Differences Between Developed Countries

Developed countries, a term used by the International Monetary Fund (hereafter IMF), are mainly characterised by their “high-income”, generally having “a per capita GDP in excess of $15,000" and their “market-oriented economies” (Washington DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Developing countries, on the other end, refer to the “countries in transition” (Washington DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). It is also important to note that developed countries tend to be of “mainly democratic nations" (Washington DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Based upon the understanding that developed state are usually states that enjoy a higher GDP and of democratic system, the paper then draws the link between them and the aforementioned factors.

(Froning, 2000) Reports have shown that developed countries are well-integrated with other states with trade agreements. (“World Trade Report 2011”, 2011) With that mind, it can be understood that these developed states would have more reason and responsibility in taking up the role of a responsible global actor. This is evident through the cases where developed countries are actively participating and leading in international bodies such as United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the most recent Paris Agreement signed in 2015, there are differentiated responsibilities between the developed and developing nations. Developed states are to collectively mobilise USD 100 billion per year by 2020 and to then set a new goal by 2025 while the other “developing states are “encouraged” to provide support “voluntarily”” (Cheah, 2017). Despite the strong difference in their need for contribution, the agreement was agreed upon by many developed countries — showing them acknowledging the responsibility in leading to tackle human security

It can thus be said that developed countries, a group of states with significant GDP, enjoy rather strong state capacity that helps efficiently allocate resources. In line with the paper’s former thoughts, having a strong state capacity is critical in a state being able to detect the areas of threats and thereby efficiently securitising the issue. Additionally, developed countries have the economic means in securitising problems and mitigating the threats. As pointed out by Curely and Wong (2008), the increase of a state capacity to “meet the needs of their population better is essential if the problem is to be contained and reduced” (p.75) when faced with human trafficking issues in Asia-Pacific. Developed countries that enjoy a stronger state capacity will then find it easier to securitise more threats.

Democracy is believed to be symbiotic with state capacity. Knutsen (2012) has pitted the “Freedom House Index (FHI), an average of Freedom House’s Political Rights and Civil Liberties indexes”, a representation of democracy level against the “Bureaucratic Quality Index (BQI)”, a representation of state capacity as per studied by Hendrix (2010) to measure the relation of democracy and state capacity . The graph (figure 1) below shows the axises plotted against each other with an array of countries spread across.
Figure