The rules of the international economy

Mark Jones Jones_M at
Thu Sep 3 03:08:14 PDT 1998

Brad De Long wrote:
>> if twentieth century
> history shows anything, it shows that countries that have aggressively
> pursued development strategies that focus on exporting to the industrial
> core and on importing modern capital goods from the industrial core have
> done much, much better than those that didn't--compare Italy to Argentina,
> or South Korea to India, or Mauritius to Cuba...

It doesn't show any such thing. It shows that if you default on loans (USA, 19th C), adopt highly protectionist trade strategies (Germany, USA, Japan), close your internal market to high-tech foreign compeition (Europe, USA), devalue your currency whenever you desire to defraud your trade partners (USA, UK), then you stand a much better chance of joining the imperialist charmed circle than if you are stupid enough to open your markets and deregulate. Compare Italy as a developmental state with Argentina, from 1970-1940, and which of the two was open, which closed? As for Mauritius and Cuba -- I presume this is meant in jest (check out Mauritian rain forest if you want to know what 'benefits' derive from opening your legs to the world).

Russia failed to develop because most likely it was too late to adopt the general protectionist strategy, and unable tio dusburden utself of empire. Nevertheless duting its period of closure from the world market, it industrialised.Now its de-industrialised.


Mark PS Andrew Kliman: I read your stuff, thanks. I'll respond.

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list