Zcom_simple

P1010817

Following the Footsteps of Joseph Stiglitz: Learning Economics with Ha Joon Chang


"Have you ever read an economics book with Tom Cruise in it?"




THE BOOK IN 100 WORDS 

“It’s like writing a book on self-made men, with the first chapter opening on Henri Ford II"

- Ha Joon Chang about T. Friedman’s “The Lexus and The Olive Tree”

 

  Bad Samaritans describes the economic practice of the rich countries in the past 200 years and exposes their hypocrisy. How today’s “free trade” mantra in the international scene was yesterday’s extremely protectionist rationale; how neoliberal historians revise their manuals at will and how their success stories and poster boys (Chile, the US, Hong Kong, the Toyota Company, etc.) are the proof of the exact contrary: historically, economic development is - to a very dominant extent - the result of infant industry protectionist policies.

  This book is a true manual of intellectual self-defense against the comparative advantage theory that tells developing countries to focus primarily on what they do best in order to achieve economic success. Ha Joon Chang offers the most rational response to followers of TINA (from Margaret Thatcher’s famous “There Is No Alternative”).


BOOK DESCRIPTION: A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE AUTHOR

“Within months the book’s expose of northern double standards was being quoted extensively by developing country delegates at the talks”

                                                                                  - Duncan Green, Head of Research for Oxfam GB

 

  Ha Joon Chang is a young (born 1963) and brilliant Korean economist from Cambridge University who has worked all his life on Development Economics. He has worked for the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank as well as for Oxfam and some UN agencies. He is said to be one of the most quoted economists among critics of today’s version of globalization.

  He is not far left, in fact he is rather discreet about his political affiliations, but as far as economics are concerned, he is rather straight forward in this book. He is very respected among other economists - in fact his mentor is the very famous Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz. Politically one can assert that he is at least Social Democrat, and Economically it follows that he is Keynesian, as you may have already guessed from his pedigree.

  So, what we have here is an author that has the best credentials for any mainstream standards - I didn’t mention that he’s also received very prestigious awards - but without the stigma of being a “red economist”. He is also known for having written many books of popularization of economics (in my view in economics popularization always means it’s written in its real language).

  His most famous book before this one was Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (2002) for which he won the Gunnar Myrdal prize, which is a book that prepares the work for Bad Samaritans (2007).


BOOK DESCRIPTION: WHAT THE BOOK SAYS

“it is a very common clever device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him”

                                                                                                                                  - Friedrich List (1789-1846)

 

  In this book, HJ Chang mainly explains, by providing very concrete examples and images for everyone to understand, how rich countries push down the throat of developing countries economic policies that are the mirror image of what they themselves have followed. He refers to this as “Kicking away the ladder” (a phrase borrowed from F. List and also the title of his 2002 best selling book).

  Chang exposes not only the double standards at work everywhere, but also the revisionism of economic history as well as the idiocy of the attempts to explain success and failures of certain economic policies in terms of culture and nationalistic sentiments.


BOOK DESCRIPTION: HOW IT SAYS IT

“In my book I have Isaac Newton, Jonathan Swift, Deng Xiao Ping, Henry Ford, Cicero, Gordon Brown, etc. But have you ever read an economics book with Tom Cruise in it?”

                                                                         - Ha Joon Chang, book presentation at the New America Foundation

 

  This is, in my view, the most important aspect of this book.


  Ha Joon Chang is a very pedagogic scholar, which can be attested by the organization of his book. Chang devotes 9 chapters to his thesis. The 2 first ones are a description of the neoliberal version of economic history contrasted with the real history of economic development. Chapters 3-9, the main chapters of this book, deploys a mixture of economic theory, history and contemporary evidence to turn much of the conventional wisdom on its head. You’ll be surprised learning things like:

- stealing ideas is sometimes a good things

- a company running a deficit for 17 years might be a good thing

- soft budget problems also applies to private businesses

- a bad economy is not necessarily related to corruption

- Intellectual Property Rights may allow you to claim property ideas that are 2000 years old

- once upon a time Germans were seen as "ill-disciplined” and “thieves" and the Japanese were describes as "too independent"

- etc.


PERSONAL OPINION: WHAT THIS BOOK DOES WELL
 

“Lucid, deeply informed, and enlivened with striking illustrations, this penetrating work could be entitled ‘Economics in the Real World’”

- Noam Chomsky

 

  Ok, obviously I am very enthusiastic about this book. Now, what is it that makes it so special?

  As I mentioned above, it is very pedagogic. Each chapter from 3-9 is devoted to one clear subject that treats one economic aspect of international and domestic economics in the field of state intervention (in the US you would call it government intervention, I guess). There are 7 chapters devoted to: free trade theory / foreign investment / pubic enterprises / intellectual property / fiscal and monetary policies / corruption / cultural explanations.

  Now, what I find extraordinary in this book is that it has a double head fake; it deploys solid arguments to defend its thesis, but it also has a double secondary effect: it teaches you economics (“in the real world”) and empowers you as an activist.

  When I read Robin Hahnel’s ABC’s of Political Economy I was impressed by how effective and empowering this pedagogical tool was. But it was intended to do just that, very explicitly. On the other hand, the pedagogical quality of Bad Samaritans is more indirect. You think you are reading  a book for the general public, but slowly and surely one gets to learn more technical “hardcore” economics, against anyone’s predisposition towards economics.

  In conclusion, you will find it amazing, I am sure, to realize that after reading such an entertaining book that even contains one chapter devoted to Daniel Defoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe, a reference to a scene in the movie Mission Impossible 3 in chapter 7, etc. that not only you have learned something very valuable in development economics, but also that you have done it in the most academic way.

  At the end of this book you should be familiarized with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) capital adequacy ratio, the Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) agreements, allocative deadweight loss, brownfield vs greenfield investment, duty drawbacks, you name it!

PERSONAL OPINION: WHAT THIS BOOK MISSES

Not a PhD dissertation. Is that a bad thing?

 

  This book is not intended to be comprehensive on all issues. This limitation is a technical one recognized by the author. Rather, you must imagine the best lecture on every topic I mentioned above: It is thorough, it does make you want to know more and it certainly gives you more than hints as where to start from. It contains a great Index and more than 300 very useful footnotes with loads of bibliography to further your research.


  One other limitation of the book is that it does not intend to explain the origins of such “bad” policies. In this regard this book is rather apolitical. But as far as I am concerned, I don’t mind that these policies are treated like “foolish mistakes” rather than serving special interest. This feature isolates the thesis of the book from considerations that would blur its content. It is one limitation but to me it is again another quality.


  At last, the one very noticeable missing feature has to do with environmental policies. Although it is possible for him to stick to his subject without dealing with issues for which he would have to develop a whole other book. This, to me, does not affect the quality of this work and would perhaps be beside the point.


PERSONAL OPINION: PARTICIPATORY PERSPECTIVE

“Mozambique’s economic miracle: How to escape poverty

Mozambique takes on the Big Boys

Nuts and Volts

June 28th, 2061 / MAPUTO

From The Economist print edition

Tres estrellas anounces a big breakthrough in fuel cell technology”

                                                                                           - Ha Joon Chang, fictitious article from Bad Samaritans

 

  What can be said about this book from a Pareconish point of view?

  Well, I’d rather see it from a broader activist point of view in fact. This book offers some solutions as to what to do with regard to economic policies with the developing countries. In fact, the books opens with a prologue called “Mozambique’s economic miracle” which is a fictitious article from June 28th 2061 in The Economist print edition which not only guarantees from the start the unorthodox, public-oriented aspect of the book and its author, but also represents a wonderful effort of imagination of a possible future, using his knowledge of foreign economies and more particularly Mozambique’s to stimulate our imagination.

  Now, having said that, I shall repeat that Chang is not a radical by our standards (at least that I know of). He is more of a very left leaning social-democrat, with Stiglitz next on his right.

  But once this aspect is understood, this book contains not only very valuable pedagogical material for activists around the world - as I have insisted in this review - but also some guidance as to what steps to take next regarding an economic improvement for both developing countries and domestic societies.

  The main limitation from a pareconish perspective would be that, by not addressing more thoroughly the structural problem of our political sphere in this capitalistic system, it fails to provide some answers as to how to get those results done. Its value from a strategic point of view is very incomplete but in fairness to Chang, it was never the intention in this book.

EXERPT FROM THE BOOK

      

(Would you buy this car? smiley

  "Chapter 1: The Lexus and the Olive Tree Revisited", pp 19-20.

  "Once upon a time, the leading car maker of a developing country exported its first passenger cars to the US. Up to that day, the little company had only made shoddy products - poor copies of quality items made by richer countries. The car was nothing too sophisticated - just a cheap subcompact (one could have called it 'four wheels and an ashtray'). But it was a big moment for the country and its exporters felt proud.

  Unfortunately, the product failed. Most thought the little car looked lousy and savvy buyers were reluctant to spend serious money on a family car that came from a place where only second-rate products were made. The car had to be withdrawn from the US market. This disaster led to a major debate among the country's citizens.

  Many argued that the company should have stuck to its original business of making simple textile machinery. After all, the country's biggest export item was silk. If the company could not make good cars after 25 years of trying, there was no future for it. The government had given the car maker every opportunity to succeed. It had ensured high profits for it at home through high tariffs and draconian controls on foreign investment in the car industry. Fewer than ten years ago, it even gave public money to save the company from imminent bankruptcy. So, the critics argued, foreign cars should now be let in freely and foreign car makers, who had been kicked out 20 years before, allowed to set up again.

  Others disagreed. They argued that no country had got anywhere without developing "serious" industries like automobile production.They just needed more time to make cars that appealed to everyone. The year was 1958 and the country was, in fact, Japan. The company was Toyota, and the car was called the Toyopet [see photo above]. Toyota started out as a manufacturer of textile mahcinery (Toyota Automatic Loom) and moved into car production in 1933.(...)"

Person

Interesting interview

By Gerrycass, Gerard at Oct 08, 2010 10:40 AM

Yes, it is a good book. I read it a few years ago knowing nothing about economics but it really does explain quite clearly what the ''Free Market' policies have done with regard to poorer economies.

On a related note here's a BBC interview with the Author alongside David Harvey.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00s3fzq/Thinking_Allowed_Capitalism_and_Development

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

P1010817

Re: Interesting interview

By Marty, David at Oct 08, 2010 10:54 AM

Thanks Gerard, I will have a look at that interview.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

586210

Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Zollman, Florian at Oct 08, 2010 12:25 PM

Hey,  great review! Makes me wanna read the book! Ill get it! Cheers!

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

P1010817

Re: Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Marty, David at Oct 13, 2010 16:33 PM

Thank you, stranger, for your very kind comment. It is indeed a good book.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Quesinberry, Steven at Oct 14, 2010 05:41 AM

David,

It was nice to read your thoughts about Chang's book.  When I read the book a couple of years ago, I liked his explanation of how protectionism worked and how it continues to work for many countries who are concerned with building the capacity and wealth of its own citizenry as a whole and not just the speculator/ownership class.  Michael Hudson has also published a book recently on this same issue relating to protectionism in the US from 1815 to 1915 and I have not been able to purchse or read it yet.  Hudson is often published on Counterpunch.org and while perhaps not a radical, certainly has an understanding of economics that is well worth pondering.

Thanks for reminding me of Chang's book, which has been sitting on my basement bookshelf and needed to be dusted off and culled for seeds of economic wisdom.

I would also like to comment on your List quotation, which struck me as familiar.  Then I realized that I recognized the quotation, but not as originating from List, but from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, when Brutus, speaking of Caesar states:

'Tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. 


Maybe List had read Shakespeare, or perhaps Shakespeare took the lines form a Latin source, such as Plutarch, that List knew of; I would need to research it a little more and I'm not sure it's worth the time to figure out.

Thanks again.


 




 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

P1010817

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Marty, David at Oct 14, 2010 11:18 AM

Hi Quiz,

It is both very interesting to hear such an enlightened comment and also nice to hear from a good friend!

Although this might not be the place, first I should apologize for not writing any emails to tell how I've been. I did get the one you sent me in August and will reply soon, I promise. I'm a bad friend, sorry.

On a less personal note, I should say your remark on List quotation is very valuable to me. But then again I am a rather 'detail oriented' person, it means anal.

Could you give me the full reference of the quotation? Being French I must say that reading Shakespeare was not really on our menu, we would rather have Molière for breakfast, Molière for lunch and Molière for dinner (you can tell how sick I got of Molière then). I could perhaps try to get in touch with Ha Joon Chang and share that reference with him, I will keep you posted on it if you're curious.

A couple of things I would like to comment:

You said >> I liked his explanation of how protectionism worked and how it continues to work for many countries who are concerned with building the capacity and wealth of its own citizenry as a whole and not just the speculator/ownership class...

I would suggest two remarks on this:

- Firstly, Chang doesn't really go into the reasons why 'countries' (=governments) acted in such way, neither does he qualify those measures as being positive for the working class. But I do agree that those measures had positive outcomes for the working class. However, to state that governments (you say 'countries') acted in concern for their citizenry is an overstatement, I think. Here is why.

- Secondly and the reason why I think it is an overstatement, the reasons why governments in the past have given the impression of being more on the side of labour can only come from the impression given by the big leap forward that was represented in the New Deal and post WWII gains in per capita income and work conditions. But in my opinion they also have a structural explanation: I think that it has to do - as it always had - with the constituency of the political elite. If one looks at the composition of business - in the periods of increase in wealth (both per capita income and wages) - it turns out that those were made primarily of industrial sectors that benefited from protection against foreign competition, and also those sectors turned out to be the more labour-intensive sectors (textile, automobile, steel, etc.) , as it was typical during those days. Today the dominating sectors of business happen to be capital intensive (finance, banking, high-tech, oil and gas, pharmaceutical, etc.). So, what happened during those days was simply that, by accident, by benefiting the industrial sector, labour would gain as well, as the crumbs were getting bigger and bigger. Also, it is important to note that growth also means increase of demand for labour which increases bargaining power of the labour force, no matter how weak that one has been in America (by European standards).
One proof of the country's real commitment toward its citizenry is the way it has treated unions and civil rights movements throughout those periods. Here also, there is no surprise to be found. As the dominating industries were mainly labour intensive, it is no wonder that these would have a great incentive against increasing wages. The only times that this has changed, the initiatives came from capital intensive sectors (Roosevelt was primarily endorsed by oil and gas, a very low labour intensive industry.
In other words, we shall not mistake one thing and the other. Independently from the struggle between labour and capital for having a bigger slice, the entire cake was indeed getting bigger, making the disputed slice getting bigger, no matter how bad labour had it.

If you're interested in hearing more on this explanation of our political system (by and large it is the same in every industrial country with a representative democracy) you should read Thomas Ferguson, The Golden Rule: The Investment Theory in Money Driven Political Systems. He is a very respected scholar from Boston University. Most of what I just mentioned is more detailed in his book. His research is very impressive.

This is a subject that I have been very interested in. Florian Zollmann and I are exchanging dense emails on the subject of the Structures of Power in Europe. I tried to contact T. Ferguson several times but he first accepted to help and then ask me to go get lost, although not in those words, he is a scholar afterall. I then asked Noam Chomsky who replied in 25 minutes (against 8 weeks of weekly emails to T. Ferguson) very kindly, remembering what a nice time he had in Woods Hole (what a contrast) and redirecting me towards Jean Bricmont, the belgian physicist who wrote with Alan Sokal the hoax that exposed post modernism as being a complete farce (but that's another story). Bricmont is yet to answer me since he was on a trip and couldn't reply to me at that time. To be continued...

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your references, I have had Michael Hudson on my book shopping list for a while, you just reminded me that I should go and read it. But my very next reading list includes now several books by Joseph Stiglitz. Have you read anything from him? I haven't but I know he's close to Chang and I have heard Stiglitz' lectures many times.

But I will end again on a personal note: I am going to send you an email. Please answer it so I know how you've been doing. It'll be nice to catch up.

Cheers my friend!

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Quesinberry, Steven at Oct 15, 2010 05:09 AM

David,

After reviewing Chang's book, I agree that I overstated the argument that he made regarding protectionist policies and their design to benefit the citizenry.  That's what I get for writing without reviewing first.  It had been a while since I had read Chang and trusted my memory, which is not as clear as I would like it to be.

I would write more, but I already spent 45 minutes writing a response to you, only to accidentally click to a different website and lose the entire post...argh.

Hope to continue the dialogue.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

P1010817

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Marty, David at Oct 15, 2010 09:22 AM

Lol!

Happened to me yesterday. I had to repeat three times the same really dull but long message to a friend of mine. On the forth attempt (I have an Ipad which makes those things happen easily) I probably wrote the angriest message I will ever write to her. Poor thing, I hope she understood the anger was not directed at her!

Anyway, it was nice talking to you. I will be looking forward to reading your longer comments... on the first attempt!

By the way, we are in a review group called International Review for a Participatory Society (IRPS). We review books an give each other feedback on our reviews. It is rather cool and non binding. Is it something you would like to be part of? Plus, you would be meeting with some of our friends from Woods Hole.

Let me know.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Quesinberry, Steven at Oct 17, 2010 03:41 AM

David,

Thanks for your response again.

I'll provide some more background on the Shakespeare quotation.  As you know, Caesar was assassinated by Brutus, Cassius and other 'high-minded' Roman nobles looking to keep the Roman Republic from devolving into democracy or mob rule.  Brutus' comments regarding the ladder come as he is trying to convince himself to join the conspiracy to murder Caesar.  He can't think of a personal reason to murder Caesar, who had always treated Brutus with respect.  So he tries to come up with different reasons to justify his involvement.  Brutus is also a direct descendant of Lucius Junius Brutus, who had helped to vanquish the Tarquin and establish the Roman Republic 500 years earlier.  While Shakespeare deftly portrays many of the main characters with both good and bad traits to heighten the tension of the plot, the play could more aptly be called 'The Tragedy of Brutus' since most of the play revolves around his character and concludes with his arguably heroic suicide.  The play shows the proletariat of Rome as easily swayed by the rhetoric of the noble Brutus and Mark Antony; the pliability of the mob/common people is a running motif in Shakespeare's plays.  One of my favorite books is called 'A People's History of Rome' by Michael Parenti and it chronicles the drama revolving around Caesar's murder.  Parenti convincingly portrays Caesar as a democratically minded reformer, who used his wealth and status to undermine the oligarchic families, like Brutus', who had controlled Roman society.  His view of the assassination is that it was a conspiracy hatched to prolong the control of society by a handful of families who had vested interets in property, trade, and the military and who were struggling to keep the burgeoning classes of slaves and free citizens from usurping power from them.  In his view, the preservation of the noble Roman Republic, which the conspirators used as their primary argument, is simply a ruse.

As for Moliere, I have only seen his play, Tartuffe, which I did enjoy.  I would like to read The Misanthrope, but it will probably be a while before I get to it.  Do you suggest anything, or since you read him for breakfast, lunch and dinner, are you averse to him now?

I would like to be involved in the reading group.  What are sorts of books you are reading?  Recently, I have been reading a book relating an important court case, US v. Reynolds, that helped to entrench the 'State's Secrects' argument forwarded so often by both the Bush and the Obama administration in relation to so many issues that crop up relating to governmental power in connection with the War on Terror.  The US govt uses the States' Secrets rationale to stymie almost every argument of would be plaintiffs trying to hold the US government accountable on issues ranging from torture, to redition, to wiretapping.  Would something like that fit the purview of the group? 

Let me know what's up.


Reply this comment

Comment_reply

P1010817

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting interview

By Marty, David at Oct 17, 2010 14:33 PM

Hi! First of all I do not read Molière anymore indeed, sorry. As for the group, you just have to find us in the zspace groups we are the Irps. And yes, what you presented is exactly the kind of books we would like to review. In fact the great thing is that you get a lot of initiative when it comes to choose what books to review. Chris and Antti are the administrators of the group, they both know you, they will accept your request. Once you get in our page just click on "joining the group". And then just go and post a review proposal. See you there!

Reply this comment

Loading_border