On this I will have to agree with Brad. I think the (advanced
capitalist country) left tends to dismiss growth. It is possible that
growth is likely to lead to inequality initially (Kuznets curve) but it
does not have to remain that way. If as we find in the Korean case,
labor-intensive export-led growth did lead to better income distribution,
then even countries like India that promoted such growth, doesn't even
have to be export-driven, can better income distribution. Interestingly
enough India's lowest 20% income earners do better than many such groups
in other poorer countries. But the absolute level of poverty is quite
unimaginable sitting in the US. It is also true that since the 1980s S
Korea's income distribution has worsened, a period in which economic
growth has been also high. Clearly the chaebols have cornered most of
this growth, but if you tell me Korean workers suffered, I won't believe
it. Korean wages also grew at a very high rate and the standard of living
of Koreans improved dramatically. I know it because as an Indian I lived
in Korea on and off and certainly could see the difference. So the
relationship between growth and distribution is still ambiguous by this
case but if there is choice for growth versus no growth in a poor country,
I will take growth. Without growth there will not be much to distribute.
On the other hand, I strongly support any movement in the advanced
capitalist countries to curtail consumption and thus growth. The
affluence and the waste is simply mind boggling.
Cheers (after seeing three deer at dusk croosing a mountain river),
Anthony
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington Campus Box 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax : (253) 692-5718
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Although this thread began with some early taunts and flames, I think it is
> >helping to shape out a picture of what growth means. I have not seen any
> >professional academic journal article -- probably due to my own ignorance --
> >that describes how growth affects difference classes and sub-classes. Lenin's
> >The Development of Capitalism in Russia is not bad in this respect.
> >
> >Brad typically relies on averages. I have challenged him numerous times on
> >this.
> >
> >[I do not think that his beliefs qualify him as a doctrinaire ideologue of
> >laissez-faire, as some of you have alleged.]
> >
> >Rapid growth seems to be associated, in most cases, with deteriorating
> >conditions for the lowest quintile
>
> Brazil yes, Chile yes, Japan no, South Korea no, Taiwan no, Malaysia
> no, Thailand no, Hong Kong no, Singapore no, Italy no, Botswana no,
> China no, India maybe.
>
> That's 10-2-1. 2 is hardly "most"...
>
>
