Canada is in an abundant TP equilibrium. Washrooms in restaurants, shopping malls, museums, universities, and other public places are, generally speaking, well stocked with toilet paper (TP).
Inner Mongolia is in a scarce TP equilibrium. With the exception of elite venues such as four star hotels and airports, toilet paper is absent from public places. The trendy place that serves serious coffee, the one that looks like it was transplanted from Bloor and Bathurst in Toronto, has no TP. Neither does Hohhot's shiny new dinosaur museum. Inner Mongolia University has smart, dynamic, internationally-trained, research-active faculty, new buildings, and fast wifi - but no toilet paper that I could see. [Updated].
Yet each equilibrium is self-sustaining. An abundant TP equilibrium is maintained through competition. Any firm that deviates from the norm, and fails to provide toilet paper in its washrooms, will be shunned by customers, who don't like unexpectedly finding themselves in an uncomfortable position and, furthermore, interpret the lack of toilet paper as a signal of deficient management and poor quality service.
In a scarce TP equilibrium, however, people come to accept lack of toilet paper as normal. They carry their own, hence are not unduly bothered by entering a stall and finding that no paper has been provided. Lack of TP conveys no particular signal - it's just the way things are. Hence the pressure for firms to provide paper is blunted.
The total amount of toilet paper used would be expected to be higher in an abundant TP equilibrium, as people have no incentive to economize on the use of a good that is provided at no cost. At the same time, the scarce TP equilibrium is associated with higher time costs, as people have to remember to carry tissues - or accept the consequences of being without, which is another kind of cost. Hence we would expect to see abundant TP equilibria prevailing when the cost of time and physical discomfort is high; scarce TP equilibria prevailing when time is abundant and material resources relatively costly.
Societies can switch between equilibria - Britain, for example, went from a scarce TP equilibrium during the second world war to an abundant TP equilibrium in the post-war period. But it's not easy. In a scarce TP equilibrium, any firm that provides toilet paper can expect to experience substantial amounts of theft from people who have run out tissues and want to stock up. Unless the firm is able to establish a reputation for superior restroom comfort, so consumers know this is a TP-providing firm, and the economy has reached a stage of development where customers are willing to pay more for a TP-provided experience, the firm providing toilet paper will find themselves paying increased costs with little benefits in terms of increased revenues.
It's hard to say a great deal more about the characteristics of scarce and abundant TP equilibria without writing down a formal model.
The point is: the difference between the developed world and the developing world is more than just material wealth. It's also the social norms and behaviours that evolve over time in response to people's material conditions. But good (in the sense of: make people happy; contribute to a just, prosperous, sustainable world) social norms cannot be taken for granted - either by developed or developing countries. They need the right environment to flourish. Yet change the underlying economic fundamentals, and social norms may well start to change too.