You can easily observe that countries with stable political, tax and economic conditions receive a bigger share of capital investments, to their benefit (or dare I say the benefit of their people?).

No. At best this is a very generous oversimplification. At worst it's simply wrong.

The countries that receive investment are those that promise the highest return on it.

Instability can be a negative factor because it obviously increases risk. However - there's absolute no evidence that directly links investment to stability.

In effect, stability is only one means to an end. As globalisation spreads it's clear that stability isn't required - at least not to the extent of the European model - because returns from developing countries are so high that increased profits more than offset increased risk.

Also, developing countries are easier to 'manage' by force because they lack democratic traditions, and because workers have much lower expectations of representation and democratic effectiveness and a much higher tolerance for sweat-shop working conditions.

When a country's labour costs are less a tenth of what they would be in Europe, businesses can easily tolerate a bit of extra security spending, and perhaps the occasional riot, because the bottom line still looks better at the end of the quarter.