they had this before and during communist parties. They had all 3, but opportunity and resources are time variables which was more governed (pun intended) by the rapid spread of industrialism itself.
I think there is a lot more going on in those regions than I can account for their lack of industrialism. short answer is I don’t know.
longer response is the whole opportunities, resource triad thing can be broken by cultural and other barriers. let’s use Amish folks as that example.
the Koreas had a slightly isolationist time during the broader revolutions and since have different outside influences so they have different periods of growth.
Can culture get changed through policy? I think so.
The soviet union was very heavily isolationist and still industrialized cause it was in their central plan to do it.
and russia and china didnt have this(only resources, opportunities, and localized wealth.) until the communist parties came to power?
they had this before and during communist parties. They had all 3, but opportunity and resources are time variables which was more governed (pun intended) by the rapid spread of industrialism itself.
why did it spread to south korea only in 1960? and not earlier? Why has it still not spread to africa and india today?
I think there is a lot more going on in those regions than I can account for their lack of industrialism. short answer is I don’t know.
longer response is the whole opportunities, resource triad thing can be broken by cultural and other barriers. let’s use Amish folks as that example.
the Koreas had a slightly isolationist time during the broader revolutions and since have different outside influences so they have different periods of growth.
Can culture get changed through policy? I think so. The soviet union was very heavily isolationist and still industrialized cause it was in their central plan to do it.
Edit: if you look at the export and import to gdp ratios https://www.reddit.com/user/nerbert123/comments/1czws2d/soviet_union_statistics/#lightbox