In southern Africa, a critical issue is that the ISI model fed into -
and exacerbated - the settler-colonial regimes' structured (racialised)
inequality. This was especially the case in South Africa and Zimbabwe,
which had Africa's largest secondary industry as a percentage of GDP,
dating to the 1930s when ISI plus the global depression led to
unprecedented economic booms in both countries. In sanctions-era
Rhodesia, 9.5% annual growth from 1965-74 was based upon producing every
consumer good within the country, for a market of, essentially, 250 000
wealthy whites. But in both cases the basis for department 2 goods
consumption by a narrow elite led to periodic bursts of overaccumulation
crisis.
Is luxury-goods ISI the same sort of problem in other settings? (So
argued Burkett and Nixson, amongst others, during the 1980s.)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
On 9/17/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
me
> > the goal of import-substituting industrialization was NEVER to avoid
> > capitalist development. Rather, it was to promote a nation-centered
> > capitalist development.
Yoshie:
> If import-substituting industrialization is pursued by a capitalist
> state, yes, but presumably a socialist state promoting socialist
> development would also want to (and have to) do import-substituting
> industrialization in a number of industries.
that's right. I was thinking of Latin America. Anyway, India has never
been socialist, though some politicians in power have called themelves
that.
begin:vcard
fn:Patrick Bond
n:;Patrick Bond
email;internet:http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs
tel;work:(27) 31 260 2454
tel;fax:(27) 31 260 2502
tel;cell:(27) 83 425 1401
version:2.1
end:vcard
