Which party should we vote for, John, on the basis of international development?

Oh dear. John Hilary on development….not this sad old mish mash of economic idiocy again. Just as one example:

“These include policies on trade and investment, which have arguably done more to prevent the world’s poorest countries from developing than anything else over the past 30 years, ”

You do know that the last 30 years have seen the greatest reduction in poverty in the entire history of our species, don’t you? That both the absolute number and the percentage of the population living in absolute poverty has been falling? Whether one looks at $1 a day, $2 a day or $10 a day levels of poverty? That global inequality has been falling?

Yes, even in sub-Saharan Africa (despite Mugabe’s valiant efforts) we’ve been seeing consistent, sustained and general rises in the standard of living? Something which is, I hope we all agree, the important thing? That those currently poor get better lives?

So the basic statement of fact is simply wrong. There hasn’t been anything preventing the poorest countries developing: for they have been developing therefore there can’t have been prevention of their doing so.

Tim W: There hasn’t been anything preventing the poorest countries developing: for they have been developing therefore there can’t have been prevention of their doing so.

That is some serious reading comprehension fail.

Some countries haven’t developed as much as others. The reduction in poverty has largely been driven by India, China and Brazil, but that doesn’t mean sub-saharan countries have also done brilliantly.

And also, the fact that some countries have developed doesn’t mean there aren’t factors holding them back.

“The reduction in poverty has largely been driven by India, China and Brazil, but that doesn’t mean sub-saharan countries have also done brilliantly.”

Well…

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/pdfs/Africa_Paper_VX3.2.pdf

“The conventional wisdom that Africa is not reducing poverty is wrong. Using the
methodology of Pinkovskiy and Sala?i?Martin (2009), we estimate income distributions, poverty
rates, and inequality and welfare indices for African countries for the period 1970?2006. We
show that: (1) African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly. (2) If present trends continue, the
poverty Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people with incomes less
than one dollar a day will be achieved on time. (3) The growth spurt that began in 1995
decreased African income inequality instead of increasing it. (4) African poverty reduction is
remarkably general: it cannot be explained by a large country, or even by a single set of
countries possessing some beneficial geographical or historical characteristic. All classes of
countries, including those with disadvantageous geography and history, experience reductions
in poverty. In particular, poverty fell for both landlocked as well as coastal countries; for
mineral?rich as well as mineral?poor countries; for countries with favorable or with unfavorable
agriculture; for countries regardless of colonial origin; and for countries with below? or abovemedian
slave exports per capita during the African slave trade.”

John Hilary specifically complains that the “neo-liberalism” of the past 30 years (yes, opening up countries to trade and investment is that neo liberalism) has prevented countries from developing.

But countries which have been opening up to trade and investment have been developing. Ergo, he’s wrong.

Or perhaps you’d prefer this paper:

http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/11950/AfricanGrowthMiracle.pdf

Measures of real consumption based upon the ownership of durable goods,
the quality of housing, the health and mortality of children, the education of youth
and the allocation of female time in the household indicate that sub-Saharan living
standards have, for the past two decades, been growing in excess of 3 percent per
annum, i.e. more than three times the rate indicated in international data sets.

Damn that neo liberalism and the Washington Consensus!

Tim W:
If you read the para properly, he’s saying certain UK policies on trade and investment have held back development in other countries.

So
1) Africa is a continent not country. There are still countries that haven’t developed.
2) The OP is not saying that trade and investment in itself is bad.

As I said – please try reading properly

Sunny, look at his link:

“What is wrong with the trade deals at the EU?

The new trade deals that the EU is trying to secure with former European colonies are called Economic Partnership Agreements or EPAs.

These deals could result in significant job losses amongst producers of manufactured goods, many of whom are women who would lose access to decent work opportunities, reduced government income from trade taxes to invest in decent public services like health and education, reduced access to cheap medicines for the poorest people and reduced access to financial services for low income communities and small businesses.”

He’s arguing that poor countries should be allowed to keep their trade barriers. Not surprising as this is something that John Hilary always does argue. He puts the interests of poor country producers above those of poor country consumers.

Tim W – an article for you that shows govt intervention has a bigger impact on alleviating poverty than just trade.

From The Economist too – your friendly neighbourhood pinko magazine
http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/output-demand-gross/13462600-1.html

Thanks for getting John Hilary on here. I find him one of the most insightful voices on development and aid. It’s an indictment of our political system that the number of questions he raises here that will come up in the election are unlikely to rise above zero.

“Tim W – an article for you that shows govt intervention has a bigger impact on alleviating poverty than just trade.”

Eh? Where have I been saying the govt intervention cannot reduce poverty?

I have been saying that liberalising an economy will produce growth which will then reduce poverty. As the Economist article points out.

My beef with Hilary is that he denies that liberalising an economy will produce growth which then reduces poverty.

You have noted that the article isn’t saying that any restrictions that Brazil had upon trade or anything have contributed to the reduction in poverty, haven’t you? That they identify a redistribution program as being the main cause of that reduction?