back..

[Michael McIntyre]

Of these five, only two or three can explain the divergent paths of Argentina and Australia since 1900 or so.  The differences in educational systems and national language are constants.  I don't know whether Australia's domestic savings rate has always been higher than Argentina's or not.  (There is, of course, also the Post-Keynesian position that higher savings is an effect, not a cause, of higher investment).

What does change after 1930 are the last two variables, both of them political.  Brad DeLong's response, then, really only serves to highlight still unanswered questions.  Why was Peronism the form in which Argentina, in a very strange way, incorporated the working class into the political arena?  (For a start here, see the relevant sections of David Collier and Ruth Berins Collier, _Shaping the Political Arena_).  And why did Argentina have repeated military coups?  (Guillermo O'Donnell perhaps?)

Michael McIntyre


>>> d_squared_2002 at yahoo.co.uk 08/06/01 02:48AM >>>

 --- Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> wrote
> --much better educational system than Argentina
> --much higher domestic savings rate than Argentina
> --English makes technology transfer from Britain and America much smoother
> --no military coups
> --no Juan Peron
> 
> I think those five account for most of it. 

I think they can be reduced to four by striking out number 3 (I really can't
believe this was a significant factor in Argentina's development; there has
never been a shortage of English-speakers there).  The remaining four can more
or less be summarised as "social inequality".

dd

=====
... in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it.  -- Bertrand Russell

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk 
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie