Elefane, Jewel V.

April 4, 2022
BPL2 – AB Political Science Reflection Paper 2
Deducing Poverty and Prosperity:
A Truism [Yet Vexed] Interest of Comparative Politics

As it remains highly ostensible, being acknowledged on my initial paper Twain Pattern of

Comparative Political Analysis: The Perfunctory and Profound Scrutiny of Nation-States,
comparative politics integrates the “over-all political experience of a particular nation-state
incorporating its historical and contemporary realities” (Elefane, 2022). It encompasses a thicker
interpretation of country’s scheme of operations, exhuming as profound as its institutions. These
“institutions” [either inclusive of extractive] critically characterizes the conduct of life in a state
involving the spheres of social, economy, and politics. And conceivably, comparative politics
adamantly entails the study of disparities among countries as it anticipates unveiling the
integrations and deviations of disparate states across the globe. Subsequently, on this account, I
will seek to divulge imperative circumstances in which countries deviates from being a poor and
rich country, embracing the [1] three general factors that determine whether a country will be
poor or rich, [2] and the specificities featuring productivity, factors of production, incentives,
good institutions, among others.
Profoundly, the matter of “what makes a country poor, while other are not?” stood as an
extremely recounted interest of comparative politics, even contemplating it has been standing for
a protracted period. Nonetheless, to unfold the general grounds, it persists vital to evoke the three
broad aspects that governs whether a country will be rich or poor – the [a] institutions, [b]
culture, and [c] geography. Primarily, poor countries exhibit a bad institutions while the rich
countries demonstrate its antithesis. This is substantiated by single cliché root, the corruption.
Rich countries are frequently the least corrupt, while poor countries are the most corrupt one.
Owing to such entrenched culture of corruption in poor countries, they stood flunked in
accumulating taxes to get a good institution. Yet, supplementarily centralizing on a further sort of
“corruption” in poor countries – the approach of appointing someone in position remains corrupt.
This is owing to the sways of clan-based thinking. Employment of an individual in poor countries
stood not founded on merit, but on personal connection. As an outcome, the capabilities of the
whole population weren’t maximized for the purpose of advancing the state. Secondly, citizens of
rich countries remain not highly associated with beliefs and religions, contrasting those in
poor countries who focuses on enriching spiritual self in an attempt to build a better life in
the next world instead. Yet, exclusion was given to United States who manages to meld
religiosity with economic growth. This is barely on the actuality that they are exploiting their
competence to alter their fate. And in due course, the latitude, connectivity, and geological
disclosure to which countries stood, remains a huge factor that dictates their doom. Poor
countries persist not coincidentally arranged in tropical regions. Determinants akin to unfortunate
quality of soil for agriculture, existence of unwanted flies that destroys productivity of large,
domesticated animals, and human diseases are hardly any of the motives why in spite of having
resources to invest in, poor countries remain poor. Moreover, conversing across the
“connectivity”, it rests not on happenstance that poor countries stood sited on a landlocked area –
such in the cases of Afghanistan, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Africa. Apart from this, considering the
“geological disclosure”, it remains imperative to be prompted by the paradoxical circumstance of
“resources trap”. Poor countries often hold spades of natural resources, contrasting those of the
first world countries who frequently invest in manufacturing. Conceivably, it is factual that natural

Page 1 of 3
resources serve as an “intensifier”. Such in the case of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – it
holds m ost of the world’s coltan, a mineral that accurately every mobile phone has. Yet, it remains
a poor country due to mismanagement and lack of discipline to mining companies. Disparate from
DRC, the economically rich and resource-rich country of Botswana managed to maximize its
people’s expertise while maintaining discipline among the companies overseeing the extractions
of natural resources.
Profoundly unfolding the specificities of “why countries are poor, while others are rich”,
it remains vital to evoke the certainty that some countries are rich owing to their high
productivity. This high productivity stood attributed to a better and more factors of
production. Rich countries engender a lot of physical capital akin to shovels, tractors, roads,
among others. Furthermore, they better invest in education, training, and experience which renders
a “well-built” human capital. These people, have a swift access to technological knowledge which,
as a result, affords them critical knowledge in understanding genetics, soil composition, and
chemistry. And eventually, these physical and human capital, as well as technological knowledge,
are adequately organized for the purpose of generating valuable goods and services. The
justification in the wake of such “better factors of production” lies on the incentives. Such in
the case of China, who’s currently recognized as an economic powerhouse, their economic growth
remains stagnant not until their farmers stood permitted to keep the product of their efforts. This
inexorably entails that when effort was divorced from payment, there stands a diminutive incentive
to work productively. And ultimately, the grounds at the flip side of “good incentives” is the
“good institutions”. A “good institution” entails the presence of an efficient property rights,
honest government, dependable legal system, political stability, and competitive or open markets
– all of which are portrayals of an Inclusive Institutions. Institutions can be either Inclusive or
Extractive. Inclusive Economic Institutions [distinct from Extractive Economic Institution who
fail to enforce property rights, contracts, regulations, financial arrangements, and education]
stipulates a tenable property rights, establishes a judicial system that imposes contracts and
indorses law, tolerate private party to sign contracts for economic or financial connections,
preserve fairly open and free entry into diverse industries and profession, empower people to
obtain assistances and education, and eventually inclines to cohabit with diverse sorts of political
institutions. By way of illustration, South Korea, who’s GDP per capita is $24,479 and HDI lies
on 17th highest spot in the world, portrays an Inclusive Economic Institution. It stimulates
participation of great majority of its population on economic activities for the purpose of advancing
their capacities, exhibiting the principles of universality and non-discrimination. Contrariwise,
North Korea, who’s GDP per capita is $583 and HDI remains not recognizable due to stringent
data disclosure, portrays an Extractive Economic Institutions. The citizens of this country grow up
devoid of high-quality education, no chances of possessing private property or business, and no
prospects for the access to markets where they can maximize their potentials. Predominantly, an
inclusive institution, contrasting the extractive ones, cultivates economic activity, productivity,
and prosperity that in the long run equates to a rich country.
In consonance with the aforementioned assertion, comparative politics goes beyond
understanding the form of government of a country. It necessitates an in-depth comprehension of
the schemes, conditions, background, and history of a particular nation. Analogous to the ways in
which the matter of “why countries are poor, while others are not?” was being unfurled, there
persists a variety of queries that comparative politics can respond to such as “why some extractive
institutions [e.g., China] remains rich, while other are not [e.g., North Korea]?” – which is implies
another distinct and supplementarily prolonged discourse.

Page 2 of 3
 References

ABS-CBN News. (2020). Dissecting Data: How to measure poverty in PH?. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjAqzH5EO1Q&t=10s

Devex. (2016). How inclusive institutions bring development to resource-rich nations. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOBrvcalAQE

Elefane, J. (2022). Twain Pattern of Comparative Political Analysis: The Perfunctory and
Profound Scrutiny of Nation-States.

Kenya Digital Archives. (2020). Why some countries are poor and others rich?. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMUjR7TBv6M&t=5s

Macroeconomic IE Projects. (2018). Extractive and Inclusive Institutions. Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRYzC5jZpdk

Marginal Revolution University. (2017). Puzzle of Growth: Rich Countries and Poor Countries.
Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5P8AZRBLac&t=429s

Page 3 of 3