[trb]

Just to clarify: I didn't want to say that Singapore is successful due to its small-ish population size, just that another country is almost as successful _without_ scientists at the top of the government. I chose Finland as an example since its population size is the same, the per-capita income is similiar and it enjoys a low rate-of-crime as well.

Actually, the president of Turkmenistan has a PhD in medical science [1] and the vice-president of Sierra Leone has a bachelors degree of science [2]. So both have more scientists in the top government positions than Finland. The politicians education really doesn't seem to be an important factor for the countrys success.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurbanguly_Berdimuhamedow

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sam-Sumana

[ekianjo]

Allright, seems like I picked up the wrong examples :) I agree on your last sentence as least, that the educational background of politicians is irrelevant to the success of a nation.

Then again, there are many different ways to define what "success" truly means. It really depends what you consider: wages / welfare / freedom of expression / perceived happiness, etc... It's hard to compare two different countries unless you take a look at a bunch of criteria.

One thing I would add, though: you cannot judge a country's current success by the politicians currently in charge. For all you know, they may not be the ones responsible for the current situation and may just benefit from what was done years ago. Economics trends are very much happening on the long term, you would not see a net difference in a few years of policy (unless something very drastic is done). Europe is, for the most, now suffering from poor decisions made during the 80s and 90s regarding sovereign debt, and only recently the massive problems seem to surface while the policies have been going on for about 30years+.