There's really no more truth in the idea that Singapore 'adopted'
neo-liberal policies in the 1980s than there is that Chile was the poster
child for the Chicago Boys in the 1970s (see Sherman Souter's excellent 1998
essay on the adoption and rapid abandonment of laissez-faire economics by
the post-coup regime).
Singapore developed what is effectively a capitalist command economy during
the 1960s and 1970s under the steely grip of Lee Kuan Yew, accompanied by an
extraordinary programme of social engineering. Whilst it is absolutely true
that Singapore had effectively no choice but to follow an export-orientated
growth model this certainly didn't follow any kind of a free market model,
if not a tightly-controlled state-directed programme of investment and
expansion along the lines of the Japanese one.
As Singapore has grown wealthier the state and ruling commercial elites have
if anything strengthened their grip on the economy and the political system,
effectively controlling the judiciary and legislature, not to mention the
media, and reducing any political opposition to powerlessness; that this is
all immensely popular with your average Singaporean doesn't make it any less
of an oligopoly.
Add to this the political economy context of Singapore's strategic
importance during the 1960s and 1970s during the Cold War (along with
Taiwan, South Korea) and its' consequent ability to capitalise both on that
and the vast amounts of capital and matriel that flowed into South-East
Asia as a result of the Korean and Vietnam wars (see Bello and Rosenfeld
(1992) Dragons in Distress) and what you have is the successful development
of a highly technologised, advanced economy in conditions that were about as
far from being free market-driven as possible whilst still being capitalist.
Cheers!
Jon Cloke
From: Nick James <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Global inequality
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 06:40:22 EST
Did Singapore jump from the South to the North based on it's adoption of
Neo-liberal policies, i.e. in the 1980s? Did this simultaneously shift its
overall wealth (GNP/growth/econ dev) and increase inequalities? Are the
increasing
inequalities based on greater wealth, i.e. among the wealthier, or greater
poverty, i.e. more and worse-off poor people? In other words, is not the
charactersitic of the global (neo-liberal) world economy (since the 1980s)
fundamentally based on inequality (even if unintentional and called
'competition')?
What was it that Galbraith said about 'trickle down'?
IMF BACKS THE
‘TRICKLE-DOWN THEORY’
FOR MOZAMBIQUE
“Trickle-down theory” - that if money is given to the rich, some will
"trickle down" to the poor - had been thought long discredited, but it is
promoted in the IMF’s latest report on Mozambique, released Wednesday 8
February. In 1992 John Kenneth Galbraith described trickle-down theory as
“the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats,
some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”
Nick
In a message dated 06/03/2006 11:09:17 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Anyone interested in inequality can look up comparative measures at the
UNDP
website and the evidence is fairly conclusive.
The Gini Coefficient measures inequality (an index of 0 is total equity,
100
shows total inequality)
The United States has a Gini Coefficient of 41
Netherlands: 31
UK 36
Luxembourg: 30
Germany: 28
Sweden: 25
Inequality has increased over the past two decades, but most rapidly in
those countries that have adopted neoliberal politics most
enthusiastically.
All of the countries with a gini coefficient above 40 are in the global
south, except the US and Singapore.
Drilling down further, the poorest decile have a smaller share of income &
consumption in the US than in ANY other developed country (though the UK
comes closer) and the richest decile a larger one (excepting Singapore and
Hong Kong).
The UNDP Human Development Reports website is at
http://hdr.undp.org/default.cfm
Adam Tickell
|