How do countries become richer than others?

Some countries have established institutions that form a good breeding ground for education, savings and technological progress – or they have simply been blessed with a culture or a geography that has formed a productive environment.

Before the Industrial Revolution there were only very small differences in countries' prosperity.

But the revolution brought with it a shift to mechanised production, which resulted in great increases in productivity and efficiency.

With this revolution, it was mainly European countries that saw massive increases in their production output. Today these countries are way ahead of certain other countries in the world.

This difference in the timing of the Industrial Revolution can explain much of the difference between rich and poor countries today. It is therefore interesting to study factors affecting the timing of the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 in which changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times. It started in the UK, then subsequently spread throughout Western Europe, North America, Japan, and eventually the rest of the world.

The industrialisation process in the rest of Western Europe and the United States after 1870 has been termed 'the second Industrial Revolution'.

Poverty is still the biggest problem the world faces from day to day. Every country suffers from it to some degree, however certain places are greater effected than others. This is because the level of economic growth differs from country to country. The greater amount of growth the less room there is for poverty. This is simple reason why some countries are richer than others

They become richer by exporting goods and collecting higher taxes off of thier people. Also the bigger thier GDP ( Gross domestic product) the better

the answer is mass marketing.

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005