Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the dangers of using ‘developing country’ as a generic term than the statistical tables which follow. Our three exemplars of developing countries could hardly be more different from one another. Equal differences would emerge from any other randomly chosen group.

Brazil is obviously much larger than the other two, both in area and in population. The disparity in GNP very roughly matches the difference in physical size. Brazil's GNP in 1988 was estimated at $323 billion; Malaysia's at about a tenth of that at $35 billion; and Kenya's barely $8 billion. In wealth per head, there's not much to choose between Brazil and Malaysia – an average of $2,160 per head against $1,940 – while Kenyan poverty is striking. And the gap widens. Where Kenya has grown annually since 1965 at barely 2 per cent, Malaysia has achieved 4 per cent. The disparity, however, is not as sharply reflected in life expectancy at birth as one might have expected or as it probably was earlier this century. One possible reason is that, though poor, fewer Kenyans live in towns – 22 per cent compared with 41 per cent in Malaysia and 75 per cent in Brazil – where urban infant mortality is known to be very high.

In terms of economic growth, Malaysia is unquestionably the star performer of the three. It has the highest savings rate proportionate to GNP, and the highest growth throughout the 1980s of its exports, of which 45 per cent are now manufactures.