In a recent tweet, Jason Hickel (Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics) pointed out that countries following socialist economic systems have not fared too badly compared to capitalist countries in most human development indexes. He referred to a study by Cereseto (Cereseto et al., 1986) conducted in 1986 that used the Physical Quality of Life (PQL) composite index produced from infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and literacy rates. In their paper analysing 123 countries grouped into low-income, middle-income, upper-income, and high-income countries, they found that socialist countries achieved better results in the Physical Quality of Life Index (PQL),which measuresinfant mortality, child death rate, life expectancy, population ratio per doctor, literacy, and education.

Concurring with Cereseto, Moon’s similarly cross-national study from a sample of 116 countries observed that left governments have distributed social surplus effectively to enhance welfare, compared to governments that were right-wing dominated (Moon et al., 1985). Thus, the political ideology of the ruling regime directly affects government policies on how best to use public funds, leading to better overall health outcomes for their constituents (Lena et al., 1993).

At this juncture, it is important not to romanticise the achievements of socialism or capitalism but to evaluate based on their respective political contexts. Furthermore, it is crucial to provide a more measured response to often heard comments that “socialism has failed, capitalism has succeeded” and vice versa. Thus, it would be interesting to quickly view the performance of these ‘socialist’ and ‘capitalist countries’ with currently available data. Thus, to have an unbiased overview, this brief essay attempts a comparison between socialist and capitalist countries using data from the Our World in Data website https://ourworldindata.org.

The countries used for this quick observation were randomly chosen based on the ideological alignment of the ruling parties in the respective countries. As there are always possibilities of changes during elections (if multiparty electoral systems exist), the classification was based on the political ideology or leanings of the current government that has been in power for at least two terms. It should be noted that the political landscape has changed since Cereseto’s study in 1986, and there are more complex variations of political economic systems today, ranging from market capitalism, market socialism, state capitalism, planned socialism, and mixed economies. However, this essay will limit itself to the simple grouping of the capitalist or socialist dominant economic systems of countries according to gross national income per capita classification¹.

Table 1: Capitalist and Socialist Country achievements according to GNI per capita.

GNI/per capita	Countries	Child mortality	Life Expectancy	Medical doctor per 1000 ppl (2021)	Literacy Rate	Gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education (2023)	Share of women in Parliament
Low Income	DRC	7.6%	61.9	0.36	80.5%	6.7%	12.8%
	Uganda	4.1%	68.3	0.16	80.6%	4.8% (2016)	33.8%
	Niger	11.7%	61.2	0.03	38.1%	4.3%	ND
	Madagascar	6.6%	63.6	0.2	77.5%	6.2%	18.54%
	North Korea	1.7%	73.6	3.67 (2017)	100%	27.2%	17.61%
Low middle	India	2.9%	72.0	0.73	77%	33.1%	15.24%
Income	Pakistan	6.1%	67.6	1.08	58%	13.4%	20.47%
	Egypt	1.8%	71.6	0.71	74.5%	37.8%	27.2%
	Philippines	2.7%	69.8	0.79	98%	34.9%	27.3%
	Honduras	1.6%	72.9	0.49	89%	25.1%	27.34%
	Vietnam	2.0%	74.6	0.83(2016)	96%	42.2%	30.26%
	Bolivia	2.4%	68.6	1.01(2017)	94%	ND	46.15%
Upper middle	Malaysia	0.8%	76.7	2.23	96%	40.3%	13.51%
Income	Indonesia	2.1%	71.1	0.69	96%	42.6%	21.57%
	Argentina	0.9%	77.4	3.9	98.1%	107.1%	43.19%
	China	0.7%	78.0	2.39	97%	72%	26.54%
	Cuba	0.8%	78.1	8.43	99.7%	51.1%	55.74%
	Mexico	1.3%	75.1	2.44	95%	46.4%	50.0%
	Venezuela	2.4%	72.5	1.66(2017)	97.6%	78.7% (2009)	34.18%
	Namibia	3.8%	67.4	0.6	92.3%	28.4%	44.23%
	Albania	0.9%	79.6	1.88	98.5%	62.7%	35.71%
High Income	USA	0.6%	79.3	3.56	100%	79.4%	29.1%
	Australia	0.4%	83.9	4.1	100%	106.2%	38.41%

The data from World in Data above, presents several interesting findings, especially in public healthcare. Healthcare is an important dimension that is used by UNDP’s Human Development Index and other established global poverty index formulations. Firstly, among the low-income countries, North Korea (socialist) has the lowest child mortality rates at 1.7%, in comparison to other Sub-Saharan African countries that averaged around 7.5%. Disparities were smaller among lower middle-income countries between socialist and capitalist countries, except for Pakistan (capitalist) with a relatively high child mortality rate of 6.1% in the category. Studies have indicated that the lack of investments by the Pakistan government has caused most locals to seek private healthcare clinics for pre- and post-natal consultations (Ali et al., 2021). Conversely, Vietnam displayed a comparably low child mortality rate at 2%, even though it suffered great destruction during the war with the United States (1955-1975). Socialist Vietnam’s success can be attributed to the Communist Party’s emphasis on healthcare, achieving 93% healthcare coverage in just two decades after the Vietnam War (Le Pham et al., 2009).

As for life expectancy, we notice that 7 out of 10 socialist countries recorded life expectancy higher than the global average of 73 years (World Health Organisation), while only 4 out of 14 capitalist countries recorded better than the global average. Interestingly, Albania has the highest life expectancy among the Balkans and most eastern European countries at 79.6 years. Albania, formerly known as the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, is currently being governed by the Socialist Party of Albania (Partia Socialiste e Shqipërisë, PS) since 2013. Gjonca observed that this was due to the strong foundations laid during the communist era, giving priority to public healthcare despite it being the poorest country in Europe (Gjonça et al., 1997).

On the other hand, Indonesia, with a GDP of 1.37 trillion USD (2023), nearly six times that of Albania (23.55 billion USD in 2020), recorded a lower life expectancy at 71.1 years. Furthermore, Indonesia also has a smaller number of physicians per 1000 (0.69) population in comparison to Albania (1.88). One plausible cause for Indonesia’s poor performance was the introduction of their universal healthcare insurance scheme incorporating the neoliberal agenda of New Public Management (Erniaty et al., 2020).

On literacy rates, notably, most socialist countries displayed comparably high literacy rates with their respective capitalist counterparts. Socialist North Korea (100%), Cuba (99.7%), and Venezuela (97.6%) achievements must be viewed in context; these countries have been under enormous economic sanctions for a long time. Cuba has been under a US trade embargo since the 1960s, Venezuela since 2015, and North Korea since the UN Security Council embargo in 2006. Despite their smaller economies and being economically marginalised, most socialist countries also recorded high levels of gross enrolment ratios in tertiary education.

Lastly, left-wing governments have consistently ensured greater participation of women in the public sphere. 13 capitalist countries have an average of only 25.3% of women representation in their parliament compared to 37.8% average women participation in the 9 socialist countries. However, it could be argued if these outcomes were the result of mere gender quota systems or a result of substantially organic empowerment of women in their respective countries. In Cuba, just after the revolution, deliberate measures such as the establishment of the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC), literacy initiatives and other empowerment training were undertaken. However, these programs failed to make structural changes in society, where gender roles within the household still hold back women from exercising their full potentials (González, 2010).

In summary, the different outcomes from capitalist and socialist governance in providing basic services to the population can be attributed to the extensiveness of interventions by government or markets. Socialism is about the control of the mode of production by the state, which is achieved by either nationalisation or having state-owned enterprises spearhead the economy. Basic services such as education, healthcare, and housing are closely held by the government away from privatisation. Conversely, capitalism aspires to keep the state from controlling the mode of production and resources. Private enterprise should dominate and drive the economy with the state retreating to basic administrative and security duties. It also argues that citizens should obtain their basic services from the private sector at prices regulated by the market. Thus, as observed by Cereseto, Lena, and Moon, while socialist regimes effectively distributed wealth to fulfil the basic needs of their citizens, capitalist economies successfully created wealth and inherently accumulated wealth rather than distributing it.

However, development is more than the provision of basic needs. Several socialist governments are performing badly in terms of ensuring political and democratic freedoms for their people. The V-Dem 2025 report places Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korea as closed autocracies that are void of multiparty elections and have arguable democratic freedoms (V-Dem, 2025). However, these require further scrutiny, as people’s political participation in these so called ‘closed autocracies’ can be very different from the normative expectations of liberal democracy. For example, V-Dem regards Venezuela as an electoral autocracy, meaning its democratic freedoms and electoral process are questioned. Jorge Arreaza, the former Executive Vice President of Venezuela, argues that Venezuelans’ have immense democratic rights where they elect representatives from the lowest communal level up to the presidential elections. There have been around 170,000 elections at the communal councils from 2006 to 2023, where the citizens select their local governments and make important decisions as an expression of self-government (Marquina, 2024).

On the other hand, some economies driven by capitalism have also displayed autocratic characteristics. So, are democracies, autocracies, or semi-democracies better for development? Scholars argue that, while on average democracies perform better to provide basic needs, it can’t be ignored that certain significant economic transformations have taken place under authoritarian regimes. Most developmental states that adhered to capitalism, like Singapore and South Korea, have been oppressive authoritarian regimes suppressing labour and crushing civil liberties (Mcloughlin et al., 2024).

In conclusion, if socialist governments are better at distributing wealth, isn’t that a better option for human development? Nobel Prize economist Amartya Sen remarked in his literacy and health study that communism was, in fact, good to overcome poverty (Sen, A., 1981). However, the criticism often levelled against socialism: a country needs to generate wealth first before it can be distributed effectively to its citizens, but socialism does not have an economic plan of production and economic growth equivalent to capitalism. On the contrary, the Soviet Union performed extremely well to become a modern industrial economy within a single generation, at the expense of democratic freedoms and genuine workplace democracies that were supposed to have been the cornerstone of socialism.

In the era where governments are challenged with the multiple challenges of capitalism’s adverse externalities, such as climate change, inequality, and perpetual global conflicts, it is crucial for citizens of the world society to look beyond the failures of 20th-century socialism. It is not in our interest that we continue to be convinced by the McCarthyist fearmongering of socialism and look for alternatives that take us away from economic systems that are based on profit maximisation and overuse of global resources. Civilisation is at a crossroad that it cannot afford to ‘politicise’ development discourse and must consider seriously alternatives that socialism might offer.

by A Sivarajan

Notes

¹ The countries are grouped by the gross national income per capital levels in accordance to the World Bank Atlas method as follows;

1. $1,145 or less in 2023 – low-income country
2. $1,146 and $4,515 – lower middle-income
3. between $4,516 and $14,005 – upper middle-income
4. >$14,005 – high-income economies  

Source : https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html

Variables	Capitalist economy dominates	Socialist economy dominates
Low income	DRC, Uganda, Niger, Madagascar	North Korea
Lower middle income	India, Pakistan, Egypt, Philippines, Honduras	Vietnam, Bolivia
Upper middle income	Malaysia, Indonesia, Argentina,	China, Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela (2020), Namibia, Albania
High Income	USA, Australia

References.

1. Ali, S. A. M., & Rais, R. B. (2021) ‘Pakistan’s health-care system: a case of elite capture’ South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 44(6), 1206-1228. Advance online publication.
2. Cereseto, S. and Waitzkin, H. (1986) ‘Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life’ American journal of public health, 76(6), pp.661-666.

3. Erniaty, E. and Harun, H. (2020) ‘Understanding the impacts of NPM and proposed solutions to the healthcare system reforms in Indonesia: the case of BPJS’ Health Policy and Planning, 35(3), pp.346-353.

4. Gjonça, A., Wilson, C. and Falkingham, J. (1997) ‘Paradoxes of health transition in Europe’s poorest country: Albania 1950-90’ Population and Development Review, pp.585-609.

5. González, E.D. (2010) ‘Cuban Women: Achievements And Challenges For Social Participation’ International Journal of Cuban Studies, vol. 2, no. 1/2, 2010, pp. 138–46
6. Lena, H.F. and London, B. (1993) ‘The political and economic determinants of health outcomes: a cross-national analysis’ International journal of health services, 23(3), pp.585-602.

7. Le Pham,T., Kooreman, P., Koning, R.H. and Wiersma, D. (2009) ‘Child Mortality and Health Programs in Vietnam’s Transitional Period’.

8. Marquina, C.S. (2024) ‘Real Democracy and Continental Integration: A Conversation with Jorge Arreaza’, 17 August 2024, Venezuelanalysis. Available at: https://venezuelanalysis.com/interviews/real-democracy-and-continental-integration-a-conversation-with-jorge-arreaza. (Accessed on: 13 March 2025).

9. Mcloughlin, C., Ali, S., Xie, K., Cheeseman, N. and Hudson, D. (eds) (2024) The politics of development. SAGE, London.

10. Moon, B.E. and Dixon, W.J. (1985) ‘Politics, the State, and Basic Human Needs: A Cross-National Study’ American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Nov. 1985), pp. 661-694.

11. Our World in Data Child and Infant Mortality Available at: OurWorldinData.org/child-mortality. Accessed on: 14 March 2025.
12. Our World in Data Life Expectancy Available at: OurWorldinData.org/life-expectancy. Accessed on: 14 March 2025.

13. Our World in Data Medical Doctors per 1000 people . Available at : https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physicians-per-1000-people. Accessed on: 14 March 2025.

14. Our World in Data Literacy Available at: OurWorldinData.org/literacy. Accessed on 14 March 2025.

15. Our World in Data Gross enrolment rate in tertiary education. Available at:

OurWorldinData.org/global-education. Accessed on: 14 March 2025.

16. Our World in Data Womens Rights . Available at:OurWorldinData.org/women-rights. Accessed on: 14 March 2025.

17. Sen, A. (1981) ‘Public action and the quality of life in developing countries. Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics, 43(4).

18. V-Dem (2025) Democracy Report 2025: 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped? Available at: https://www.v-dem.net/publications/democracy-reports. Accessed on: 14 March 2025.

19. World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Life expectancy average. Available at : https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/life-expectancy-at-birth-(years). Accessed on: 14 March 2025.