Why quantitative estimates may be hard to come by, my colleagues building
models are better positioned than I am, it is evident that there is a lot
of production undertaken in the Third World that show up in the core
economies (globalization, internationalization, whatever). The point is
that the poor in the Third World, if engaged in multinational
production, (I can think of lots of little operations in Dharavi,
may be the world's largest slum (in Mumbai) where MNCs outsource lots of
things.) But it is true that most of the TW are not part of this global
economy. China is enough to subsidize the US with its low wage
production. India may be in the future. If we understand production in
terms of value chains (production chain, etc.) then depending on where
the TW in question is placed in the value chain we will know how the
gains are being distributed. As studies are showing higher value
segments (say design, marketing, branding) are still with core
economies, while the TW is at the lower end, which ironically includes
manufacturing. I say ironically because previously terms of trade
moved adversely against primary product exports and now we are finding out
that even with exports of manufactures, the TOT is declining. So while
the total market value contribution of this production is high (if
MNC profits/accumulation is any indication) the low end segment of
the chain is not, but without the latter, the former is difficult to
realize. This is akin to immiserization, which Bhagwati talked about
some time ago. Therefore, the face of imperialism has changed since
roughly two-thirds of global FDI is still within the core economies.
Cheers, Anthony
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718
University of Washington Box Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:12:33 -0400
> From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:12123] Re: RE: Eurocentrism once again
>
> Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> >Seems to me Doug's question is what is the
> >effect of the extra X on the growth rate.
>
> No, I'm not that vulgar, claims to the contrary. I was looking for
> some kind of qualitative and quantitative account of the contribution
> of imperialism to the maintenance of First World wealth. Is it
> something that's constantly renewed every day, or is it mainly the
> inheritance from an earlier colonialism? I got flamed for saying this
> once, but the poorest countries in the world are poor mainly because
> they're excluded from value production, not because they get the
> short end of it. What do the 1.2 billion people who live on $1/day
> contribute to our $25,000 per capita DPIs?
>
> Doug
>
>
