Talk:Newly industrialized country/Archive 1

Suggestion

Hello, I believe it is useful to establish a redirect to the subject: "Emerging markets". Please feel free to answer to this suggestion.

I think that this article reminds me of late 19th- and early 20th-century social evolutionists who viewed the world according to a Eurocentric, linear bias; words like "advanced" or "evolved" are heavily loaded and should be avoided if the author seeks a neutral, informative presentation. (edit by User:Musicus)

Obviously these views are persistent enough until our modern age. When they change, Wikipedia should reflect this but not earlier. Pavel Vozenilek 00:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Industrialization =/= Democratization

This is a common misperception. Unless there are specific guidelines to what makes a NIC and democratization is one of them, it should be removed. Singapore is a good example of a country that has enjoyed high economic prosperity but no political freedom. -Hmib 04:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, both Taiwan and South Korea are similarly rapidly developed during an era where there is a relative lack of political or social freedoms. At the same time, we have some "developed" countries where democracy is just as suspect even today. Japan and Sweden are dominated by one political party for decades, for instance.--Huaiwei 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Both the governing parties of Japan and Sweden have been in power by means of free elections which are opened to candidates from all parties, holding office with the mandate of voters. — Instantnood 20:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The governing party of Singapore has been in power by means of free elections which are opened to candidates from all parties, holding office with the mandate of voters.--Huaiwei 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically agree. Mind telling how many seats are actually contested between the governing PAP and other parties? As far as I remember competitions took place at less than half of the seats. — Instantnood 20:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right. The opposition contested only 27 out of 84 seats in the last general elections in 2001. You appear to have something to say in your statements above, so could you explain to us why so little seats were contested during that election?--Huaiwei 22:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The dominant party in Sweden does not have an overall majority in parliament, whereas in Japan the dominant party, which was characterised by factions, held majority until 1993. In the 2004 upper house election it gained less seats than opposition DPJ. Therefore I doubt if it's appropriate to compare Singapore with Sweden and Japan.
You gave me an answer some time ago why oppositions are so weak in Singapore.. that answer was " Anyone who has been to political rallies for the PAP and the opposition parties here will know why one gets into trouble, and the other dont! " [1]. — Instantnood 22:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are not answering my question. Tell us why so little seats were contested in the General Elections of 2001, unless the above is the best response you can master? And if you wish to quote my comments, please do at least understand what I am trying to say and not misquote them.--Huaiwei 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Am I supposed to answer every question you ask me, and to do what you want me to do? — Instantnood 01:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No you do not have to. But I suppose we can then conclude, that you cannot answer my question, for whatever reason you may have. Whether it is due to pure factual ignorance and your tendency to speculate and rely on your "personal opinion", or yet another reflection of your inability in participating in a normal discussion, I leave it to you to explain...if you wish to.--Huaiwei 09:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool.. You're drawing a nice conclusion about me that I'm " pure factual ignorant ", having a " tendency to speculate ", " unable to participate in a normal discussion ", just because I did not follow your script.. — Instantnood 16:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

By simple logic. You dont exactly leave us with many choices by your actions above, although I can perhaps add "delibrately uncoorperative and disruptive towards an otherwise constructive discussion" to the mix? :D--Huaiwei 17:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I was saying it might not be appropriate to compare Singapore with Sweden and Japan. Why do you keep asking for my answer to the participation of opposition parties in elections in Singapore? (which you yourself may already have your answer.) — Instantnood 17:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple. You came into this conversation claiming it is not "appropriate to compare Singapore with Sweden and Japan", by first saying they are "in power by means of free elections which are opened to candidates from all parties, holding office with the mandate of voters". I dont see how that makes them any different from the situation in Singapore, and indicated it. You further attempt to differentiate them by asking about the number of seats contested in the elections in Singapore. I am left wondering if you have something to say with this comment, so I asked you for it, since I dont exactly see the direct relation in that. You backed out, refused to answer, and leaves me wondering why you are backing out mid-way in the conversation, something you seem prone in doing in other conversations. You further demand to know if you need to answer all my questions (no you dont have to), and now asks me why I asked my questions (can I then demand if I need to answer your questions?).

As I suggested above, I think it is quite clear to anyone as to who is serious about engaging in a constructive discussion here.--Huaiwei 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I see. Guess everyone reading who knows about Singapore would have the answer in mind... do you want to share your answer with us? — Instantnood 07:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As is pretty obvious here, I am asking for your opinion first because I do not want to influence your view. Obviously I do have my opinion, but at this juncture, that is simply not important. Now if you are not willing to take the stage when offered it, then just admit it outright instead of playing juvenile mindgames like the above. My time could be spent more productively elsewhere.--Huaiwei 07:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright. You said the governing party of Singapore have been holding office with the mandate of voters. If only 27 of the 84 seats are contested, in what way are the rest having the mandate of voters? With less than half of its MPs elected, in what way is the governing party holding office with mandate? In what way are Japan and Sweden comparable? — Instantnood 15:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you wish for a more balanced and informed answer, then yes, precisely why I asked you that question above. I want you to go find out why only 27 seats were contested, so that you can form your own deductions, which will then answer your own questions. As I said above, I chose to ask you to do your own research instead of me feeding you the information because your apparant ignorance over this issue is likely to become too heavily dependent and influenced by my viewpoint. Now if you are not going to do this research, then please indicate your decision in absolute terms, and we shall see how this goes.--Huaiwei 16:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I am not as ignorant as you might have thought.. and that's no excuse for you to avoid answering if the one-party nature and degree of democracy of Singapore are comparable to that of Japan and Sweden. — Instantnood 05:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I am still awaiting your response. It is interesting to note that you were fumbling through Elections in Singapore and relevant articles moments after my previous post above. I suppose you didnt manage to find any answers there. :D--Huaiwei 11:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I know what are the reasons why so few seats are contested, but don't think that's so relevant that they justify comparing Singapore with Sweden and Japan. — Instantnood 11:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So what are we waiting for? Relevancy will be apparant only when it is actually discussed.--Huaiwei 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So why is the one-party nature and degree of democracy of Singapore and that of Sweden and Japan comparable? If only 27 of the 84 seats were contested, in what way are the rest having the mandate of voters? With less than half of its MPs elected, in what way is the governing party holding office with mandate? — Instantnood 12:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Erm...do you realise you are repeating what you already said days ago, to which I asked you some questions, and up till now you have still been unable to answer them despite an extended period for you to do the relevant research? Do you realise for even a tiny instance that this is going absolutely nowhere?--Huaiwei 12:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's because you're repeatingly avoiding to tell why they're comparable, and hence appropriate and valid to compare, by keeping on asking another question which is not necessarily relevant. — Instantnood 12:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly as I expected. Instantnood's knowledge in a subject area comes under scrutinity, after he chooses to participate in it. When asked to demonstrate his knowledge competency, he avoids the question by in turn demanding the answer from the question setter, while at the same time claiming his "expertise" in the subject matter. Yet repeated calls for the later to proven continues to be pushed aside by citing the question setters "unwillingness to answer his own question". His attempts to hide his incompetency by feigning offence over "demands" made upon him.

Yet, basic logic tells us that if someone does indeed have expertise in an area, and when his expertise is questioned, the natural course he will take is to demonstrate his abilities with the best researched and throught facts he can master. Will such a person need to do the same thing by talking down the other instead? Will he need to utilise such streneous means to prove his (lack of a) point? Will such a person find all excuses possible under the sun to avoid a direct rebut of a lack in confidence in his knowledge expertise? Will he need to use such underhand methods to pry information from others, from which he then attempt to build up on because he has no factual backbone to begin with?

Seriously, I think by now, anyone can see how this discussion is heading towards: nothing. If Instantnood's agenda in coming into this conversation is to expand discussion on Singapore, then apparantly it has not developed at all. I wonder if his objectives, if any, is met at all. And I do wonder if this unfortunate chain of events was entirely due to any wrong-doing on my part as he attempts to portray above. In fact, I do have reason to suspect, that the above does look like a classic case of delibrately scuttling a discussion in which he knows he is not going to gain an upper hand as far as deapth of knowledge and analysis is concerned. This gives me several concerns. One, is he here in wikipedia just to demonstrate his worth, or for the worth of wikipedia? Two, if he is someone who tries to conduct a proper conversation only when he feels it will meet his objectives, without him having to learn anything from others? And thirs, is he here to strike up another endless chain of to-and-froing more because of his personal views of other specific wikipedians, or did this all happen by chance?

Do we need to speak any further? At the end of it, I just feel sorry that Instantnood lost yet another opportunity to learn more about the world around him. A real pity for such a young and developing mind indeed.--Huaiwei 13:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I never claim to be expertise, no matter I actually am or not. What I said was " I am not as ignorant as you [:Huaiwei] might have thought.. " [2]. It's so marvellous that you can come up with such a conclusion that my " knowledge in a subject area comes under scrutinity ", my " expertise is questioned ", and " lack in confidence in his knowledge expertise ".
To proof that you're wrong, I guess I'd have to answer, briefly, your question which is not necessarily relevant to the subject matter - the comparability of the one party nature and degree of democracy of Singapore to that of Japan and Sweden. Nonetheless, I'd have to emphasise that I'm no expert, and not a local, to be familiar with everything going on down there.
The reason why so few seats were contested was that the PAP has long been a dorminant party in the legislature since the election in 1959, in which PAP won 43 of the 51 seats under a first-past-the-post system. For a time it was the only represented party in the parliament. Many opposition politicians are sued for defamation and misappropriate use of funds, for instance, and are barred from standing in elections. In recent years group representation constituencies (GRC) are introduced, requiring candidates to join elections with a certain number of non-Chinese candidates on the list, effectively making oppositions less likely to fill a list of candidates to fulfill the requirement to contest. GRC is also charged to be associated with gerrymandering.
Let me know if you're satisfied with my answer.., and please stop avoiding to address the comparability of the one-party nature and level of democracy of Singapore to that of Sweden and Japan. I'm also interested to know in what way are those elected uncontested having mandate, and the governing party holding office with mandate. — Instantnood 14:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

First, a round of a applause. I suppose it takes alot of effort for you to actually be able to type text this long which for once is not related to slandering someone else's name (at least I display far more balance in this. :D).

I do not know if this dissapoints you, but despite your greated efforts, your entire answer above fails to impress me one bit, especially if that was meant to "proof that I am wrong". At this juncture, may I remind that my sole question put to you was "could you explain to us why so little seats were contested during that election". If you could answer this question, it helps answer your own subsequent qns over popular mandate, something I repeatedly pointed out. I am not actually too concerned over whether Singapore's political situation is comparable or not to Sweden's or Japan's, something you strangely kept harping on despite the obvious fact that I am quizing you on Singapore's situation alone now. You claims that my question has little relevance to that issue is precisely that. Am I even addressing that issue yet? I am now addresing your understanding of politics in Singapore since you appear to have something to say about this issue all the time. Avoiding the comparisons? Actually this aspect is part and parcel of the overall comparisons, as you might figure out later if you may learn to take things one step at a time.

So from the above you highlight a few factors which are, to put it bluntly, a repackaged representation of whatever we can already find in wikipedia. And if they are meant to explain why so few seats were up for polling in that election, I am sorry to tell you non of your answers were correct, even if they might be said to be "contributive" factors in creating a "political climate" for such a situation to take place (itself a flawed assumption because similar factors were in place when all seats were contested in elections here). You completely missed it. The answer is only three words long...or perhaps 2 words. You dont need 2000-3000 words to explain it. That is my final clue for you.

And since we are on this topic, may I take some time to critque some of your comments above? Say "Many opposition politicians are sued for defamation and misappropriate use of funds, for instance, and are barred from standing in elections." My golly. So how many politicians in the entire history of Singapore's electorial system? Sued for "misappropriate use of funds"? Who's funds? Barred from standing in elections? Yes, but do you know the circumstances behind these bans? "In recent years group representation constituencies (GRC) are introduced, requiring candidates to join elections with a certain number of non-Chinese candidates on the list, effectively making oppositions less likely to fill a list of candidates to fulfill the requirement to contest." Is the issue more to do with ethnicity or sheer number of candidates required? "GRC is also charged to be associated with gerrymandering." So SMCs are not?

Comments?--Huaiwei 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Argentina, Chile and Brazil?

Should these countries be added to this list? I would be in favor of creating a list (by continent) of NIC's, much like there is on Developed country, for consistency's sake.

yeah it is a good idea.

off course, if mexico is there, there's no reason why Brazil and Argentina shouldn't. it seems they were already on the list but someone removed them claiming vandalism (?). Well, keeping mexico and excluding the other two "big ones" in Latin America doesn't feel right, does it?

You're wrong. Argentina and Chile are not internationally recognized as NICs. Brazil is a NIC and it is already included in the list. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"off (sic) course, if mexico is there, there's no reason why Brazil and Argentina shouldn't" sounds more like envy than something factual academic. August 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons why Mexico should be included on the list while argentina and brazil shouldnt. For example a higher Human Development Index, higher Quality of Life, Lower Inflation, Lower Unemployment, more business-friendly environment and a more stable economy. Mexico's only burden is being the southern neighbor of the US and being constantly categorized as an inferior country. If instead of Mexico, the US would have any African Nation, most of South America or Asia as neighbors, THEN we would have an immigration problem. I find it funny that people visit countries like brazil or argentina and are amazed at their development, while most americans only visit Mexican border towns and automatically assume that the rest of the country is exactly like that. If you venture further into the country (Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara, Puebla, Merida, etc) you would find that the country is not bad at all.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on many levels. First, both Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Cuba rank higher than Mexico on the UN Human Development Index. What means that these countries, have an overall higher level of infraestructure and development than Mexico.

In terms of GDP per capita and life expectancy, Mexico also ranks lower than Argentina, Chile and Costa Rica. This speaks about the size of the economy in relation to the population, and living standards.

Check your facts, Mexico has high development, but it's not the most developed or industrialized country in Latin America by far.

Either Mexico is included along with Argentina and Chile, or none of them are.

By the way, unemployment is not a determinant factor. France has an unemployment level of ~10%, but no one would argue that the country is not industrialized.

--Lobizón 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just Google a little, you will find a lot of sourced talking about NICs Chila and Argentina are not included, only Mexico and Brazil. This is mainly to the fact that NIC is an economic term, not a general term that includes several factors. It is primarily based on economics and Chile and Argentina are well behind Mexico and Brazil. Oh and I was forgeting the fact that Mexico is the only Latin American country member of the OECD and that Mexico and Brazil are invited to briefing reunions with the G8 due to their economic importance in the world, not only in the region. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is simple: You cannot create a new category of countries without a proper criteria. What's the criteria for defining a NIC? Economic importance does not necessarily imply industrialization. An example of this is the fact that countries like, say, Norway, are industrialized but not economically important, while other countries such as Thailand are economically important (banking hub, etc) but not industrialized.[3]

"It is primary based on economics and Chile and Argentina are well behind Mexico and Brazil"

That sentence does not make any sense. Well behind in which category? Again, most statistics agree that both Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Cuba are more developed than Mexico and Brazil, in relation to their economic size. In terms of GDP, Argentina ranks with Australia or the Netherlands[4], while in terms of GDP per Capita, the country ranks higher than both Mexico and Brazil. [5]

Additionally, OECD and G8 membership means nothing, it only tells you which countries are more incorporated to the global economy and politics, nothing else.

The concept of even including countries like Oman or Saudi Arabia, with little industry and entirely dependant on their oil exports, into this category is ludicrous.

Again I ask you, what is the criteria for defining a NIC? Evidently it's not economic importance, it's not the level of development and it's not the GDP per capita either. I'm a university economics student myself, and I never heard of this term being applied to current countries by any serious or reputed economists.

This article needs a complete rewrite, or at least the "current examples" section. I'm afraid you seem to be pushing a pro-Mexico "please see us as a first world country" POV, which is not beneficial to anybody. Latin America is still in the third world, let's deal with it.

--Lobizón 15:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. The one with a serious problem of POV is you. You want Argentina to be listed as a NIC even if the economist of the world does not consider it a NIC. And if you haven't heard the term NIC, well I recommend you to look for another university cause yours doesn't seem to be that international if you haven't heard the term before. And I am not the one that invented the term. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, you should recognize that this a controversial issue. If you check the definitions of NIC in http://www.answers.com/topic/newly-industrialized-countries, http://www.indopedia.org/Newly_industrialized_country.html, http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Newly_industrialized_country and http://www.nowtryus.net/article:Newly_industrialized_country, all of them include Argentina as NIC (and note that one of the definitions is provided from Barron's, the most prestigious and popular financial dictionary in the world).

On the other side, membership of OECD does not mean that a country is developed or more industrialized than all non members. If you check the "Economic Survey of Mexico 2005: Executive Summary" released by the OECD (http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,2340,en_2649_34569_35320765_1_1_1_1,00.html), it says, among other things:

"... living standards are lagging far behind the OECD average and, although decreasing in the last 4 years, poverty is still widespread. Potential GDP growth is too slow to narrow the income gap. The proximate cause of Mexico's persistent lag is the low level and slow growth of labour productivity.", and

"Human capital is the lowest in the OECD and the education system does not perform well enough to reduce the lag at an acceptable pace. Mexican children still spend comparatively few years in formal education, and do not profit from it as much as they should, so that poor educational attainment is reproduced from one generation to the next, and with it poverty."

Consequently, there are good reasons to including Argentina or Chile in the list of NICs. Do you people agree? --Diegou 14:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the 34th most develped country in the world, It's the most developed country in L. AMerica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HDI

Argentina benefits from rich natural resources, a highly literate population, an export-oriented agricultural sector, and a diversified industrial base. Historically, however, its economic performance has been very uneven. At the beginning of the twentieth century it was one of the richest countries in the world, but it is now an upper-middle income country. Despite this, Argentina remains the most economically developed country in South America (measured in GDP per capita and HDI). The HDI (human development index) can be compared to the richest countries of the Eastern Europe, like Poland, Croatia or Hungary.

Argentina is considered a developed country when it comes to human development, since its high index of 0.86 surpass many places in Europe and other industralized regions. High life expectancy, health and education access, significant participation on the world’s economy and profile of emergent economy make the southern cone the most prosperous macro-region of Latin America.

Argentina benefits from rich natural resources, a highly literate population, an export-oriented agricultural sector, and a diversified industrial base. The country historically had a large middle class compared to other Latin American countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina

Just add it diego there is not doubt beside as you posted before the reports named as a NIC. If Mexico and Brazil are NIC, then definetely Argentina.

You have sources post it and cited the sources.

So, if nobody has any good reasons to oppose I will include Argentina as a NIC. --Diegou 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a research to see if the current list should include Argentina. I have to say that too few authors consider Argentina a NIC. However some do it so I added Argentina to the current list. About Chile, I found no author describing it as a NIC. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

South American Nations

I recently went on a four month backpacking trip through South America and got to witness first-hand the relative levels of development in many nations there. Brazil definately has the moxy of being a NIC, but there are such huge disparities in infrastructure, economic development, and poverty levels between its Northern and Southern states. Argentina and Chile both had a noticeably superior industrial base, infrastructure, relative cleanliness, and a fraction the amount of beggars, shoeshine boys etc. when compared to the Andean countries such as Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. The huge difference in development and quality of life I saw, particularly when crossing from Peru into Chile was outstanding.

The military juntas of Chile, Argentina, and Brazil ended in the 1980s. Definately, these three nations should be considered modern NIC's.

Costa Rica and Panamá

Why aren't Costa Rica and Panamá considered newly industrialized countries. They seem to meet the criteria more than Oman does.

Newly industrializing versus newly industrialized

shouldn't these be two seperate articles? Newly industrialized (past tense) would refer to the 4 east asian tigers (Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong) while industrializing would be the ones listed here?

Changes November 08th

I added Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, Morroco, Maritius, Panama, Costa Rica, Bangledesh, Indonesia, Bostawana and Vietnam. I wasn't sure what to do about Eastern Europe, specifically estonia, lativa etc and poland as they were industrialized to begin with? My reason for including these countries was not so much based on criteria, but rather the fact that these countries are routinely the ones studied in terms of development and industrialization success, despite the odd setback (argentina 2001).

You cannot add countries to the list you because you "consider them" NICs. There's a well-known and well-defined group of countries that are internationally recognized as NICs, and the countries you named are not. However if you are able to cite a verifiable source in which those countries are considered NICs, it will be very helpful. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, give me a link to the "defined list of NICs". I find this definition very dubious, since I don't think that any of the countries mentioned in the article qualifies as "fully industrialized", maybe only China, India and Brazil, if we're to judge by industrial capacity and overall economic importance.

I would like to see links to a proper page that explains the meaning of this term and the criteria for inclusion. Economics is full of buzzwords like this one.--Lobizón 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You should read more carefully, there's a reference in the page, it is a book. I recomend you to go to your local library and find the information you want to check. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One book is not enough...specially not one about Geography!

An encyclopedia article like this one, that speaks of NICs as a *FACT* of mainstream economics, should have more references.

The article says...The category of Newly industrialized countries (NICs) is a social/economic classification status applied to several countries around the world by political scientists and economists...therefore speaking of NICs as if they were an accepted fact in Economics. This means that either the phrase is wrong, and we should change it to "some authors recognize...", or we should find more references.

Unless you can prove that Newly Industrialized Countries (including Mexico, Oman!, etc.), are a generally accepted view in economics, then this whole article is just an opinion by one author. --Lobizón 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article needs a complete rewrite, simply because the two sources we have located so far are an introductory economics textbook and a geography textbook.

saudi arabia?

Saudi Arabia has almost no social freedoms. voting as only recently added to the law, and women continue to be discriminated against. the article "human rights in Saudi Arabia" clearly states: "The situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia is generally considered to be very poor." women are not allowed to drive cars, or ride bicycles. women are not allowed to go to the hospital, or pretty much anywhere else without the company of a male family member.

Saudi Arabia's main export is oil. its GDP is less than $400 billion (of which 40% is directly crude oil production) and from its $160 billion exports, only $15 billion is not crude oil, as the article on Saudi Arabia states, only a mere 10% of the exports are not oil. unemployment among only males is 13%, and many estimates put it at nearly 25%.

i strongly advocate that Saudi Arabia be taken off the map/list.

Iran

Is Iran not industrialized? After all it does produce cars and the there industry employs 43.3% of there workforce.

Lack of Sources

I was googling the other day because I was concerned about how every country on the list has to be "approved" by A.C. (no hard feelings, I'm just saying that since you did the research, you have the most credibility) and it occurred to me that both the IMF and the World Bank have tables on what constitutes a low-income, middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income economy. However, I'm not sure if this fits the definition of NIC. Anyone care to share an opinion?