development and the 2 american empires.
I came across alice amsdens book, escape from empire*.
she sees the American drive for power since ww2 as being divided into two empires. the first ’45-1980 assisted developing countries in the building of institutions to acquire technology.. and the second as failing to contribute to economic deveiopment and characterised by chronic mediocracy and closed mind. the first one died because of ignorance and immoderation.. seen in highlight in the veitnam war, the second.. well she published in 2006 but one assumes it was pretty obvious to people like her where supply-side economics was heading--- the meltdown that has happened in the past year or so. and the war in iraq ….. empires rise and fall by war she notes. p103
traditionally, colonial powers generally preferred to rule through existing power elites repressing liberals and progressives and so retarding development----industrialization, agricultural modernization and democracy ---through discriminatory policy. so while the first American empire compared very favourably to the exploitative models of british and French colonial polices --particularly in Africa a century earlier though japan was exceptional in that it promoted colonial manufacture-- (she describes the first empire as a godsend to the third world), the second…relied on the fatwas from Chicago economics (privitization deregulation liberalization) and a dark age ensued p107
she makes other remarkably good observations.
technology transfer is the key to development. all successful newly industrializing countries had developed a base of manufacturing in the period prior to ww2. acquired by colonial enterprise. since then the problem of development has changed.. it is now knowledge that is no longer available. the finished products of established manufacturers are dumped in the markets of the countries most in need of development.. barriers to entry tower as never before. late developers are doomed. the policies of the usa 45-80 were generous. ‘colonised’ countries had the opportunities for a slice of the American dream.. jobs.. a chance for personal development and to develop their country where there was strong demand for the American dream.
the game became known as import substitution/export led growth.. it was driven by demand..(it was of course condemned by supply-siders who were correctly ignored by the developers) .. developing countries started producing the goods that they themselves wanted .. tvs, air-conditions, cars, white goods--- instead of importing them. it was a sound rejection of supply-side dogma.. it rejected neo-conservatism and orthadox laissez faire……it worked. .. japan.. nics.. china.. India..
the second American empire ran down the huge soft power that the usa once had. in its place china’s soft power in 'asia' has waxed.. regional differences in asia are weakening. americas loss is china’s gain.
however she sees the greatest policy failure of the usa being in latin America.
the question she poses--- will America be nimble enough to change?? has been answered since her book went to print by obamanomics. ie. prop up the zombies that issued the fatwa’s in the first place. (not overlooking the fat bonuses of their executives. naturally)
*Amsden, Alice H. Escape From Empire: MIT press. massachusetts 2007.
Posts
