Washington Post on A16

[Seth Ackerman]

Brad De Long wrote:

> If your ideal is something different, then you have to deal with the 
> fact that the dominant feature of post-1945 economic history is that 
> the countries that integrate themselves into the world economy--that 
> export a lot, use the proceeds to buy capital goods to build up their 
> productive capacity, and then export some more--are the big winners.
> 
	Which examples are you talking about? The greatest post-1945 success
stories -- South Korea is the most notable -- followed a development model
that not only differs from the IMF/Treasury model, but which the
IMF/Treasury actively seek to demolish: Heavy protectionism to foster
nascent industries, plus tight capital controls and state-directed
investment.

	Brad, wasn't the Western business press last year full of stories
warning that East Asia was recovering "too soon" -- because it hadn't yet
fully dismantled the same development policies that had made it rich from
1960 to 1998? And let's be honest: We're not just talking about cleaning up
some shady accounting practices. We're talking about getting rid of Asia's
core policies: In business organization, capital allocaiton, capital
controls, and tariffs.

	There seems to be a kind of doublethink here: Korea's development
model is only called a "success" when you want to highlight the benefits of
export-orientation: Everywhere else, it was a failure.

	Seth