Successful economic development in Palestine will require an adequate theory of development, industrial policy, and institutional reforms.
Recently, the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute (MAS) published a comprehensive study on Palestinian economic development. In this report, co-authored by my colleagues Heiner Flassbeck, Michael Paetz, and I, we explore possible solutions as to how Palestine could sustainably finance its deficits. Now, after the Israeli elections, Jared Kushner, the US President’s son-in-law and senior advisor, is set to announce the details of the US Peace Plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given that the Peace Plan is expected to include a large economic component to solve the conflict, it will be interesting to see to what extent it addresses the fundamental problems we identified in our research.
Our results suggest, succinctly, that under current conditions of excessive imbalances in the external sector (trade and current account), any issuance of debt securities requires fixing these imbalances first, for which, in turn, strategic public intervention is critical. This finding may come as a surprise to most policymakers, as orthodox economic theory suggests that the most efficient ways for countries to develop is through market led (as opposed to state led) policies. Historical evidence demonstrates that none of the advanced countries followed this path in their own development, yet the idea of ‘the market’ as the most efficient development tool is still widespread. Based on this belief, Western institutions wreaked havoc in developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s, and continue to do so (although some institutions, notably the IMF, show significant progress in learning from past experiences).
Jason Hickel is an anthropologist who has written extensively on global poverty and inequality, as well as political economy. Here is a recent post of his, discussing the nature and measurement of, and trends in, global poverty, as a response to a critique by Steven Pinker.
Hickel strongly disputes the idea that falling poverty, where it has occurred, has been due to neoliberal globalisation. Rather, the successful industrialisation and economic development that are necessary for sustained poverty reduction have been achieved with state intervention, industrial policies, and strategic integration with the global economy in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China.
There is a huge literature on this, but Ha-Joon Chang is perhaps one of the best known academics to have written popular books on how particular forms of state intervention have promoted capitalist development. 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism is the easiest read and I have posted a number of excerpts from it over the last few years. Bad Samaritans is also good value. For a more academic discussion see Kicking Away the Ladder.
Thanks to the excellent blog The Case For Concerted Action for posting on this first and drawing my attention to Hickel’s work.
Democracy, accountable and transparent government, low levels of corruption, the rule of law, stable property rights, pluralism: we tend to think that these are all highly desirable in any society.
In poor countries, they are often absent, but at least some of them are present in many rich ones. It seems to follow that they should be encouraged in the former as a way to encourage development. After all, if richer countries have these characteristics, they may be part of the development process.
This wishful thinking provides a foundation for the ‘good governance’ agenda propagated by the World Bank and other international institutions during the 1990s and into the 2000s. It was argued that domestic political reforms in the direction of good governance in poor countries would provide the institutional environment conducive to the efficient working of markets and thereby promote development. Continue reading
A report on the causes of BREXIT has been published. According to this report, Brexit was the reason of ‘Poverty, Low Skills and Lack of Opportunities’. The research was accomplished by Goodwin, M, and Heath, O (2016) for the JRF Organisation. ‘This report provides unprecedented insight into the dynamics of the 2016 vote to leave […]
These words were written twenty years ago by distinguished Cambridge economist, the late Ajit Singh, and are somewhat prophetic on the evolution of the world economy and the causes of today’s political trends.
He compares the situation in the 1990s with the ‘Golden Age’ of capitalism during the 1950s and 60s, which saw rapid growth, low unemployment, and rising wages for the majority in many countries. He puts this down to broadly Keynesian interventionism by the state in cooperation with employers and trade unions. This was more effective in some countries than others. Nevertheless, he predicts that unless such conditions are restored, and the benefits of globalization are spread more widely through deliberate policy, the liberal international order will lose its legitimacy and prove unsustainable. I could argue with some of this, as I am not a fully convinced Keynesian, but the broad theme is telling. And so it goes… Continue reading
In this short video, which is (slightly annoyingly) only available directly on YouTube, development economist Ha-Joon Chang chats about a range of economic and political issues. He covers industrial policy, free-market ideology, the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and China.
I am a fan of Chang’s often iconoclastic work, and he has written a number of excellent non-academic books for the intelligent reader, including Bad Samaritans, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, and Economics: The User’s Guide.
Evidence here, once more from the UK’s TUC (Trades Union Congress) that real wages here fell by 10.4% between 2007 and 2015; in other words, since the financial crisis and recession. This is the worst record in the group of rich OECD countries and roughly the same as Greece.
On the bright side, employment growth has been relatively strong in recent years, although putting the two together suggests that a large proportion of the jobs created pay low wages. This means that job creation is less likely to reduce poverty for those already struggling.
As I have written previously, strong population growth has flattered the GDP growth figures so that per capita growth in incomes and output has been poor since the recession.
Stagnant or falling wages should boost the profits of firms, at least for a while, which could feed through into rising investment, which is necessary for productivity growth. But if real wages do not at some point pick up, then the only way that consumption can grow is for people to take on more debt, which will eventually prove unsustainable, especially from today’s already high levels.
Of course, the government will put a positive spin on the figures by distracting from them with the employment figures and overall GDP growth rather than the per capita evidence. But the picture is clear. We have a lot of ground to make up on productivity and real wages compared with our fellow OECD members and it is these variables which play a big role in determining living standards.