I think that the most interesting lesson is the one Prof. Branko draws from Prebisch and China: development is not just aid, morality, or markets. It is about changing a country’s position inside the international system, absorbing technology, moving into higher value-added production, disciplining elite consumption, and building domestic capacity.
That is why China matters so much in the history of development. It did not wait for global equality to be designed for it. It reorganized its own position inside the global economy.
If you want to look at the sources of inequality look at who grabs and holds land (all natural resources) and patents of monopoly. Henry George predicted this in 1879. First come, first grabbed is not a good theory of property. It denies intergenerational equality of opportunity. As for patents they should be abolished or taxed out of existence.
My preferred treatment of the neoliberal era where development economics is concerned (which I take to be inextricably entwined with any treatment of “inequality” of that era) is Ha Joon Chang’s “Bad Samaritans.” The title says it all, really, where the effects (intent?) of “the Washington Consensus” is concerned, eh?
Perhaps a headline could be "From laissez-faire to laissez-faillir" or "From laissez-faire to laissez-fainéanter"? The sequence is self-explaining enough.
Thanks for this. A widely shared assessment today is that our world economic and political system is not heading in the right direction. So how should we change direction? From this pov, the question where we took wrong turns becomes interesting and your piece contains a number of points I didnt know about (such as the goal of 1% of GDP spending on economic aid).
The thing is inequality is the natural equilibrium in capitalism. Those 20th Century UN idealisms were fruit of the gravitational distortion of the USSR over the capitalist world.
I am thinking about this as well. Is an economic and political system providing enough stability for continued human flourishing compatible with capitalism? Our current economic system with its continued acceleration (not least due to AI) does not seem up to the task.
I think that the most interesting lesson is the one Prof. Branko draws from Prebisch and China: development is not just aid, morality, or markets. It is about changing a country’s position inside the international system, absorbing technology, moving into higher value-added production, disciplining elite consumption, and building domestic capacity.
That is why China matters so much in the history of development. It did not wait for global equality to be designed for it. It reorganized its own position inside the global economy.
If you want to look at the sources of inequality look at who grabs and holds land (all natural resources) and patents of monopoly. Henry George predicted this in 1879. First come, first grabbed is not a good theory of property. It denies intergenerational equality of opportunity. As for patents they should be abolished or taxed out of existence.
My preferred treatment of the neoliberal era where development economics is concerned (which I take to be inextricably entwined with any treatment of “inequality” of that era) is Ha Joon Chang’s “Bad Samaritans.” The title says it all, really, where the effects (intent?) of “the Washington Consensus” is concerned, eh?
I didnt know about Ha Joon Chang, looks interesting, thanks for the pointer.
Perhaps a headline could be "From laissez-faire to laissez-faillir" or "From laissez-faire to laissez-fainéanter"? The sequence is self-explaining enough.
Thanks for this. A widely shared assessment today is that our world economic and political system is not heading in the right direction. So how should we change direction? From this pov, the question where we took wrong turns becomes interesting and your piece contains a number of points I didnt know about (such as the goal of 1% of GDP spending on economic aid).
The thing is inequality is the natural equilibrium in capitalism. Those 20th Century UN idealisms were fruit of the gravitational distortion of the USSR over the capitalist world.
There is no “natural equilibrium” in capitalism, full stop.
I am thinking about this as well. Is an economic and political system providing enough stability for continued human flourishing compatible with capitalism? Our current economic system with its continued acceleration (not least due to AI) does not seem up to the task.