Countries With No Natural Resources Are The Luckiest Countries

Should a country be considered lucky if it sits on top of vast oil reserves? Or have caves studded with gems or mountains of gold?

Perhaps not.

Columnist Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times wrote an interesting article about how there's an inverse correlation between a country's natural and its human resources:

EVERY so often someone asks me: “What’s your favorite country, other than your own?”

I’ve always had the same answer: Taiwan. “Taiwan? Why Taiwan?” people ask.

Very simple: Because Taiwan is a barren rock in a typhoon-laden sea with no natural resources to live off of — it even has to import sand and gravel from China for construction — yet it has the fourth-largest financial reserves in the world. Because rather than digging in the ground and mining whatever comes up, Taiwan has mined its 23 million people, their talent, energy and intelligence — men and women. I always tell my friends in Taiwan: “You’re the luckiest people in the world. How did you get so lucky? You have no oil, no iron ore, no forests, no diamonds, no gold, just a few small deposits of coal and natural gas — and because of that you developed the habits and culture of honing your people’s skills, which turns out to be the most valuable and only truly renewable resource in the world today.

Link


The U.S. is very wealthy in resources. Human capital is very valuable, but raw materials are valuable too, and many nations that are rich in resources have managed to use them well, while many that haven't got hosed by imperialist exploitation.

Also, Friedman is a deeply confused person, which comes out in his writing.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Taiwan is a net timber importing country.

It certainly has a good agriculture industry, though one can argue that Taiwan's fishing industry isn't big enough for a nation-scale.

Friedman's point is that Taiwan's main "natural resource" is its human capital, not things it derives from the ground. Like Singapore and Hong Kong, it seems like countries that don't have sufficient natural resources turn very resourceful on utilizing its people. That's not a bad thing.

Taiwan, like other Asian countries, did suffer tremendously in the hands of the Japanese during WWII. If Japan stripped Taiwan of its natural resources, then the end game is the same: Taiwan is now still a country without natural resources.

I agree that Taiwan is a de facto country, though the reason that Taiwan isn't recognized by most countries in the world is not because they fear violence for Taiwan. It's because China is geopoliticaly more powerful.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Alex, Taiwan is 58% forested. It had a booming plywood industry during the '60s. It has excellent soils and climate for agriculture, fishery resources, and would be more self sufficient in sand and gravel had the Japanese not been so ruthless in exporting it during their occupation, which also saw intense timber mining for export. It is also, de facto, a country, (despite ill-founded claims by China) with a democratically elected government. It only lacks international recognition by the cowed countries who acquiesce to China's blustering and threats of violence against Taiwan.

If you are depending on people like Friedman to inform you on anything, you are likely to remain ignorant.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The point of the "resource curse" is exactly that - countries that are rich in natural resource somehow manage to squander them.

Blame their government, blame their culture - whatever. Point is, they still manage to squander that resource.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Friedman is a buffoon who routinely expresses his admiration of the Chinese communist state. You know, the ones who brought you hits like the Tienamen Square Massacre and Starving Millions and Forced Abortions. His envy of resource-poor nations is just as stupid. Managed properly, they are a boon. Managed improperly, they are a curse. It has infinitely more to do with the governing body than the resources themselves.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Interesting point, but I'd still say it's lucky to have abundant natural resources AND the latent human talent pool to capitalize on them. There are so many places in the world with relatively abundant resources where the human equation hasn't quite caught up.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Thomas was being metaphorical. Natural resource-wise, Taiwan is a "barren rock in the middle of a typhoon-laden sea".

It has no mining to speak of, no timber, no oil, no natural gas and no gold. It does have some coal, but that's not very significant.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Taiwan is a barren rock? I guess Thomas Friedman has never been there, even though he claims it's his second favorite country. Another incredibly stupid statement in what's looking like some kind of world record for serial cluelessness. Sometimes I think he just says stuff he knows is incredibly wrong and stupid just to see if anyone is gullible enough to publish it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It couldn't feel more true when living in Argentina.

Argentina has overabundance of resources: oil, copper, gold, silver, natural gas, uranium, lead, very fertile land, wood.
Yet it is squandered. Creating an unstable, uneducated and poor country.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 17 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Countries With No Natural Resources Are The Luckiest Countries"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More