Also, with these time series studies, we should adjust any numbers for the disappearance of non-market sources of livelihood, a process that is part and parcel of marketization. This hits those with the smallest incomes most.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Daniel writes:
> >Sala-i-Martin is a good lad; he's a Catalonian Nationalist and thus familiar to me from my short Welsh Nash period as a writer of tracts on the economic viability of small European nations. But the obvious point is that this is a piece of doublespeak from the Economist; the trick is to refer to South Korea and Indonesia as "globalisers", and then not to say a word about the progress of the neoliberal agenda in China and India. In actual fact, Sala-i-Martin's piece could be read as saying that, after a couple of decades, the only reason that the neoliberal policy mix hasn't had absolutely horrendous effects is that the two largest developing countries had the good sense to reject it.<<
FG writes:> I was thinking the same re:neoliberalism and China and India. Also Korea and Indonesia are indeed worse off (not more unequal) after Korea "globalised" its capital flows helping set off a crisis that Indonesia, AFAIK has yet to recover from. Just a "minor" omission, I suppose. Also, El Salvador is a rapid "globaliser" by any measure (tariffs were rapidly slashed over 6 years, several free trade agreements signed, rapid internal liberalization, etc.) and the results include more inequality, 500-600 people leaving a day for the U.S, stagnant economy, egregiously low tax collection (and worsening due to the FTAs), colossal trade defecit, strangulation of the political system by compradors, and more. Nevertheless, U.S. govt spokesmen continues to refer to it as a model of economic reform in various public statements. Go figure.<
