Poorest European Countries/Richest African countries

[ingemann]

I've always wondered about African countries like Gabon that nominally post decent GDP and HDI numbers but that don't often make subjective lists of relatively-rich parts of the continent. Are these actually okay places to live for the average person to the same extent that, say, Botswana is, or do their governments just pump a bunch of resource-exports money into favored sectors of society?

It depends - Botswana has much higher living standards than most of Africa, even if it still has a quite surprising levels of rural poverty that you might not expect from a country with a similar income to, say, Thailand. In contrast, Equatorial Guinea is a disaster, and has pretty bad living standards even by African standards - such is the breathtaking kleptocracy of the ruling regime.

Honestly, the best place in Africa to live is probably Mauritius. Seychelles would be there too, but it has a pretty nasty problem with heroin addiction.

The island countries in Africa in general seem better off than the mainland (Mauritius, Seychelles, Cabo Verde, etc). Is this real, and is there a reason behind it?

I wouldn't pretend to have any expertise on the matter, but they are all settler societies - and those tend to always be slightly better off - and all had fairly specific roles in their respective colonial empires. So Cape Verde had the slave trade (erm) transit point thing, Mauritius had the sugar cane economy and import of indentures labourers. So they were colonised earlier, and for a different purpose than the typical scramble for Africa experience. All that contrasts the the likes of Madagascar and Comoros, which are much poorer, and had a different experience of settlement and colonisation.

(or to put it bluntly, a large part of the reason they are wealthier is racism, pure and simple).

Plus then they generally have had more post-independence stability and in the case of Cape Verde, Mauritius and the Seychelles, been able to develop succesful tourist industries. Although whether this was all helped by the points in the first paragraph is an argument you could make.

In what way? Do racism magical cause money to materialize in people's hands?

Countries which are less unequal and more stable are better places top live and invest. When American companies outsource to East Asia instead of West Africa even through the labor cost are cheaper in West Africa, it's not because of racism but because it's a better investment thanks to other factors like stability, infrastructure and a strong monopoly of force.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In what way? Do racism magical cause money to materialize in people's hands?

Well, in the history of Africa, quite often.

[walleye26]

I know that island nations like Seychelles have decent tourism industries and haven’t had issues with civil strife. I also know that Botswana has a pretty good, stable government.

I was wondering about Kenya and Morocco. Some of my friends went on mission trips to Kenya, and while there is a lot of poverty, they went all over and felt relatively safe.

Morocco seems to have a decent standard of living compared to the rest of the continent, and has decent ties with Europe. Their government seems to be ok, and they didn’t get hit bad with uprisings like other counties during Arab Spring. Morocco seems ok, I’m surprised nobody has mentioned it. Am I missing something?

[Red Velvet]

South Africa may be richer than Moldova, but I would still rather live in Moldova than in South Africa as a random citizen.

There’s no reason for this other than you know what.
Besides economic, there’s not even cultural reason, as SA is way more lively country too. Moldova and some other European countries (including some of the rich) just look depressing as hell.

Doesn't South Africa have one of the highest crime rates in the world?

That depends on where you live because of high inequality gap. If most people here moved to South Africa, I would guess they would go to the best and safest neighborhoods, which look very appealing and not really much different from most developed places in the world.

While the better options in Moldova, still look quite depressing and without potential of growth, like it was stuck in a past that won’t return. There’s this decadence feel mixed with the depressing vibes.

Moldova is not your standard impoverish post Soviet Republic, it's a impoverish post Soviet Republic with rich soil, water and mediterranean climate (at least in the southern half). Also the people I know who moved to Moldova lived like kings just without having to live in gated communities like in South Africa.

That sounds like a stereotype of a very particular type of elite neighborhood, not just any good safe place in the big city. If anything these places tend to be further away in South Africa instead of in the center of the big cities. Again, depends of what specific region and area you go.

But I’m getting we have very different definitions on the matter, as the poster above mentioned, maybe even US big cities would be seen as “dangerous” by average European. Even if I see no difference between US big cities and European big cities in terms of safety other than the number of population being larger (and naturally bigger the city, bigger the risks, but you just gotta be street smart and not dumb to enter dangerous areas).

If anything, I saw a robbery in Europe while I was there, but not in NYC lol

[parochial boy]

In what way? Do racism magical cause money to materialize in people's hands?

Countries which are less unequal and more stable are better places top live and invest. When American companies outsource to East Asia instead of West Africa even through the labor cost are cheaper in West Africa, it's not because of racism but because it's a better investment thanks to other factors like stability, infrastructure and a strong monopoly of force.

Well, think about the demographic and economic effct that a certain industry may have had on Western Africa. Said industry didn't just impact the people who were transported themselves, but on the whole economic ecosystem of the region, and that was a major long term impact.

Even ignoring that, think about the way those countries were colonised, the way borders were drawn, the way they were governed (brutally in some cases, nepotistically and corruptly in others, both in a lot), the interference that has gone on since the 1960s, the resources that were extracted and who actually benefited. You know, quite a lot of things. I'm surprised you seem to have never encountered these points before to be honest.

In contrast, large swathes of Asia have been incredibly unstable since the end of the colonial era. But are still better off than comparatively more stable African countries.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

South Africa may be richer than Moldova, but I would still rather live in Moldova than in South Africa as a random citizen.

There’s no reason for this other than you know what.
Besides economic, there’s not even cultural reason, as SA is way more lively country too. Moldova and some other European countries (including some of the rich) just look depressing as hell.

Doesn't South Africa have one of the highest crime rates in the world?

That depends on where you live because of high inequality gap. If most people here moved to South Africa, I would guess they would go to the best and safest neighborhoods, which look very appealing and not really much different from most developed places in the world.

While the better options in Moldova, still look quite depressing and without potential of growth, like it was stuck in a past that won’t return. There’s this decadence feel mixed with the depressing vibes.

Honestly, even poorer countries than South Africa would still be more appealing than Moldova, as long as I stayed in the bigger cities. I would go live in Nairobi, Kenya as a “Mzungu” for example, before even considering going to Moldova.

South Africa still >>> Kenya or Nigeria simply because it’s more liberal, being one of the first places in the world to legalize Gay marriage. Besides the economy.

I’m now starting to question which countries I would put below Moldova in the list and there’s only little. Maybe only in comparison with the real poorest in Africa.

Ukraine would be more appealing than Moldova and also some of these African countries I mentioned. But I would still easily pick South Africa over it.

I think it’s weird picking country to live based on one stat tbh, ignoring the contexts. As if it was easy reason when there are others.

I think that's misunderstanding the question then, because a white person in Kenya or South Africa isn't an "average" citizen, and the question talks about average. It's obviously a lot better to be an average citizen in Moldova, who can get a Romanian passport and then move through the EU, or even just stay in Moldova, then it is to be a regular citizen in South Africa with limited prospects.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, think about the demographic and economic effct that a certain industry may have had on Western Africa. Said industry didn't just impact the people who were transported themselves, but on the whole economic ecosystem of the region, and that was a major long term impact.

The same... industry... had an impact on other parts of the continent further east as well - a little less intense, but it went on for longer. In both cases it also contributed to long-term centrifugal tendencies (that outlast the... industry... itself, because this is the sort of thing that can't be put back in a box) as certain petty states became the predators of other petty states and peoples.

[ingemann]

In what way? Do racism magical cause money to materialize in people's hands?

Countries which are less unequal and more stable are better places top live and invest. When American companies outsource to East Asia instead of West Africa even through the labor cost are cheaper in West Africa, it's not because of racism but because it's a better investment thanks to other factors like stability, infrastructure and a strong monopoly of force.

Well, think about the demographic and economic effct that a certain industry may have had on Western Africa. Said industry didn't just impact the people who were transported themselves, but on the whole economic ecosystem of the region, and that was a major long term impact.

Even ignoring that, think about the way those countries were colonised, the way borders were drawn, the way they were governed (brutally in some cases, nepotistically and corruptly in others, both in a lot), the interference that has gone on since the 1960s, the resources that were extracted and who actually benefited. You know, quite a lot of things. I'm surprised you seem to have never encountered these points before to be honest.

In contrast, large swather of Asia have been incredibly unstable since the end of the colonial era. But are still better off that comparitively more stable African countries.

A impressive mix of factors. The transatlantic slave trade de fato ended as a major factor around 1830 almost 50 years before the Berlin Conference. While the transaharan slave trade was in decline through the 19th century thanks to European states disrupting the west part of it and the eastern sea route. In fact the end of it was a major factor which enabled the European states to conquer Africa, simply because they disrupted the African states main source of income by removing the income from the slave trade.

As for borders based on ethnicity in Africa, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Burundi all have a single dominant ethnic group. You could only change the border with hindsight in Africa, outside Nigeria coastal West Africa tend to have border which makes a lot of sense and relative little ethnic strife.

Also European ran Africa pretty much like they ran Asia and the colonies was equally poor in 1960.

Africa have a lot of problem Western or any other outside racism toward Africans isn't even in the top ten.

[Conservatopia]

South Africa may be richer than Moldova, but I would still rather live in Moldova than in South Africa as a random citizen.

Moldova is so aggressively poor and ugly. It's basically the only non-Balkan country in Europe I consider unlivable.

Besides Br*tain, of course.

That's Great Britain to you.

[ingemann]

Well, think about the demographic and economic effct that a certain industry may have had on Western Africa. Said industry didn't just impact the people who were transported themselves, but on the whole economic ecosystem of the region, and that was a major long term impact.

The same... industry... had an impact on other parts of the continent further east as well - a little less intense, but it went on for longer. In both cases it also contributed to long-term centrifugal tendencies (that outlast the... industry... itself, because this is the sort of thing that can't be put back in a box) as certain petty states became the predators of other petty states and peoples.

The biggest problem with the slave trade is that it caused a societal distrust, when everyone preyed on everyone else for the sake of money. The fact that it also created states, those funding depended on the industry and that industry was suddenly disrupted. Which left a region with low social trust, malthusian issues as much of the population was no longer exported for trading goods, states whose source of funding had dried up, religious conflicts and technological superior outsiders entering the scene.

[parochial boy]

A impressive mix of factors. The transatlantic slave trade de fato ended as a major factor around 1830 almost 50 years before the Berlin Conference. While the transaharan slave trade was in decline through the 19th century thanks to European states disrupting the west part of it and the eastern sea route. In fact the end of it was a major factor which enabled the European states to conquer Africa, simply because they disrupted the African states main source of income by removing the income from the slave trade.

As for borders based on ethnicity in Africa, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Burundi all have a single dominant ethnic group. You could only change the border with hindsight in Africa, outside Nigeria coastal West Africa tend to have border which makes a lot of sense and relative little ethnic strife.

Also European ran Africa pretty much like they ran Asia and the colonies was equally poor in 1960.

Africa have a lot of problem Western or any other outside racism toward Africans isn't even in the top ten.

Erm, err, how do I put this... What do you think, has been, the, er, defining sort of thing in the post-colonial history of those two countries? I'll give you a clue, the events of 1994 in the first one; based on a division that the Belgian colonial administration had fuelled.

The other countries are not actually ethnically homogenous - Mugabe led a nasty ethnic cleansing against the minority Ndebele in Zimbabwe; Somalia may on the face of it seem homogenously "Somali" but that is papering over the actual social divisions that exist in the country in a similar way to have describing Algeria as homogenously "arab" would be pretty misleading.

As for the slave trade - as I hinted at, and Al made a bit clearer (among other things, certain ethnic groups were essentially charged with "harvesting" slaves for transportation, wars were started with this objective, regions were depopulated, economies and cultures destroyed...) - the way it disrupted societies in West Africa, the Sahel and further afield was a deep, long term, structural disaster. It had profound impacts on the way those societies worked which were then immediately pushed into colonial administrations and artifically constructed borders in a way that meant they were never given the chance to heal.

Racism isn't the only problem Africa has faced. In fact it's a massive continent inhabited by over a billion people. It is enourmously diverse politically, culturally and economically in way that you can't even begin to generalise. But to argue that racism and the consequential way that the continent has been treated by the western powers hasn't been a major factor in fuelling poverty and instability across the continent means shutting your eyes to a lot of what has actually gone on there.

[Sol]

This thread reminds me of the rather sad post-independence economic history of Côte d'Ivoire, which initially was something of an economic success story after independence--only for that to collapse because it was all built on a near-monopoly on cocoa production which wasn't sustainable in the long term.

[H. Ross Peron]

South Africa may be richer than Moldova, but I would still rather live in Moldova than in South Africa as a random citizen.

There’s no reason for this other than you know what.
Besides economic, there’s not even cultural reason, as SA is way more lively country too. Moldova and some other European countries (including some of the rich) just look depressing as hell.

Doesn't South Africa have one of the highest crime rates in the world?

That depends on where you live because of high inequality gap. If most people here moved to South Africa, I would guess they would go to the best and safest neighborhoods, which look very appealing and not really much different from most developed places in the world.

While the better options in Moldova, still look quite depressing and without potential of growth, like it was stuck in a past that won’t return. There’s this decadence feel mixed with the depressing vibes.

Moldova is not your standard impoverish post Soviet Republic, it's a impoverish post Soviet Republic with rich soil, water and mediterranean climate (at least in the southern half). Also the people I know who moved to Moldova lived like kings just without having to live in gated communities like in South Africa.

That sounds like a stereotype of a very particular type of elite neighborhood, not just any good safe place in the big city. If anything these places tend to be further away in South Africa instead of in the center of the big cities. Again, depends of what specific region and area you go.

But I’m getting we have very different definitions on the matter, as the poster above mentioned, maybe even US big cities would be seen as “dangerous” by average European. Even if I see no difference between US big cities and European big cities in terms of safety other than the number of population being larger (and naturally bigger the city, bigger the risks, but you just gotta be street smart and not dumb to enter dangerous areas).

If anything, I saw a robbery in Europe while I was there, but not in NYC lol

I think we are talking about per capita crime rates here. Also 1) crime rates generally (despite an uptick in the past year) are down greatly since the 1970s/80s and 2) because of various factors New York City is especially well policed and has lower crime rates compared to most American cities. Highest murder rates in the US tend to be in Southern or Rust Belt cities-Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans come to mind.