Today, many emerging markets, from Indonesia to Mexico, are told that there is a certain code of conduct to which they must conform if they are to be successful. The message is clear: here is what advanced industrial countries do, and have done. If you wish to join the club, you must do the same. The reforms will be painful, vested interests will resist, but with enough political will, you will reap the benefits.
Each country draws up a list of what is to be done, and each government is held accountable in terms of its performance. In all countries, balancing the budget and controlling inflation are high on the list, but so are structural reforms. In the case of Mexico, for example, opening up the electricity industry, which Mexico's Constitution reserves to the government, has become the structural reform of the day demanded by the West. So analysts -- mindlessly, one is tempted to say -- praise Mexico for its progress in controlling its budget and inflation, but criticize it for lack of progress in electricity reform.
As someone who was intimately involved in economic policy-making in the US, I have always been struck by the divergence between the policies that America pushes on developing countries and those practiced in the US itself. Nor is the US alone: most other successful developing and developed countries pursue similar "heretical" policies.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
For example, both political parties in the US now accept the notion that when a country is in a recession, it is not only permissible, but even desirable, to run deficits. Yet all over the world, developing countries are told that central banks should focus exclusively on price stability. America's central bank, the Federal Reserve Board, has a mandate to balance growth, employment, and inflation -- and it is a mandate that brings it popular support.
While free marketers rail against industrial policy, in the US the government actively supports new technologies, and has done so for a long time. The first telegraph line was built by the US federal government between Baltimore and Washington in 1842; the Internet, which is changing today's economy so markedly, was developed by the US military. Much of modern technological progress in the US is based on government-funded research in biotechnology or defense.
Similarly, while many countries are told to privatize social security, the American public social security system is efficient (with transaction costs a fraction of private annuities), and customers are responsive to it. It has been pivotal in almost eliminating poverty among America's elderly.
While the American social security system now faces a problem of under-funding, so does a large fraction of America's private pension programs. And the public pension system has provided the elderly with a kind of security -- both against inflation and the vagaries of the stock market -- that the private market to date simply has not.
Correspondingly, many aspects of American economic policy contribute significantly to America's success, but are hardly mentioned in discussions on development strategies. For more than a hundred years, America has had strong anti-trust laws, which broke up private monopolies in many areas such as oil. In some emerging markets, telecommunications monopolies are stifling development of the Internet, and hence economic growth. In other markets, monopolies in trade deprive countries of the advantages of international competition, while monopolies in cement significantly raise the price of construction.
The US government also played an important role in developing the country's financial markets -- by providing credit directly or through government-sponsored enterprises, and by partially guaranteeing a quarter or more of all loans. Fannie Mae, the government-created entity responsible for providing mortgages for middle-class Americans, helped lower mortgage costs and played a significant role in making America one of the countries with the largest proportion of private home ownership.
The Small Business Administration provided the capital to help small businesses -- some of which, like Federal Express, have grown into major businesses creating thousands of jobs. Today, US government student loans are central to ensuring that all Americans have access to a college education, just as in earlier years, government finance helped bring electricity to all Americans.
Occasionally, America has experimented with free-market ideology and deregulation -- sometimes with disastrous effects. President Reagan's deregulation of the Savings and Loan Associations led to an infamous wave of bank failures that cost American taxpayers several hundred billion dollars and contributed to the economic recession of 1991.
Those in Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, India and other emerging markets should be told a quite different message: do not strive for a mythical free-market economy, which has never existed. Do not follow the encomiums of US special interests, whether in the corporate or financial arena, because, although they preach free markets, back home they rely on the US government to advance their aims.
Instead, developing economies should look carefully, not at what the US says, but at what it did in the years when it emerged as an industrial power, and what it does today. There is a remarkable similarity between those policies and the activist measures pursued by the highly successful East Asian economies over the past two decades.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Clinton and chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, October 2003.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with