I share Doug's view on this issue that FDI is basically two thirds to OECD and about 80% to about 10 countries in the non-western world, a few of which are OECD economies (Singapore and S. Korea for example). But this is an incomplete picture of how imperialism actually works today (here we need a redefinition, which goes beyond FDI flows and outflows of profits). To the outflows one must add dividends, interest payments on loans, and royalties (not to mention outflows due to transfer pricing). We also have to include suppressed values brought about by commodification (a classic capitalist feature) where prices received by developing country exports are low enough to yield considerable benefits to OECD consumers at large such that real incomes are still high. This can be seen business process offshoring as well. This is new kind of terms of trade issue.
This does not mean that non-OECD economies do not gain through these flows, they do (China, India, etc. for example). Their capitalists are figuring out the tricks of the trade. But structurally speaking OECD economies continue to benefit far more than non-OECD in an integrated world economy. Is this imperialism? Using a classical definition, I would say no. But it would be difficult to argue against the view that the OECD economies have a stacked deck. Myrdal's cumulative causation is still quite valid even as some countries can replicate the preconditions for dynamic accumulation. As for OECD workers, they are sure a party (even if passive) to enjoying the fruits of labor elsewhere (again through cheaper goods and services, thereby enjoying higher real incomes). In the so called periphery there is also accumulation, but of a limited kind generally. Cheers, Anthony xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelaenshaven 24, 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: +45 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote: > > Instead, we should recognize that the social-democratic movement has had >> success in sharing the profits gained from the real immiseration of the >> Third World >> > > I don't doubt that colonialism was central to Europe's initial rise to > wealth, but how well does this describe contemporary capitalism? Most FDI > flows to rapidly growing regions in Asia, and very little to poor regions > like Africa. Africa still suffers from the ravages of the slave trade, but > it's barely a measurable source of profits today. Or did you have something > else in mind? > > Doug > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > --
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
