-country. For example, living in Canadian poverty is probably far better than living in Congolese poverty. So the comparison is a bit shaky.

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

Again, not a primary indicator of developed versus developing. Canada's infrastructure is probably far better than, say, Nigeria's, which still puts it far ahead of many contemporaries. The fact that it's lagging compared to other developed nations is not really disastrous - it's almost like being the worst member of an Olympic team. You're certainly not bad at the sport.

Actually, that Olympic team analogy can be used for most of the stuff on this list - specifically the child poverty thing. You'll notice that your source only compares Canada to rich, fancy countries with rich, fancy citizens. I'd recommend you take a broader view of the world when talking about such broad terms.

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.

Well, you've egregiously cherrypicked statistics to support an already silly hypothesis, so I don't know if talking about "realities" is really a good idea.

[New confederate ramenia]

If it was third world, then its citizens would not be educated as much, die prematurely, and have poor economies. Canada is NOT Africa. Not sure the OP defines Canada right.

If it was "developing" liberals wouldn't constantly be threatening to move there

Lots of people moved to the US when we were developing.

[Costa Fierro]

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.

No we're not.

Although Australia could argue that much of its interior desert is uninhabitable and thus its habitable regions are developed.

Most of the outback is though, at least for large communities.

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

New Zealand is the same size as Colorado and has 4.6 million inhabitants. If you can't get these basic facts right then what hope do you have of presenting a credible argument of how we're a "developing country"?

If we have huge areas of undeveloped farmland, then how is it agriculture is one of our primary exports? New Zealand is one of the leading producers of dairy products in the world and has substantial production of other crops both for domestic consumption and for export. In addition, 30% of the land in New Zealand is under government ownership and is protected to some degree. This means that 60% of the remaining land is largely being used for agriculture, industry or urban settlement.

New Zealand doesn't have a large manufacturing sector. There are few countries under ten million inhabitants that do have a large manufacturing sector. This is because New Zealand only came into existence in 1840, at a time when most nations in Europe and the United States were undergoing industrialization. And what industry New Zealand did develop was basically for domestic consumption and was only kept alive due to government subsidies and contracts. We never really had a manufacturing sector that was geared up for exports, especially given our proximity to Asia, our manufacturing simply wouldn't be able to compete.

Trying to conclude that New Zealand is a developing country simply because we don't have the same kinds of exports or economic sectors dominating the economy is demonstrating a fundamental lack of not only New Zealand's economic history but also our geographic position and our lack of suitable natural resources to sustain it.

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

The development indicators are largely economic and the OP and yourself have demonstrated an inability to understand this. Quality of Life is largely determined through a multitude of factors and is often combined in indexes such as the Legatum Prosperity Index, which measures safety, governance, education, healthcare, social capital and personal freedoms.

New Zealand is a high income country with a high Human Development Index, so from an economic perspective we are a developed economy, irrespective of what that economy contains. New Zealand has a high quality of life compared with a number of countries around the world. This means New Zealand is a developed country socially, because it has strong and efficient governance, low or negligible corruption and is able to provide high quality healthcare treatment and educational outcomes for its citizens.

The same also applies to Canada.

[Geilinor]

Having large unsettled areas has nothing to do with a country's wealth or living standards. Geography is something countries have no control over. Norway has large unsettled areas despite its massive wealth, for example.

[Reagan-land]

If it was "developing" liberals wouldn't constantly be threatening to move there

Lots of people moved to the US when we were developing.

As in the 1800s...? Its very vague to say "when we were developing"

[Infected Mushroom]

There's not much room for debate on development if we use the official means of deciding it: the Human Development Index. And Canada is extremely developed by that standard.

its flawed, honestly

[The Empire of Pretantia]

There's not much room for debate on development if we use the official means of deciding it: the Human Development Index. And Canada is extremely developed by that standard.

its flawed, honestly

Coming out of your mouth, that's hard to believe.

[New confederate ramenia]

Lots of people moved to the US when we were developing.

As in the 1800s...? Its very vague to say "when we were developing"

1800s. And even now, we still get a lot of immigration.

its flawed, honestly

Coming out of your mouth, that's hard to believe.

argumentum ad hominum malum est

[The Empire of Pretantia]

As in the 1800s...? Its very vague to say "when we were developing"

1800s. And even now, we still get a lot of immigration.

Coming out of your mouth, that's hard to believe.

argumentum ad hominum malum est

What did you say about my mother?

But seriously, this is IM. When he says something like,"It's flawed honestly,"it's safe to discard his post.

[Camicon]

Anyone with even a passing understanding of the literature on developed and developing nations knows which one Canada falls squarely into.

Hint: it's not the one occupied by CAR.

[The Two Jerseys]

Anyone with even a passing understanding of the literature on developed and developing nations knows which one Canada falls squarely into.

Hint: it's not the one occupied by CAR.

But didn't you read the definitions of "developed nation" and "developing nation" in the Wikipedia articles the Mushroom Brigade linked to?

You know, the articles that flat-out say that Canada is a developed nation...

[New confederate ramenia]

Anyone with even a passing understanding of the literature on developed and developing nations knows which one Canada falls squarely into.

Hint: it's not the one occupied by CAR.

"lol everyone knows just read the literature" is not a refutation of the points made by the OP.

[Aggicificicerous]

Anyone with even a passing understanding of the literature on developed and developing nations knows which one Canada falls squarely into.

Hint: it's not the one occupied by CAR.

"lol everyone knows just read the literature" is not a refutation of the points made by the OP.

The points made by the OP have already been refuted, in large part by the OP's own sources.

[New confederate ramenia]

There's no such thing as a "developed" country.

[MERIZoC]

There's not much room for debate on development if we use the official means of deciding it: the Human Development Index. And Canada is extremely developed by that standard.

its flawed, honestly

And yet it's what your entire argument has to revolve around.

[New confederate ramenia]

its flawed, honestly

And yet it's what your entire argument has to revolve around.

No it isn't.

[Rhodevus]

As a Canadian: Canada is a developed nation. Why would anyone think otherwise? Canada has tons of land. BUT 70% plus is freaking cold and covered in ice and snow most of the year. Who would want to live there?? So, we have a smaller population centered around major locations to compensate.

We have tons of land, therefore we have tons of resources. Why the hell would we stop exporting those resources and export more secondary and tertiary items? It makes no sense. Export what is best for your country. And for us, that is (unfortunately) oil and petrolium. That does not make us a developing country. That makes us a developed country that knows how to manage its resources.

Now, onto technology. Which according to the definition of a developed country (just look up definition of developed country and it is right there) must be pretty advanced. Canada is on par with the US in the technology front. Yes, we do get a ton of stuff from the USA, but we also make our own stuff. We have our own aerospace industry, computer companies, phone companies, etc. You don't see that with developing countries, who import all their high quality tech. We have created inventions which you would not find being created in developing countries: walkie-talkies, the Canadarm (1 and 2), IMAX screens and pacemakers (and snowblowers, but hey. Canada).

Now, to relate this all back to other points I have read on this thread. Canada has a low population, therefore it is not utilizing its resources and space properly... Canada is mostly forest and tundra, and I vote we keep it that way. Best not to end up overcrowded and filled with cities with lead poisoning problems... Also, the USA has more people than Russia, so why aren't we making the argument that Russia is a developing country?

Apparently our transportation system is lacking... Lacking how? We have roads everywhere. We have highways going across the entire country. We have trains going everywhere in the country. the only places that are lacking in transportation systems are our territories, and I do think we should build up some of that infrastructure. But, I bet there are HUGE parts of the USA with terrible roads and are very hard to get to. Oh, I bet those parts are pretty empty as well.

Lastly, the purchasing power of the Canadian Dollar. It is only recently that the dollar has been sliding downhill. For most of the time, it has been comparable and sometimes HIGHER than the purchasing power of the US dollar. It is pretty terrible now, but give it a couple of years and it will be right back to normal.

So, in short. Canada is developed.