I wouldn't go so far as to say that capitalism has made life in China better. Their borders are open to western money now and their top brass have benefitted from their human resources and trade. But the divide between the rich and poor there is greater than in the United States of America. Along with humans, China also has vast shipping areas that allow provincial lands totaling areas larger than the US to have direct access to export. India does not have the same political struggles of government versus its people as China, but they can also export with ease. Proven in the middle east, a country that has natural resources such as oil but no egress point will require one by whatever means it can get one. When I look at Africa, a continent, I see quite a lot of land in land-locked small countries than I see vast areas with a sea border controlled by one nation. Even today, oil and large quantities of bulky goods are still being shipped versus being flown, so it can't be argued that an airport that materializes in the middle of nowhere would make a land-locked location a viable exporter of goods.
So there is an infrastructure catch-22. Why build where there is going to be no return? So what do those small countries have of wealth that they can offer to the outside world? It's not their human resources. What about natural ones? It is hard to catchup when your wealthiest natural goods are owned by others. Let's go down to South America and note how its land is divided into couintries. The ones we know all know about that participate in the "western" industrialized base of capital have large coastlines. I suppose at least one big business there might be the cause of troubles in the world, but that is another story.