This is great! I've been trying to find a comprehensive debunk of Hickel for a while. If this is meant to be a two-parter, I'm pumped for the degrowth debunk!
Thanks for taking the time to rebut Hickel's argument! (Going to have to read "How Asia Works.")
Odd Arne Westad observes in "Restless Empire" that when China made the transition to capitalism in the 1990s, it adopted the American dog-eat-dog model rather than the social-democratic model of Western Europe.
Rise of China's Industrial Policy is a really interesting read, thanks.
I worry we all bucket too large. Places like China, India, the US, Brazil, should arguably be broken up into regions or provinces for analysis instead of treating them like blocks.
Western China specifically saw huge levels of industrial investment under and since Mao, they have abundant natural resources, and the central government had bold aspirations for various internal areas becoming specific hubs of things that never fully materialized. The development stats there, though improving, still lag the coasts. There's a clear gradient based on proximity to ocean.
Maybe geography, containerization, and demographics explain everything? Liberalization and state industrial policy just operate on very narrow margins? Welcome your pushback on this half serious flirtation with policy nihilism. :D
(I see that Barry Naughton simply defines "investments" and "local policies" out of consideration completely. I'm... still processing that. It's such a bold carve out it's hard to digest on first glance.)
Regardless whether I 40% seriously or 60% seriously adopt policy nihilism, I sincerely believe we should all talk much less about "China" and "India" and much more about "Gansu" and "Uttar Pradesh.ā
To be a bit of a contrarian, I'd like to recommend Eric Hobsbawn's long 19th century trilogy as a counterwieght to the narrative of how Asia works, insofar as my read of it is that is offers different development models to those in how Asia works which are more free markety (which is interesting given that Hobsbawn is an original tankie.)
Great post! The only question/concern I have is that I never interpreted Pinker as being as much of a dogmatic lover of free markets as you suggest he is. In the later chapters of Enlightenment Now (sorry I don't have page numbers on hand) Pinker repeatedly criticizes libertarian and dogmatic free-market-lovers. I have my disagreements with Pinker and he does simplify (which tbf he has to because of the scope of Enlightenment Now is too broad and not singularly focused on poverty reduction) but I didn't take him to be endorsing something as simplistic as 'Neo-liberal markets are the single source of poverty reduction'. Pinker's arguments give a staring role to effective government so I think the charitable view is that he would accept some nuance here?
Then again he has been occasionally known to be dead wrong on some topics (cough, cough, AI) so maybe I'm being overly charitable? Anyway, great piece!
- Again, good post. I'm getting to use to saying this. I'd really like to be more of a contrarian in this comment section.
- Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point, but it really feels like this ideological battle between left-right leads to a lot of dumb takes.
- When I lived in Beijing, my roommate had a buddy visit from the states once. He had a fashion magazine he brought with him - to this day I can't recall the name - with a series of pieces about China. The line that stuck out the most from me reading through all the articles was something to the effect of: "China is simultaneously the biggest capitalist and communist country in the world today." It seemed paradoxical, but I think you're point about China's reform shows how it can be true.
Just out of curiosity-what sort of free trade policies should actually be adopted? Clearly trade is mostly a good, but how do we ensure that you get the benefits without the drawbacks you mention?
So correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems like the real lesson here is that "Capitalism caused a big reduction in global poverty" is:
false if by "capitalism" you mean "something like total laissez-faire markets," which is how you're using the word
but
true if by "capitalism" you mean "market-based pro-business policies," which is what Hickel himself seems to mean by "capitalism" (and is probably what Pinker means too?).
I mean, this is just poorly argued on so many levels. You're missing large swathes of Hickel's argument. Also, sorry, but a graph showing how many people worldwide make above $2 a day doesn't mean anything when it doesn't take into account inflation.
Since 1990, the top 1% in the US has grown richer by something like $30 trillion, while the bottom 50% has LOST several trillion in wealth. The poor are only getting poorer, the ruling class is only exploiting the third world more intensely, and people like you and the others in this comment section (who gleefully celebrate the 'facts' you give them as fodder for future arguments that things are actually getting better for poor people) are serving as bootlicking apologists. Pathetic.
Hi Noah! Looking forward to your article on degrowth. I'm having debates with friends and they're convinced that degrowth is the only way not to have catastrophic climate change. I'm trying to change their minds but going nowhere. There's a strong historical link between CO2 emissions and economic growth, therefore if CO2 emissions go to zero, it's unavoidable that economic growth will fall strongly as well. Rich countries have started to decouple, but if you look at global GDP and CO2 emissions, they're as correlated as ever. In France, Jean-Marc Jancovici is very influential on that front. I have to say - I think they have a point. Even if the energy intensity of GDP goes down, struggling to see how we can entirely decarbonize quickly while growing GDP. I'd love to be more optomistic and as I said - looking forward to your article!
Am a bit late to comment, but last year there was this report by the outgoing "UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights" which, in my reading, is in more agreement with Hickel's views than yours:
Skimming through the report, it seems to be saying that many of these measures, like $5.50 per day, actually are too low for even a basic existence. It does not seem to say anything about the shift in the distribution you talk about in your post, though perhaps the point is that, while the shift is certainly a good thing, it's not yet at a level where people are able to leave a state of terrible existence.
This is great! I've been trying to find a comprehensive debunk of Hickel for a while. If this is meant to be a two-parter, I'm pumped for the degrowth debunk!
Thanks for taking the time to rebut Hickel's argument! (Going to have to read "How Asia Works.")
Odd Arne Westad observes in "Restless Empire" that when China made the transition to capitalism in the 1990s, it adopted the American dog-eat-dog model rather than the social-democratic model of Western Europe.
Really great piece. Iād be interested in hearing more about what aspects of development and industrial policy worked so well.
Rise of China's Industrial Policy is a really interesting read, thanks.
I worry we all bucket too large. Places like China, India, the US, Brazil, should arguably be broken up into regions or provinces for analysis instead of treating them like blocks.
Western China specifically saw huge levels of industrial investment under and since Mao, they have abundant natural resources, and the central government had bold aspirations for various internal areas becoming specific hubs of things that never fully materialized. The development stats there, though improving, still lag the coasts. There's a clear gradient based on proximity to ocean.
Maybe geography, containerization, and demographics explain everything? Liberalization and state industrial policy just operate on very narrow margins? Welcome your pushback on this half serious flirtation with policy nihilism. :D
(I see that Barry Naughton simply defines "investments" and "local policies" out of consideration completely. I'm... still processing that. It's such a bold carve out it's hard to digest on first glance.)
Regardless whether I 40% seriously or 60% seriously adopt policy nihilism, I sincerely believe we should all talk much less about "China" and "India" and much more about "Gansu" and "Uttar Pradesh.ā
To be a bit of a contrarian, I'd like to recommend Eric Hobsbawn's long 19th century trilogy as a counterwieght to the narrative of how Asia works, insofar as my read of it is that is offers different development models to those in how Asia works which are more free markety (which is interesting given that Hobsbawn is an original tankie.)
Great piece! Thanks for bringing the proper nuance to this debate - the developmental state concept does not get the attention it deserves.
Another great read. Thanks.
Great post! The only question/concern I have is that I never interpreted Pinker as being as much of a dogmatic lover of free markets as you suggest he is. In the later chapters of Enlightenment Now (sorry I don't have page numbers on hand) Pinker repeatedly criticizes libertarian and dogmatic free-market-lovers. I have my disagreements with Pinker and he does simplify (which tbf he has to because of the scope of Enlightenment Now is too broad and not singularly focused on poverty reduction) but I didn't take him to be endorsing something as simplistic as 'Neo-liberal markets are the single source of poverty reduction'. Pinker's arguments give a staring role to effective government so I think the charitable view is that he would accept some nuance here?
Then again he has been occasionally known to be dead wrong on some topics (cough, cough, AI) so maybe I'm being overly charitable? Anyway, great piece!
Three Things:
- Again, good post. I'm getting to use to saying this. I'd really like to be more of a contrarian in this comment section.
- Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point, but it really feels like this ideological battle between left-right leads to a lot of dumb takes.
- When I lived in Beijing, my roommate had a buddy visit from the states once. He had a fashion magazine he brought with him - to this day I can't recall the name - with a series of pieces about China. The line that stuck out the most from me reading through all the articles was something to the effect of: "China is simultaneously the biggest capitalist and communist country in the world today." It seemed paradoxical, but I think you're point about China's reform shows how it can be true.
Just out of curiosity-what sort of free trade policies should actually be adopted? Clearly trade is mostly a good, but how do we ensure that you get the benefits without the drawbacks you mention?
fantastic. exactly the kind of econ writing i like, filled with juicy truth nuggets i can burn people with:))
One thing:
- Haven't read the post yet, but you're posting with an impressive tempo. Hell yeah!
So correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems like the real lesson here is that "Capitalism caused a big reduction in global poverty" is:
false if by "capitalism" you mean "something like total laissez-faire markets," which is how you're using the word
but
true if by "capitalism" you mean "market-based pro-business policies," which is what Hickel himself seems to mean by "capitalism" (and is probably what Pinker means too?).
I mean, this is just poorly argued on so many levels. You're missing large swathes of Hickel's argument. Also, sorry, but a graph showing how many people worldwide make above $2 a day doesn't mean anything when it doesn't take into account inflation.
Since 1990, the top 1% in the US has grown richer by something like $30 trillion, while the bottom 50% has LOST several trillion in wealth. The poor are only getting poorer, the ruling class is only exploiting the third world more intensely, and people like you and the others in this comment section (who gleefully celebrate the 'facts' you give them as fodder for future arguments that things are actually getting better for poor people) are serving as bootlicking apologists. Pathetic.
Hi Noah! Looking forward to your article on degrowth. I'm having debates with friends and they're convinced that degrowth is the only way not to have catastrophic climate change. I'm trying to change their minds but going nowhere. There's a strong historical link between CO2 emissions and economic growth, therefore if CO2 emissions go to zero, it's unavoidable that economic growth will fall strongly as well. Rich countries have started to decouple, but if you look at global GDP and CO2 emissions, they're as correlated as ever. In France, Jean-Marc Jancovici is very influential on that front. I have to say - I think they have a point. Even if the energy intensity of GDP goes down, struggling to see how we can entirely decarbonize quickly while growing GDP. I'd love to be more optomistic and as I said - looking forward to your article!
Am a bit late to comment, but last year there was this report by the outgoing "UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights" which, in my reading, is in more agreement with Hickel's views than yours:
https://chrgj.org/2020/07/05/philip-alston-condemns-failed-global-poverty-eradication-efforts/
Skimming through the report, it seems to be saying that many of these measures, like $5.50 per day, actually are too low for even a basic existence. It does not seem to say anything about the shift in the distribution you talk about in your post, though perhaps the point is that, while the shift is certainly a good thing, it's not yet at a level where people are able to leave a state of terrible existence.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts!