Talk:Developed country

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brianburma.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Use a more up to date map in the lead?

The current world map used for the image in the lead is from 2008. Could we replace it with a more current one? Does someone have one available? It might be useful to keep the 2008 image further down below in the main body to show any changes (if there were any significant ones). EMsmile (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile I assume you refer to File:IMF advanced UN least developed.svg. You might have gotten a reply earlier if you pinged the map authors: @Crab2814, Wikimaps34, LaundryPizza03, JShark, Batreeq, Allice Hunter, CLWKevin, Smurfy, and Spacepotato: 2022 IMF list is here: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2022/01/weodata/groups.htm _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to create a new map with up-to-date info. − Allice Hunter ^(Inbox) 17:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to it, User:Allice Hunter. Thanks also for the ping, User:Piotrus, I hadn't thought of pinging map authors. Somehow thought that map had just been taken from somewhere. EMsmile (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile and Allice Hunter: I'm pretty sure I updated the map recently, specifically with regards to countries like Equatorial Guinea that have undergone a recent status change. Also, the map has South Sudan on it, so it can't be from 2008. Either way, you could have just updated the existing one instead of creating a new map from scratch. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Old map
• 
  New map

@LaundryPizza03: sorry for that. I only realised the map was up-to-date after I uploaded the new map and checked the old versions of the old one. Well it still had the upload date in the filename. At least, in my opinion, the new version is easier to see (especially Europe) due to using another projection and not having Antarctica on it. − Allice Hunter ^(Inbox) 11:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Something I'd like to note is that the current division into advanced, developing and least developed is problematic. Any classifications that doesn't distinguish between Poland & Hungary and Kenya & Nigeria, for example, is a joke (likewise, I've visited Poland and Czech Republic often, and I can tell you that there is no visible difference between them, so anyone who thinks crossing the border between one and the other will be noticeable will be for quite a surprise). I know, I know, we just report the data, it's IMF that calls the shots, but that's why such terms are seriously flawed. FYI I am doing some research work in which we considered a slit into developing and developed countries, but it's simply no going to work with the IMF data (Poland=/=Kenya). I think we will be dividing the world into G7+Advanced Economy+EU vs the rest, which mostly correlates to HDI 0.85+ (note that HDI 0.8+, which is their "very highly developed countries" bracket, is rather too broad as well). Frankly, World Bank high-income economy is much better at showing the division between what we usually think is developed and developing (that, or HDI 0.85+). PS. For the map, I think making one based on Developed_country#Comparative_table_(2022) might be valuable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out this map issue. I've just improved the image caption in the lead to made it clear who has classified the countries like this and when. Should we show the old map further down for comparison/archiving purposes? - @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus I share your pain; maybe we can alert readers to these issues to make them more aware of the the "crude" nature of this classification. I also wonder how we can avoid too much overlap between this article and the one on developing countries which presumably should have the same maps. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Split up ranking table

The table used for ranking developed economies is way too large, and is not mobile friendly. On a desktop it massively expands the size of the page. It needs to be trimmed down and broken up into multiple tables. 161.151.254.42 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What all crap!

QUOTE: Many developed countries were only seen to have "developed" from the Industrial Age which preceded the age of colonialism, which redistributed the wealth of countries such as India during the British colonisation of India during Europe's rivalry for conquest of the world.[7 END OF QUOTE

India was created by the English rule. And the millions of slave populations were liberated. As of now, literally millions live like worms in India. No one cares about them. The academic creep who wrote the misinformation about the English rule should be made to experience life as a menial servant under the Indian bosses. Current this creep will be earning around 30 to 40 times the earnings of a common citizen in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.188.14 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

guinea papua new guinea=least developed

Rich in gas, gold and copper, Papua New Guinea is also one of the world's least developed countries. Most of the population lives in remote communities that can be only be reached by aircraft or on foot. Oil, gas and mining account for almost 30% of the country's gross domestic product.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.197.230 (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed criticism (needs a rewrite)

I removed the criticism section, here's my rationale: this entire section should go, due to WP:NPOV attitude (this article has no praise section, and the one on developing countries, no criticism of them); second, this is OR/poorly referenced - mostly to random newspaper editorials, and not a single source provides a criticism of developed countries as a group, they are mostly rants against one particular country, mashed together (WP:SYNTH). Arguably the worst as about Korea, some fringe hateful interpretation of Korean Miracle in the form of "Additionally, some countries involvement in proxy wars such as South Korea's involvement in Vietnam secured it $993 million in earnings for siding with American forces, propelling it from a poor country to one of the richest countries on Earth due to undue gains.", referenced to a work about Korean history that mentions numerous reasons for Korea's improvement, in which their involvement in Vietnam was a pretty minor aspect.

This is not to say such a section cannot be restored, but it needs to be based on sources discussing criticism of developed countries as a whole, not on newspaper rants about how one particular country pillaged a colony or several. Criticism of developed countries is very much a thing in scholarly literature, and such a section should discuss stuff related to explanations of international inequality, ex. Dependency theory and World-systems theory.

Since much of the current section was a compilation of newspaper rants (ex. "How Britain Looted $45 Trillion From India", "[Aboriginal Australians 'still suffering effects of colonial past' Aboriginal Australians 'still suffering effects of colonial past']", "Swiss kept billions in looted Nazi gold", "How Korea got Rich", etc.), I removed it per WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

America's involvement in Vietnam was a major historical event for the latter. Don't forget that.

Re: Piotrus

Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Not only is America's, but other countries' as well.
Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is very relevant to the history of Vietnam but mostly WP:UNDUE here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Pending recognitions???

I see so many pending recognitions on the comparative table sections. What are the pending recognitions? Why there's no explanation about this??? -GogoLion (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

the 2019 world competitiveness ranking in the table should be updated to the 2022 (latest) version. 99.126.180.106 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The OECD requirement

Why countries that don't join OECD are called "to be considered"? I mean, OECD is an economic alliance, not really an economic institution. I think IMF and World Bank are enough for the classification. -GogoLion (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Monaco Per capita PPP 2022

Monaco is shown as not meeting this requirement. That is not true. Perhaps introduce an additional source if missing from the quoted one. 78.61.238.109 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

IMF map issue

Returning to an issue previously brought up by @Piotrus regarding classification. I think that keeping the IMF map in the lead is misleading and it gives undue weight to the methodology used by the organization. IMF should not be used unilaterally as an indicator of a developed country, especially considering their biased reclassification criteria.

Per FAQ on the IMF website: Reclassification only happens when something marked changes or the case for change in terms of the three criteria above becomes overwhelming. For example, Lithuania joining the euro area was a significant change in circumstances that warranted a reclassification from an emerging market and developing economy to an advanced economy. Most reclassifications in recent years were related to countries joining the euro area. This language is ambiguous as far as methodology goes and implies that reclassification of countries like Poland or Hungary will (most likely) not happen until they switch to EUR, which is hardly an economically fair standard for "admission". Polish zloty, for example, is the strongest currency in East Central Europe (outside of Eurozone, of course) and much stronger than Swedish krona. While the EU dictates an eventual switch to EUR, Poland should not be expected to switch to EUR as a condition to be considered a developed country by the IMF. This is all to say, fine to keep the map in the article, but I propose it be moved from the lead. Ppt91^talk 19:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 Maybe good to ping other folks involved in the discussion a year ago? Rather then removing, I'd prefer to replace the map with a better one (or several). One biased map is still superior to no map at all. Moving, however, is fine. I note we have two maps in the lead. Are you ok with UNCTAD one? Side note: less famous classification, but at World-systems theory we still use a map from 2000 because, AFAIK, nothing new has been published on that since, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Uruguay should be classified as developed

Uruguay has a gdp per capita higher than Croatia and Croatia was declared a developed country in 2023 but not Uruguay That does not make sense. Alejandro221 (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You would have to take this up with the external body that declared this, Wikipedia merely reports on what other sources say. CMD (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)