Yes, because this is a standard that, ideally, should be as high as possible, and is most often used to explain why more aid to underdeveloped countries is necessary. Making it much more complicated than that involves too many aspects to make this question really answerable at all; for example its totally conceivable that people in a thriving but underdeveloped village are found to be happier and healthier than people living in a badly polluted urban core. Should the standard be based then on the village? No, it ought to be based on some other developed society that has embraced better technologies that allow cleaner and healthier living.
Chat with our AI personalities
8
yes
why should i know
Is it? - Well, it certainly should. The metric system is the international standard, and the U.S. is one of just a few countries that are not using it yet.Is it? - Well, it certainly should. The metric system is the international standard, and the U.S. is one of just a few countries that are not using it yet.Is it? - Well, it certainly should. The metric system is the international standard, and the U.S. is one of just a few countries that are not using it yet.Is it? - Well, it certainly should. The metric system is the international standard, and the U.S. is one of just a few countries that are not using it yet.
Developed countries should invest in cleaner technologies, provide incentives for industries to reduce emissions, enforce stricter regulations, and promote sustainable transportation options to combat air pollution. Collaboration with other nations to address global pollution sources is also crucial for a comprehensive solution.
This depends by what you mean by "national quality institute", if you mean a national standards institute which also acts as a certification body for example British Standard Institute (BSI) the 2 aspects of the body,statutory responsibility and certification body are separated and should not be confused. Some countries do not have a national quality institute. Standards in the USA are issued by private bodies.
Most developed countries hold the legal opinion that they should not, or should at most do so in a very limited way.
Theoretically both countries should have benefited. The colony should have become more developed and the coloniser should have enriched itself from the new resources. In practice this seldom happened. The colonising country did indeed enrich itself often to the detriment of the less developed country.
Rapport building and human touch.abondoning violent methods and terrorism.
es
it is unfortunate that an average individual classify a country as developed by its physical infrastructure, UAE is no where an industrialized (transitional) country not to classed developed, development constitute economically, infrastructural, human and social development, they must go along in hand, before a country can be classed developed, the countries on transitions are the countries where fully developed countries emerge from, in other hands UAE is has infrastructural, human and social development, but no where close to economical development, they are far from been economically developed, and there is a big minus, and the reason why they are still a developing country, UAE has no industrial base, if they can close this gap, they can be considered, i am an economist, if you are to consider a country to be on the list of a fully developed countries, that country should be Malaysia, if there should be a new term as newly developed countries, Malaysia and turkey, will be in that list. not UAE, far from been on that list.
Yes, Australia regularly helps developing countries both in the form of government funded aid and aid from the private sector.