Mark wrote:
>In any case, the model Henwood favours seems to be the
>anachronistic one of self-confident national bourgeoisies (no doubt
>aided and abetted by parliamentary socialists) overseeing the
>creation of large-scale Fordist industries peopled by docile
>'affluent' proletariats. Maybe this is better than the comprador
>class now running Chile, but in any case that kind of industrialisation
>in Chile would only decant poverty, rural distress and latifundism
>elsewhere in the 3rd world, would it not? Or does Doug suppose that
>development is possible everywhere equally, providing only that
>sufficiently enlightened elites exist?
Whoa!
I have no idea whether Mr. Henwood favors this or that model; he of course
can respond. Regardless, it is significant what specific forms actors in
the Chilean economy are taking, regardless of whether your project is to
celebrate or bury them. This is how I understood D's query. He asks:
>This 7% economic growth - where's it come from? Salmon & logging, along
>with copper & fruit? Is the country industrializing? Is there any
>technology and skills transfer going on? Or is it mainly primary industries?
First, on where the growth comes from, some numbers. The IDB has country
specific data for all Lat Am countries at:
http://database.iadb.org/int/_brptnet/english/ Some excerpts:
Annual Growth Rates in Percent-Constant Prices
GDP by Sector of Origin 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1995 1996
Ag, Forestry and Fishing 11.5 5.6 6.0 2.7 7.4 1.5 8.5
5.5 1.8
Mining & Quarrying 7.8 9.5 5.5 4.6 2.0 0.9 2.7
7.2 11.9
Manufacturing 8.8 10.9 1.1 6.6 11.0 5.1 2.9
6.5 3.5
Electricity Gas and Water 5.6 -2.8 -4.3 28.3 20.7 4.3 4.5
6.9 1.7
Construction 8.6 17.2 4.5 3.8 12.8 14.0 2.0
7.4 10.1
Wholesle and Retail Trade 5.3 14.1 3.8 11.5 18.2 8.2 3.8
10.6 10.4
Tranport and Communications 8.8 12.6 6.6 9.8 13.8 7.9 8.6
12.3 10.0
Financial Serivces 5.1 5.5 4.0 6.3 6.0 5.8 4.2
6.0 5.7
Government
Other Services 2.8 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.6
2.5 3.0
GDP by Sector of Origin Period Avg.
Ag., Forestry and Fishing 5.6
Mining & Quarrying 5.8
Manufacturing 6.3
Electricity Gas and Water 7.2
Construction 8.9
Wholesle and Retail Trade 9.5
Tranport and Communications 10.0
Financial Serivces 5.4
Government
Other Services 2.8
Export of Goods, composition in percent, except as noted
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1995
Export of Goods ($US billions) 6.8 8.0 8.3 8.5 9.6 9.0 11.1
15.5
All Food 23.6 22.7 24.0 27.6 28.9 28.6 27.2
24.6
Ag Raw Materials 9.7 8.1 8.7 8.2 9.3 10.5 11.3
12.6
Fuels 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2
0.3
Ores and Metals 58.0 59.0 56.2 51.0 48.3 44.5 44.7
49.6
Manufactured Goods 8.5 9.9 10.5 12.7 13.1 19.3 16.6
13.0
Clearly the tables pose more questions than they answer, but it's a start in
answering Doug's first question. Looks like copper is still king, and after
that food processing, famous for shitty wages and low tech. As for
manufacturing, we'd need to see what the rise and fall 90-95 might mean.
Regarding whether the country is industrializing, transfering tech, etc.
(what some call "developing"), I don't know. Anyone out there have some
insights?
There is this, though, from the discontents: "development" in Chile is
producing serious class polarization, suggesting that if tech transf.,
productivity gains, etc. are happeing, they are not reflected in levels of
compensation.
>From NACLA May/June 1997: "How Chile's Rich Got Richer":
"International investment in Chile rose from $1.5 billion in 1990 to $2.8
billion in 1993, and the skyrocketed to $4.3 billion in 1995.... Growth has
boomed at an average annual rate greater than 7% since 1985 -- by far the
highest in Latin America ... making Chile's macroeconomic performance the
envy of every finance minister in Latin America."
"...radical redistribution of national wealth to a few conglomerates like
Grupo Angelini [typical of the new grupos -- conglomerates -- in emergence]
coincides with a decline in the percentage of national income going to
wages, from 42% in 1970 ... to 33.9% in 1993. It also coincides with an
overall rise in poverty. In 1994, 284.% of Chileans lived in poverty,
compared to 17% in 1970..."
"Poverty in Chile used to be synonymous with rural landlessness or urban
joblessness. Today, the masses of Chile's poor are no longer marginal to
the national economy, but central to the workings of the country's
free-market economic model. They are low-paid, temporary workers in the
forma sector of the economy. Chile traditional industries like textiles,
garment and shoe production collapsed under import pressure with the
dictatorships neo-liberal policy makers opened the economy in the mid-1970s.
Many industrial workers lost their decent paying union jobs in that period,
settling for lower-paid and unstable processing jobs in the fishing, forest
and fruit-export sectors."
And a pitch for Spanish readers. The IDB and WB have been doing "poverty
maps" to "direct social investment" in structurally adjusted countries. A
nifty group of Chilean analysists said: fuck that, what we need is a "wealth
map". The result is _Mapa de la extrema riqueza en Chile_, by Hugo Fazio
(Santiago: LOM Ediciones, 1997). Frustratingly liitle info on some of the
"development" questions posed, but excellent in detailing the machinations
and corruptions of the emerging grupos, transnat. cap., etc.
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
