« Link from Twitter | Main | Link from Twitter »



Mitchell Brister

Rodrik’s paper does a great job at looking at examples of growth to derive truths about universal growth strategies and policies. One example that I found interesting was China. Rodrik juxtaposes the widely accepted Washington Consensus to the growth strategies and policies that China used in the 1970’s and 80’s to make an important point. The policies that China used were both non-conventional, and extremely successful. The polices varied greatly from the traditional Washington Consensus and shows that most policies need to be highly individualized and in many instances unorthodox to be effective. The overarching rules of economics can’t be broadly put on economies and be expected to work. The truth about the broad growth strategies that this paper sought to find is that there are no successful universal growth strategies. To apply a single strategy or policy to every economy is irresponsible and ignorant but is the way that most people think.

Sarah Rachal

After reading this paper, it would be easy to lose faith in the power of applied development economics, since there is no magic bullet that can start or sustain economic growth. However, now that development economists realize that there is no universal solution, they can focus on implementing country-specific experimental policies. Rather than analyzing the developing world as a whole, Dani Rodrik examined growth trends in individual countries. Rodrik then analyzed the policies implemented by those countries and how they helped to achieve higher-order economic principles. While this analysis does not provide concrete development solutions, it does have strong policy implications. First of all, it indicates that countries must take the initiative to develop their own economic policies. These policies may be loosely based on what has been effective in similar countries, but they need to take the country’s particular political and cultural climate into account. Rodrik highlights the importance of strengthening institutions in maintaining economic growth but is careful to note that these institutions can take varying forms in different countries. In LDCs, economic policies may be set by ineffective governments following advice given by foreign analysts and advisors. In order to maximize outcomes, the education of economists from LDCs should be a priority. Rather than focusing on traditional economic theories, these economists could learn on a broader scale which higher-order economic principles have consistently led to growth. They could then use their familiarity with the economic, political and social environment of their respective countries to generate experimental policies. As Rodrik states, these experimental policies fail sometimes; however, they can also ignite development and lead to sustained economic growth, as witnessed in many of the Asian countries Rodrik uses as examples.

Ali Coy

Dani Rodrik’s “Growth Strategies” addresses the importance in the “context-specificity of growth-strategies” and how there is no widespread formula or method that guarantees growth in both the short-term and long-term (Rodrik, 16). As a result, it is crucial to understand how policies will differ between countries, based on the implementation of both orthodox and unorthodox institutional practices. However, it is important to differentiate how policy and institutional reforms can alter between “stimulating growth” and “sustaining growth” (Rodrik, 19). After reading this paper, I realized how, in most cases, countries have a greater ease in “stimulating growth,” but find difficulty in maintaining it (Rodrik, 19). For example, like Rodrik explained, China experienced tremendous growth, but this development is indefinite for “without stronger institutions in areas ranging from financial markets to political governance, the Chinese economy may well find itself having outgrown its institutional underpinnings” (Rodrik, 19). It is necessary that countries continually develop “its institutional underpinnings” and place a greater focus on long-term economic growth for an unforeseen economic event could disrupt this growth (Rodrik, 19). When economies only experience temporary growth, countries cannot increase levels of income or improve standards of living compared to more developed, high-income economies.

Riley Stout

One of the most interesting remarks in my opinion of Rodrik’s paper involved Richard Feynman, a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1965. Feynman stated, “It’s the things that nobody knows anything about that we can discuss.” This quote was almost an epiphany for me in which I strongly agree with Feynman. He goes on to list several different topics that people talk about amongst themselves. This isn’t just true for economic development or economics in general but applies to almost every topic imaginable. It’s fascinating to see from the numerous articles we have read regarding development economics include principles and/or theories that can be applied to almost any discipline. Regarding development economics, it’s interesting that there are many models and/or theories to help understand how to transform developing countries into developed countries. However, one model does not work for all developing countries. For example, the way China became a developed country hasn’t really panned out for countries in areas such as Latin America and Africa. Therefore, it can be somewhat concluded that no one model can really predict and/or explain how to transform developing countries into developed countries. This area of economics still has a lot of discussion regarding how to achieve this goal of becoming developed, so it could be said that no one really knows the answer to the issue at hand.

Austin Gilbert

Rodrik’s discussion of the lack of a standard economic development model that fits all economies reminded me of discussions we had in my comparative government class in high school. While analyzing the governments of Great Britain, Russia, China, Mexico, Iran, and Nigeria we recognized that the differences in their political institutions arose from their uniquely different history and culture, and although these governments may have a different framework or are more or less democratic than each other, their governments fit their situation and are customized to their needs for the most part. Moreover, similar to John Williamson’s “Washington Consensus” and Rodrik’s “higher-order principles of sound economic governance,” there are certain governmental qualities and political structures that are viewed as legitimate and positively impact countries, however, countries don’t employ the exact same economic strategies or create identical governments because of countries’ dissimilar backgrounds and current circumstances. Therefore, economic policies and political institutions are selectively implemented in a way that appropriately addresses the specific conditions of the country.

Andrew Head

My reaction to Rodrik's first assertion in the paper was, "that doesn't really seem like an extraordinary insight." He essentially argues that although there are higher-order goals and achievements that most high-growth economies have in common, they have arrived through different institutional pathways that are tailored to the specificity of any given nation. He provides an excellent analysis of various economies and the national institutions that changed over time to spur and maintain high growth rates. However, I was not surprised to hear that there was considerable variation even within a specific region such as East Asia. These nations' institutions are all serving unique populations and economies. To suggest that any country can do items 1-10 and undoubtedly maintain high growth rates as a result seems culturally naive.

Austin Tamayo

Rodrik presents growth strategies for different developing countries in an understandable manner. He touches on a large number of developing countries around the globe, and explains what kind of economic and political policies were implemented to ignite and sustain economic growth. What I found to be interesting, and what many of my classmates have already alluded to, was the idea of applying unique economic policies to different countries. Professor Casey had a similar discussion in class, about how some economic policy or implementation in a certain situation seems like the obvious choice, when in reality, is not so obvious. An example of this in Rodrik’s paper would be the situation that China faced when facing stagnant growth in the agricultural sector. Simply liberalizing the agricultural market in China would not have been beneficial in the long-run for that sector. However, the plan that was implemented, required farmers to reach a quota, but then allowed free trade of the produce that was made past said quota, incentivizing farmers to grow as much produce as they possibly could. That being said, I think that tackling a country’s economic issue with a common policy is fine, as long as the policy is catered and refined to said country’s circumstance.

Kasey Cannon

I thought Rodrik's paper went along really well with the discussion our class had had on Tuesday. As discussed in class, an economic theory can be applied, but in order to see an effect, one must make the assumptions in the model true. Similarly, Rodrik explains very clearly that economic "principles do not translate directly into specific policy recommendations." The translation from economic theories to policy recommendations requires additional factors that are contingent on economic and political context. There is certainly no "one size fits all" for economic growth strategies.

Like Riley, I also found Rodrik's quote from Feynman very insightful. I had never thought about the fact that people talk about subjects that we know nothing about. Although I do not think this is always the case, I certainly understand his point and can think of many instances where this is true.

Rachana Ghimire

I have learned throughout my economics classes that it is not so simple to come up with policies for tackling issues. While we would like to make things more simple and less complicated, our models rely on assumptions that may or may not hold true. In Tuesday’s class, we discussed this more in depth in regards to assumptions of the agricultural and urban sector. While the assumptions may hold true in some places, it may not necessarily hold true in others. This paper illustrates why there can’t just be one universal policy to remedy a problem – such as trying to get more economic growth. Each country has their set of unique values and institutions that will determine whether a policy will work or not and whether the assumptions behind the economic models are met. This paper gives examples of specific countries and the different policy reforms that worked. It points out the stark differences in China’s policy for economic growth and how the United States would have never recommended the policy reforms that they underwent. However, they had tremendous economic growth from unorthodox institutional practices. Moreover, even countries that seem similar on the surface may need quite different policy measures in order to get the desired effect. For example, Taiwan and South Korea both subsidized non-traditional industrial activities. They had the same end-goal, but the process that they went through to get there were different. While Taiwan did it through tax incentives, South Korea did it through directed credit. Each country has a different recipe for success depending on many factors, and economic models should not necessarily directly translate into policy recommendations as there are many other factors to consider. This quote summarized what I got out of the paper quite nicely: “Economics is full of big ideas on the importance of incentives, markets, budget constraints, and property rights. It offers powerful ways of analyzing the allocative and distributional consequences of proposed policy changes. The key is to realize that these principles do not translate directly into specific policy recommendations. That translation requires the analyst to supply many additional ingredients that are contingent on the economic and political context, and cannot be done a priori.” While economics provides a good lens to look at the problem, additional information is needed in order to ensure success of a policy measure.

Kyle Tipping

In the abstract for this paper, Rodrik discusses two things, namely that neoclassical economic analysis is more flexible than expected, and that igniting economic growth is very different from sustaining it. However, throughout this paper, his main point seems to be different. He points out that there is no one route to economic prosperity for a country, by juxtaposing Latin America with areas of Asia. Latin America conformed to the Washington Consensus, but for various reasons they have not been as successful as areas of Asia. Asian countries tended to implement policies vastly different than those that Western civilizations embrace. However, China, India, South Korea and others had terrific growth rates. According to Rodrik, the reasoning for this is that they protected and embraced basic ideas. These include protecting property rights, market-oriented incentives, sound money and fiscal solvency. Rodrik's main claim in this paper is that it doesn't matter how these ideas are implemented, as long as they are observed and accepted by countries. If these conditions hold and countries employ "high-quality institutions", Rodrik claims they will be succesful.

Ultimately, I agree with what Andrew Head said in his blog post. Rodrik does not make a very distinctive or even perceptive claim. He essentially says that countries need to protect and observe some basic fundamentals, but it does not matter what "high-quality institutions" are accepted to implement these fundamentals. This is almost equivalent to saying that countries are very different, and that there is not one right way of improving an economy. This claim likely could have been made without all of the statistical and anecdotal evidence presented by Rodrik.

Jack Masterson

One thing about the article that I did not expecting before I read it was that it in a way almost discredited all development econ study and policy done at not just the country level. While the article talks about ideas and strategies like the Washington consensus that apply to countries as a whole its main assertion was that every country is different and there is no cookie cutter way to go about implementing policy. I agree with that line of reasoning and it is something I have been thinking a lot about in my Econ 398 seminar about health in developing countries. It seems as though often times the policies that are introduced are so broad that there is in fact no way they could work in every country which Rodrik does a nice job of explaining here. The quote from the article that I think best sums up the article as a whole and specifically address this point is, "The policy packages associated with growth accelerations-- and particularly the elements therein that are nonstandard-- tend to vary considerably from country to country." For one to be a development economist and to have any insight into policy you must in a sense narrow your focus to a singular country or a small region to really be able to know where to focus and address resources. We can see this specialization play out in some cases even just between Professor Casey and Professor Silwal who both are development economists but each has narrowed their focus to a specific region of the world. Overall I thought this article did a nice job of using real world country comparisons to show how development and economic policy is something that is very individual to a country.

Alena Hamrick

Rodrik's paper conveniently discusses China after a relatively quick but thorough overview of China's growth strategies in class on Tuesday. Rodrik mentions that China has achieved its economic growth through unconventional methods, yet that growth has been sustained relatively well over the years and continues. In class on Tuesday, we discussed China's use of the Lewis Theory of Development, and the two major assumptions necessary for this theory to hold: the marginal product of labor in the agricultural sector is zero and there is no unemployment in the manufacturing sector. Instead of using the theory and hoping these two assumptions would occur naturally, China implemented policy to make sure these things occurred, and in part, this helped them achieve their desired economic growth. This unorthodox way of using policy to make sure assumptions from certain models or theories of economic growth hold went hand in hand with what Rodrik was discussing.
Not only this, but Rodrik also mentions that unorthodox principles and methods for economic growth were used widely throughout East Asia with relative success (the major examples being South Korea and Taiwan). Adhering to the Washington Consensus doesn't necessarily automatically mean economic growth, and this was exemplified best by the floundering Latin American countries. Compared to their East Asian counterparts, their economic growth was not well sustained, if at all. However, East Asia's deviation from the Washington Consensus and adoption of unusual methods of growth was very successful. Rodrik points out that topography, culture, geography, and other things of this nature are often important when considering economic growth tactics, and the juxtaposition of East Asia and Latin America provided supportive evidence of this claim.

Sarah Schaffer

Rodrick’s article affirmed what we have been discussing in class. General policies and principles can be created in the same way that economists can create a model to represent a concept. There is not one specific solution for everyone and policies can be adapted and uniquely different between countries. Like we talked about in class, the Harrod Domar Growth Model was created after WWII and clearly reflected the situation in Europe during that time period. Similar to this, the culture and politics of one country reflects upon the way they approach economic policies. A set of policy actions can be created “by multiple ways of packing these principles into institutional arrangements” (Rodrick 13), which Rodrick effectively shows throughout the paper that there will never be one specific set of economic policies to promote growth.

Hugh Gooding

Dani Rodrick ended with the idea that "economics is full of big ideas on the importance of incentives, markets, budget constraints, and property rights. It offers powerful ways of analyzing the allocative and distributional consequences of proposed policy changes. The key is to realize that these principles do not translate directly into specific policy recommendations. That translation requires analyst to supply many additional ingredients that are contingent on the economic and political context, and cannot be done a priori." These couple of sentences resolve Rodrick's argument throughout the paper that there is no universal growth strategy, institutionally, financially, or policy driven, that can apply to each country's situation. Although there are social drivers such as education, infant mortality, and life expectation that prove to accompany many growth stories, there is no one-size-fits-all method that is proven to enact growth in both developing and developed countries. Dani also mentions the differing level of difficulty and the different approaches that should be taken for "igniting economic growth and sustaining it." He uses examples drawn from China's two-track reform, Mauritius' export processing zone, and South Korea's system of financial restraint in arguing that many of the plans and strategies have taken unorthodox routes to produce orthodox results. From this, we learn that "sound economics has often been delivered in unsound form." In the end there is no given answer for reform geared toward growth strategy. As a result, Rodrick argues, "successful reforms are those that package sound economic principles around local capabilities, constraints and opportunities."

Buck Armstrong

Upon reading Rodrick's article it is clear that there is no single economic policy that can be applied to each country to encourage development. Upon analyzing the various countries that experienced growth since 1960, Rodrick lays out that there cannot be one way that a country can experience growth. Specifically, Rodrick uses the differences between the policies implemented in Latin America and East Asia to support his point. However, this idea continues to support our conversations in class about economic models and how they have changed over time. There cannot be one model that fits each country, since each country has varying institutions, economies, people and governments. The Washington Consenus was developed to help countries experience growth by creating a check list of what to do, yet when it was applied things did not necessarily pan out the way the economists intended. Additionally, as we discussed in class about development in Europe post WWII, just because that worked for those countries doesn't mean it would work again. As countries change overtime so should the development policies in order for growth to avoid fluttering out. However, Rodrick did point out that best way to experience growth is implementing a "two-pronged growth strategy" that effectively kick-starts short term growth while simultaneously setting up long-term growth. I thought this was particularly interesting because the challenge with jumpstarting short term growth all depends on what the country's needs are. It could be just getting investors excited about what the country has to offer or it takes a government to shifts its policies. Or even its a calculated combination of both. Regardless of what it takes, it is clear after reading "Growth Strategies" is that there is no one clear answer to how to make countries experience growth.

Rachel Stone

Rodrick states in his article, "One of the most encouraging aspects of the comparative evidence on economic growth is that it often takes very little to get growth started." Table 9 details 64 cases of significant growth transitions since the 1950s. It is clear that these spurts of growth are not necessarily difficult to produce. But rather, the larger issue is determining how to maintain continued growth. Though Rodrick says later that "countries do not need an extensive set of institutional reforms in order to start growing," it is arguably the lack of those institutional reforms that is preventing sustained growth. This relates back to what we discussed in class last week with Professor Silwal. The data from the slave trade article guided steps to help improve trust of developing nations. One of these steps was to make institutions better, that is more transparent with less corruption. This seems to be at the base of many ideas regarding developing nations. Nonetheless, like many of the other students have illustrated in their posts, implementing a single strategy in every economy is just not plausible.

Caroline Sanders

One of the main points I took away from Rodrick’s discussion is that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution for growth. While he does propose the success of a two-pronged strategy that: a) stimulates growth in the short-run and b) sustains growth in the long-run, he suggests that the specifics of those policies should be determined on a county-by-country basis considering the available institutional framework and characteristics of the economic environment. However, according to economist Ian Fletcher, “Theory assumes short-term efficiency is the origin of long-term growth. But long-term economic growth is about turning from Burkina Faso into South Korea, not about being the most-efficient possible Burkina Faso forever.” While I understand Rodrick’s point that every country is not on the same path to development, and therefore personalized growth strategies are more likely to produce favorable results, I wonder if there’s some merit to the idea that there is a “right (or at least better) way” to promote growth and development, regardless of individual circumstances. Rodrick champions the power of high-quality institutions in supporting long-term growth and recognizes that these high-quality institutions “can take a multitude of forms.” But are some combinations of high-quality institutions inherently better than others? Did South Korean policies work simply because they were implemented in South Korea at the right time and with the right conditions in mind or is there something more fundamentally successful about those policies that other countries should try to emulate regardless? Do economists even have the authority to make these kinds of judgment calls?

All this questioning reminded me of a book we read in International Development called “The Elusive Quest for Growth,” written by economist William Easterly. Easterly tackles what he calls failed panaceas for economic growth and development – education, population control, foreign investment, government intervention – much like Rodrick provides evidence that there’s no magic bullet for development. However, where Rodrick suggests focusing on institutional quality, Easterly goes deeper and suggests that no development policy – personalized or not – will be successful without first changing the underlying incentives to which people respond.

Emily Rollo

While reading Rodrik’s paper, I felt that his ideas on economic growth and development followed the progression of our discussion in class on Tuesday very well. He emphasizes the importance of the assumptions of each model in order for growth policies to be effective. However, at the same time, he explains the alternative idea that liberalization, deregulation and privatization of each developing country are key to growth. I found it very interesting that Rodrick addresses the implications of reality on economic growth and how it can account for the unexplained stumped growth in some countries. I feel that economists often purposefully neglect the phenomenon of reality. The components of reality complicate things, especially the economy. When economists are creating models, they usually want to simplify them, which often means that they do not include what is really happening in the world. This same idea can explain the problems with growth. Moreover, I am interested in discovering more about the stagnant growth in Latin America. Even though these countries follow appropriate policy framework for economic growth, they do not display positive growth rates. I think the growth problems in Latin America can be related to the real problems that they face in their societies. They may not support and coincide with growth policies, which consequently inhibits their economic growth and development.

George Park

One thing that I really liked about the article was the way that the author explained how economists think and make policies, like the example of how a Western economist would try to help China on page 7. In econ we talk a lot about economic ideas and concepts, but don’t always get to see the way they are applied to create policies. I recognize that, in the example I gave, the author was trying to say that the Western economist thought process is not the only way to achieve certain goals and that the Chinese government actually achieved those goals using a very different process, but I still enjoyed seeing the thought process behind it all.

I think that the article tied in very well with the types of discussions that we have been having in class. A lot of people in our class have been posting on this thread about how the article shed light on how there is no single solutions strategy, or formula for promoting growth. Reading this paper and their comments made me think a lot about my time in Belize this summer. I would never expect policies used in a country like China to be equally effective in promoting growth in a country like Belize, where the economic, political, and social climate are so different.

Daniel Rodriguez-Segura

The article’s focus on the different ways in which the “Washington consensus” can be a broad guide with room for creativity, was constantly supported by the mention of the key role of institutional development in supporting growth. This does not necessarily rule out the role of investments and physical capital in growth as we discussed on Tuesday, but it does acknowledge that just as the policy prescriptions are not as specific as one might imagine, the growth process is not as dependent on a single input as some models can indicate. Rodrik actually says “The growth-spurring strategies described above have to be complemented over tie with a cumulative process of institution building to ensure that growth does not run out of steam and that the economy remains resilient to shocks” (Rodrik, 25). Once we understand that institutions might play just as big of a role as investment in physical capital, we can understand why Swaziland may not experience growth in spite of their “white elephant” projects that seek to increase investment, and why places like Uruguay and Costa Rica may have experienced more sustained growth than their neighbors even if their neighbors might have sought out larger investments in physical capital more persistently.

More broadly, it was interesting to learn about a much more moderate position regarding policy prescriptions. Rodrik’s openness to creativity in the adoption of the “Washington consensus” prescriptions seemed to be a lot less ideologically tainted than most economists but especially politicians. The key message that policy makers should get from this is that ideology may be more useless than what they would expect, as different approaches to the same issue might lead to the same outcome (growth). The example of how China’s “unorthodox” approach and other countries that were much more market-driven like Chile, both obtained their desired outcomes, in a very much “path-independent manner”.

Luke Myer

Rodrick’s article illustrates how difficult it can be to determine entirely what the reason for a nation’s economic development was. Often times there are policy changes in that country’s government that directly lead to growth, but they are rarely massive plans for change imported from another country’s ideas for success. These strategies, Rodrick points out, rarely are applicable to multiple countries. In other words, just because something worked for China, does not mean it would work for Ghana. She also mentions how often times a country’s plan for economic development is not one huge push that is a large, coordinated plan but rather small implementations of policies that are judged on a trial-and-error basis. She points out that countries like China and South Korea in the 1970s and 1960s, respectively, implemented slow, gradual changes that eventually led to their huge growth as economies. Rodrick also discusses how there is a huge difference between policies designed to promote growth and policies designed to sustain growth. She mentions that economic development in sub-Saharan Africa was very significant in the 1970s, but has since completely stagnated. Whereas countries like the Asian Tigers have sustained growth over the past thirty years because of their policies and superior health. Rodrick describes the challenges in nailing down a few key reasons why development policies are so difficult to implement successfully, but also why small, gradual development can lead to significant growth.

Jonathan Jetmundsen

I really like how right off the bat begins to make the distinction between growth strategies in different countries, and how the unique situations each one affect economic growth. I also think it is important, as others have noted, how Rodrik makes the separation between sparking growth and maintaining it. This is useful to policy makers who often make the mistake of believing that the same policies will work throughout a growth cycle. A great example of how much more effective policy can be when forming it with one country in mind, is the case study of China at the start of Section III. It starts by explaining how a western-minded economist would have approached kickstarting China's economic growth. Most of the suggestions involved policies that would be counter to Chinese customs or current government ideas, such as abolishing the state order system and privatizing the ownership of land. While these ideas might make perfect sense for free market thinkers they might not necessarily apply in a completely different state like China. The interesting part of this example, is that China took an almost opposite approach to what western recommendations would have been, and they were still able to reach the same economic goals. China did not follow some of the classic ideas such as property rights or market competition, instead following a different route that yielded similar results.

Jacqueline Carson

As most of my fellow classmates have mentioned, Rodrik's article really emphasized that there is no quick fix for development which is something that we have talked about in class quite a bit. When I was reading this article, I started to think about how much politics, in multiple senses, can get in the way of fixing a development problem. Most policy makers are not economists (I looked up the statistic, only 8.4% of congressmen have degrees in economics) and though they may have economics advisors, their decisions will more than likely not be as well informed as they could be regarding development economics. It is so easy to make an assumption about a particular model that is not true, implement the policy, and have it be a failure. It is also easy, when policy makers do have a success, for them to think of it as the only way to do things correctly and then try to promote it globally. This nationalist success policy, as Rodrik pointed out over and over again, more than likely will not transfer over well to other countries/regions of the world. Yet policy makers continue to push these strategies and gain a superiority complex which thus can impede further growth for the nation particularly when it comes to sustaining it. As the author says, “hard work needs to be done at home,” not "done at a country located halfway around the world."

Ali Norton

Rodrik's discussion of growth strategies, and in particular his stance on sustaining economic growth was very interesting. His point that "even the simplest of policy recommendations is contingent on a large number of judgment calls about the economic and politic context in which it is to be implemented" highlighted the intricate issues and even setbacks developing countries face. While the article does demonstrate that policy may be capable of sustaining development, this particular point emphasizes both the challenges of ensuring policy makers are aligned with sustaining development goals, and that they are building and enabling institutions to grow in capability of enabling sustained economic growth to lead to development. As the paper defines "growth acceleration" as "economy per-capita GDP growth of 2.5% or more sustained over 10 years" it seems only natural that deeply rooted institutions will be an absolute necessity in sustaining growth over this time frame.

Davis Turner

I enjoyed reading this paper regarding growth strategies. I wasn’t surprised to find that Rule-of thump economics has its flaws. Just as there is not a prescription for poverty: the same sentiment goes for growth/development. This paper highlights the triumphs and successes of different growth economic theories and policies. The vast policies and corresponding differences in results show’s just how economic/policy imitation can go awry. Economic policies that want to create growth must focus on the short term and long term. As the big push to stimulate an economy yields to short-term growth, but maintaining and sustaining growth in the long term is even more crucial. In one of the ways this paper views economic growth as “ not the natural order of things,” which shocks because I think there is an immediate assumption that growth in linear given time. There seems to be a crucial need for some type of intervention for developing states and what is prescribed will more than likely never be consistent. One thing for successful economies became clear in the early stages of development: adaptation of existing technologies, and innovation to create new technologies is needed. The economic policies and conditions for growth are complex and depend on several factors, but not solely on empirical data/reasoning. There is a critical need for historic consideration and regional incorporation of identity and practice to “prescribe” growth. The only thing that has remained clear from the paper is that we know just as much about growth as we do about poverty: plenty of room for exploration.

The comments to this entry are closed.