On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
> * the 1990s and first half of the 2000s saw progressively lower per
> capita growth rates, so you can chop/change and find 1994-2007 as a
> slightly higher period but it's a strange slice because you've got two
> upstages and just one recession, so I've never heard of this kind of
> dating aside from people who like to torture stats until they confess
> and I'm *sure* that doesn't include you.
This meaning of this passage is a little mysterious. Growth rates where? And "progressively lower" than what? One year to the next? One five-year period to the next? How do you sub-periodize 13 years?
Whatever the referent(s) of this claim, it's at odds with these stats from the World Bank's World Development Indicators. In no case do you see steadily declining growth rates since the 1980s. Yes, growth rates are lower than the 1960s, but the 1960s were a historical anomaly. If you want to start the exercise in the 1920s, it'd look completely different, if we had more than rudimentary stats.
GDP per capita, US$2000 average annual growth rate by period
early late
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 1990s 2000s World 3.3% 1.9% 1.4% 0.8% 1.9% 1.7% Low inc 1.7% 0.6% 2.0% 1.7% 2.9% 4.5% Middle inc 3.2% 3.6% 1.1% 1.8% 3.0% 4.6% Lower mid inc 2.6% 3.6% 3.4% 5.0% 4.4% 6.5% Upper mid inc 3.7% 3.8% -0.1% -0.0% 2.0% 2.9% Low/middle inc 2.9% 3.0% 1.0% 1.5% 2.8% 4.2% East Asia/Pacific 2.2% 4.5% 5.8% 8.9% 5.3% 7.5% Europe/Central Asia -5.1% 2.6% 5.5% Latin Amer/Carib 2.6% 3.2% -0.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.6% Middle East/N Africa 2.1% -0.0% 1.1% 2.4% 2.3% South Asia 1.9% 0.6% 3.4% 2.9% 3.5% 5.1% Sub-Saharan Africa 2.3% 0.8% -1.0% -1.4% 0.8% 2.2% High inc 4.2% 2.6% 2.4% 1.4% 2.4% 1.6% EMU 4.9% 2.8% 2.2% 1.3% 2.5% 1.1% High inc: OECD 4.2% 2.6% 2.5% 1.3% 2.4% 1.6% High inc: nonOECD 5.4% 5.9% 0.9% 3.7% 2.6% HIPCs 0.8% 0.1% -1.2% -1.6% 1.4% 2.0% LDCs -0.3% -0.8% 2.3% 3.4%
> * 'growth' in any case is not well measured as GDP, because it does
> not
> incorporate 'wealth' or even the possibility of future
> accumulation. To
> get to the root of accumulation you'd have to factor in nonrenewable
> resources, wear and tear on machinery, the training of 'human capital'
> (ugh - you know what I mean) and pollution, amongst other factors
> (those
> are the four easiest) because only then will you find a genuine
> savings
> index... and when you do that you'll find very very different results
> (the World Bank did in their book Where is the Wealth of Nations
> published last year, and using 2000 as a snapshot year it would
> stun you
> how many negative per capita wealth growth stats you find
> especially in
> sites like Africa, so that even SA corrects it per capita annual GDP
> from $2800 or so to $-2 net wealth once those four factors are
> included).
Well, yeah, GDP isn't really a good measure of human welfare or ecological sustainability. But you're the one who made the claim about steadily declining growth rates, not me or James. But the problem with capitalism is its failure to satisfy human needs, not its failure to grow in conventional terms.
Doug