someone didn’t care to pay attention in school or grammar, he/she means that he/she thinks that no African nations are ridiculous because that’s where most poor countries are
Already in the USSR, the Western regions were richer than Siberia and Central Asia. Some countries (e.g. Estonia, Russia, Kazakhstan) have been able to rebuild their economy after independence. The ones that haven't (e.g. Moldova, Ukraine, Tajikistan), have had an unstable political situation and now are poorer than during the Cold War.
I mostly learned about Moldova from having a college roommate from there for a while (I wound up with a LOT of East European housemates over the three years I lived in a student rental...). I knew where it was on the map, and that was about it (that impressed him enough as it was!), and he was happy to tell me about how poor it was, but conversely how much cheaper everything was there too. Being landlocked and formerly a part of the USSR certainly didn't help it. :P Also, the guy was trilingual from growing up there, he spoke fluent Romanian, Russian AND English and spoke decent French too. DAMN was I jealous.
Indeed, the latest data would include East Timor; we could also have the Palestine debate, but let's save that for another day and just include East Timor. :)
Surprised that Pakistan is listed as 11th poorest nation in this list when it is listed 10th greatest Armaments Importer 2015.... it's all a matter of priorities.
Its because one of their provinces has tribal people, and those millions of people just move around and dont accept gov aid, the rest of the nation is relatively stable
Sigh! Try two of the former Soviet "Stans" and they aren't in it so give up on them and move along. Sure enough the other three are the three answers I missed.
Evers15, first of all read the title and the directions for this quiz. If you're so good at geography and you can't figure that out I'm going to crack up XD. NO AFRICAN COUNTRIES
It's a common misconception to assume that dictatorships correlate with poverty. Keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is both incredibly autocratic and incredibly wealthy, and that South Korea and Singapore had incredible developmental successes under dictators.
Political instability and corruption correlate better with poverty than just autocracy. China is a very stable dictatorship; India is a pretty unstable democracy. It's pretty clear which one is doing better now economically. I'm not endorsing dictatorship of course, I just want to point this out.
It's amazing that no matter how many quizzes I do, I NEVER see Suriname or Guyana on any of them. I could have sworn that one of them would be a shoe-in for this one.
@furqanahmad Is that what they teach you in Pakistani Madrasas? India is certainly not the poorest. Infact it is is far better than any of the countries in South Asia.
India only barely avoids inclusion on this list. Pretty dirt poor country. It's just not the lowest of the low. And actually if you take away the PPP adjustment then it's poorer than Honduras, Vietnam, Laos, Moldova and Bolivia.
I know how that country should be spelled, but it usually takes me several times to make my fingers type it correctly. It always takes up time for me. When I'm Queen of the World, I'll change the name to Kystan. :)
They both have some but not as much as their neighbors; corruption, political turmoil and civil war have kept their resources from being fully exploited.
It amazes me how dirt poor the former Soviet republics of Central Asia are (with the exception of Kazakhstan). I mean, they were part of a superpower until not so long ago and yet they make this list - a list the likes of Iraq and Vietnam miss out on.
Every superpower had areas that were not as modern or prosperous, especially one as huge and wide ranging as the USSR.
And you realize the soviet communist/socialist system itself is to blame for leaving those areas high and dry once the USSR broke up? It's not by coincidence that there is a ton of corruption and poor governance, and very little in the way of proper support for entrepreneurship there.
The Soviet -stans are landlocked and lack natural resources. Given that, they'd need some kind of innovative production economy to compete, which usually requires a government that is most interested in serving its people. The governments in this area tend to be autocratic and corrupt, with a primary interest in maintaining power and quelling dissent. You add in the facts that these countries were born of the Soviet economic system and they have many tribal citizens uninterested in economic might, and you've got a recipe for poverty.
I started tackling Asia first then kinda got in the zone and forgot this rest included other continents, then I nearly ran out of time scanning Asia for the 5th time for the countries I missed...
Can probably blame it on the Soviet Union
wrong correct me if I'm wrong???
Political instability and corruption correlate better with poverty than just autocracy. China is a very stable dictatorship; India is a pretty unstable democracy. It's pretty clear which one is doing better now economically. I'm not endorsing dictatorship of course, I just want to point this out.
*you could argue turkstan
plus then I would also say kyrstan
the only oceanian country from those islands between the asian continent and stralia is papua new guinea.
And you realize the soviet communist/socialist system itself is to blame for leaving those areas high and dry once the USSR broke up? It's not by coincidence that there is a ton of corruption and poor governance, and very little in the way of proper support for entrepreneurship there.