World GDP growth averaged 3.3% a year in the early Neoliberal period of the 1980s, then slowed dramatically to 2.3% from 1990-99 as Neoliberalism strengthened, making the 1990s by far the slowest growth decade of the post war era
Again from 2000 (and it would be interesting to see an analysis of developments hence), CEPR's, The Emperor Has No Growth: Declining Economic Growth Rates in the Era of Globalization:
- From 1960-1980, output per person grew by an average, among countries, of 83%. For 1980-2000, the average growth of output per person was 33%. Mexico would have nearly twice as much income per person today if not for the growth slowdown of the last two decades; Brazil would have much more than twice its current per capita income. Eighty-nine countries - 77%, or more than three-fourths - saw their per capita rate of growth fall by at least five percentage points from the period (1960-1980) to the period (1980-2000). Only 14 countries - 13% - saw their per capita rate of growth rise by that much from (1960- 1980) to (1980-2000). In Latin America, GDP per capita grew by 75% from 1960-1980, whereas from 1980-1998 it has risen only 6%. For sub-Saharan Africa, GDP per capita grew by 36% in the first period, while it has since fallen by 15%. Even where high growth rates were achieved, as in Southeast Asia, they were still better in the earlier period. The only regional exception to this trend was East Asia, which grew faster from 1980 to 1998 than in the previous period. But this is due to the quadrupling of GDP, over the last two decades, in China (which has 83% of the population of East Asia).
2000-2005 world gdp growth numbers are around 3% annually, it seems, according to one UN organization at least. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
Globalization and the policies of its most powerful advocates, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have come under increasing criticism in recent years. In the United States, the median real wage is about the same today as it was 27 years ago. This means that the majority of the labor force has failed to share in the gains from economic growth over the last 27 years. That is drastically different from the previous 27 years, during which the typical wage increased by about 80% in real terms. The only regional exception to this trend was East Asia, which grew faster from 1980 to 1998 than in the previous period. But this is due to the quadrupling of GDP, over the last two decades, in China (which has 83% of the population of East Asia). In short, there is no region of the world that the Bank or Fund can point to as having succeeded through adopting the policies that they promote-- or in many cases, impose---in borrowing countries. (They are understandably reluctant to claim credit for China, which maintains a non-convertible currency, state control over its banking system, and other major violations of IMF/Bank prescriptions). If these facts were well known, the entire debate over globalization would change dramatically. The growth of output per person is not the only economic objective, nor is it necessarily the most important one in all circumstances. Nonetheless it is what allows a society to achieve a rising standard of living. For most people in the poorer countries of the world, economic growth offers the only hope that their children and grandchildren might escape from crushing poverty.
The only regional exception to this trend was East Asia, which grew faster from 1980 to 1998 than in the previous period. But this is due to the quadrupling of GDP, over the last two decades, in China (which has 83% of the population of East Asia).
In short, there is no region of the world that the Bank or Fund can point to as having succeeded through adopting the policies that they promote-- or in many cases, impose---in borrowing countries. (They are understandably reluctant to claim credit for China, which maintains a non-convertible currency, state control over its banking system, and other major violations of IMF/Bank prescriptions).
If these facts were well known, the entire debate over globalization would change dramatically. The growth of output per person is not the only economic objective, nor is it necessarily the most important one in all circumstances. Nonetheless it is what allows a society to achieve a rising standard of living. For most people in the poorer countries of the world, economic growth offers the only hope that their children and grandchildren might escape from crushing poverty.
Well, so much for "right wing media bias!" If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
When the best scenario didn't materialize and the loans went south it was "bad 2nd and 3rd world" and bring in the World Bank and IMF. Oh, and let US Gov bail out the poor bankers. The local elites got to keep their ill-gotten gains--honor amongst thieves, and some of the banks suffered. But the biggest hit was to the middle and lower class populations of countries such as Argentina. If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
Mexico's "La Crisas" was the early 80's ... maybe 1981? I was in Mexico at the time, oddly enough, but can't recall if that was 81 or 82.
And, yes, it was under José López Portillo (President 1976-1982) that Mexico "discovered" big new oil reserves and started pell mell exploitation of them, using the new "discoveries" to attract foreign lending.
Portillo's enemies accused him of rampant corruption, when he was just a sentimentalist, as shown by the $2m mansion in Acapulco that he bought for his mistress. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
I just meant to post the second article together with the first, but couldn't track it down at that time. The second article contains extra data on trends in health and education during the same periods. And lots of charts, something always appreciated around here, ... ;-)
(Mind you I can think of a number of issues with their health comparisons i.e. the fact that an increase in life expectancy is not linear with respect to effort. I.e. bringing average life expectancy up from 40 to 60 in a given country might be a lot "easier" than raising the life expectancy from 60 to 80 in the same country, and thus "year of l.e. added per years elapsed" seems to me a bit questionable as a measure) The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
The problem with these comparisons across time is that they don't answer the question of whether the economy would have fared better without "free market" policies.
In fact, the question is counterfactual. We'd need a parallel universe where Thatcher and Reagan didn't implement Friedmanite economic policies to be able to quantify their effect. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
"As noted above, this evidence does not prove that the policies associated with globalization were responsible for the deterioration in performance. But it does present a very strong prima facie case that some structural and policy changes implemented during the last two decades are at least partly responsible for these declines... ...For most of the low and middle-income countries, the link between policy and outcome remains to be shown. But in any case, there is certainly no evidence in this data that the policies associated with globalization have improved outcomes for developing countries. To argue that this is the case, proponents of these policies would need to show that outcomes would have been even worse in the era of globalization, if developing countries had not adopted these policies. If the basic facts presented in this paper were well known, discussions of globalization and international economic policy would look very different than the ones we see today. At the very least, the burden of proof would be squarely placed on those who claim success -- by any available measure of human well-being -- for the last two decades of the experiment in globalization. By contrast, in most of the discussions now held, it is assumed that this experiment has largely succeeded, and those who challenge this assumption must bear a high, often insurmountable burden of proof.
...For most of the low and middle-income countries, the link between policy and outcome remains to be shown. But in any case, there is certainly no evidence in this data that the policies associated with globalization have improved outcomes for developing countries. To argue that this is the case, proponents of these policies would need to show that outcomes would have been even worse in the era of globalization, if developing countries had not adopted these policies.
If the basic facts presented in this paper were well known, discussions of globalization and international economic policy would look very different than the ones we see today. At the very least, the burden of proof would be squarely placed on those who claim success -- by any available measure of human well-being -- for the last two decades of the experiment in globalization. By contrast, in most of the discussions now held, it is assumed that this experiment has largely succeeded, and those who challenge this assumption must bear a high, often insurmountable burden of proof.
So they acknowledge that this isn't proof, but they argue that the numbers offered pass the counter-factual ball to the other side of the debating table. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
