Message-ID: <3382B444.5CD8@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 08:37:28 +0000 From: "Gregory P. Daines" <mailto:aac41@dial.pipex.com> Subject: Re: Boring To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
I guess I have a basic problem with this discussion about the US and European "image" being "business-oriented" and, therefore, exploitative and not helpful of the "3rd world". First of all, if you have any evidence that the U.S. government is pursuing any particular policies of secret military involvement to suppress the workforce of a country such as have been mentioned, please bring them to light. I will be glad to assist you in prosecuting the claims against the U.S. govt. and we will both become famous.Second, the implication is strongly that there is a sharp divergence in the benefits created for less-developed countries between public expenditure programs (totally in the public sector) and those quasi-government programs, and business investment in the countries. However, as an economist, I have never seen any evidence to support this argument. If you have any please forward it to me. On the contrary, it appears that the largest benefits in terms of all standard measures (ie. income, GDP, standard of living, etc.) come from foreign direct investment on the part of the multi-nationals. I don't think there is any way to conclude otherwise from the data. I have been conducting studies on the ground in these countries for years, and despite my best efforts, we have been unable to find any other really significant input to growth and prosperity.
I do not support the views of the 'American' who implied that the 3rd world should get off their collective butts etc. Actually, development is a very complex issue, and this person obviously has no appreciation for the realities of the lesser-developed world. I know I am well-supported by the evidence when I say that, so far, the most important contributing factor to development and improved quality of life in less-developed countries is the strong presence of multinationals. So, why all the negative press and rhetoric about multinationals which we all know reaches back many decades even to the beginning of this century? People just don't understand how these kind of accusations against multinationals frequently play into internal politics in the countries. There is always some political faction which has a vested interest in breaking the connection between the wealthy multinational and the ruling regime. Multinationals make excellent fodder for political objectives and all of us in the developed world play into that when we believe the ridiculous lies about multinational exploitation. It amazes me that we never notice that the factions campaigning against the multinationals (and, hence in favor of 'human rights') are the ones doing most of the knee-capping and executions in the jungle. Come on everyone, we are not children anymore. It isn't about the wicked American capitalist (or European etc.) and the pure undefiled native. That's a fantasy, and your so-called 'education' should really have disabused you of it. Until we come to grips with what's really going on in these countries we are just a bunch of guilt-ridden gulible pawns. The fact is that the internal politics is frequently dangerous, oppressive, and thus, inhibitive of development. Sustainable development can only take place in an atmosphere of where there is a stable political framework which includes the rule of law. Unfortunately, too many less-developed countries do not have this and I know I can support that claim.
Finally, yes the history of European expansionism is taught in our curriculum. I must ask: is it really a "fact that the US perpetuates the inequalities founded in this way, by using their power to set up trade agreements and so on which exploit third world countries' resources and inhibit development?" I'm afraid you are going to have to endure the burden of proof on this one. Please indicate to me the particulars of a U.S. trade agreement which has this effect or "inhibits development". I'm afraid this is attractive rhetoric that will just not hold up. Trade agreements by their very nature are beneficial to all signees. There is some evidence, however, that the U.S. supports a very discriminating import tarrif and quota system that allows U.S. companies to effectively block imports on merely the accusation of "Unfair Trading". This is certainly a system which militates against less-developed countries as they are almost always the accused. I support anyone wishing to lobby against this obviously unethical policy. However, this again kills your argument that it is the trade agreements which inhibit development. The fact is that trade agreements usually protect the partners from these unethical policies and promote active trade etc. I know that you were attempting to be controversial and to start a discussion on this otherwise dead list, and so I appreciate your guts. However, your argument just doesn't hold up. There just simply isn't any evidence to support your claims. I think the writer would do well to spend a lot more time in many lesser-developed countries attempting to understand what is really happening, not what some political faction would like you to swallow (hook, line, and sinker).