So looking at the sourced Wiki page for "Corruptions Perceptions Index," it's basically a list of countries that are or were victimized by imperialism. Makes sense, since all but two of the surveyed "institutions" are western banks. "Why then, does this country I embargo and blockade simply not have a stable economy anyway?"
Hey, we’re all down for a little bit of anti-imperialistic fervor. But I gotta say that western imperialism is probably not solely to blame for North Korean corruption. There may be other factors at work here
Here's an academic article about imperialism in Korea, written by a Korean-American scholar I happen to work with, if you're interested: https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/from-stolen-land-to-riches-us-neo-colonialism-in-south-korea
Please don't interpret this as the usual internet activity of saying, "unless you read this long article I win the conversation." I genuinely just want to provide some info.
Also, I chose this article because a peer-reviewed, published academic article passes the rightfully rigorous standards of this site.
I'm not sure if you actually understand what "peer-reviewed" means, but that article is anything but peer reviewed. It's a poorly researched, inaccurate (likely deliberately) piece of communist apologia propaganda written by a student at a 5th tier university and published by a fringe political organization (not an academic journal).
I'm not sure where you're getting that it's a peer-reviewed article. Looking it up on Google, the only thing that comes up is the link you posted, and nothing from a peer-reviewed, academic journal. The lack of other authors was also suspicious to me. I looked Riley Bove up and they (not sure of their pronouns) were an undergraduate when they wrote this article. There's almost no way that academic journals would accept articles from undergrads without permission from a supervisor/PI. As for the website it was published on, it's a far cry from a journal. The "About Us" section calls the website "proletarian" and "socialist," so it clearly has a political agenda. Finally, there were facts in the article that seemed inaccurate. It claimed North Korea set up its government without foreign intervention, but the Wikipedia page says it was the Soviets who put Kim Il-Sung in power, and it's pretty well known that the USSR propped up the North Korean economy until the former collapsed.
Also, while I agree that imperialism is a major factor in global poverty, it has nothing to do with North Korea's poverty or corruption. A UN report, based on accounts of defectors, talks about how the reason North Koreans are so poor is because all the money gets funneled to the government and military. People can't survive without bribing state-appointed officials, who are often very rich. The only way you could tie this back to the US is if the US funds the N. Korean government, which it doesn't.
Meanwhile, even the article you linked professes that the US gave tons of aid to the South. Even if the US supported some pretty brutal dictators, it clearly had a positive effect on the S. Korean economy. Today, S. Korea is more democratic and prosperous than N. Korea by far, thanks in part to the US. Blaming America or European powers or even Japan for North Korea's woes really doesn't make sense.
Sounds like there is an opportunity then! If these countries are being unfairly maligned, surely they are wonderful places to live and do business. Put your money where your mouth is and move there!
I don't get the recognised country one. How can Taiwan and China both be least recognised? Surely if most countries don't recognise Taiwan, they accept China.
Because almost all countries do recognise North Korea. There are only three that don't, whereas there are fifteen that don't recognise China (fourteen of which recognise Taiwan).
I would love it if the world just stopped recognizing North Korea. They aren't running the place like a country and thus don't deserve to be treated like one.
It's not a chad move at all. They are at a deadlock between India and China. They have to balance on a thin tightrope in order to survive, one step too close to India and they get annexed by China, one step too close to China and they get no trade deals from India. Bhutan does not recognise either of the Chinas to maintain their balance.
its a whole thing to do with china and taiwan paying island nations to recognize them and not the other and a lot of these island nations use it as a source of revenue
Because the countries that recognise China will not recognise Taiwan, and the same countries that recognise Taiwan do not recognise China, they can only choose between the two.
Not in its common name. Democratic People's Republic of Korea doesn't have a cardinal direction, so we couldn't be looking for ones with a cardinal direction in their proper name.
I just realized, China has a weird panhandle that makes the border even shorter! And that panhandle... HAS A PANHANDLE that makes the border SHORTER STILL!!!
So why does the North Korean government state that they think that the happiest people in the World are the Chinese? (One presumes that that is the stated opinion of the government, not the people.)
Got confused on the question with the P city. I thought it was only countries whose largest city started with P so I guessed Czech Republic. I tend to forget about Paris for some reason and didn't think USA could be an answer.
The question isn't about the countries largest cities, but rather countries containing a P city larger than Pyongyang, of which there are 7 (Paris, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Port-au-Prince, Porto Alegre, Puebla, and Pune) spread across six other countries (France, US, Haiti, Brazil, Mexico, and India). That's what the question is asking, which is why Prague/Czechia is not accepted.
I still don't understand what, "Country with the shortest international border *Excluding external territories"
means. I saw the Russian border comment.
I assume the DPRK/ROK border, is an international border, by definition? Unless maybe we're discussing them as a disputed territory/single country/in the midst of a civil war?
I guess the question is supposed to refer to only a single one of the borders. (The Russian border only)
If that's the case, I argue with the phrasing. I don't think anyone is going to say something like, "Name a country with a shorter international border than Canada" and expect to communicate effectively that they are specifying the single 0.8 mile long border with Denmark.
I don't think I'd ever single-out 1 border, unless told. Take Afghanistan, for example. I'd never choose 1 border to segregate.
Just my .02. 70% got it, so doesn't seem like a big deal.
Please don't interpret this as the usual internet activity of saying, "unless you read this long article I win the conversation." I genuinely just want to provide some info.
Also, I chose this article because a peer-reviewed, published academic article passes the rightfully rigorous standards of this site.
Meanwhile, even the article you linked professes that the US gave tons of aid to the South. Even if the US supported some pretty brutal dictators, it clearly had a positive effect on the S. Korean economy. Today, S. Korea is more democratic and prosperous than N. Korea by far, thanks in part to the US. Blaming America or European powers or even Japan for North Korea's woes really doesn't make sense.
Some I just guessed..
I still don't understand what, "Country with the shortest international border *Excluding external territories"
means. I saw the Russian border comment.
I assume the DPRK/ROK border, is an international border, by definition? Unless maybe we're discussing them as a disputed territory/single country/in the midst of a civil war?
I guess the question is supposed to refer to only a single one of the borders. (The Russian border only)
If that's the case, I argue with the phrasing. I don't think anyone is going to say something like, "Name a country with a shorter international border than Canada" and expect to communicate effectively that they are specifying the single 0.8 mile long border with Denmark.
I don't think I'd ever single-out 1 border, unless told. Take Afghanistan, for example. I'd never choose 1 border to segregate.
Just my .02. 70% got it, so doesn't seem like a big deal.
But it is not listed!