which infrastructure: clubs (thailand) or country (china/malaysia) fosters better competition and produce stronger players?
I have no scientific proof or something, but here is my PERSONAL OPINION: I think it doesn't matter. Imho, there are some crucial points: 1. Good trainers. (self-explaining I guess...) 2. A stock of good players. If there are already several very good players, competition gets harder, the young players have better players to look up to, copy and compete with. 3. Enough junior players. Obviously, if you get 100000 kids every year to start to play badminton, there'll be some talents under them. 4. Little outside options for the players. Both economically and in sports. In countries like Germany or the US, kids have the opportunity to go to 100 different sports. And there are millions of ways to make your living that are easier and better then becoming a badminton pro. In China, if you want to become rich and famous, you'd better become a sports star. There are hardly any other options for a kid from a poor family. (might be a cliche...;-)) 5. Enough money for infrastructure (staff, halls, travel,...). I don't think that the way it is organised (by the state or by clubs) plays THAT much of a role. Just brainstorming, there are probably other factors...
It's much easier for a country to develop a sport than it is a club! A club has to rely on fees and sponsorship. A government can hand out grants and loans.
