Economic Comparison Of China And Nigeria

1959 Words 8 Pages
1.3 billion, 1.2 billion, 186 million. The respective populations of China, Qin Zhang’s country, India, Abdul Hussein’s country and Nigeria, my country. China has a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) output of $19.7 trillion and India has a GDP output of $7.9 trillion . These numbers indicate that these two countries have the strongest economies in Asia while Nigeria with a GDP output of $1 trillion holds the title of the strongest economy from the African continent. This zoomed out view allows us to relate and compare the similarities of our nation states. A zoomed in view of living conditions will also provide some insight towards to how closely related life for the supposed lower class in these countries is. I have lived in Nigeria …show more content…
It is important to note how other factors such as the might of Britain’s armed forces and colonialism aided in the decline of the Indian and Chinese economies. In the case of Qin Zhang’s China, the British forced opium into the empire even though the substance had been banned by the ruling emperor. While in Abdul’s India, the British restricted the production of textiles which had been a centerpiece of the Indian economy. Major consequences of the Industrial Revolution include the rapid increase in the world population, the increased rate of species extinction, urbanization, increase of world per capita GDP. Interestingly, Nigeria falls in the Sub Saharan region which has not benefited from this increase in world per capita GDP. India and China have also not benefited greatly from the Industrial …show more content…
About 12 percent of migrant workers were putting in 13 hour shifts a day. The massive extent of the inequality also extends to the housing conditions of these migrant workers. The majority just like Qin live in dormitories that are provided by their employers in factories or on construction sites. These dormitories are crowded and lack basic furniture, sanitation facilities, heating and air-conditioning. It is apparent that 22 per cent of migrant workers had a living area of less than 5 square meters per capita and 28 per cent between 5 and 8 square meters. On average, over 55 per cent of migrant workers possessed living space of less than 10 square

Related Documents