For those of you who are familiar with the economic development blueprint known as the The Washington Consensus,here's an interesting view on what affected it's success. ------------------------------- " Such disgruntlement is not limited to Bolivia. Over the last five years Latin America has been plagued by revolution, sparking upheavals in Ecuador, Peru, Argentina and Chiapas, Mexico, where the IMF’s failed promises to promote economic prosperity via the policy prescriptions of the “Washington Consensus” have often played an instigating role. Not surprisingly, the Consensus has come to signify a hard-line, neoliberal set of policies emphasizing export-oriented growth though rapid, sweeping economic reform. This was not the Consensus’ original intention. Nevertheless, the IMF’s aggressive interpretation of its recommendations and history of repeated failure has hindered growth in Latin America and tarnished the Washington Consensus’ otherwise defensible formula for promoting prosperity in developing countries... " " However, a more comprehensive explanation as to why the Washington Consensus earned such a poor reputation is that Williamson’s theory, though fundamentally sound, fell into ill regard at the IMF. Cornell Economics Professor Ravi Kanbur has pointed out that, “It might be useful to start with the observation that the Washington Consensus became what it did, not what it said.” Regardless of its architect’s intentions, the IMF systematically and universally applied the most conservative interpretation of the Consensus’ principles, transforming it from a set of broad policy guidelines to a rigid neoliberal development model... " Full Article
That's why Korea went from poverty to prosperity in just a few generations. Because everything is hopeless and capitalism is bad.
That would be South. North Korea decided they didn't want all that capitalism stuff, with exploitatative trade and foreign investment. They stuck with socialism where there is no capitalist class to take advantage of the poor. 50 years later they live in complete poverty and tyranny while their exploited capitalist neighbors to the south live prosperous lives.
US support and investment in order to keep military bases in South Korea, wouldn't have had some small effect on their prosperity?
Not much. I thought US exploitation was supposed to keep countries poor. Maybe time for a rethink of that theory?
How do you make the transition from State-owned to privatization? I've heard it pointed out that the privatization that happened throughout Latin America during the 90's was privatization under monopoly conditions. This is the reason that privatization didn't produce the results that some were expecting. I see also that the privatization that occured after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90's also had corruption issues surrounding it. This made me wonder then how exactly was privatization supposed to happen? I recently read an article written by an economist who pointed out that basically in the early 90's it seems that not too many economist actually knew how to properly make the transition from state-owned to privately owned industries along with not being aware of the proper sequence or order that market reforms should take place. This he points out is what hurt the privatization moves in Latin America and probably the former Soviet Union in the 90's. Keeping in mind that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991,I'am wondering if prior to the 90's if there were enough examples of countries that had successfully made the state to private transition in the proper way that could have served as an example for what to do and not to do? LINK What economist today seem to realize that they didn't back then is that to properly make that state to private transition requires that independent oversight institutions be put in place to oversee this transition. Hopefully with this being known now we will see more countries able to avoid the mistakes that were made in the past by countries that didn't know the best way of transitioning from State owned to privatization.
South Korea and the other Asian Tiger Economies aren't succesful because of American army bases. They're succesful because they developed efficent niche industries and maintain heavy international trade. And I don't think the World Bank/IMF are quite as evil as everybody thinks. While conditionality loans aren't necessarily best/good for the people, it isn't as if they're going to random nations and forcing themselves upon them. They're bailing out countries with already hugely significant problems - hyperinflation, collapsed economies, absence of other ways to raise money - problems which are much worse than conditionality loans. They have significantly moved away from their original premise though, which was to help jumpstart/rebuild the European economies post WW2.
[And I don't think the World Bank/IMF are quite as evil as everybody thinks. ] I've always believed that also...until the other day, when afoaf met this lady. When I read her story, with all the refferences, I was shocked as it names names and places and events and how some subsidities, grants, and departments are super corrupt. http://dunwalke.com/ It's a long artical, so 3 of you may read it, it's very enlightening...well to me anyway.
the world bank and imf are not evil or good ... they just are ... the question becomes who controls them, and are they good or evil ... if its like most things, they can only be as good or evil as the people allow them to be ... same as governments. if the people allow themselves to be exploited or if the people allow themselves to exploit, you have exploitation. i don't know the answer to this, but i do know that greed is rampant in the global economies right now and its as deadly as ever.
