There is a combination for sure, but I think geography and history has massive importance. No there aren’t really others than Singapore that could have had that success. Malacca didn’t have suitable harbors for instance. Singapore had the by far best most strategic location with the best harbor conditions and it was selected by the British as a trading spot. They invested massively in coaling infrastructure and harbor handling capabilities that meant by the time they got independence they had a massive advantage over everyone else.
Of course they did many smart things but as a Norwegian I see all the time how people are bad at seeing value in strategic locations over resources. For instance my native Norway is not strategically located from a trading point of view but has oil. But just like Singapore success is not guaranteed. You need to make smart decisions even when you got oil. In fact most oil countries are quite screwed up or squandered their wealth in different ways.
You can compare the UK and Norway for instance. Both with about similar amount of North Sea oil. Norway managed its oil a lot better. Norwegian government earned more than twice as much on the same oil.
We prioritized maximum extraction of oil over quick extraction for instance. Norwegian government mandated building oil fields in a way that gave lower short term profits but larger long term profits. Norway took the long view and in addition setup an oil fund to save that money. There was also deliberate policies to build up an advanced oil services and technology industry which is today world leading.
Saudi Arabia which has had oil much longer had no oil tech industry to speak of for instance. We build 3D modeling software, measuring instruments, seismic ships and all sorts of stuff.
Like Singapore we ceased in unique opportunities given and made the most of them. But at the same time it would be unfair to say Sweden or Finland could have copied us and gotten the same wealth. They didn’t have oil.
But Denmark and UK did and both made worse choices. But even they made better choices than the Middle East. Also I read what some oil states in the US had done such as Oklahoma. And that is just sad. The worst possible management of natural resources largess.
But luck plays some role. Norway’s oil policy got hammered out by socialists thinking long term. Thatcher was a super capitalist only thinking of quick rewards and using oil wealth to crush unions. People like her are unable to take a long term perspective.
Hehe obviously I am caricaturing it a bit. As a socialist I have “some” bias. But I think I have good reasons to make that argument. Our equivalent to Thatcher at the time oil sector got built out here wanted to essentially sell all the oil to Americans for short time gain. Unlike socialists they did not want to build out a proper domestic oil industry with significant national control. The money they talked about getting from selling all our oil rights to Americans was minuscule compared to what we ended up making.
