Fwiw abenomics hasn't had time to work itself, if it should work. The structural problems of Japan are somewhat similar to most OECD economies. Labor markets have changed because of hollowing out first and then the long recession. But this is true for many countries including S Korea. Poverty rates have increased since 1990s but not very visible except for a visible homeless population in greater metropolitan Tokyo. Female participation in the workforce remains lower than most OECD. Bring in the demographic dimension and Japan is between a rock and a hard place. Besides, Japan still has large internal market it's the Koreans and Chinese are gnawing at a whole of sectors. Institutional stickiness in Japan remains high but adjustments are being made.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Chair & Professor of Contemporary Indian Studies Australia India Institute and School of Social & Political Sciences University of Melbourne 147-149 Barry Street, Carlton VIC 3053, AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 3 9035 6161 Visit the Australia India Institute Website http://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/ Recent Conference (The Land Question) http://idsk.edu.in/program.php New Book Series (Dynamics of Asian Development) http://www.springer.com/series/13342 Recent books: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198082286.do#.UI5Wzmc2dI0 http://www.oup.com/localecatalogue/cls_academic/?i=9780199646210 http://www.anthempress.com/pdf/9780857285041.pdf http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=295354 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent from my iPad > On Sep 23, 2014, at 07:50, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Aren’t we falling into the neoclassical trap where GDP growth is the only >> > metric of successful economic policy? >> >> Who has made that claim? We can agree that the metric which matters most is >> the standard of living of the working class measured in the first instance >> by the availability of well-paying and secure jobs, but we can also agree >> that there is a correlation between that and economic growth. > > > But wait! Normally, we can certainly agree that there is a correlation > between that (living standards) and economic growth, but Abenomics is just > unorthodox enough that maybe we should question this correlation and not take > it for granted. > > If you'd like to argue that Abenomics is a failure because it has failed to > deliver improvement in living standards (as measured e.g. unemployment, > underemployment, indebtedness, poverty, etc), I'd like to see that case made > directly, rather than through an appeal to correlations with GDP growth. > > Per the article you cited, the results seem rather mixed. > -raghu. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
