Anthony wrote:
> I think the (advanced capitalist country) left tends to dismiss
> growth. It is possible that growth is likely to lead to inequality
> initially (Kuznets curve) but it does not have to remain that way. If as
> we find in the Korean case, labor-intensive export-led growth did lead to
> better income distribution, then even countries like India that promoted
> such growth, doesn't even have to be export-driven, can better income
> distribution.
One of the problems with this discussion is that too often (or almost
always), people use the word "growth" without any kind of qualification.
Others -- especially Brad -- equate "growth" with the rise of real GDP,
i.e., with a measure that in the poorer countries mostly reflects the
degree of marketization. (It's like the textbook example of the two
housewives who start doing each others' washing for pay. Because they're
being paid, that raises real GDP without raising output. GDP measures miss
the decline in the production of what used to be called "Z goods," i.e.,
non-market production.)
But what really matters is not the degree of growth but the _kind_ of
growth. Years ago, Irma Adelman argued that a relatively egalitarian
(though authoritarian, I should add) path toward growth with land reform,
mass education, etc. was working for places like South Korea. (see her
article in WORLD DEVELOPMENT, vol. 3 nos. 2/3, 1975 and her work with
Cynthia Morris.) In the end, egalitarian approaches of this sort didn't
just promote egalitarianism but also "economic growth" as conventionally
measured. It worked pretty well for South Korea until it followed the
neoliberal orthodoxy and opened its markets to free financial flows, etc.
The neoliberal model of growth is obviously different. It preaches
marketization _über alles_ and then measures its "success" using what in
many cases is merely a measure of marketization, i.e., real GDP. This is a
circular argument, one that serves those who prosper in marketized
settings, i.e., the rich and businesses.
So, please don't use the word "growth" without qualification.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
