Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor? | Economics for People with Ha-Joon Chang
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 дек 2019
- Gaps between countries have always existed, but as late as 1700, per capita income in the wealthiest part of the world (Western Europe) was only 2.5x that of the poorest reason at the time (Africa). In this sixth lecture in INET’s “Economics For People” series, Ha-Joon Chang looks at international inequality.
About “Economics for People”:
“It is extremely important for our democracy to function that ordinary citizens understand the key issues and basic theories of economics.” - Ha-Joon Chang
Economics has long been the domain of the ivory tower, where specialized language and opaque theorems make it inaccessible to most people. That’s a problem.
In the new series “Economics For People” from the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), University of Cambridge economist and bestselling author Ha-Joon Chang explains key concepts in economics, empowering anyone to hold their government, society, and economy accountable.
I wish people in my country's government were listening to this lecture. As i write everyone in Ghana is eagerly awaiting a loan from IMF s if this will solve our economic problems. Not many years down the line we will be back at IMF with hat in hand looking quick fixes . The lecture was very informative. I intend getting his books to read as well.
Handful of the rich local people will get even more rich and majority of the money will flow to multinational corporations. People of Ghana will be left with the bill.
I am surprisingly satisfied with lectures conducted by professor Ha- Joon Chang because he always has something or someway new to consider talking about several issues. Very useful to expand knowledge and enrich considerations on issues of my interest. Thanks for the videos.
41:59 "Until 20 years ago, we had this expression called Korean time."
I had been listening to Ha-Joon's lecture, and as soon as he said this sentence, it stuck out, because here in New Zealand, we have a significant Polynesian culture, where there is a saying "Island Time", which is often treated as humorous. I recently went to Rarotonga, and had first hand experience of "Island Time." It was strange, but wonderful at the same time. At home, I rely on our bus service to get from A to B, where people get very impatient if the bus is late, and when the bus arrives, passengers and drivers just want everyone to hurry up, get on, get a seat, so we can all get going. While in Rarotonga, I caught a bus from the town center to where my family were staying. Because of so much of my life being run by the clock, I was a bit flustered, asked the driver how much the bus fare was to where I was staying, then started flustering around in my wallet for the cash. I was very conscious of holding the bus up and the other passengers. The driver actually said to me "Calm down Mam. Just take a seat." Back home, everyone just stares at you because you're holding up the line, and everyone has places to be by set times, or their tired and exhausted after a long day at work. To actually be told by a bus driver to calm down was rather strange, but I can laugh at it now. Anyhow, my experience in Rarotonga has me questioning my lifestyle, because it causes a lot of stress, mental health issues, and also physical health issues. My question to myself is: "Is it all worth it?"
Very beautiful personal reflection. 🙂
In the long run yes. You wouldn't even be able to take a bus if everyone took life so slowly, because busses wouldn't exist
In India we have the exact same thing as Korea called Indian Standard Time. Which means delays of an hour or so are pretty common and accepted.
Djerba time means 30 minutes late. It's not accepted, it's expected.
IF there was just the time & stress issue, humanity would be fine..!! But when instead of seeking TRUTH, people & society LIE.. i.e. from history books to processed food advertisements to politicians & surgeons, then one must question self & society!!
Wow, I thought this professor was a Singaporean. Now I knew he's a Korean, Ha-Joon Chang. I didn't know he's so fluent in English. Good on him.
Well he didn't notice that it was really easy to lift up Singapore a small place in strategic point on map and established English judiciary system and no similar competition except maybe HongKong. You could compare it partially with Estonia in Europe - cold climate, not politically safe zone, divided population but consequent leadership by engineers focusing on high-tech, digital economy.
But lifting a bigger country is a completely different story. The more people and density the greater spread between top and bottom and older much harder to build democratic, social trust & cooperation, unity to back up one consequent strategy until fruition.
well, you kinda have to be good at english if you want to teach at Cambridge University.
"After graduating from Seoul National University's Department of Economics, he studied at the University of Cambridge, earning an MPhil and a PhD for his thesis entitled The Political Economy of Industrial Policy - Reflections on the Role of State Intervention in 1991."
That "uh" expression every end sentence will tell u its korean
That "leh/lah" expression its singaporean😅
i came here from 2 of his books. excellent lecture
એકદમ સરસ પ્રવચન છે. વૈશ્વિક આર્થિક ઇતિહાસનો સારાંશ સરલ અને સીધી સમજૂતી, રમુજી ટચુકાઓથી અપેલ છે.
This was a fantastically informative lecture. Coming from a poor country, these are the things I know intuitively (that free trade wasn't free and FDI didn't work and protectionism worked). But I had no way to back these up except for my lived experience. Thanks to Prof. Ha-Joon for providing a long historical perspective.
Its rather simple, and industry in the early stage can never compete with the full might of a fully builded compagny with a captive market and fans that can influence abroad, for example
That goes from cultural icons down the way to crude steel until the top of the chains for aeronef or automobile
Free trade is only really needed in the thing a country lack the capability, or its really not that necessary to have it, or the monetary cost farly outweigh the benefits of producing it inside said country (jobs, economic activity, taxes, without talking about the plus-value that transforming bring and make all the supplier not be reliant on foreign politics diplomatic repercusioon or simple weather for crops for example
No that’s a moronic coping mechanism from some from an inferior ethnic group. If you weren’t so inferior you wouldn’t be poor
You call this a great lecture?
Jesus, I would have fallen asleep.
This guy is worse than Ben steiner.
No wonder our kids graduate but still don't know anything.
You did not understand the lecture.
Peronism❤
Basically, it sounds like its all by design.
‘Free’ means the ruling class has the ability to put their finger on the scale.
Convince one group of poor people that they are better than another and they will help you pick everyone's pocket including their own. They'll even step on a few necks.
And on that day middle management was born, their compliance bought for the cost of an additional hamburger per hour in their pay packet.
Wow incredible lecture! The low-quality instiutions makes a lot sense even with the criticism laid against it, as does the fact that unregulated markets serve the interest of the leaders in technological advancements. Great that more economic research is based on empirical experiments instead of meta-analysis
Are Meta-Analysis not based on lots of smaller individual empirical studies?
Low quality institutions don’t just appear out of thin air. They are created, by people. Those people are the problem.
Amazing lecture.Enjoyed it thoroughly. Thank you very much!
The series is real eye opener. Thank you very much indeed
Brilliant lecture. Thank you.
I think this is one of the most clear lectures I have watched on why poor countries are underdeveloped. It is very unbiased and educational. And it opened my eyes to how poor countries can proceed and escape poverty.
Can you sum it up for us?
@@deardaughter isn’t that too much of a ask? It’s a 45 minutes video 😭
Very interesting style of lecturing and very eye-opening fact-finding enterprise! Great job, professor! Salute to you!
An eye opening lecture. Thank you for this!
This is what i was looking for many many days. Thankyou Sir for this mind boggling lecture.
Great Lecture!
Thank u! This was amazing!👌🏽
Jefferson’s opposition to Hamilton’s ideas of industrialization was probably more due to self-interest than free-market ideology, he was a farmer and did run a plantation.
This was in many ways a north south divide and part of ideas that lead to the civil war.
The drawings of the Hamilton duel have different hats and coats, probably none of the artists was present at the event.
Double Landlock isn't always bad 😉 Anyone with Quakers on their side wins, except if you have slave merchants on your side but you eventually loose to the slave merchants anyway.
Excellent lecture. An eye-opening look at world economic development in the last few centuries.
Great video! It's really nice to review common economics topics with good info and new approaches (and old forgotten ones as well lol)
My only complain would be the lack of discussion about institutions in 39:57. AFAIK institutionalists have really strong arguments and explanations about economic development, it would be nice to see a video with a critical analysis about them.
Again, great video series! Keep it up! 😄
Yes exactly. I felt the same way. He was criticizing that "low-quality institutions" could not predict the rise of China, however in the book it says that the growth of China is possible, economies can grow under "extractive institutions", but they are "not sustainable"
Poverty of countries has a lot to do with politics and a lot to do with a lack of morality.
Fantastic discussion. Thanks
Brilliant lecture by prof. Chang! This should be studied in the developing countries.
I found it quite fulfilling from a fact-based perspective. This is the first time, I came across a subtle and concrete example with pieces of evidence about the history of Political Economy. Not to forget that lectures as such are not only critical but after all emancipatory from an academic perspective, the best knowledge is the one that is based on sheer truth and particularly attempts to expose the powerful of its wrong deeds and in this case its historical lies, myths, and hypocrisy.
Looking forward to more lectures like this.
Wow… This was a truly amazing lecture!
Amazing lecture, this is a treasure indeed!
Excellent lecture... Thank you
Thanks! I appreciated this.
Spot-on analysis.
Thank you for this very insightful lecture
superb lecture. Thank you sir.
Great talk
This was a very compelling argument.
Beautiful lecture, smart Lecturer!
Thank you for this informative video.
Great Insight to real historical facts. Thank you Sir. Current generations forget the hardship thier grandparents had gone through.
Funny and brilliant. Professor Ha-Joon Chang lays bare the figures and facts of "free trade" during the last four centuries
I love his books too, knowledge and entertainment in one 👍
Well one ☝of the precious & knowledgeable
lectures I have ever seen.
42:00 korean time...janji melayu...perbahasan y menarik
.
43:25 bagus jugak soalan & point ni
Excellent !
great lecture.
Very interesting insights 😊
Thank you 🙏🏽
Solid lecture
Two main factors :
1 a legal system that does not tolerate corruption and protects people from abuse .
2 an strong educational system .
Well presented
No mention here on the role of the harnessing of the energy of fossil fuels . Both Britain and the US were early adopters which gave them an early advantage
One suspects the sudden love to fight climate change comes from the same corrupt economic impulses of the rich nations!!
XD
You can't average the income of hundreds of billionaires in with the incomes of the working poor, that's not a true average of anything.
r4ce and eye que have nothing to do with. nothing at alllllllllllllllllll lel
that's why use the median income
@@kgbkgb7616 they dont. 1) race is a bad and delegitimate way of classifying any human being 2) even if it wasnt, iq tests are only good at exhibiting one answer: how good someone is at an iq test!
@@lucqq3792 race is an excellent way of classifying human beings. A tremendous amount of generalization can be deduced just by knowing ones race. And if all iq tests are good for is iq, the military wouldnt make you take one (in the form of asvab) for entry and job placement (obviously)
@@kgbkgb7616 you can généralise based on freckles by your logic? Why choose race? I can généralise that someone with freckles has freckles, is that what you mean? Because that’s all you’re getting.
Real markers of distinction are educational and social variables such as how many parents you had, your level of schooling, how much money was in your household, etc
Also, this is funny to read to me, the asvab isn’t an iq test 😂😂😂😂 jn fact, the asvab is based on educational capital in determining scores, something which directly contradicts what you said before.
You just hate black people, don’t try and sound smart about it, you’re an idiot (obviously)
The title should be “how the west Systematically oppressing the rest of the world “
The images, graphics, and clips really helped his presentation, and he could've used more. I am sure it is better reading his scholarly findings, than listening to them.
Good lecture !
As a french I can confirm all what is say about french big companies (all created with assistance and support of the state : in france we have a kind of "state capitalism")
lol, I laughed at the Isaac Newton incident. He just realized his smart ass would never match up to the weirdness that culminates economics
what a grt lecture
How many Africans, and more so African 'leaders'; could spare time from ravaging their own economies and watch this? Thank you, Prof Chang.
a lot of these corrupt african leaders are like this because they are in the pockets of western leaders who know that if african nations elected real leaders, the west would be unable to exploit africas rich natural resources. Also look at the vast history of democracy in africa and how europeans have eityher overthrown or assasinated democratically elected leaders.
Educate yourself first before pulling together an uneducated guess on the situation of countries you know nothing about. Ask yourself, who is it that seems to continually put these puppets in power? While sanctioning these nations. You don't even make an effort in hiding your racism. My god.
Go read Erik Reinert book ' How rich countries got rich... and why poor countries stay poor '
Around 40 minutes the issue of keeping time is interesting. The United States and Germany after unification undergoes the Second Industrial Revolution. As the American railroads spread across a continent this gives rise to time keeping and time zones as the trains are synchronised. The interconnections of rail, telegraph and later on from flight keeps the development of a time system for industrial societies and mass production and transport of items.
Yeah in an agrarian society, the plants will still be growing whether you are late or on time. So why the rush.
@Ferry Wijaya I think in agrarian societies, the seasonal time is important. Miss the time and crop failure mean potentially no food in winter.
It's perfect lecture with x1.25
Great video but what is the actual conclusion? Is it that we don’t really know? Or is it still economic policy, just that the ‘good policies’ were actually not the best?
Incredible.
7:58 Didnt expect to see Gary Stevenson as a student
Prof Ha-Joon book Bad Samaritans is very reading indeed
hello asia! im from austria, i love the world.
4:28 gary's economics chilling in the background
Excellent lecture! What about the Netherlands and Switzerland whom he mentioned developed without such protectionist policies?
In answer to your question it was down to the fact that they did not protect patents until the early 20th century. Below are some excerpts from Professor Chang’s brilliant book Bad Samaritans (which I couldn’t recommend enough if you enjoyed this lecture) on the topic:
The Netherlands introduced a patent law in 1817, but abolished it in 1869 and did not re-introduce it until 1912. Switzerland had no patent law of any kind until 1888, and that law accorded protection only to ‘inventions that can be represented by mechanical models’. The clause automatically (and intentionally) excluded chemical inventions - at the time, the Swiss were ‘borrowing’ a lot of chemical and pharmaceutical technologies from Germany, the then world leader in those fields.
Only in 1907, under the threat of trade sanctions by Germany, did the Swiss decide to extend patent protection to chemical inventions. However, even the new patent law did not protect chemical technologies to the degree expected in today’s TRIPS system. Like many other countries at the time, the Swiss refused to grant patents for chemical substances (as opposed to chemical processes). The reasoning was that those substances, unlike mechanical inventions, already existed in nature and, therefore, the ‘inventor’ had merely found a way to isolate them, rather than inventing the substance itself. Chemical substances remained unpatentable in Switzerland until 1978.
When the Dutch abolished the law (in 1869), they were in no small measure influenced by the anti-patent movement mentioned above - they were convinced that patent, as artificially created monopoly, went against their free-trade principle. Exploiting the absence of a patent law, the Dutch electronics company, Phillips, a household name today, started out in 1891 as a producer of lightbulbs based on the patents ‘borrowed’ from the American inventor, Thomas Edison.
@@TTYounga Swan's lightbulbs were more reliable and cheaper to produce than Edison's. So in UK, they made an accommodation, and our lightbulbs were Swan's, but had the name "Swan-Edison" or "Ediswan" on the box.
@@TTYounga This is such a useful, illustrative example of how a developed country (Netherlands) built a successful tech company (Phillips) by "borrowing" foreign patents from a more-developed country (Germany)! It was also fun to compare the timeline of the Netherlands and Switzerland instating, abolishing, and then re-instating their patent laws against Otto von Bismarck's term in office (1871-1890, I think). Looks like I'm reading Bad Samaritans.
SmileRainbow12 i couldn’t recommend it highly enough, his writing is amazingly lucid.
Easiest part is post colonization, the bandits is rich, the victims is poor
The rain it raineth on the just...
it's insane to believe that a market in currencies can determine any kind of reasonable comparison between the values of individual currencies. People buy dollars (and any other currencies) only because they must, to conduct their business. Forcing this notion on the rest of the world is just another piece of the dollar hegemony.
What would the value or price of potatoes be if all humans were obligate potato-eaters?
Wow, this is more or less like the strategy of victoria 2. When as a nation you industrialize, micromanagement and state capitalist policies are the goal as your industries are vulnerable and simple. As your industries develop you move towards more hands off, free trade as your economy is so large that it would be a pain to micromanage it all.
-You play Victoria II, one of the best strategy games ever.
-You watch Ha Joon Chang lessons.
-You synthesized a really complex topic in 4 lines.
Let me send you a virtual hug hahaha
Wrong.
The later stage capitalist, free-trade policies that have been adopted in the past have only worked because there were undeveloped countries to exploit for there cheap labor, undeveloped local economies and resources.
That it is an unsustainable, ultimately self-defeating and immoral economic model is the whole point of this lecture.
Basing anything on the artificial scenarios of board games is at its least laughably juvenile, at its worst in practical reality when applied to human society, it is dangerously destructive and delusional.
Yet somehow you can't see that...wow indeed.
No... you switch to free trade when you have gained a competitive advantage and gain more from free trade than from protectionism.
@@ivandafoe5451 You are spot on. Thank you.
@@ivandafoe5451 you must be fun at all the parties.
27:44 regarding the banning of foreign shareholders, the etnonationalism movements in Peru would agree with that requirement.
4:26 is that Gary Stevenson from Gary's economics?
ADAM SMITH..MOTTO..'GREED IS GOOD'...
More like "Our greed is better than yours" 😁
A deeper analysis is required on how the wealth looted from the New World set in motion the colonial enterprises of the Dutch and the British. Consider the following:
- The Iberians had to spend the wealth somewhere. They used it to buy products from their neighbours which created the demand for factories in Europe and new entrepreneurial classes wanting to capture a piece of the business
- The Iberians spent the money on wars in the Low Countries enriching mercenaries and businessmen who eventually revolted. William of Orange, founder of the present Dutch Royals, was a petty businessman propped up by the guilds
- Dutch and English shipbuilding technology accelerated in order to embark on pirate expeditions that sought to capture and loot gold shipments returning from Iberian colonies
Is that Gary from @Garyseconomics at 4:25 among the students?
I just realized, the painting in thumbnaik, its a prince diponegoro surrenders by Raden Saleh
42:22 Regarding lazyness regional expresions, in Peru we have the current "Peruvian time" for delays and 10 years ago the "Cavana time" given the president of the time birthplace. We usually blame the transport.
Hi, Subtitles from 39:30 are wrong. Please can someone explain what professor Chang is saying? These subtitles are definitely incorrect, and it is difficult to know what exactly he is saying from his accent????
Hello, do you mean the word "Cowichan" he said at 39:13 ? If this is a case, then I can't really answer your question because there are no Taiwanese aborigines who call themselves such.
''....basically, they use pseudo-science to justify their evil.'' Prof. Dr eJb
Excellent presentation. Thank you!
@PhillyD
look at what’s going on in Portland!
4:27 is that Gary Stevenson lol?
Currency who has the most powerful currency or a balance between export and import with decides labor wages and your rate of industrializing
How was per capita income in pre-contact sub-Saharan Africa measured?
Gary's Economics spotted at 4.27 👀
Developing countries need a social reset
Especially in terms of ideologies and a strong sense of patriotism. Love for your country. The truth is that Britain maintained these policies because they desired to be better. Their leaders had a vision. And the RIGHT people were always brought in to fix a problem .
Most developing countries have a deep sense of “self preservation “
There is no faith in the political and institutional organizations set up. In summary a hot mess🤦🏽♀️
I’m from Nigeria and watching this, seeing the history of these countries makes me wonder why my country can’t put their feet down and work for its Growth and development
^****Really enjoyed the lecture ****^
That "reset" never seems to come from those at top who have accepted and exploited the status quo for personal gain (creating the bad-faith stagnation you decry).
Im Nigerian too and wld have thought the point of this lecture is to see that its not Jst because of our corrupt leaders. Many r inly in power because the West approves anyway. Point is we r not free - we must succeed in a global capitalist environment that crushes us.
@@bunmitella9672 Exactly... idk how this idiot watched this entire lecture and that point still escaped her.
@@dexterkrammer1089 this isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about the natural advantage that accrues to Western countries who are already wealthy and wield way more influence on international trade law. “Free markets “ benefits developed nations not developing ones. For China to succeed it had to do exactly what the West did during its industrialization era - become protectionist. Any of us try that now and we wld be invaded under the guise of bringing us “democracy”. The system is rigged in favor of rich countries who have complete control of all international institutions, international finance and international banks.
Easiest part is post colonization, the bandits is rich, the victims is poor
everything can only change if the society acts on it. so how do we make those nations societies start acting up ?
His lecture was quite interesting, bur he failed to probe your question which seems to be the most essential question when it comes to the prosperity of severely underdeveloped countries. I am of the opinion that outside countries can't provide that which sparks development, in that the desire for development must come from within the underdeveloped society itself. Admittedly I could be wrong, so it will be interesting to see how Chinese projects started in parts of Africa work out.
If you want a country to become richer, then yes - you typically want protectionism to avoid the wealth flowing out of the country. This forces the country to become more self-reliant as well, since it is more expensive to rely on someone external.
That said, you still need free markets within the country to produce this wealth in the first place. Bad policies and over-regulation that make it difficult to create and maintain companies are still a big reason why some countries remain poorer than their neighbors, and experience a lot of corruption.
if you have watched the video you must understand that the corrupt institution was set mainly by colonial powers, over-protectionism here means "socialist policies" IMF and WTO are notoriously known for establishing free market trade around the globe after colonization with the help of CIA coups and other international subjugation also the fact that west grew copying technologies over the world which most nation can be sanctioned for. China's success in manufacturing and tech is a visible example.
What is "New Economic Thinking" about this? Nothing wrong with it but this is basic introductory stuff that development economists have been literally (as per the lecture)theorizing about since the time of Adam Smith. Good overview stuff for an introductory economics history course, but certainly would not substitute for a development economics unit in an economics undergraduate degree.
what are policy implications? nationalise all industries and isolate yourself from the rest of the world?
Hey, that tumbnail, the arrested of prince diponegoro paint
Everyone cites Adam Smith without quoting correctly and cherry picking, referencing Wealth of Nations and avoiding any reference to The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
SOme countries valued prosperity and freedoms, while other areas did not care about that.
During the whole 45 min., they didn't use any (!) maps. That's zero (!!) maps in a video, which "explains" economical differences between countries (through) history. 0!!!
7:40-32:00
本当に正確によく時間を設定していますね！！！えらい！！！
Richer countries can take advantage of poorer countries, buy the resources for less, loan for higher interest etc.
what study can one take to learn about this topic?
Maybe by reading some of his books, I guess.
Development economics. Ha Joon Chang is one, if not the greatest, economist in this area. It's really nice to see that he makes videos and not only books, both are very good ways to learn :)
Seems a bit of a history spin. When Hamilton was pushing import tariffs, we had no income tax and tariffs were a major source of funds for the government which the treasury needed. Bureaucracies learned how to protect their funding sources 2,000 years ago and haven't forgotten since then. The US didn't decrease tariffs until we had a very significant income tax.
He then goes on to state that the US military effectively created the semi-conductor industry which indicates he doesn't understand the evolution of the semi-conductor industry. It was invented by Bell labs which was AT&T, but the phone service was the last major electronics industry to use semi-conductors and evolving chips. It was an unknown geotechnical firm now called Texas Instruments who needed very small circuits for seismic work the blew the field open followed by an unknown "camera and instrument" firm which then spawned others and Silicon Valley. Our military had a huge program to make vaccume tubes smaller and rejected chips as being too vaunerable to EMP to be used in the military. By '84 when the first Apple Mac computer came out, the chip in that unit was three generations ahead of anything the military had or was "approved" for military applications (according to my cousin who was designing the new military electronic systems for our new fighter jets -- he was green with envy). If the military was leading, it was leading from way behind.
He even spins the relevance of government funding and control in technological development. For example, Japan created a 5th generation project with multi-billions in subsidies to move ahead of Intel in computer chips. Note that Intel's big competition today isn't from Japan with all that government or any massive subsidized competors. Companies like AMD hired people from Intel. France spend billions to become dominant in memory chips, but again that was just money down a rat hole.
He goes on to claim that foreign direct investment with foreign technical competence doesn't help, while research by economists demonstrate best way to get technology transfer is to move people. He doesn't seem to understand that the US protectionist policies and investment policies have hurt the US economy. Effectively our tariff policies didn't support "infant industries and innovation" but supported the old senile companies to the detriment of innovation. A good example is our steel tariffs we now have that have harmed all the downstream industries while protecting the steel worker union and US Steel. US Steel closed the only significant R&D operation in the US in the early '60s with the only innovation being in the steel recycling businesses.
He does show that most of the reasons for success and failure of countries don't work but one area he neglected is regulatory policy. For example, in the US we have a regulatory policy that effectively prevents off-shore aquaculture (raising aquatic plants and animals) and Korea has a supportive policy allow individuals to effectly lease ocean areas and is expanding at a rapid rate for the last half a century. The industry in Korea is very creative and dynamic while all the US talent is effectively working outside the US.
He sounds good, but doesn't make sense.
A very long time ago I read a theory (which probably dated to earlier part of 20th century) about this question. In short, the theory related to water quality and sanitation practices of populations. I suppose it could be argued that such an idea at the time could've been pro-industry propaganda. Nevertheless, the "science" underscoring that theory or idea, was that a population with good water quality, sanitation etc, will be less disease prone and, in the long term, more vigorous, robust, etc..
What about politics and democracy?