Display:
Well, the article in Le Monde (linked to in the diary above) does say 182b$ by 2015, and says this comes from a WB study, but they must obviously be wrong. Maybe they focused on a specific detail, I have not investigated yet...

They also mention 0.4% of world GDP as a gain; which fits with 180b$, but would imply that it is indeed a yearly figure - and thus we get to be in the same ballpark for what can only be a very rough estimate.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 15th, 2005 at 03:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hate to refer to my own diary on comparative advantage so argue that the huge shifts in capital, resources and labour that will be needed in many countries in order to achieve this 0.4% gain may not be worth it... Unless the 0.4% is used for investment and not consumption.

How about contributing the 0.4% gain towards the goal of 0.7% in development aid?

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 15th, 2005 at 03:52:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it seems too marginal a gain to be worth the ruckus. Even if you take the !new! WB figure of $300bn p.a., that takes us to something like 0.66% of global GDP, which still seems slight.

Ploughing the gain into development aid: you'd need to persuade the Cairns Group nations to cough up, because they would be the ones in fact making the extra money.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 15th, 2005 at 04:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Le Monde does seem to have cited the number in a misleading way, i.e. it should be $182bn per annum, not over ten years.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 15th, 2005 at 03:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series