Report comment

I agree, it is a sweeping statement, and was mostly referring to the experience in Latin America, not least Central America. Asia is another story. To my knowledge no bigger Asian country has embraced neoliberalism, but has rather continued with a mixture of import substitution, export promotion and a competitive (low) exchange rate. Most Asian countries are looking to China for inspiration, not to the IMF, while China itself looked to Japan and Korea for inspiration. What exactly the "Chinese model" is, is debated. Is it just a strong authoritarian central government and low wages, as some think to believe, or is it "dirigiste" capitalism (which I would think)? Africa has some similarities to Latin America, but the push for home-grown industrialisation was much more incipient (and inefficient), so what was destroyed by the shift to neoliberalism was much less significant. However, in the case of South Africa it was quite significant. After the end of Apartheid, a decision had to be taken on whether to continue the rather closed, homegrown economic model, forced upon the country by the international sanctions during apartheid, or switch to the prevailing neoliberal paradigm. As it is well-known, they opted for the latter. The results are not flattering. Whether they could have managed a more gradual opening, nurturing more their home-grown industries is of course debatable. But the result could hardly be worse. Ethiopia is presently flirting with a sort of "Chinese model" with a combination of export promotion (competing with Bangladesh for garment production), massive infrastructure investments (with support from China) and import substitution.