Bad Samaritans Book

The place to start is with a true history of capitalism and globalization, which I examine in the next two chapters. In these chapters I will show how many things that the reader may have accepted as ‘historical facts’ are either wrong or partial truths. Britain and the US are not the homes of free trade; in fact, for a long time they were the most protectionist countries in the world. Not all countries have succeeded through protection and subsidies, but few have done so without them. For developing countries, free trade has rarely been a matter of choice; it was often an imposition from outside, sometimes even through military power.

Most of them did very poorly under free trade; they did much better when they used protection and subsidies. The best-performing economies have been those that opened up their economies selectively and gradually. Neo-liberal free-trade free-market policy claims to sacrifice equity for growth, but in fact it achieves neither; growth has slowed down in the past two and a half decades when markets were freed and borders opened. Chapter 1 The Lexus and the olive tree revisited Once upon a time, the leading car maker of a developing country exported its first passenger cars to the US.

Up to that day, the little company had only made shoddy products—poor copies of quality items made by richer countries. The car was nothing too sophisticated—just a cheap subcompact (one could have called it ‘four wheels and an ashtray’). But it was a big moment for the country and its exporters felt proud. Unfortunately, the product failed. Most thought the little car looked lousy and savvy buyers were reluctant to spend serious money on a family car that came from a place where only second-rate products were made. The car had to be withdrawn from the US market.

This disaster led to a major debate among the country’s citizens. Many argued that the company should have stuck to its original business of making simple textile machinery. After all, the country’s biggest export item was silk. If the company could not make good cars after 25 years of trying, there was no future for it. The government had given the car maker every opportunity to succeed. It had ensured high profits for it at home through high tariffs and draconian controls on foreign investment in the car industry.

Fewer than ten years ago, it even gave public money to save the company from imminent bankruptcy. So, the critics argued, foreign cars should now be let in freely and foreign car makers, who had been kicked out 20 years before, allowed to set up shop again. Others disagreed. They argued that no country had got anywhere without developing ‘serious’ industries like automobile production. They just needed more time to make cars that appealed to everyone. The year was 1958 and the country, was, in fact, Japan.

The company was Toyota, and the car was called the Toyopet. Toyota started out as a manufacturer of textile machinery. (Toyoda Automatic Loom) and moved into car production in 1933. The Japanese government kicked out General Motors and Ford in 1939 and bailed out Toyota with money from the central bank (Bank of Japan) in 1949. Today, Japanese cars are considered as ‘natural’ as Scottish salmon or French wine, but fewer than 50 years ago, most people, including many Japanese, thought the Japanese car industry simply should not exist.

Half a century after the Toyopet debacle, Toyota’s luxury brand Lexus has become something of an icon for globalization, thanks to the American journalist Thomas Friedman’s book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree. The book owes its title to an epiphany that Friedman had on the Shinkansen bullet train during his trip to Japan in 1992. On his train back from the car factory in Toyota City to Tokyo, he came across yet another newspaper article about the troubles in the Middle East where he had been a long-time correspondent. Then it hit him.

He realized that that ‘half the world seemed to be…intent on building a better Lexus, dedicated to modernizing, streamlining, and privatizing their economies in order to thrive in the system of globalization. And half of the world—sometimes half the same country, sometimes half the same person—was still caught up in the fight over who owns which olive tree? According to Friedman, unless they fit themselves into a particular set of economic policies that he calls the Golden Straitjacket, countries in the olive-tree world will not be able to join the Lexus world.

In describing the Golden Straitjacket, he pretty much sums up today’s neo-liberal economic orthodoxy: in order to fit into it, a country needs to privatize state-owned enterprises, maintain low inflation, reduce the size of government bureaucracy, balance the budget (if not running a surplus), liberalize trade, deregulate foreign investment, deregulate capital markets, make the currency convertible, reduce corruption and privatize pensions. According to him, this is the only path to success in the new global economy.

His Straitjacket is the only gear suitable for the harsh but exhilarating game of globalization. Friedman is categorical: ‘Unfortunately, this Golden Straitjacket is pretty much “one-size fits all”…It is not always pretty or gentle or comfortable. But it’s here and it’s the only model on the rack this historical season. ’ However, the fact is that, had the Japanese government followed the free-trade economists back in the early 1960s, there would have been no Lexus. Toyota today would, at best, be a junior partner to some western car manufacturer, or worse, have been wiped out.

The same would have been true for the entire Japanese economy. Had the country donned Friedman’s Golden Straitjacket early on, Japan would have remained the third-rate industrial power that it was in the 1960s, with its income level on a par with Chile, Argentina and South Africa—it was then a country whose prime minister was insultingly dismissed as ‘a transistor-radio salesman’ by the French president, Charles De Gaulle. In other words, had they followed Friedman’s advice, the Japanese would now not be exporting the Lexus but still be fighting over who owns which mulberry tree.

Neo-liberals vs neo-idiotics? In the official history of globalization, the early post-Second-World-War period is portrayed as a period of incomplete globalization. While there was a significant increase in integration among the rich countries, accelerating their growth, it is said, most developing countries refused to fully participate in the global economy until the 1980s, thus holding themselves back from economic progress. This story misrepresents the process of globalization among the rich countries during this perod.

These countries did significantly lower their tariff barriers between 1950s and the 1970s. But during this period, they also used many other nationalistic policies to promote their own economic development—subsidies (especially for research and development, or R&D), state-owned enterprises, government direction of banking credits, capital controls and so on. When they started implementing neo-liberal programmes, their growth decelerated. In the 1960s and the 1970s, per capita income in the rich countries grew by 3. 2% a year, but its growth rate fell substantially to 2.

1% in the next two decades… Growth failure has been particularly noticeable in Latin America and Africa, where neo-liberal programmes were implemented more thoroughly than in Asia. In the 1960s and the 1970s, per capita income in Latin America was growing at 3. 1% per year, slightly faster than the developing country average. Brazil, especially, was growing almost as fast as the East Asian ‘miracle’ economies. Since 1980s, however, when the continent embraced neo-liberalism, Latin America has been growing at less than one-third of the rate of the ‘bad old days’.

Even if we discount the 1980s as a decade of adjustment and take it out of the equation, per capita income in the region during the 1990s grew at basically half the rate of the ‘bad old days’ (3. 1% vs 1. 7%). Between 2000 and 2005, the region has done even worse; it virtually stood still with per capita income growing at only 0. 6% per year. As for Africa its per capita income grew relatively slowly even in the 1960s and the 1970s (1-2% a year). But since the 1980s, the region has seen a fall in living standards.

This record is a damning indictment of the neoliberal orthodoxy, because most of the African economies have been practically run by the IMF and the World Bank over the past quarter of a century. Are the Bad Samaritans winning? Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister who spearheaded the neo-liberal counter-revolution, once famously dismissed her critics saying that ‘There is no alternative’. The spirit of this argument – known as TINA (There Is No Alternative) – permeates the way globalization is portrayed by the Bad Samaritans.

The Bad Samaritans like to present globalization as an inevitable result of relentless developments in the technologies of communication and transportation. They like to portray their critics as backward-looking ‘modern-day Luddites’ who ‘fight over who owns which olive tree’. Going against this historical tide only produces disasters, it is argued, as evidenced by the collapse of the world economy during the inter-war period and by the failures of state-led industrialization in the developing countries in the 1960s and the 1970s.

It is argued that there is only one way to survive the historic tidal force that is globalization, and that is to put on the one-size-fits-all Golden Straitjacket which virtually all the successful economies have allegedly worn on their way to prosperity. In this chapter, I have shown TINA conclusion stems from a fundamentally defective understanding of the forces driving globalization and a distortion of history to fit the theory. Free trade was often imposed on, rather than chosen by, weaker countries. Most countries that had the choice did not choose free trade for more than brief periods.

Virtually all successful economies, developed and developing, got where they are through selective, strategic integration with the world economy, rather than through unconditional global integration. The performance of the developing countries was much better when they had a large amount of policy autonomy during the ‘bad old days’ of state-led industrialization than when they were totally deprived of it during the first globalization (in the era of colonial rule and unequal treaties) or when they had much less policy autonomy (as in the past quarter of a century).

There is nothing inevitable about globalization, because it is driven more by politics (that is, human will and decision) than technology, as the Bad Samaritans claim. If it were technology that determined the extent of globalization, it would be impossible to explain how the world was much less globalized in the 1970s (when we had all the modern technologies of transport and communication except the internet) than in the 1870s (when we relied on steamships and wired telegraphy).

Technology only defines the outer boundaries of globalization. Exactly what shape it takes depends on what we do with national policies and what international agreements we make. If that is the case, the TINA thesis is wrong. There is alternative, or rather there are many alternatives, to the neo-liberal globalization that is happening today. The rest of this book is going to explore those alternatives.