> > There is, however, a POV which is dismissive of the development in the
> > "Third
> > World" and is inherently incapable accepting that such a development
> > has
> > taken place.
> that honestly didn't even occur to me, which is why i didn't understand.
Mandel's Late Capitalism provides the following data for annual cumulative rates of growth in industrial production:
1. Britain: 3.2% (1827-1847), 4.55%(1848-1875), 1.2% (1876-1893), 2.2%(1894-1913), 2% (1914-1938), 3% (1939-1967)
2. Germany: 4.5% (1850-1874), 2.5% (1875-1892), 4.3% (1893-1913), 2.2% (1914-1938), 3.9% (1939-1967)
3. US: 5.4% (1849-1873), 4.9% (1874-1893), 5.9% (1894-1913), 2% (1914-1938), 5.2% (1939-1967)
4. On a world scale: 2.58% (1865-1882), 0.89% (1880-1894), 1.75% (1895-1913), 0.66% (1913-1938)
Now compare these rates with average annual growth rates for industrial production for Asian countries for a very broad comparison:
Indonesia: 11.9% (1965-1980), 6.9% (1980-1990), 9.9% (1990-98)
Thailand: 9.5% (1965-1980), 9.8% (1980-1990), 9.00% (1990-98)
Malaysia: 7.2% (1965-1980), 7.2% (1980-1990), 10.8% (1990-1998)
Singapore: 11.9% (1965-1980), 5.4% (1980-1990), 8.8% (1990-1998)
South Korea: 16.4% (1965-1980), 12.1% (1980-1990), 7.5%(1990-1998)
India: 5.7% (1950-2000)
It is not a question of lack of growth or low growth rates than those in the developed world in the corresponding period of industrial development. What gives?
Ulhas