(525): difficulties in LA not a function of size of shocks, borrowting, extent of gov't involvement--but function of exchange rate management and trade regime (failure to devalue, turn to exports)
(532): not external shock
(534): rather, debt-export ratio is central -- debt accumulation in LA was over and above current account deficits. capital flight exacerbated this problem.
(534): not taxes, not budget deficit
(548): in sum--debt was burdensome in LA because of its structure (short maturities, variable interest rate), which had to do with it coming mostly from private commercial banks, as well as insufficient exports available to service it
(550, 555): bizarre argument that E. Asian economies were outward-oriented because of the strength of their rural sector
(554): using an overvalued exchange rate, rather than an export tax, b/c ignorant?
(559): urban-industrial exporters align behind an undervalued exchange rate
(561): key--assumption here is that devaluation will make you competitive, which is not insignificantly silly.
(567): Williamson raises problem of rural-->liberalization argument
-------
1. central problem in Sachs' argument is that devaluation will lead to export competitiveness. classic free trade garbage.
2. auxiliary problem is the idea that the power of the rural sector (very poorly measured, but that's beside the point) is the explanation for why export-led growth is pursued. this can't explain ISI in SK in 50s, and then rapid switch.
3. clarify causal story behind capital flight. function of what, exactly? (social structure, policy failures, both?
No comments:
Post a Comment