Economic patterns since 1950

[DanielX]

My personal conclusions:
1. Nations that have politically unstable countries generally aren't good places for economic growth. Instability has been rampant in Latin America and Africa in the past 50 years, less so in Asia, and minimal in most of Europe or North America.
2. Formerly unstable areas that have gained a measure of political and economic stability perform very well indeed. In 1950, Europe and East Asia were both suffering the aftereffects of an extremely destructive war. However, with newfound stability and investment, they prospered.
3. Generally nations that have policies that are friendly to industry are good for growth, at least for nations that started out very poor. Much of Southeast Asia has embraced 'sweatshop labor' in the past few decades; much of it is poor but the economies grow rapidly unlike the hellholes of Africa.
4. Redistributionist economics only work when there's capital to redistribute (ie not well in third world countries - see Argentina for an example of a place where redistributionism failed; Venezuela is another case), and when such policies are implemented gradually, consistently, and in a manner that does not overly impede upon individual liberties. Too much, or too inefficient, can lead to short bursts of growth followed by long malaises (think France or Japan or 1960s-70s USA).
5. Free Democracies that last for 10 years or more almost always outperform autocratic regimes, unless the autocracies are unusually permissive in economic activities (such as post-1970s China, Pinochet's Chile, or Singapore).
6. Nations that 'wall themselves off' with high tariffs and restrictions do not do very well economically (especially combined with #5).
7. Unless their leaders have massive economic savvy or there's a simply gargantuan amount of unrealized growth potential, regimes that engage in near-total economic control generally speaking do not do very well (combine with 5 and 6, and you've got the situation in North Korea).
8. Tourism can be a big help - for any economy (see several European countries or the Caribbean). France's economic growth is, I think, largely a result of it being the world's #1 tourist country.
9. During the main Imperialist period, despite mistreatments and malinvestments, the Empires generally speaking had a stake in making their territories at least minimally competant in economics - and they often invested in a territories' infrastructure, for instance, for their own benefit but had the side effect of improving the nation's infrastructure. They also provided political stability. Their mistreatment of the populace and lack of investment in heavy industry might have actually been a spur for economic growth in the newly independent nations, except for a few things: 1. The Empires didn't really have an interest in actually preparing their colonies, especially in Africa, for independence. Generally they held on until the price became too high, then just cast them off without preparation. 2. The new leaders of the countries were autocratic, often at odds with each other, and implemented a modified redistributionist system in which the former empire's assets in the territory were redistributed into their own pockets. 3. The Empires (mainly European, as the US played little part in Africa) continued to intervene, not to promote democracy but to prop up favored governments and ensure a consistent supply of raw materials while dissuading heavy industry. 4. Old ethnic conflicts, dulled by the Europeans, re-awakened when they left - like the Hutu/Tutsi conflict. Thanks to these, the conditions in Africa, especially, declined.