Also, if you think corruption is represeted by whatever intervention the State or its servants make to favor/incentive the production (producers)/consumption (consumers) of whatever good you can imagine (that is what LAC ISI is all about), then I can hardly think of one State that is not corrupt, so that would leave us with the "developmental" issue only. And I would think that "whatever is good for Coca-Cola, is good for you country" runs deep into the minds of our politicians nowadays, Brad. Check your sources on LatinAmerican politics, please...:-)))
Bradford DeLong wrote:
> >Bradford DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> Well, this is a big problem. Which is worse, or market-led development
> >> driven by clueless guys in New York who spend all their time trying
> >> to guess what average opinion expects average opinion to be?
> >
> >this is too much a simplification, Brad...what do you mean by state-led
> >development
> >led by a corrupt anti-developmental state,
>
> >???? Latin American ISIs??
>
> Certainly, for the most part.
>
> >Asian
> >Tigers??
>
> No. Corrupt, yes; anti-developmental, no.
>
> >Argentina's 1990s?
>
> No. Trying not to follow state-led development...
>
> >Perú of the 1990s?
>
> Yep.
>
> >Brazil of the 1960s or
>
> No. Corrupt, yes. Anti-democratic, yes. Anti-development, no.
>
> >Have you ever
> >consider the possibility that "state-led development led by a corrupt
> >anti-developmental state" of the 1980s and 1990s were precisely the
> >consequence of "market-led development driven by clueless guys in New York
> >who spend all their time trying to guess what average opinion expects
> >average opinion to be"?
>
> Nope. Anti-developmental states long predated the 1980s and 1990s.
> Can't blame Juan Peron on the "Washington Consensus," after all...
>
> Brad DeLong