Solved- A Review

Author of the book: Andrew Wear

Synopsis: Denmark will reach 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2030. Iceland has topped gender equality rankings for a decade and counting. Singaporean students beat almost all others in maths and reading. South Koreans will soon live longer than anyone else on Earth.

How have these places and more achieved such remarkable success? Policy adviser Andrew Wear examines what has worked around the world and how we can apply the lessons at home, introducing us to inspiring community leaders, renowned authorities, and visionary policymakers transforming the globe.

We don’t have to look far to tackle humanity’s most pressing concerns. Solved! is a much-needed dose of optimism in an atmosphere of doom and gloom, a toolkit for those seeking social change. Informative, accessible and revelatory, it shows the solutions exist – we just need to know where to find them.

Introduction

For the past two books, the question that was always looming over my head was “how do I accurately and concisely summarise the books that I've read, such that its distillate still retained the original meaning and depth.” With Solved, I had another problem, how do I make my summary original? To my surprise and amusement, Wear had included a summary at the end of every chapter. These summaries give the basic gist of what each said country has done to solve a specific problem and what other countries can do to emulate the country's progress. The structure of each chapter was basically:

1. Background information about the issue

2. What specific policy actions have been taken

3. More than sufficient data

4. Summary

Although it may sound boring, the book is written with such passion and enthusiasm that you can't help but appreciate the amount of effort that must have gone into writing it.

Instead of just “ctr-C” ing the summary, I will be highlighting interesting data from earlier parts of the chapter, while also adding my own comments and research.

The chapters of the book are as followed:

1. Denmark -- Climate Change

2. Singapore -- Education

3. Wales -- Violent Crime

4. Iceland -- Gender Inequality

5. Australia -- Multicultuaralism

6. Norway -- Income Inequality

7. Indonesia -- Democracy

8. Germany -- Manufacturing Jobs

9. South Korea -- Healthcare

---

Chapter 1 - Denmark

When most of us think about Scandinavia, we tend to have an image of this fully formed utopia, one that has always been amazing. A place where everyone gets along and everything is perfect. Year after year, Scandinavian countries repeatedly top charts such as the Human Development Index (HDI). However, something that we may fail to consider is that, at one point in time, even these "perfect" Scandinavian countries, were new, blossoming nations. They too had to and repeatedly have had to make major trade-offs, trying their best to benefit their citizens and the global community at large. We need to realize that progress made in Scandinavian nations has been relatively recent. Equal marriage rights have originated only in the last two decades, despite years of campaigning and activism. Hence when we look at Scandinavian countries, it should be from a position of inspiration, to emulate their success instead of mere pessimistic awe.

Policy changes affect large populations and can have severe unintended consequences if said policies are not carefully considered. Just like how clinical trials for vaccines have phases, with different phases and distinct sample sizes, policy changes too should have various phases to test the efficacy of policy changes. Instead of merely debating based on theory and engaging in time-wasting hyperbole, we can use data extracted from these trials to prove our points. Hence in 1997, the Danish government, to stick to their commitment of a 21% reduction in emissions as declared in the Kyoto Protocol, set up a competition to choose a location and see how far they could reduce that specific location's carbon emissions.

The location chosen was Samsø. Before 1997, Samsø was in a fragile state, a tiny island, with its largest employer and provider of jobs leaving the island. History has shown us that, when a large source of income leaves a small rural area, the results are often depressing.

As such when residents of Samsø were informed of this competition, the people were obviously, sceptical, who wouldn't be? Change, especially large-scale change in such small tight-knit communities can be hard to fathom, let alone accept. That is why the need for local government is so necessary. Oftentimes, smaller communities, which may be made of marginalized and minority voices are overruled. When new infrastructure projects are announced, little attention is paid behind the scenes to the concerns raised by the people of such communities. This results in distrust and contempt by these communities against the government. This widening divide can lead to disastrous consequences. For example, years of unethical medical practices against black people in America has led to large sections of the black population being "vaccine-hesitant." Instead of bulldozing through neighbourhoods, authorities ought to slow down, listen to the concerns of stakeholders and explain clearly why they are taking the steps that they are and how these decisions directly benefit the stakeholders. And this is exactly what the danish government did.

Denmark assigned a permanent liaison for the transformation of Samsø. Søren Hermansen was given this crucial job. Being a native of the island, Soren already had close contact with many people in the community. This helped him effectively convey the magnitude of the project that was being undertaken. This level of foresight, allowed them to steer clear of the pitfalls other nations have had when implementing drastic changes of any kind.

Another radical thing that was proposed and implemented was making sure that the locals truly benefitted from the development being done in their backyard, instead of just being fed empty promises. This was done through the use of cooperatives when setting up energy infrastructure. For example two of the large offshore wind turbines were built using funds gathered by locals. This allowed the locals to own a share in the infrastructure and receive dividends for any profit made by selling energy produced by these turbines. This ensured that the community as well had a stake in ensuring the success of the Samsø project.

Wear goes on to prove how the many changes in Samsø were a resounding success. For example, Samsø holds the amazing feat of being carbon negative. This means that each of Samsø's roughly 4000 residents emits an average of negative 3.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas every year. Samsø's success is a reminder to nations around the world that dramatic change is possible and is worth doing. In the years since the competition, Samsø has thrived, making a name for its great organic and sustainable produce.

However, Wear also does not shy away from criticism of Denmark. He rightly points out that despite all the efforts to be sustainable, Danes live an environmentally unfriendly lifestyle due to their high overall meat consumption. The issue of who is responsible for mitigating climate change is not black and white. Simply expecting that government is responsible is not enough as shown by Denmark. There has to be a concerted effort, involving consumers, producers and government to ensure that a sustainable future is achieved.

Overall, countries like Denmark can be a guide for how to shape our society. From one that is divided and unsustainable to one that is both cohesive and conducive for future generations. Some of the tips given by Wear include starting locally, investing in long-term projects, taxing carbon emissions and ending subsidies for fossil fuels. Solving climate change isn't going to be easy, but it isn't impossible.

---

Chapter 2- Singapore

This chapter is one that I truly resonate with. As a product of the Singaporean education system myself, many of the things Wear talks about, I have experienced. However, boiling down such a nuanced and complex issue such as education to just statistics and rankings can be quite reductive. Having said this, I still believe that Wear has managed to accurately capture the general substance of the Singaporean education system albeit from a very zoomed-out and macro view.

Overall Singapore has done an envious job of building a robust and encompassing education system. This is a system that produces thousands of extremely smart students every year. All of this while spending lesser per student than other countries like Norway, Austria and The United States of America.

Singapore is near the top of just about every education ranking from reading and writing to mathematical skills. The average 15-year-old in Singapore possesses mathematical skills their peers in the United States will take three more years to learn. I had the opportunity many years ago to spend a day at an American junior high school. Even then the difference in skill levels was palpable. When I saw the worksheets that were handed out in class, I felt like I was sent down two grades.

Even more impressive is how little time it took Singapore to build her education infrastructure. Having gained independence just over 50 years ago, Singapore built its education system from scratch, having to make tough trade-offs. For example, mandating English to be the common medium from which to build a standard curriculum. In exchange for this loss of diversity of languages in which schools were taught, schools were forced to be bilingual, making sure that every student was made to learn a second language, often the one spoken at home, colloquially known as the Mother tongue. Many of these decisions may not have been easy or even accepted, but these are what allowed for the rapid development of the Singaporean labour force.

Ask any economist, ‘what is the best way to improve any economy ?” Most would include education as one of their top ways to increase the productive capacity of an economy. This is because having a skilled labour force is one of the first ways foreign direct investment is brought into any country, which means jobs and hence higher standards of living.

That is why as Singapore's education system developed it also saw a rapid rise in Real GDP per capita, a decent indicator of economic growth in a country. However as Singapore's rapid economic rise has begun to plateau due to the economy reaching almost full utilisation, Singapore's education landscape has continued to evolve. Alternative education pathways that just a few years ago were stigmatised are now gaining greater acceptance and are sometimes even looked upon more favourably.

Post Covid-19 (now), people have begun to realise the traditional format of education in Singapore (Going to junior college after secondary school and then going to University) does not impart to students the relevant skills needed to thrive in a workplace. Instead, it produces students that are academically very knowledgeable but practically unfit as such more and more students are opting for polytechnic education. About ten years ago less than 30% of secondary school graduates went to a polytechnic, now that number has risen to as high as 60%.

Despite all the changes in the educational landscape, the common denominator of excessive stress remains. Wear acknowledges that producing this many smart students has come at the cost of some damage to the students, in the form of undue stress. Stress and mental health are only now being discussed regularly discussed, after the tragic incident at River Valley High School, where a student bludgeoned another student with an axe. More tragic is that it took the death of an innocent student for attention to be paid to this issue in schools.

Unlike any education system, Singapore is far from perfect. Many issues are yet to be resolved. However, there is no denying that the Singaporean education system of today is quite impressive. Some of the things Singapore has done right, as pointed out by Wear, include;

1. Paying teachers well- Singaporean teachers, although many times overworked (another issue) are also handsomely rewarded. Just like any job in public service, the greater the number of years put in, the greater the rise in income. Rising through the ranks, Singaporean teachers can earn upwards of $15000 a month, a far cry from other developed countries where teachers aren't even compensated for stationary, let alone paid a competitive wage.

2. Public Schools should be equal to if not better than private schools- investing in quality public education results in greater meritocracy and reduces income inequality. This is because all students receive the same quality of education regardless of the size of their parent's bank accounts. Countries such as China have realised this, taking drastic measures to reverse the significant income disparity created by an unequal education system.

3. Always continue to improve- there is no perfect education system, there are only systems that strive to improve. Building an aspiration for improvement into the very core of the system itself imparts a similar mindset to students. Valuing feedback from students and carefully calibrating it to prevent disruption to students is what makes a good system, not one that is stagnant and stationary.

Overall, as a student myself, I find myself agreeing with many of the points made by Wear. As Singapore changes, so will its educational landscape. If Singapore continues on this path of self-improvement, there is little to worry about for the next generation of Singaporean students.

---

Chapter 3- Wales

Reducing violence is no easy feat. Most of the time, perpetrators of violence do not respond to rational arguments, as the rage driving that violence is inherently irrational. Innocent or sometimes not-so-innocent people are regularly harmed due solely to them being the victims of violence. There are many reasons why a country may be more prone to violence. Cultural acceptance of violence be it in media or otherwise, the proportion of young people and economic circumstances are all factors that affect the level of violence in a country.

Wear comments on how despite the UK being one of the most regularly drunk places in the world, it is also one of the safest. Safest in this context is measured by the homicide rate, which serves as an effective proxy for violence. With strict gun control, police in the UK do not even need guns when they patrol. However this wasn't always the case, taking a look at the fragile peace in Northern Ireland shows that just a few decades ago, the UK was rife with violence.

You might be wondering, what changed then? The UK decided to treat violence like the public health epidemic it was, with science! By carefully monitoring and analysing data, scientists collaborated with the police and were able to significantly reduce violence.

Wear gives the example of pint glasses. Dr Jonathan Shepherd, a doctor at a hospital in Cardiff noticed that many violent injuries were occurring during pub brawls, specifically due to broken glass. He realised that if he could advocate for a switch to toughened glass, he could dramatically reduce the number of injuries. An assessment conducted later estimated that in the year following the switch to toughened glass, there were 40000 fewer injuries. Such a harm reduction approach to violence has led to the UK having a mere 0.2 people murdered per 100000, more than thirty times lesser than countries like the US. Wear also points out a few other things countries can do

1. Prevention is key- being proactive rather than reactive saves more lives. Focusing resources on preventing violent crimes is our best bet in reducing it

2. Data first approach- Scientifically studying crime and focusing on interventions that provide the most benefit allows us to help the greatest number of people

3. Firearm control- one person with a firearm is much more dangerous than one person with a knife or glass shard. Ensuring that firearms are tightly regulated has enabled countries such as the UK and Australia to drastically reduce violent crime.

---

Chapter 4- Iceland

Gender equality or lack thereof has always been a thorny issue. Although there is enough research to definitively prove the existence of a pay gap between male and female workers, there are plenty of people who deny that this gap exists at all. Unfortunately, there are also those who agree that such a gap exists and believe that it is justified. Between all this bickering, Iceland has worked diligently to tackle the issue of gender inequality head-on.

Iceland itself has had a somewhat fluctuating relationship with gender inequality. Early on in Iceland's history, it was a champion for the women's suffrage movement fighting to give women the right to vote. Subsequently, gender inequality moved to the workplace, where women were only making 40% of what their male counterparts made. As women came to realize how they were being cheated by the system, they took action. They realized that the best way forward was to strike, however their plan to strike was deemed too radical by the more conservative women within society. However, the group that organized the protest came up with an ingenious workaround, The Red Stockings, the group organizing the event decided to rename it, "Women's day off". This simple title change diffused the situation and energized the movement. This movement stuck with the Icelandic people, with repeated events 5 more times since 1975.

All this culminated in a much more inclusive society, with Iceland topping many metrics when it comes to gender equality. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, it is going to take another 257 years to close the gender gap, barring any extremist political uprisings undoing all the good that has been done. You may be wondering why this may be so, what's stopping women from being equal, at least in the workplace. According to the UN, the three main reasons are-

1. Caring for the elderly or children

2. Danger of sexual harassment and violence, especially to and from work

3. Societal stereotypes expecting women to stay at home

Some of these reasons are self-fulfilling, women are tasked with more caregiving roles hence enhancing the stereotype that they need to stay at home and that their primary task should be caretaking. When we fall into this trap, that's when we begin to rationalize things like a gender pay gap, justifying it with our rationale that they deserve lesser. In fact what we fail to realize is that the collective good of removing these constraints women face would be enormous, at least if you consider a 28 trillion USD GDP increase significant and decreased rates of domestic violence noteworthy.

People argue that the additional bureaucratic red tape needed to close the gender wage gap would result in decreased productivity and harm the economy. However looking at Iceland, we can see that's not true. Even though it is supposedly common knowledge that corporations despise regulation the opposite may be true. It may be the case that what corporations dislike is uncertain regulation. If the regulation proposed is straightforward and well-enforced, companies have no incentive to bend the rules, especially if they know there's little chance to lobby or find a loophole. Another country that regularly employs strict regulations is Singapore. However, corporations still like doing business here because the certainty that the rules will be applied equally trumps any trivial losses in profit, ensuring that no one gains an unfair advantage from the implementation of any rule.

Some possible regulations proposed by Wear include

1. Increased parental leave for both parents - especially for fathers, allows them to play a larger role in the upbringing of their children and helps women slowly lose the stereotype of being the only caregiver in the house.

2. Ensure income parity and hold corporations accountable for how they pay their employees- this transparency ensures that companies don't get away with paying women lesser hiding under the guise of respecting workers' privacy.

3. Subsidize childcare - or make it cheaper through benefits or other rebates. The effect of this would be newfound time for mothers, allowing them to get adequate rest or be able to work the same number of hours as their male counterparts.

Wear also suggests that we introduce affirmative action, requiring a certain number of seats in boardrooms and parliaments to be reserved for women. Setting a fixed quota, such as 50% representation may backfire heavily, especially if there is a lack of careful enforcement and qualified/talented women in certain fields. This would eventually erode the sense of meritocracy that gives hope for social mobility. Instead, the focus should be on levelling the playing field, making it easier for women to study, in previously under-represented fields such as STEM if they are interested in doing so. As such the talent pool available would be more representative of the population as a whole. In an ideal world where everyone is equally qualified the setting of quotas may work better, but till then let us make sure women are afforded the same opportunities men are.

---

Chapter 5- Australia

Like many developed countries around the world, Australia has had a significant relationship with immigration and immigrants. They have helped develop their economy, shape their culture and have been and continue to be an integral part of their history.

However, unlike many other developed nations, Australia can truly call itself an immigrant nation. It joins a small league of countries that can call themselves that. It was built (at least in the modern sense of the word) on the backs of convicts from the UK and thrived under the hard work and diligence of Asian immigrants.

Before I truly begin this chapter, I want to emphasize that I don't mean to offend anyone by saying that the British built Australia. I am fully aware that there was a thriving indigenous-now better known as, the aboriginal - population before the arrival of the colonizers. The word, built, here signifies the more modern perception of the word - signifying rapid economic development and increasing material standard of living. Having mentioned this, I think most people would agree, Australia became more developed with the introduction of immigrants.

Ironically it's usually these countries (those built by immigrants) that are becoming increasingly xenophobic, choosing to simply disregard the past and caving in to the fear-mongering regularly conducted by self-interested populist politicians. In recent years, leaders like Boris Johnson and Donald Trump have peeled back the layers to reveal the ugly underbelly of the beast that is nationalism. Wear doesn't claim that Australia is immune from these issues. Rather that if we look back, there are many lessons to be learnt from how Australia made itself marketable to skilled immigrants and the benefits this brought them.

In the early 20th century, Australia's immigration policies were problematic, to say the least. Nicknamed the White Australia policy- with white being the colour of one's skin and in no way a metaphorical term- it outlined the exact colour of people that the government determined as "acceptable". Soon enough Australia became a victim of its policy, not having enough people to sustain itself. It is the post-1960s when the White Australia policy began being phased out. It learnt that to attract the best immigrants it had to provide utility to them and not merely utilize them. One of the things that Wear mentions helped Australia, might be something they accidentally stumbled upon. Multiculturalism.

Wear explains that since immigration is what made Australia, the affinity for multiculturalism was already pretty high. Irish people were willing to embrace new Jewish and middle eastern dishes into their diet and Germans were willing to embrace the new traditions brought about by the Chinese.

"Australian culture is perhaps more malleable than most, both because of its history of white settlement and migration is short and because its changing demographic due to immigration."- Andrew Wear

Another thing Wear mentions is that Australia has done well in its settlement services. Coming into a new country as an immigrant is never easy. There are so many processes and procedures which may seem easy to us but may be mind-boggling to someone who hasn't experienced them or doesn't have a very strong grasp of the native language. A simple example of this may be understanding local signs and by-laws. A task such as operating an ATM may be harder than a PhD thesis for someone who has never seen an ATM before or doesn't understand what the ATM is instructing them to do. " Refugees are offered hundreds of hours of free English classes and access to government works with private non-profits, foundations, religious groups and other societies to ensure members of such groups are aware and make full use of the services available to them. With such a well-rounded introduction to a new community, immigrants are likely to feel welcome and hence be more open to integrating into the Australian community- as opposed to merely being forced to assimilate or even worse, forming enclaves within society.

Lastly Wear mentions the importance of skilled immigration, to ensure that people with the right skill sets are brought into the country. This ensures an equilibrium of demand and supply in the labour market. Although such a migration policy may overlook humanitarian assistance by leaving fewer slots for refugees, it is in the best interest of Australia to prioritize its economic development. Permanent residency in Australia is given out using a points system, allowing the government to decide what exactly they want from their labour supply. Do they want younger generations of immigrants to help support an ageing population, if so, increase the number of points assigned to age? Or do they want more tech workers to emulate the success of silicon valley? Whatever the government may see fit, such a policy tool gives them the capability to accomplish it.

While writing this chapter, I asked my Aussie friends what their views were on Australian immigration policy.

The first thing they mentioned is that despite the best efforts of the government to encourage integration, enclaves inevitably form. Certain regions of Australia are disproportionately Asian while some are disproportionally aboriginal. There is very little that can be done without employing seemingly draconian policy measures (such as the ethnic integration program in Singapore). On the topic of aboriginals, the Australians mentioned there was quite some discrimination aimed at the Aboriginal people.

Another interesting point that one of my friends raised was the seeming lack of quality of National education. He mentioned how the lessons were often surface-level and may have glossed over Australia's sometimes brutal colonization of natives. He mentioned he had never heard of the White Australia policy, however, the sample size (3) is extremely tiny and may not be a completely accurate indicator. Nevertheless, my friends mentioned how not much priority was given to such classes, either by students or even educators.

One more thing they mentioned was how settlement services have evolved for the new age. Gone are the days of physical offices and meetups, Facebook and Telegram groups have taken the top spot. It transcends borders, so you can start your moving journey from the comfort of your old home. It also makes matching to similar-minded groups a lot easier.

Finally, they expressed the belief that although Australia may have done a decent job integrating immigrants, they've done a bad job of integrating the Aboriginal people. They point to countries like New Zealand, who've done a much better job of integrating their indigenous population, making phrases and traditions part of every kiwi's culture (think Maori art and the haka).

To the people that still believe that migrants do more bad than good, or that they leech off the welfare the government provides. You may want to reconsider that perspective. "Migrants pay an average of $8100 in tax each year, twice the amount given by Australians on average." Furthermore, Immigrants are 4 times as likely to be entrepreneurs or business people. Hence rather than stealing your jobs, they are very likely to create more jobs and pay more in taxes. Australians continue to benefit from immigrants and immigrants continue to benefit from the "better life" that Australia provides them.

---

Norway chapter 6

Imagine this you're playing a hypothetical video game. It is titled “country simulator” and contrary to what you may believe it does not include farming, growing a neckbeard or chewing dip. Rather your job is to build and nurture a nation, make difficult yet highly consequential decisions and ultimately try your best to ensure the success of your nation.

At the start of the game, you are given the liberty to pick and choose which characteristics would truly ensure success. You can pick what type of government it has - democratic or autocratic. You can pick how much land your nation possesses- large swathes of grassland like you might find in China and India or maybe a nation with a lack of land which forces it to be innovative with how it uses it, like Singapore or Hong Kong. As you continue scrolling through the options you arrive at the last one- “Value of country’s natural resources in USD.” Curious, you click on the small question mark beside the option. A small window pops up, “Materials or substances occurring in nature which can be exploited for economic growth”

Beside the option, you see a slider, at each end two values, 0 and 100 billion respectively. What would you pick? The straightforward answer here might be to push the slider to the other end of the spectrum. I mean who wouldn't want 100 billion dollars? So, you end up choosing the obvious answer. As the game continues, a prompt shows up early on, asking you how you would like to use the tax revenue generated by the sale of some of your natural resources. Three options pop up, “1. Large bonuses for civil servants (including yourself), 2. Use it to offset the budget and increase government spending or 3. Set up a sovereign wealth fund.” Thinking it's the most altruistic option, you pick the second one. Increasing government spending to build up infrastructure and to create many new jobs. Things start to look good, the standard of living rises, and happiness amongst people is at all-time highs. This encourages you to continue building your economy around the massive oil wells in your country.

Unfortunately, a crisis strikes. One of your neighbours which has for years been your biggest customer has come up with an efficient and cheap method for harnessing solar power. Soon enough it begins outsourcing its capabilities, helping other countries set up their own solar grids. The price of oil plummets, what used to be black gold is now worth close to nothing. This has an adverse effect on your economy. There is hyperinflation in your currency, your GDP per capita is a tenth of what it used to be and your foreign currency reserves are depleted. People are hungry on the street and there is rising instability. People riot and the country is in turmoil. The military organises a coup. Slowly the screen fades to black and shows a message. “Game over. The country is in turmoil. Better luck next time.”

If you go back and observe modern history, you'll find an interesting but scary trend. Most countries that are “blessed” with vast reserves of natural resources tend to do much worse than their less “lucky” neighbours. From the discovery of oil in Libya and Venezuela to the lush timber forests of Brasilia, the presence of natural resources has not always been a good thing. However, amongst this list of relatively failed states lies an outlier. An outlier which has taken control and benefitted from natural resources rather than being taken hostage by it.

Norway, or as Wear calls it, paradise in snow, has succeeded despite its large offshore oil reserves. To understand why Norway has managed to do so well, we should look at how it handled the discovery of oil wells off its coasts.

The north sea, the aquatic wonderland that rests between Norway and its neighbour The United Kingdom is where Norway's natural resources lie. At the bottom of the north sea lies vast amounts of oil and natural gas. Both the United Kingdom and Norway have extracted similar amounts of fuel since an agreement was reached in 1965, effectively splitting the North sea into two territorial sections. However looking at Norway it trumps the UK in almost every metric, material or non-material when it comes to living standards. From GDP per capita to happiness levels, how has Norway managed to make their little pool of black gold into a perpetual stream of prosperity?

The first thing it did properly was to show poise under pressure. When the Phillips corporation came rumbling in with relatively gargantuan sums to just explore the Norwegian territory of the North sea, Norway didn't do anything prematurely, like offering exclusive drilling rights. In fact, when Phillips couldn't find any oil, Norway forced Phillips to fulfil their contractual obligations and made them complete every possible lead. They made sure they were not steamrolled into making agreements that benefitted corporations more than they did ordinary Norwegians. It would be crazy to assume that government officials didn't face any pressure from these corporations to give them exclusive rights. When oil was found, Norway maintained that the oil belonged to them and that they had every right to make use of the oil. This was how they justified the huge 76% tax they placed on oil, knowing that if there was any profit to be made, corporations would still extract the oil.

Secondly, Norway astutely recognised that oil was a finite and non-renewable resource and they had to plan for a future where there was no more oil. Furthermore, they knew they couldn't get too dependent on oil even in the present. Norway undertook three major strategies. First, it capped the amount of oil it extracted at 90 million tons per year. Secondly, they stipulated that any oil that was extracted had to go through Norway, ensuring that there were high-wage jobs created in Norway such as technical workers and engineers. Lastly and most ingeniously it set up a sovereign wealth fund. This fund would take all the revenue from oil and invest it in companies around the world, effectively acting as a hedge against oil. If one day oil were to become obsolete, Norway could continue to benefit from what the oil left behind, the sovereign wealth fund. Today Norway's fund is valued at more than 1 trillion USD, impressive for a country of its size.

Norway's experience with oil was not an anomaly in how it deals with public policy, but rather the norm. It gives us an insight into how the Norwegians think. The main focus of this chapter, according to Wear, was how Norway prioritises and emphasizes equality. It believes everyone is equal and therefore is entitled to the benefits oil has brought the country. It believes that everyone deserves to get quality healthcare regardless of financial status, hence healthcare is universal and free. It believes that everyone has a chance to climb the socioeconomic ladder and thus has free high-quality education.

It also believes that everyone's work means something and thus has a highly progressive tax system. This Robinhood model of taking from the rich and giving to the poor ensures that income equality is maintained. Rather than disincentivising people from working harder, it ensures that people can earn a decent living doing what they love. In an economy where everyone is allowed to participate, people tend to be as productive as possible. This leads to an increase in the quality of labour. Rather than pushing people to their limits, Norway believes there are diminishing returns when it comes to such a strategy. Hence it prioritises people over profit. Wear highlights how in Norway a CEO of a publicly traded company typically only makes 20 times a normal worker's salary, much more reasonable than the 200 times found in other developed countries.

All this is well and good, but what if the slider for natural resources had been stuck at 0USD? Would that mean equality cannot be achieved or that striving for equality may not bring about the same benefits? Wear doesn't think so. Norway was successful despite its natural resources. It faced many challenges in managing the “burdens” of natural resources. Wear points out, pretty aptly, “Denmark and Sweden, neither of which have access to oil resources, but achieve similar outcomes to Norway in living standards and poverty rates.” This is likely due to the common emphasis on equality present in Scandinavian nations.

So next time you're playing the country simulator, remember to strive for equality, you might just end up winning.

---

Chapter 7- Indonesia

August 2022

‘Tunisia’s democracy is under pressure”- Hamadi Redissi (International Politics and Society Journal)

“Democracy Fades in the Arab Spring’s Success Story”- Simon Cordall (Foreign Policy)

“Why so many Tunisians voted away the democracy won in the Arab Spring”-

Siobhán O'Grady (The Washington Post)

“Dismal prospects shatter Tunisia’s democratic experiment”- Heba Saleh (Financial Times)

Tunisia was the poster child for neo-democracy, democracy captured back through brute force from dictators who were plundering the resources of the masses. It was a revolution of the 21st century, one that involved organising protests through social media and that was spurred on by young people- who were otherwise thought to be politically apathetic. The month-long protest was deemed to be highly successful at the time. However reading these headlines from August 2022, one may begin to wonder what went wrong.

In 2011, there was a lot of hope for democracy in Arabia. The Arab Spring, otherwise known as the Jasmine revolution had just begun. Spurred on by factors like famine and drought, it pushed citizens of some middle eastern nations to their limits. Seeing people dying of thirst in the streets while their overlords sat on their gold-plated toilets, people began to rebel. They demanded a say in government, one where they got to at least choose who made the rules. Seeing a threat to their empires, dictators in various nations retaliated ruthlessly. In Libya, things got so bad, that The UN had to step in to establish a no-fly zone, afraid that inaction could lead to thousands of innocent civilians dying. International estimates put the total number of fatalities due to the Arab Spring at slightly over 60 000 people, equivalent to more than 20 times the total death count of 9-11.

If the mobilisation of the masses resulted in no democratic reform, what does this tell us about the transition from tyranny to autonomy? Is it impossible to transition from dictatorship to democracy? Or worse is democracy not all that it's made out to be and that countries will never succeed regardless of their style of governance?

This is certainly not the case. Democracy has been seen to have a net positive effect. Democracies tend to be richer, with similar autocracies making on average $15000 lesser per annum per capita. Democracies have also been seen to have lower rates of poverty and greater quality of healthcare, suggesting that the spoils of democracy are enjoyed by many and not a select few. To see how a country can effectively transition from dictatorship to democracy we have to look no further than the third-largest democracy in the world.

Situated in the Malayan archipelago lie over 17 000 islands collectively known as Indonesia, With a rich history that includes colonialism, dictatorship and eventually democracy, Indonesia provides us with a great model for how countries can somewhat effectively manage this transition.

According to sources on the internet, an overly simplified modern history of Indonesia is as such, “The Dutch began to colonize Indonesia in the early 17th century; the islands were occupied by Japan from 1942 to 1945. Indonesia declared its independence after Japan's surrender, but it required four years before the Netherlands agreed to relinquish its colony.”

Highly dependent on trade, Indonesia had built an extremely sturdy network of interrelationships in the Southeast Asian peninsula. This put in it a position to be a highly influential country in the region, which it maintains to this decade. Another consequence of its reliance on trade, Indonesia is home to a very diverse population, with the most friction being present between ethnic Chinese (close to half of whom are Christian) and the ethnic Indonesians most of whom subscribe to Islam.

This friction and fear were used by the despotic leader, Suharto to remain in control from 1967 to 1998. Over these years, he ruthlessly campaigned against the ethnic Chinese, calling multiple times for ethnic cleansing. Suharto himself was directly involved in the genocide of 500 000 ethnic Chinese people (estimated to be a gross underestimation). However, due to ethnic Chinese being a small minority, Suharto remained popular throughout the 70s and 80s, and even received support from the CIA in exchange for ridding Indonesia of those “pesky communists”.

It was the economy and corruption that led to his downfall. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, many Indonesians were hurting and struggling to put food on the table. All while corruption was rampant. Suharto himself was looked at as a major culprit, estimated to have embezzled anywhere between 15 to 35 billion USD worth of public funds. With greater agitation and social unrest, Suharto responded with increased hostility and authoritarianism.

This led to the infamous 1998 tragedy, where violent protests eventually led to President Suharto resigning and ceding control to the vice president, B. J. Habibie.

In the aftermath of Suharto's resignation, there were two major fears in people's minds. Firstly the fear of a military coup. Although a military coup may have brought about short-term stability, many knew that a military coup was how Suharto gained power in the first place and they didn't want to be burned twice. They knew that reform required time, patience and democracy, something the Indonesian army could not provide. Secondly, people were terrified of anarchy due to ethnic, religious and separatist violence.

This period, post-Suharto, better known as Reformasi was volatile yet at the same time brimming with hope. Experts from around the world were consulted on how to bring about a successful transition from autocracy to democracy. Many years were spent negotiating and calibrating new laws and amendments to the constitution to ensure a new Indonesia, one ruled for and by the people. Reformists had six demands that they adamantly believed were indispensable and necessary for the transition to democracy.

The six demands were;

1. Enforce rule of law; laws without adequate enforcement and punishment are useless and act as a mere slap on the wrists, encouraging such unlawful behaviour

2. Eradicate corruption and nepotism; public funds can never help the public if they never reach them. Roads remain unmaintained, schools unfurnished and hospitals barren all while politicians line their pockets.

3. Prosecute Suharto; punishment was necessary to show that people could not get away with crimes and to emphasize the enforcement of rule of law.

4. Amend constitution; The constitution serves as a foundation for every republic, as such democratic reforms have to be baked into a constitution for them to continue being influential.

5. End military involvement; Every country needs a strong military, to fend off any threats to their sovereignty, but this is where it should end. A country shouldn't be run like a military and likewise a military, not as a country. Thus ending the military's political involvement was deemed to be the best way forward

6. Allow regional autonomy; Many of the issues faced were by people in other regions of Indonesia feeling that the government in Jakarta didn't have a clue on how best to manage situations at a grassroots and local level, leading to many separatist movements. By giving regional autonomy, regions could continue to play a large role in shaping Indonesia while at the same time doing their best for their specific constituents.

Starting with the political structure of Indonesia. To ensure violence didn't ensue, lawmakers believed that everyone needed to be felt that they were heard. As such Indonesia opted for a proportional representation system, commonly found in Europe as opposed to the winner takes all system found in the US.

This picture paints an accurate representation of what proportional representation leads to, a legislature with many different voices, preventing one group from imposing its will on others, rather than requiring groups to work together to come up with solutions that don't infringe on the rights of any one group.

Another thing that Indonesia did, which in my opinion is crucial in making democracy work, is the separation of powers. This serves two main purposes, decreasing abuse of power and increasing accountability. When the executive branch of a government begins meddling in the judiciary branch, or when religiously motivated politicians begin meddling with anti-terrorism task forces, politicians begin to feel like they're above the law. The second example is especially salient given Indonesia’s context: a Muslim-majority country with quite a few underground extremist Islamic groups. Indonesia's anti-terrorism task force has excelled, doing especially well after the devastating 2002 Bali bombings, keeping the country and the surrounding regions relatively protected from the threat of terrorism.

Last but not least, one decision that Indonesia took which has seen widespread criticism was the decentralisation of politics (in effect the 6th reform). More power was appointed to regional governments which according to Wear led to a fall in separatist agitation, increased budget transparency and improved policy. However many argue that it has also exacerbated the issue of corruption, making it much harder for anti-graft agencies to track down and prosecute misdoers. Despite this argument, corruption has seemed to have fallen, maybe due to other factors such as increased funding for anti-graft agencies and increased enforcement of anti-corruption laws. Indonesia has steadily climbed the chart of the least corrupt nations, progressing from being bottom of the list up to being in the 89th position.

There were many other reforms introduced but these are the three that I wanted to highlight. Corruption is still rife in Indonesia and Suharto was never prosecuted officially but the other four demands were met to certain extents. There are certain disadvantages to the actions taken such as political gridlock in a proportional representation electoral system and increased grassroots corruption due to increased local autonomy, but for the most part, Indonesia is in a better position than it was close to 25 years ago.

As major democracies around the world backslide into authoritarianism, even Indonesia, which has had its fair share of concerns, it is important to remind ourselves of the benefits of democracy and the dangers of autocracy regardless of how benevolent the dictator may seem.

Indonesia may not be the democratic utopia many think of, however, it provides a reasonable roadmap for a country to shift from dictatorship to democracy. Maybe if countries like Tunisia had followed a similar path, we may not be reading the headlines we are now.

---

Chapter 8- Germany

Manufacturing is a largely vague and generic term. It can mean a variety of things, after all the act of producing even the smallest trinket can be considered manufacturing. However, when it comes to the context of countries, manufacturing usually means the making of articles on a large scale using machinery ie industrial production. Many do not realise it but a large amount of GDP in even the most developed countries comes in the form of manufacturing. There is a myth that countries have to transition from a manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge-based one. This myth stems from the fact that when we think of manufacturing we think of textiles, rubber and maybe even steel. Goods that are very labour-intensive but produce slim profit margins. However, manufacturing encompasses subindustries such as pharmaceuticals, luxury cars and even the machines that make steel rubber or textiles. For this chapter I will be talking firstly about the case for manufacturing, secondly, about how Germany became the manufacturing behemoth it is today and lastly, based on Wear observations, how Germany is keeping manufacturing alive in today's cut-throat globalised economy.

The case for manufacturing

There are many advantages to having a lively and blossoming manufacturing sector in any country. The first advantage is that it can ensure the diversification of one's economy. If we were to look at a country in the same way we look at an investment portfolio, we would see different industries such as tourism, real estate and manufacturing making up pieces of the pie, each contributing a different amount to a country’s Gross Domestic Product. Similarly in an investment portfolio, we might see different stocks or indexes making up pieces of the pie, each contributing a different dividend that collectively contributes to the profit (hopefully) the portfolio makes.

In the world of investment, one piece of advice transcends all proficiency levels. The phrase “diversification is key” has been repeated so many times, it's become a cliche. However, this piece of advice is as sound today as it was when it was first repeated. We never know which industry might suddenly collapse, leaving us with a basket full of broken eggs. Investment managers that diversified their portfolios fared much better in 2008 than those who had gone all in on real estate. Similarly, at the height of the pandemic, the tourism industry was hurting but technology companies like Microsoft and Google which allowed people to work from home effectively were thriving.

As such countries also need to hedge against the risk of declining industries. By making a country have a thriving manufacturing sector, they can add one more industry to their “portfolio” to make it even more robust. This diversification also spreads to the labour market. Although having a country full of computer scientists may be great, considering the high salaries and therefore tax revenue they would bring, the reality is that the labour force is always going to be diverse. The differences in abilities and interests are inevitably going to lead to people being unable or uninterested to do certain jobs. As such having a diversified economy is key to raising productivity and ensuring that labour market participation remains strong. We have to look no further than China where the stereotype that a university degree trumps any sort of other education has led to an abysmal lack of technical workers. Furthermore, by having a diversified labour market, any decline in certain industries would not result in a sudden increase in unemployment.

Secondly, based on a Brookings institute report, manufacturing continues to provide high-wage jobs, especially for workers who would otherwise earn the lowest wages. According to them, the manufacturing average wage was a whopping 20% higher than the average non-manufacturing wage. Low-wage workers in manufacturing fared the greatest while higher-wage workers benefitted the least when compared to their non-manufacturing peers. As such it could be said that the manufacturing industry has an equalising effect on wages, helping to tame income inequality caused by other sectors. It is therefore only fair to keep manufacturing alive to provide a decent alternative to less academically inclined workers or those who may have had to forgo further education due to other reasons.

Lastly, although it may seem counterintuitive, the manufacturing sector makes a “disproportionately large contribution to environmental sustainability,” according to that same report. “Of the clean economy’s 2.7 million jobs, 26% are in manufacturing, compared to 9% of U.S. jobs overall.” Manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles leads to an overall net negative carbon emission over the lifetime of that product. As such if a country focuses its efforts it incentivizing green manufacturing, it can increase innovation in an emerging field while also doing its part to fight climate change.

How Germany became a manufacturing behemoth

To see how Germany became the manufacturing behemoth it is today we need to go back to 1862, at the beginning of the reign of Otto Von Bismarck who brought about political stability and is thought to be the founding father of the modern German state. He is said to be the man that united all of Germany's fractured states into a coherent federal whole. By cunningly waging hostilities against France, Bismarck managed to get the south German states to join the union and effectively forming the Germany we know today. This led to increased free trade between states that allowed for industrialisation to fully take hold in what was still at that time a simplified sustenance-based economy. Bismarck also introduced two new things to fight the rampant spread of socialism. Firstly he instituted universal healthcare, knowing that for manufacturing to be thriving he needed healthy and productive workers. Secondly, he demarcated a minimum education level. Despite manufacturing being somewhat low-skilled, Bismarck realised that having an educated workforce was necessary to spur innovation to take manufacturing to the next level. Lastly, Bismarck oversaw the adoption of a unified German currency, that spurred trade.

Post World war 2 West Germany saw a lot of aid from other countries such as the US. “The Marshall Plan was implemented in West Germany (1948–1950), as a way to modernize business procedures and utilize the best practices. The Marshall Plan made it possible for West Germany to return quickly to its traditional pattern of industrial production with a strong export sector.”

How Germany is keeping manufacturing alive

In the book, Wear mentions 4 main strategies used by Germany to keep manufacturing alive.

1. Investing in workers

2. Focus on Research and Development

3. Focus on Sustainable and Steady growth

4. High level of collaboration between workers and employers

Investing in workers

One of the first ways Germany has ensured the survival of manufacturing is to ensure that there are skilled workers for every imaginable skill (344 different skills to be exact.) When it comes to vocational training the issue tends to be that companies are largely unwilling to train workers themselves. After all, why should they? What incentive do they have to pay workers a salary if they are yet to contribute and could leave at any moment to work freelance or join a competitor. On the other hand, universities have tended to and still do focus on academics and lesser on practical applicable skills. You can't really graduate with a bachelor's in plumbing, can you?

So how does Germany address this issue and ensure that it has enough technical workers to support a massive economy? Simple it treats vocational training and education with the same level of care, resources and respect that it does with Universities. Unlike in other countries where vocational schools carry a stigma or stereotype of inferiority, Germany prides itself in producing top-notch technical graduates, in turn helping to dispel this stigma.

However, simply throwing money at vocational institutes to build another fancy lab isn't going to suffice either. Germany makes its dual system (vocational and academic) work by investing the required time and effort as well. The exams and curriculum are designed with the help of unions and employers, hence constantly evolving to ensure that the curriculum is up to date with what is demanded by the private sector. This prevents a mismatch of skills from forming and results in higher labour participation. This constant ambition for quality is what truly sets Germany apart.

Compare this to the vocational training system in China, which according to experts is crumbling. The problem of skills mismatch has gotten so bad in fact that many degree holders are left jobless, being forced to do jobs that they are not equipped to do. As such, there is inefficient usage of resources in the labour market, with not enough resources being allocated to technical jobs.

Furthermore, technical workers in Germany earn far greater than their counterparts in other countries. As such technical workers can earn a liveable income and don't need to worry about being able to afford necessities. For example, a plumber in Germany makes an average of 25 euros an hour, even when adjusted for price power parity (cost of living) this works out to be greater than in other countries.

Focus on research and development

Recently I was having a conversation with my friend about the (US) stock market and dividends on certain shares. We were talking specifically about how there was so much variety when it came to the rates of dividends provided by shares, how some shares provided dividends of 5% and above while some even provided no dividends at all. We both wondered if some shares do not provide any dividends, why would anyone want to buy them? After doing a bit of reading (googling) we figured out that certain shares get away with not giving any dividends at all by having a potentially huge rise in the cost of the share itself, hence earning the investor money in the form of capital gains instead. There was one share in particular that has done this well. Amazon, otherwise known as the everything store, is a wildly popular online marketplace to buy and sell goods. With its own distribution centres and logistics fleet, Amazon is a behemoth that has firmly grabbed almost all the market share in its industry in the US. One interesting thing is that Amazon pays investors $0 in dividends, mainly for one reason, it reinvests almost all of its profits back into the company. Although I am not approving of some of their practices (how they treat workers in the distribution chain), I have to admit Amazon has been immensely successful. In fact, over the last 5 years, it has had close to a 200% jump in stock price. Amazon knows it cannot get complacent while being an industry leader, hence this is why they invest so much money into research and development. Amazon is hyperaware that to stay relevant it has to be ruthless and constantly innovate, staying ahead of the curve, for if it doesn't it risks becoming obsolete.

A similar mindfulness about the precarious situation of global markets is present in Germany as well. They too are aware that by becoming lazy at the wheel, they could lose all that they've gained. That's why they are constantly striving for innovation, especially in manufacturing, where even a 1% increase in productivity could be a million more in revenue. Germany has some of the greatest R and D spending relative to GDP at 3% and aims for it to be an even more ambitious 3.5% by 2025. To spur innovation, there is a very interesting institute known as Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. However the term institute may be somewhat misleading, Fraunhofer is actually a collection of 76 institutes spread throughout Germany, each focusing on different fields of applied science. With a mammoth budget of more than 3 billion USD and a massive cache of 25000 skilled innovators, Fraunhofer as a collective embarks upon 6000-8000 projects every year working hand in hand with universities to see if theoretical advancements can be materialised in the real world. Once a concept has materialised and shown to be viable, Fraunhofer institutes work with different private companies to implement these innovations on a mass market scale. However, the institutes still hold on to the intellectual property rights of the innovation, ensuring that key innovators get rewarded for their hard work and don't get shortchanged by large corporations. Companies on the other hand also benefit, they get the latest technological breakthroughs delivered to their doorstep and see increases in productivity from the usage of these innovations. Companies also get to expand their R and D outside the confines of their company and get to tap into the knowledge and expertise the institute brings to them in a variety of different industries. As such it is evident that Germany is keen on incentivising research and development as a tool to keep manufacturing alive and healthy.

Focus on Sustainable and Steady growth

Just now I mentioned how Germany is similar to Amazon in the sense that it prioritises R&D and innovation. Now I will highlight how different these two are. German companies often have to swallow the bitter pill of prioritising sustainable steady growth over fast short-term profit. German companies like to focus on long-term prosperity, willing to forgo a quarter, a year or a decade of large profits in exchange for stable and sustainable growth. On the other hand, Amazon does everything it physically can to slash costs and raise profits (including avoiding 5.2 billion in corporate federal income taxes and treating their workers like crap). One company's CEO even was quoted as saying this in Wears's book “Uvex’s goal is not extremely fast growth, funded by equity investment or by debt, which carries a high degree of risk. The preference of the family is to have sustainable and profit-oriented growth.” Furthermore, another reason to pursue steady growth is that firms are unwilling to compromise on the quality of their product. Firms like Uvex, who could easily outsource production and make much more, conscientiously choose to locate themselves in Germany where the operation of manufacturing plants is a lot more expensive. As Wear states “Businesses are less interested in searching for offshore production opportunities”, which may impede on the quality of goods and rather choose to build customer loyalty and in doing so reinforce the ‘Made in Germany’ positive connotation of higher quality goods and services.

High level of collaboration between workers and employers

One thing I found really interesting about Germany was how involved employees are in the decision-making process in German companies. Companies are almost run like mini democracies, with companies being legally required to make sure that employees have voting rights and don't have to only depend on greater bargaining power through the use of trade unions. German companies are required to have a two board system; a management board for operational issues and a supervisory board that functions like boards in the US that appoint CEOs and help with long-term planning. What is interesting is that in these supervisory boards, 1 in every 3 members is an employee representative. In companies of more than 2000 people, 1 in every 2 members is an employee representative, making the employee an equally recognized decision maker as compared to shareholders. This prevents standoffs between unions and companies and instead allows for constructive collaboration between employees and employers.

I’ve always held the belief that the best way forward for companies and countries is to foster a sense of stakeholder capitalism rather than shareholder capitalism. Wear describes this exact phenomenon in his book as well, “ The Anglo-American model is based on the notion that the primary purpose of the company is to serve the interests of the shareholders. By contrast, the German model takes into account the broader interest of stakeholders as well as shareholders.”

This shift is being seen in other parts of the world as well now, with firms realising the importance of their employees and how treating them well directly affects their bottom line.

Conclusion

Germany has a lot to teach us, but this doesn't mean its methods do not have shortfalls or disadvantages. When it comes to sustainable steady growth, such a method is surely great for already established companies but this invariably hinders the formation of startups that push for the implementation of radically new and disruptive technologies. There is this sense of German companies being generally risk averse and this permeates into their financial system as well, with Wear pointing out how it is a lot harder for start-ups to get seed funding as compared to the ease at which established companies can gain access to credit. Secondly, somewhat ironically Germany is going to have an issue with a lack of skilled workers. However, it won't be due to a lack of quality technical education but rather due to a lack of people. Germany is seeing its population decrease, with a fertility rate of 1.53 per woman, which is less than the replacement rate of at least 2 (cause it takes two to make a baby). Furthermore, with an apprehensiveness towards immigrants, this issue will surely balloon as they will slowly see their reserve of skilled technical workers slowly but surely dry up.

Overall there is a lot Germany has to teach the world and some things that it could learn as well. By ensuring manufacturing continues to thrive, Germany ensures jobs continue to be created that sustain its economy. With an increasingly globalised economy, Germany is going to have to stay on top of its game and continue innovating if it wants to keep its top seat.

---

Chapter 9- South Korea

“Human development, as an approach, is concerned with what I take to be the basic development idea: namely, advancing the richness of human life, rather than the richness of the economy in which human beings live, which is only a part of it.” - Amartya Sen

Just a few days ago, I was rewatching the Big Short, the blockbuster Hollywood movie about the 2008 global financial crash. Nearing the end of the movie, Brad Pitts's character, a banker says this, “You know what I hate about fucking banking, it reduces people to numbers. Heres a number , every 1% increase in unemployment 40000 people die.” Although that fact might seem unbelievable, its actually quite true, the actual number is closer to 37000 but 40000 is a close enough approximation. Economics is often said to be dehumanizing. When economists talk about society, they give the impression that they value the dollar over human lives. However, it is important to remember that the opposite is true. As one of my favourite economists/tiktoker, Kyla Scanlon often likes to repeat, “people are the economy,” and I have to agree with her.

Therefore, I think it is very important that we take what world-renowned philosopher and economist Amartya Sen said many decades ago seriously. The advancement of economies ought to mean the advancement of its people, not just its GDP. This is not to say that GDP doesn't play a role in judging an economy, it's still a salient indicator, but we need to look further.

It is Amartya Sen's work that led to Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq coming up with the Human Development Index in 1990. The HDI is a composite index that tracks the development of a country relative to others. It looks at other factors in addition to income when ranking countries and as such is seen to be much more holistic.

One of the data sets that is an integral part of the HDI is life expectancy. Life expectancy is very important for an economy, having one that is too low risks not having enough people to support the economy itself. Hence countries that have low life expectancies are found closer to the bottom of the HDI. If we were to analyze the countries with low life expectancies we would some common factors. As Wear points out Countries that have a low life expectancy tend to;

1. Often be in the middle of some sort of conflict or have been victims of long periods of conflict

2. Have low levels of sanitation. (Infections are still some of the biggest killers in poorer countries)

3. High infant mortality rates

4. Low levels of health literacy due to an overall lack of quality education

When you think of all these factors the last country that might come to mind is South Korea. However, just less than a century ago it wasn’t the bustling and technologically advanced metropolis it is today. To summarise the many tragedies that South Korea has had to overcome, at least in its modern history, I made this timeline.

South Korea was not the only victim of World War 2 or the cold war. Similarly, it wasn't the only one with astronomical increases in life expectancy in standards of living. After all, when conditions are so bad, improvement is maybe more likely than deprovement. However, South Korea does provide us with an interesting case study, one with the presence of a “control group.” Just like in a research study where we can compare the effects of an intervention with other groups with different or no interventions. We can similarly compare the effects of policy changes made by South Korea on life expectancy with North Korea. Factors such as ethnicity, genes and environment are relatively controlled for due to the common ancestry of North Koreans. In fact, many families were separated by the partition of Korea into two, with many still having cousins or even siblings on the other side of the DMZ. Furthermore, North and South Korea share a similar environment and also share similar traditional diets. Traditional Korean foods focus heavily on fruit, soy, steamed vegetables, rice, fish and fermented foods such as kimchi. The Korean diet is also one that is characterized as minimally processed, as well as low in sugar and fat.

Despite all the similarities, North Korea still has an average life expectancy that is 11 years shorter. This difference is way larger than it should be, to put it into perspective, West and East Germany only had a difference of about 3 years between them, after World War 2. All this leaves us with one question, “ How did South Korea increase life expectancy by such a large magnitude, so drastically?” Furthermore, “How has it kept making slow and steady improvements?” (It is no longer a given that countries will see a continued rise in life expectancy with the US experiencing a fall in life expectancy just last year)

To understand that, we need to first understand life expectancy, the best way to do so is with a little math. This formula explains in simple terms, what goes into increasing life expectancy. Therefore to increase life expectancy, you have to make sure kids don't die while also ensuring that the population lives to a ripe old age. That's why simply targeting one of these isn't enough to fight low life expectancy, both have to be tackled head-on. Henceforth, I shall explain every policy with how exactly it affects our golden equation.

However before I dive into the policies, that resulted in South Korea thriving, I also have to highlight how well South Korea has done in terms of life expectancy and the overall health of its citizens. Over the past 100 years, South Koreans have increased by 17.5 cm on average which is 5 cm taller than those in North Korea. Healthy life expectancy at birth (how many years a newborn can live without suffering a disabling injury or illness) is 73 years, placing it 9th in the world. Child mortality has dropped from 6% to a mere 0.28% today while deaths have gone from 0.0278% of the population to 0.0081% today. In 1960, South Korea had a low life expectancy of 53 years. This has skyrocketed to 83 years in the year 2019, an amazing 30-year leap that places it 4th in the world in terms of life expectancy.

The 4 Major Policies/Factors for South Korea's high life expectancy are ;

1. Improvement in sanitation levels

2. Amelioration of Health Literacy

3. Universal Healthcare

4. A healthy diet

Improvement in sanitation levels

Sanitation levels in South Korea were dire after the Korean war. Wear aptly highlights that, “In 1971, an astonishing four out of every five Koreans were infected with parasitic worms (due to the dreadful sanitation levels) – which cause malnutrition, anaemia and even death.” However there was a sudden improvement noticed all around the country, which at that time was mostly rural. Wear and many experts credit this improvement to the Saemaul Undong movement of the 1970s. This movement, also known as the New Village movement, was a political initiative started by then-president Park Chung-hee. The objective of this initiative was to improve conditions in rural areas (not urbanise them) in a grassroots method as opposed to a top-down government method. It involved the heavy involvement of the villagers, who were given the autonomy to do what they wished with a limited amount of government resources provided (each village was given a set amount of cement and other tools). The overall aim was to increase the standards of living in these rural areas. Some of the improvements made were in the water and sewage infrastructure, which allowed more Koreans in rural areas to have access to clean water and excellent waste removal services. In fact, 98% of the rural population now has access to the public sewerage system, a drastic improvement from 1961. Secondly, Wear also points out that the rise in urbanisation did play a part in improving sanitation. The higher incomes and hence greater tax revenues in urban areas allowed for much greater sanitation infrastructure to be built. Furthermore, in urban areas, where population density is much higher and people aren't spread far apart, effective city planning made such infrastructure much more feasible and cost-effective.

In developing countries, close to 800 000 children, under the age of 5 are killed by diarrhoeal diseases alone. These diseases are caused by the drinking of unclean water or waste contamination. Just by improving sanitation, South Korea drastically decreased its childhood mortality rate in rural areas. Furthermore, improved sanitation also helped older folks live longer. After we turn 60, our immune system begins to deteriorate, this is exactly why older folks are much more prone to having fatal outcomes to simple infections like the flu. As such a sharp rise in life expectancy was seen after the 1970s.

Amelioration of Health Literacy

Health literacy, which is knowledge about behaviours that lead to better health outcomes is also a leading factor which has led to better life expectancy in S. Korea. With an increase in income from these urbanised areas, families started becoming aware of the benefits of further education. They realised the longer they kept their children in school, the higher their eventual wages went on to be. As such S. Korea started to become more and more literate. Every single South Korean now completes at least a secondary school (high school) level of education. This is very impressive, considering that in 1970, only 40% of students even made it past high school. With higher rates of overall literacy, students started to become aware of healthier behaviours through their various classes. However, this rise in health literacy isn't just limited to the classroom. Students often bring home such healthier habits and pass them on to their parents as well, people who may not be aware of the benefits. Furthermore, awareness campaigns were also launched to inform the citizenry. During the New Village Movement (Saemaul Udong), Wear mentions how people were taught to avoid contact with human waste and to wash their hands regularly with soap.

Habits such as eating healthier, avoiding smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol go a long way in extending life expectancies. Children require a good diet, with childhood malnutrition making a child way more susceptible to illness and hence death. Furthermore acts such as smoking and alcoholism lead to increased rates of lung cancer and liver failure, which significantly curtails one's life. Hence an amelioration of health literacy in S. Korea has led to an increase in life expectancy.

Universal Healthcare

In America, close to 12 million people have medical debt exceeding $10000, with anywhere between 30 to 33 million people uninsured. There even is an anecdote/joke that Americans would rather take an Uber to the hospital than an ambulance in an emergency due to sky-high medical costs. Even more disturbing is the fact that due to a lack of universal public healthcare, it's possible to not get the medical treatment you need if you don't have the means to pay for it.

Thankfully South Korea takes the opposite approach and that approach of universal healthcare has led to countless lives being saved and an increase in life expectancy. In fact “a recent study undertaken by experts at Yonsei University in South Korea found that around the world, access to universal healthcare is the single most important factor influencing life expectancy.”

As the saying goes, prevention is better than a cure. South Korea idealises this with a focus on preventative care. As Wear points out South Korea provides free regular health checkups to most of its citizens, with people above 40 receiving one every 2 years. Furthermore, there are very few barriers to seeing a doctor, with the cost out of pocket being less than 4 USD on average. By stamping out diseases early on, the government essentially prevents people from having to go through the suffering a terminal illness brings about. It also saves the government money by preventing the need for too many people needing expensive treatments. Lastly, it ensures that not many working adults are taken out of the workforce due to health reasons.

Both old and young people need access to quality healthcare to ensure high life expectancies. The lack of barriers ensures that no group falls through the cracks and always has access through the comprehensive National Health Insurance Scheme. This ensures low infant mortality rates and prevents premature deaths hence allowing for a high life expectancy.

A Healthy Diet

As mentioned earlier, the traditional Korean diet is unique. Its heavy dependence on fermentation, fish and vegetables makes it very healthy, chockful of vitamins and minerals not commonly found in other foods. Being only second in the world in vegetable consumption, South Korean waists often remain elusively slim. As compared to their American counterparts, only 33% of S. Koreans are overweight or obese compared to 75% of Americans. Furthermore, traditional S. Korean food lacks the hyper-processing found in other diets. With many dishes being handmade and full of nutritious ingredients, S. Korea has avoided the curse of hyper-processed food. In comparison, in most of Latin America, in regions such as Mexico and Brasil, hyper-processed food has overtaken traditional diets due to skyrocketing food prices. Conglomerates such have Coca-Cola have exacerbated the issue, by peddling their products to the most vulnerable. They take over vital infrastructure such as freshwater streams, dirtying them with pollution and in turn pricing their sweetened beverages below the cost of water. As such people have no choice but to drink coke whenever they are thirsty. South Korea’s government also ensures that healthy Korean food is given to students (for free) as compared to the US where school districts give into lobbying by fast food giants and students are served mini Dominos pizzas for lunch.

By ensuring that the traditional Korean diet survives even in our hyper-processed globalised world, S. Korea ensures kids get the nutrition they need to grow up healthy and that adults don't drop dead too early with clogged arteries. This ensures people go on living a long meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Conclusion

Despite all the progress S. Korea has made, it cannot afford to rest on its laurels. Wear points out a few disturbing realities and trends that, if ignored may risk South Korea's position on the life expectancy charts and hence even the HDI.

Firstly, although there is high health literacy, there still is a disturbingly high rate of tobacco smoking and high alcohol consumption. South Korea has an avid drinking culture, where many are pressured into drinking after work. Furthermore, it has relatively low taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, with cigarettes costing half as much as they would in a similarly metropolitan Singapore. An increase in taxes is due and is needed to further discourage these vices, knowing how much they harm the body.

Secondly, Wear states in the book, “ Suicide has traditionally been considered an individual problem in South Korea, not a community one,” with suicide not being given the attention it deserves more and more are dying by suicide every year. This epidemic has slowly ballooned, leaving S.Korea a frog in boiling water. South Korea has one of the worst suicide rates in the world, with many seeing it as the only option. Students and the elderly alike have seen increases in suicide rates, with the former seeing increased pressure in school and the workplace while the latter seeing increasing rates of loneliness and poverty. With increasing costs of living and a lack of a safety net, everyone in Korea is seen to be at risk. What doesn't help, is the stigma around mental illness. Just like almost every other Asian nation, mental illness is treated as taboo in South Korea's highly conservative society. Even the deaths of celebrities by suicide have done little to push the conversation although significant efforts are being made. This is a complex health epidemic that will require close collaboration between the government, healthcare workers and mental health advocates to tackle.

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, South Korea has to continue to not succumb to the temptation of highly processed foods and try to keep its traditional diets intact. It is a developing issue around the world, with ultra-processed food being linked to a plethora of illnesses from diabetes to cancer. The cracks seem to be appearing, with the share of high school students who frequently consumed fast food in South Korea seen to be increasing steadily. With unhealthy fast food being seen as trendy and a quick alternative to traditional dishes, habitual consumption of such foodstuffs may lead South Korea down a dark dark path that many countries have embarked upon already.

---

Conclusion

Wear ends the book by giving suggestions to different regions on how they can improve themselves. Some of the suggestions that I found especially pertinent were

1. English-speaking countries should invest in schools and teachers. I find this to be even more important after the pandemic. The pandemic showed everyone how ill-prepared many governments were for large-scale catastrophes. One especially vulnerable system was the education system. Schools remained closed for long periods, with the burden of online schooling falling on teachers who had never been trained for such a situation. Furthermore, a lack of resources left teachers in countries like the US and UK scrambling. The impact on students has been horrendous, with a recent report showing that due to COVID, America has seen the largest math declines ever recorded. In the UK athletes like the footballer, Marcus Rashford had to step in and do the government's job when he realised that thousands of children were going hungry due to a lack of school meals. If English-speaking nations don’t pay more attention to producing a high-skill labour force, they may need either an influx of immigrants or see an exodus of firms that require such high-skill labour.

2. Nordic countries need to encourage entrepreneurial spirit. Although I am a proponent of a highly regulated economy, where rules are vigorously enforced, I do realise how this might stifle the formation of disruptive technologies. Nordic countries can do more to firstly allow more breathing room for start-ups. They can make concessions in certain labour rules and even consumer protections as long as close attention is paid to these technologies and regulation comes in when necessary. Secondly, they can spur such innovation through funding, not to say they haven't been doing so, but 2 dollars is always going to be more than one dollar right? By allowing such technological advancements to occur outside the confines of university labs and such, Nordic countries may finally be able to rival silicon valley.

3. Asian countries need to become more welcoming to migrants. It was often the case early on that citizens from Asian countries would migrate to more developed parts of the world for a better life. However, as economies back home have blossomed and developed, Asian countries see the need for more high or low-skilled labour. Countries like Japan and South Korea have long been very homogenous and unfortunately somewhat xenophobic. As an ageing population looms in countries like these, they will soon see that the younger generation is overburdened with supporting older ones. Many job vacancies will start appearing in these countries, with no one to fill them. If these countries do not start a transition to a more welcoming society, they may soon feel the devastating consequences that lack of manpower has on an economy.

---

P.S.

I hope you enjoyed reading it if you've managed to make it thus far, you should probably receive a medal considering how long this piece is. I wrote this over 6 months. In between basic military training and my training in the navy, I found time to read, write and rewrite. Be it at a coffee shop on a Sunday, or in the jungles of Pulau Tekong, I was determined to finish writing this review. Reviewing it, I’ve realised that the first few chapters lack some depth, owing to the packed schedule I had when I initially wrote it. However, I am still immensely proud of this piece of work. Spanning 33 pages, this is probably the longest review I will ever write, however, the breadth of topics present in this book warrants the attention and depth that I provided. Once again I hope you enjoyed my work!