>Much of Latin America and South Asia and
> almost
> all of Africa are doing quite poorly.
What is the basis for your view that South Asia generally (or India specifically) has done poorly? What are the criteria for such judgments?
> Alternatives to orthodoxy
> are
> desperately needed by the billion or two of the world's poor.
What is specifially orthodox (or "neo-liberal?)about Indian economic policy? It is not socialist, I agree, but what do you mean "orthodoxy"?
> Cuba
> has managed to achieve a high level of social development despite
> material poverty,
>and Venezuela is trying to break out of
> neoliberal
> orthodoxy.
Cuba and Venezuela are not comparable to Asian states like China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, North Korea.
>Not many other places can reproduce Venezuela, since
> most
> other places don't have oil. But it's a try. What do you propose?
What do you propose for China, Vietnam and North Korea? What is exactly "neo-liberal orthodoxy?
Ulhas