Singapore had a high GDP per capita at its independence in 1965
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 3 against
Historical sources establish that at the time of its independence in 1965, Singapore was a less-developed nation with a low standard of living and low GDP per capita, achieving high economic standing only subsequently through decades of industrialization and growth.
Agriculture in the development literature has been postulated as providing impetus for urban industrialization through its role in capital accumulation. While large states with concomitant large export potential of agricultural surpluses may subscribe to this paradigm and may also allow growth of a rural agricultural sector in parallel with an urban industrial sector, small states find it difficult to use the agriculture sector as a springboard toward national economic growth by virtue of size limitations. Small states require alternate capitalization modalities to grow their economies, and some have sidelined agriculture in favor of urban activities, such as manufacturing, finance, banking, and tourism. It is plausible, based on demonstrated successes like Singapore, that structural transformation may take a path in which the agriculture sector is initially sacrificed in favor of more high value urban activities. Since its independence in 1965, Singapore made policy decisions to focus on developing its non-agriculture sectors such as finance, banking, and entrepôt trade. In 1983, the country even reduced its agricultural activities to less than one percent of land area located in six agrotechnology parks. Capital accumulation through the non-agriculture sectors proceeded to consequently make its GDP per capita one of the highest in the world. However, the country did a “U-turn” in the 2010s to re-invest in agriculture, but through high-tech farming, such as indoor plant fact
Singapore is a small densely populated urban island of 625 square kilometres (240 square miles) with a population of 3 million people, located at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. Despite its small size and lack of natural resources, Singapore has achieved enviable economic development since gaining independence in 1965. Much of this past success has been achieved through rapid industrialization, with heavy investment in technological and human capabilities. Today it has a per capita GDP of over US$22,000, comparable to some European countries. Thirty years ago, however, Singapore was a factionalized nation with little industrialization, high unemployment, high crime rates, and a very low standard of living.
The republic of Singapore has long been presented as an example of a "free market" success story. It is used, along with the other "little tigers" of East Asia, to support the contention that exportoriented industrialization is the most effective strategy for development. Certainly in general economic terms, Singapore has been remarkably successful in generating growth and improving the living standards of its populace. At independence in 1957, the island was still very much a lessdeveloped country with little manufacturing industry, a decaying urban structure, rapid population growth (4.4% per year), widespread poverty, and high unemployment (1O-15%).1 By 1984, per capita GNP had reached US$7,260-higher than that of Ireland and Italy, the manufacturing sector was vibrant, having grown at an annual rate of over 17% between 1960 and 1982;2 the physical and social infrastructure was the most developed of any country in the region; and poverty had been dramatically reduced. This is all the more remarkable given that the republic had few natural advantages except for its geographical location and the industriousness of its workforce. Further, the decision to leave the Federation of Malay States in 1965 cut the island off from its traditional hinterland. But in 1985 the expansion of Singapore's economy, which had been averaging 9.7% per year since 1965 and had never fallen below 4%, slowed precipitously and real GDP showed a negative rate of 1.7% (see Table 1). The following discu
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.