One major feature of Finland’s rise is the exportation of a natural resource. Finland located and used a resource that gave them an edge in trading and sent their economy up. “The abundant forests provided the basis for Finland’s economic progress (Oinas, 2005).” This edge on the trading market allowed Finland to grow economically. As far as growth in the political sector, their history was a helpful resource. “With support from the state, the leading national elites, Finnish nationalism (“Fennomania”), along with the consent of the rulers in St Petersburg, the transformation from an agrarian to an industrial society slowly began (Oinas, 2005).”
South Sudan has a similar opportunity, however their resource is not nearly as peaceful as forests. South Sudan is faced with the difficulty of trading oil. Other nations, specifically Sudan, cause turmoil in South Sudan in an attempt to exploit their oil reserves. (Belloni, 2011). Due to the oil sharing crisis, South Sudan cannot harness the economic power behind their oil resources. This will hinder their ability to get off the ground and establish a strong economy (Belloni, 2011). …show more content…
It has been argued that, in the Finnish case, such traditions have been instrumental to the nation’s capacity to transform itself (Oinas, 2005).” This explains the main difference between the successful state and the unsuccessful state: history. The one major dissimilarity is that Finland has a long history and basis to form their strength from, where South Sudan started from scratch. South Sudan is still fighting to establish sovereignty, security, and recognition. Without the implementation of these basic human rights, South Sudan will not be able to flourish. Finland inherited these rights from their European roots, employing them long before their economic boom after World War
South Sudan has a similar opportunity, however their resource is not nearly as peaceful as forests. South Sudan is faced with the difficulty of trading oil. Other nations, specifically Sudan, cause turmoil in South Sudan in an attempt to exploit their oil reserves. (Belloni, 2011). Due to the oil sharing crisis, South Sudan cannot harness the economic power behind their oil resources. This will hinder their ability to get off the ground and establish a strong economy (Belloni, 2011). …show more content…
It has been argued that, in the Finnish case, such traditions have been instrumental to the nation’s capacity to transform itself (Oinas, 2005).” This explains the main difference between the successful state and the unsuccessful state: history. The one major dissimilarity is that Finland has a long history and basis to form their strength from, where South Sudan started from scratch. South Sudan is still fighting to establish sovereignty, security, and recognition. Without the implementation of these basic human rights, South Sudan will not be able to flourish. Finland inherited these rights from their European roots, employing them long before their economic boom after World War