Scan barcode
germangfeler's review
4.0
La tesis del libro es que los países desarrollados llegaron a ese estatus aplicando una serie de políticas que hoy prohiben a los países en desarrollo. Como dice el título, que parafresea a Frederich List, "patearon la escalera" que les permitió llegar a donde están para que los que venían detrás no pudieran subir.
Hoy la receta económica ortodoxa, impulsada por los países desarrollados e impuesta por los organismos multilaterales como el FMI, el BM y la OMC, habla de que un país necesita "buenas prácticas económicas" (libre mercado) y "buenas instituciones" (democracia, buena burocracia, etc) para desarrollarse. Haciendo uso de un enfoque histórico, Chang muestra que en verdad la mayoría de los países desarrollados lo hicieron aplicando diferentes herramientas de la política industrial (como aranceles altos, protección de industrias jóvenes, etc), muchas de las cuales hoy están prohibidas o desaconsejadas. Es un libro pensado para el público general pero siento que podría haber profundizado un poco más en algunas cuestiones.
Hoy la receta económica ortodoxa, impulsada por los países desarrollados e impuesta por los organismos multilaterales como el FMI, el BM y la OMC, habla de que un país necesita "buenas prácticas económicas" (libre mercado) y "buenas instituciones" (democracia, buena burocracia, etc) para desarrollarse. Haciendo uso de un enfoque histórico, Chang muestra que en verdad la mayoría de los países desarrollados lo hicieron aplicando diferentes herramientas de la política industrial (como aranceles altos, protección de industrias jóvenes, etc), muchas de las cuales hoy están prohibidas o desaconsejadas. Es un libro pensado para el público general pero siento que podría haber profundizado un poco más en algunas cuestiones.
nielsism's review
3.0
Notwithstanding its release in 2002, I believe the main message of this book to be as relevant today as it was 16 years ago. Basically, Chang argues that the "now developed countries" (or: NDCs) are prescribing developmental strategies and rules for developing countries based on 'good policies' (such as a liberal trade schemes) and 'good institutions' (democracy, a good working bureaucracy, independent central banks etc.). But both these sets of 'good' stem from the idea that we - the NDCs - have used these to grow and develop. That they are therefore essential to any growth strategy.
Incorrect, Chang argues. By tracing the development path of the US, the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium, Switzerland and Japan, he lays bare two fundamental and insightful things. Firstly, that all these countries have used 'bad policies' to successfully grow themselves: tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies, direct government subsidies, etc. In other words: protecting your infant industries from outside (and often at that point: better and fiercer) competition, can be healthy, and can be logical.
Secondly, the institutions which we now suggest to be taken over in a limited amount of time (think: imposing democracy as quickly as possible) is also not in line with the NDC experience, since it has often taken decades, if not centuries, for the NDCs to have some working 'good governance' institutions in this sense.
In sum, Chang argues that the NDCs are denying developing countries the same policies and institutional development strategy that they themselves used. They are therefore 'kicking away the ladder' of development that they themselves have climbed. He therefore suggests restoring the intellectual debate, by showing that we too used these policies to grow, and should therefore at least allow them the freedom (or policy space) to use these as well - if not actively promote it.
Chang's analysis is a provoking one when it comes to showcasing the developmental path of NDCs. The main take-away should be that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to development strategy, and that both different types of government intervention can play a role in development strategies.
Two elements are missing though. Firstly, there is no analysis of how the international economic governance institutions (such as the IMF, World Bank or the WTO) are actually limiting the policy options of developing countries. I agree they do, to an extent (especially the shift from the GATT to the WTO). And I agree with the main message. But there is a larger (academic) debate raging until this day, revolving around the question to what extent the 'policy space' of developing countries is being curtailed by these institutions. Chang starts from the point that this is heavily constrained, and that this is detrimental. There is certainly a case to be made here, but a thorough analysis of the limiting options would have made this an even better, and more convincing, read.
Secondly, Douglas Irwin raises the important point that correlation is no causation - and that Chang may have been misguided. From his historical analysis, he draws the conclusion that NDCs are now rich because of protectionist policies, but this is not necessarily so. Irwin argues that Chang fails to take into account very context-specific variables that could have accounted for the growth, despite the protectionist flavors. Hence, drawing the conclusion that protectionist policies are more favorable, may be a stretch. Chang should have (in Irwin's opinion) made a stronger case of how much protectionism actually played a role in the development of Western countries.
Incorrect, Chang argues. By tracing the development path of the US, the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium, Switzerland and Japan, he lays bare two fundamental and insightful things. Firstly, that all these countries have used 'bad policies' to successfully grow themselves: tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies, direct government subsidies, etc. In other words: protecting your infant industries from outside (and often at that point: better and fiercer) competition, can be healthy, and can be logical.
Secondly, the institutions which we now suggest to be taken over in a limited amount of time (think: imposing democracy as quickly as possible) is also not in line with the NDC experience, since it has often taken decades, if not centuries, for the NDCs to have some working 'good governance' institutions in this sense.
In sum, Chang argues that the NDCs are denying developing countries the same policies and institutional development strategy that they themselves used. They are therefore 'kicking away the ladder' of development that they themselves have climbed. He therefore suggests restoring the intellectual debate, by showing that we too used these policies to grow, and should therefore at least allow them the freedom (or policy space) to use these as well - if not actively promote it.
Chang's analysis is a provoking one when it comes to showcasing the developmental path of NDCs. The main take-away should be that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to development strategy, and that both different types of government intervention can play a role in development strategies.
Two elements are missing though. Firstly, there is no analysis of how the international economic governance institutions (such as the IMF, World Bank or the WTO) are actually limiting the policy options of developing countries. I agree they do, to an extent (especially the shift from the GATT to the WTO). And I agree with the main message. But there is a larger (academic) debate raging until this day, revolving around the question to what extent the 'policy space' of developing countries is being curtailed by these institutions. Chang starts from the point that this is heavily constrained, and that this is detrimental. There is certainly a case to be made here, but a thorough analysis of the limiting options would have made this an even better, and more convincing, read.
Secondly, Douglas Irwin raises the important point that correlation is no causation - and that Chang may have been misguided. From his historical analysis, he draws the conclusion that NDCs are now rich because of protectionist policies, but this is not necessarily so. Irwin argues that Chang fails to take into account very context-specific variables that could have accounted for the growth, despite the protectionist flavors. Hence, drawing the conclusion that protectionist policies are more favorable, may be a stretch. Chang should have (in Irwin's opinion) made a stronger case of how much protectionism actually played a role in the development of Western countries.
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
Governments have always been tinkering with economic regulations. For some institutions, like property rights, government is usually the institution that can enforce its various aspects. This book is about how, what we call developed countries, impose regulation and institution sets on the developing countries while forgetting that when the developed countries were developing, they used different policies.
Government have the ability to impact economic living standards of their citizens. Much like in Smith's Wealth of Nations, government have the duty to provide infrastructure and other public works that the market may not be able to fund. Some protectionist schemes are seen as positive, such as paying for risk taking behavior in the infant-industry discussion. Others, the author does not make clear how they help the country, such as reducing international competition by putting up tariffs, a process that increase the price of the goods in the country which hurts the citizens.
Some institutions, like democracy, are very expense - especially if it is do be done right with as little corruption as possible. The developed countries, which tend to be more democratic, impose their political schemes on countries that cannot yet pay for the particular institution. Government have to be able to see which institutions and policy would help them, rather than just obey those of the other countries that have already developed. To grow, government can look at which policies work and do not work in other countries that have developed and select those that can help its own economy rather than just accepting a bundle of policies that may not work.
The book has various laws with the biggest being selection bias. The countries chosen for study were those that were helped by government involvement. Few words were given to the countries that tried policies and failed. No mention of countries that have a huge government aspect of the economy and still do not grow. Overall, the book has a good reading flow to it.
Government have the ability to impact economic living standards of their citizens. Much like in Smith's Wealth of Nations, government have the duty to provide infrastructure and other public works that the market may not be able to fund. Some protectionist schemes are seen as positive, such as paying for risk taking behavior in the infant-industry discussion. Others, the author does not make clear how they help the country, such as reducing international competition by putting up tariffs, a process that increase the price of the goods in the country which hurts the citizens.
Some institutions, like democracy, are very expense - especially if it is do be done right with as little corruption as possible. The developed countries, which tend to be more democratic, impose their political schemes on countries that cannot yet pay for the particular institution. Government have to be able to see which institutions and policy would help them, rather than just obey those of the other countries that have already developed. To grow, government can look at which policies work and do not work in other countries that have developed and select those that can help its own economy rather than just accepting a bundle of policies that may not work.
The book has various laws with the biggest being selection bias. The countries chosen for study were those that were helped by government involvement. Few words were given to the countries that tried policies and failed. No mention of countries that have a huge government aspect of the economy and still do not grow. Overall, the book has a good reading flow to it.
More...