Here is my own take, off the cuff...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718
University of Washington Box Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Michael Pollak wrote:
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:01:42 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:11321] Development Question for Brad
>
>
> If, for the purposes of argument, we assume all the growth data are
> accurate and properly indicative, and restrict ourselves to the last 20
> years, the neoliberal argument seems to fare much better if one takes
> China and India as the rule, and Africa and Latin America as the
> exception, where the anti side seems to fare better if one takes Africa
> and Latin America as the rule, and China and India as the exception. In
> the former case, marketization seems to have dramatically improved the
> rate of growth in living standards over the previous 20 years; in the
> latter case, improvement on average looks closer to flat, with several
> dramatic cases of reversal; and overall, several people have argued, rates
> of growth are much less than they were during the years 1950-1970. So in
> the first case, the neoliberal approach looks to have succeeded, and the
> latter, failed. Both areas contain roughly the same amount of population.
In India's case, as for any other country, marketization has been going on
since colonial times. While markets were regulated during the
post-independent period in India, marketization continued. As for growth
rates, slow rates set in by the mid 1960s in India for many reasons--wars,
famine, political upheavals, and the general exhaustion of capital-goods
based industrialization. The 1980s witnessed considerable growth as
limited reforms were initiated but then they created their own
problems--balance of payments crisis due to a surge in (consumer) imports.
The 1990s also show better rates of growth.
But I think it would be difficult to attribute this higher rate of growth
to neoliberal policies alone, since initial conditions are extremely
important in economic trajectory. This is true for China as well.
>
> Do you think that's a fair starting point? Because then I have few
> questions about exceptionality of China and India. They are obviously
> exceptional in terms of their size, which it seems would give them some
> advantages other third world countries can't replicate.
This is true, numbers seem to skew everything. Relatedly I recall once a
meeting with a Brazilian industrialist (1987) who commented that if Sao
Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande de Sul, and Parana states broke away
from the rest of Brazil it would be one of the most developed countries!
But on top of
> that, when compared with Africa and Latin America, both countries seem to
> have *not* taken the route specified by the BW institutions. Neither had
> a fully convertible currency in the beginning (I think) and China still
> doesn't today.
India does not still have fully convertible currency (only the current
account). The East Asia crisis immediately rolled back whatever plans
it had.
Neither have done much privatizing. (India has privatized
> all of one firm, within the last year, and it has been a complete
> disaster.)
True. Privatization is politically difficult in India. Besides, most
state firms' net worth is close to zero! Who wants to buy these
assets? It's the plum assets that are being sought (akin to a
distress sale).
Both are notorious havens for software piracy which seems to
> have done them much good.
While piracy at the individual level may be common my own research
suggests that software piracy is limited in India. NASSCOM (the National
Software and Services Companies), the industry lobby has been aggressively
pursuing copyright infringments (I also oversaw a poli sci PhD thesis on
copyrights and patents in India) because it is under pressure from the US
and because it too play the game with its own software developments.
Both have and still do exercise at times a
> heavy hand over foreign investment.
Today this is less true for India. Even marxist states (social
democrats in practice) now have industrial policies that favor foreign
investments. India has not been successful like China in attracting FDI.
>
> In short, while both approaches are inconsistent and unique, their
> development models look more like Korea's pre-1997 model than like the IMF
> model. And neither country (I think) has ever gone through a structural
> adjustment program.
India has gone through several SAPs, 1960s, 1980s, 1990s. But these SAPs
were not of the kind that we find in other places, Turkey, Argentina, etc.
The reason is there is a strong "nationalist" bourgeoisie with their
supporters in the state.
So what distinguishes them from their colleagues in
> Africa and Latin America, besides their size, is that they never gave up
> control to the IMF.
So yes, IMF/WB control is limited.
>
> Read like that, rather than recommending the Washington consensus, their
> success seems rather to be a good argument for Walden Bello's program of
> abolishing the WTO. Bello says that legally that would place us back in
> the world of GATT which, he argues, allowed more room for "deviant" and
> effective growth schemes like this. And of course it would rid the world
> of TRIPs, which you are vigorously against on principle.
>
> The China-India/rest of the world comparison also seems to be a good prima
> facie argument for abolishing strutural adjustment programs -- which would
> mean abolishing the IMF and World Bank as we know them.
>
> So are you a closet abolitionist? Or do you interpret this comparison
> differently?
>
> Michael
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
