John Gulick wrote:
> My reply:
>
> I think this is the pivotal issue in this discussion. The point is not how
> much value is contemporarily transferred from South to North (via uneven
> exchange, repatriated profits, labor migration, transfer pricing, etc.);
> the point is why is it that the current division of labor on a world scale
> is set up as it is, given roughly equal levels of "development" in the world's
> advanced civilizations prior to the emergence of industrial capitalism (if
> you believe the non-Eurocentric historians).
The development of the current world division of labor has been a long historical process. The south's economies and the world economy with its institutions has been developed by the imperialist countries to fulfill their needs on both the supply and demand sides (cf. I Wallerstein *The World System 3vols* and Michael Hudson *A History of Convergence and Polarisation in the World Economy 2vols.*.) The economic structure of the south is basically the same as it was in the colonial era, monoculture relying on a few, and in some cases like the Ivory Coast, a single export for FX. This structure is the way it is because it was developed that way by the imperialist few and the world system is structured in such a way to keep things as they are.
Doug Henwood wrote:
Is it that the South is largely excluded
> from value production, or that the value is parasitically sucked
> away?
Both. What value is created is sucked away. Debt payment as % of GDP is over 90% in some places even with the IMF's forgiveness plan. With debt payment, most southern countries are net *exporters* of capital.
Sam Pawlett