Are Small and Homogeneous States More Prosperous?

[Pappa Alpha]

Are small and ethnically homogenous states more prosperous as compared to large and diverse states? By prosperity, I mean lower crime rate, less internal tensions, more accountability of leaders and so on.

I have seen lot of people proposing solution of the Kashmir problem and thinking that peace can be achieved after its solution. In my opinion, the only lasting solution for South Asia is balkanization of India and possibly Pakistan into smaller states. This will allow local accountability of each region while denying the corrupt to use ethnic card. This will also eliminate or reduce the threat of spoilers and possibly an EU like organization can emerge.

Feel free to share your opinion on this.

Note that the two nation theory still holds in this case as well:

"That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute 'independent states' in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign. "

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Are small and ethnically homogenous states more prosperous as compared to large and diverse states

Pretty much every small island country is poor

 

[Pappa Alpha]

Pretty much every island country is poor

that might be due to limitation of natural resources and/or manpower.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

that might be due to limitation of natural resources and/or manpower.

ok, small...but not THAT small.

Certainly land mass resources can affect the formula irrespective of population.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Are small and ethnically homogenous states more prosperous as compared to large and diverse states? By prosperity, I mean lower crime rate, less internal tensions, more accountability of leaders and so on.

I have seen lot of people proposing solution of the Kashmir problem and thinking that peace can be achieved after its solution. In my opinion, the only lasting solution for South Asia is balkanization of India and possibly Pakistan into smaller states. This will allow local accountability of each region while denying the corrupt to use ethnic card. This will also eliminate or reduce the threat of spoilers and possibly an EU like organization can emerge.

Feel free to share your opinion on this.

Note that the two nation theory still holds in this case as well:

"That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute 'independent states' in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign. "

What a great thread that looks at a incredibly complicated but important question. My short answer is a empatic yes. The tragedy of British imperialism was that they lumped entire continent into one mass. This is akin to Chinese conquering Europe and establishing a Chinese Raj in Europe. Then when they leave just two or three states are left behind in a geography that actually has over 30 states.

The fact is the bigger and diverse a country is the leadership ability, administrative efficacy, institutional proficiency have to be of absolute high standard. This is because of the extreme challanges that are posed by such diverse states. Unfortunately such countries rarely have such high standards either in the political or administrative arena. This is even more critical issue in developing countries who mostly have very poor political or administrative structures.

South Asia would have done far better had the region had at least dozen states. As each country matures a upward evolution can take place by joining in larger blocks like EU.

A good proof of the better efficacy of less diverse states and development can be seen in Bangladesh. That country haas done remarkably better then it did before 1971 when it was lumbered with the huge, unweildy, complicated, rickety federation over two wings.

Pretty much every small island country is poor

United Kingdom. That tiny isle that sired you, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc is poor, right? And so is Japan.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

United Kingdom. That tiny isle that sired you, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc is poor, right? And so is Japan.

Those are big islands. I'm talking about little island nations with mostly homogeneous populations.


Canada?

 

[Maula Jatt]

yep...
or its easier to be more prosperous - SC should have been like EU not big nation states

or I am thinking can a nation be so decentralized to the point that it practically becomes an EU with an army?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Those are big islands. I'm talking about little island nations with mostly homogeneous populations.


Canada?

I was talking about Britain which is a small island of the European continent yet has played pivotal role in global history as in have sired the list of countries I gave including USA and Canada. Japan also has played a outsized role yet is smal, homogenous island - yes I am awar of Ainu minority.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I was talking about Britain which is a small island of the European continent yet has played pivotal role in global history as in have sired the list of countries I gave including USA and Canada. Japan also has played a outsized role yet is smal, homogenous island - yes I am awar of Ainu minority.

Well If Elon Musk somehow puts a million people on Mars how much special credit do we give the US??

 

[M. Sarmad]

Your idea of having too many poor, weak, illiterate and hostile countries in a relatively small geographical area is going to do more harm than good. The next century probably will be the century of balkanization and international borders becoming irrelevant all over the globe.. We can wait

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Well If Elon Musk somehow puts a million people on Mars how much special credit do we give the US??

100%. Elon Musk is product of American society. His success was within the ecosysten sustained by your people and nation. Doubt Elon Musk would have got far in Eritrea, Niger or even Pakistan.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

100%. Elon Musk is product of American society. His success was within the ecosysten sustained by your people and nation. Doubt Elon Musk would have got far in Eritrea, Niger or even Pakistan.

Ok..fair enough I guess.

 

[Maula Jatt]

100%. Elon Musk is product of American society. His success was within the ecosysten sustained by your people and nation. Doubt Elon Musk would have got far in Eritrea, Niger or even Pakistan.

70-80%- He was an immigrant

 

[Indus Pakistan]

70-80%- He was an immigrant

99% Americans are immigrants or scions of immigrant.

 

[Goenitz]

Just give power to union council. "All politics is eventually local".
Hence, devolution of power is needed, and not necessarily country. For instance, UP can b split into 10 provinces. Heck Afghanistan has 30-40, Italy has same amount of provinces.