 |
 |
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