Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

An Historical Materialist Appraisal of Friedrich List and his Modern-Day Followers

2009; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13563460902825965

1469-9923

Ben Selwyn,

Asian Industrial and Economic Development

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes The author would like to thank wholeheartedly John Glenn, Tony Evans, Sam Ashman, Liam Campling, Demet Dinler, Tom Selwyn and the anonymous reviewers for stimulating comments and conversation which helped in the preparation of this article. All errors are those of the author. Williamson (1990) Williamson, J. 1990. “What Washington means by policy reform”. In Latin American adjustment: how much has happened?, Edited by: Williamson, J. Washington DC: Institute for International Economics. [Google Scholar] provides the best checklist of neoliberal policies which include: fiscal discipline (policies to combat trade deficits); public expenditure priorities (to reduce expenditure through removal of subsidies); tax reform; financial liberalisation (towards market-determined interest rates); competitive exchange rates; trade liberalisation (to replace licences with tariffs and to reduce tariffs); foreign direct investment (remove barriers); privatisation; deregulation (of impediments to competition); establish and expand property rights. For example, see Chang (2007) Chang, H-J. 2007. Protecting the poor. Prospect, [online], 136. Available from: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9653 [Accessed 5 May 2008] [Google Scholar] and Wade (2001) Wade, R. 2001. Winners and losers: the global distribution of income is becoming more unequal: that should be a matter of greater concern than it is. The Economist, 26 April [Google Scholar]. Pirie (2008) Pirie, I. ‘Ha-Joon Chang: a critique of the critique’. paper presented at the 5th Historical Materialism Conference, ‘Many Marxisms’. 7–9 November, School of Oriental and African Studies, London [Google Scholar] provides a useful discussion of these issues. The importance of a persuasive and attractive ideology was elaborated at some length by Gerschenkron (1962) Gerschenkron, A. 1962. Economic backwardness in historical perspective, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], who equated nineteenth- and early twentieth-century European nationalism with the struggle for late development in a world system already dominated by a few advanced industrialised nations. Pirie (2008) Pirie, I. ‘Ha-Joon Chang: a critique of the critique’. paper presented at the 5th Historical Materialism Conference, ‘Many Marxisms’. 7–9 November, School of Oriental and African Studies, London [Google Scholar], however, claims that Chang's (2002) Chang, H-J. 2002. Kicking away the ladder? Economic development in historical perspective, London: Anthem. [Google Scholar] methodology is faulty, suggesting that he illustrates correlation but not causation between infant industry strategies and economic growth. While the authors under discussion here provide extensive analysis of how rich countries place barriers to industrialisation in front of poor countries, they do not provide an equally detailed account of why poor country governments (and sections of their ruling social classes) accept such disadvantageous trade rules. The latter question falls outside the scope of this article, but see Shadlen (2005) Shadlen, K. 2005. Exchanging Development for Market Access? Deep Integration and Industrial Policy under Multilateral and Regional-Bilateral Trade Agreements. Review of International Political Economy, 12(5): 750–75. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], Gruber (2001) Gruber, L. 2001. Power Politics and the Free Trade Bandwagon. Comparative Political Studies, 34(7): 703–41. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] and Gallagher (2008) Gallagher, K. 2008. Understanding Developing Country Resistance to the Doha Round. Review of International Political Economy, 15(1): 62–85. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] for detailed contemporary analysis and Schwartz (2000) Schwartz, H. 2000. States versus markets: the emergence of a global economy, Basingstoke: Palgrave. [Google Scholar] for a more general historical explanation. The so-called post-Washington Consensus enlarges the role of the state somewhat. Now states should strive to correct ‘market failures’ through building good institutions, hence ‘enabling’ the market. This re-conceptualisation nevertheless leaves intact the concept that ‘free’ markets remain at the core of the development process (World Bank 1997 World Bank. 1997. World Development Report, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). The question arises of why foreign capital allowed itself to be disciplined to such an unusual extent. Garrett (1998) Garrett, G. 1998. Global Markets and National Politics: Collision Course or Virtuous Circle?. International Organization, 52: 787–824. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] and Swank (1998) Swank, D. 1998. Funding the Welfare State: Globalization and the Taxation of Business in Advanced Market Economies. Political Studies, 46(4): 671–92. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] provide useful analysis showing that they did so because of a combination of political stability, a highly trained working class and relatively well-developed infrastructure compared to other non-OECD regions of the world. Some of this paragraph draws on Wright (2002) Wright, E. O. 2002. The shadow of exploitation in Weber's class analysis, Available from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Weber-revised.pdf [Accessed 6 March 2008] [Google Scholar]. There is an important body of literature that utilises this approach in the analysis of African states. See for example, Chabal and Daloz (1999) Chabal, P. and Daloz, J. P. 1999. Africa works. The political instrumentalization of disorder, Oxford: James Currey. [Google Scholar] and Bayart et al. (1999) Bayart, J. F., Ellis, S. and Hibou, B. 1999. The criminalization of the state in Africa, Oxford: James Currey. [Google Scholar]. It is equally important to stress that capital can also engage in a process of increased relative surplus value extraction through increasing productivity while pushing worker's wages down absolutely. This has happened in the US manufacturing sector since the late 1970s and, according to Pollin (2003) Pollin, R. 2003. Contours of descent, London: Verso. [Google Scholar], Harvey (2005) Harvey, D. 2005. Neoliberalism: a brief history, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] and Harman (2007) Harman, C. 2007. The Rate of Profit and the World Today. International Socialism Journal, 115(Summer): 141–62. [Google Scholar] represents an attempt to restore profitability at the expense of labour. Navarro (2000) Navarro, V. 2000. Development and Quality of Life: A Critique of Amartya Sen's Development As Freedom. International Journal of Health Services, 30(4): 661–74. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] provides evidence to the contrary in his analysis of high-speed industrialisation in Brazil between 1968 and 1981: ‘For the top five percent of the Brazilian population, the percentage of national consumption increased from 20 percent at the beginning of the “miracle” to 48 percent by the end; for the bottom 50 percent … consumption declined from 20 to 12 percent’. Navarro also documents how the decline in living standards impacted upon the infant mortaility rate, which increased from 70 infant deaths per 1000 population to 92 per 1000 between 1968 and 1981. This suggests that high growth rates are not sufficient to guarantee high labour demand (and subsequent benefits to labour). I am indebted to Sam Ashman for alerting me to Marx's critique of List. The World Bank has its own version of social development dating back to the mid 1980s (see Francis 2001 Francis, P. 2001. “Participatory development at the World Bank: the primacy of process”. In Participation: the new tyranny?, Edited by: Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. London: Zed Books. [Google Scholar]). However, as should be obvious by now, this article is using the term in a very different way. Distinguishing between achieving social power and exercising social development will represent a further, important object of research (and action) if the concept of social development is to progress. Interestingly, neo-Listians do not consider such issues in much (if any) depth when recommending their policies to developing countries (cf. Chang and Grabel 2004 Chang, H-J. and Grabel, I. 2004. Reclaiming development – an alternative economic policy manual, London: Zed Press. [Google Scholar]). Wade (2000) Wade, R. 2000. Out of the Box: Rethinking the Governance of International Financial Markets. Journal of Human Development, : 145–57. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], D'Arista (2004) D'Arista, J. 2004. Dollars, Debt, and Dependence: The Case for International Monetary Reform. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 26(4): 557–72. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] and Monbiot (2004) Monbiot, G. 2004. Age of consent, London: Harper Collins. [Google Scholar] provide useful suggestions for an alternative international architecture. However, it should be stressed here that while (to varying degrees) these authors view such proposals as partial solutions to contemporary inequalities associated with global capitalism, the perspective outlined here proposes them as a transitional demand, and as a springboard to a further, and ultimately total, socialisation of the global economy. What is being suggested here is not the concept of degrowth associated with Latouche (2004) Latouche, S. 2004. Why less should be so much more: degrowth economics. Le Monde Diplomatique, 17 November [Google Scholar], which advocates localisation in place of globalisation. Rather, it is argued that lower but more equitable growth can be facilitated through greater international cooperation (rather than competition). Neoliberals such as Wolf (2004) Wolf, M. 2004. Why globalization works, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] maintain, quite inexplicably, that these examples vindicate their neo-classical precepts! For a critique, see Kiely (2007 Kiely, R. 2007. The new political economy of development: globalization, imperialism, hegemony, London: Palgrave. [Google Scholar]: 141).