'Development' question

[Brad DeLong]

>G'day all,
>
>When globalists and antiglobalists do get to talk to each other, the debate
>usually gets to the third world, and the globalists usually smile
>indulgently and say look at the economic growth figures of such-and-such an
>LDC.  If the antiglobalist  answers that, s/he's immediately on the other's
>turf.
>
>Now, it occurs to me that capitalist development 'take-off' moments are
>marked by an appropriation of something - enclosure, and/or privatisation,
>and/or commodification of something (often a whole way of life) not
>formerly commodified.  That means 'economic growth' can't help but be
>dramatic, as stuff without formal market value, and/or without formal
>profits, and/or without any recourse to market transactions at all could
>well equal zero on the national accounts.  They suddenly appear on the
>accounts purely by virtue of a formal change of status, don't they?  So, as
>the accounts soar, you actually get people losing their access to a
>livelihood, and/or public services and/or a tenable social network of
>collective-life-sustenance.

Which is why it's better to look at social indicators: infant 
mortality, life expectancy, literacy, access to clean water, et 
cetera.

Brad DeLong