Search

This article resumes New Developmentalism—a theoretical framework being defined since the early 2000s to understand middle-income countries. It is constituted of a political economy and development macroeconomics and originated in development economics and post-Keynesian macroeconomics. From the start, it is an open and development-oriented economics. New Developmentalism focuses on two macroeconomic accounts, the fiscal and the current accounts, and in five macroeconomic prices which the market is unable to keep 'right'. It affirms that the exchange rate tends to be cyclically overvalued, thus making the competent companies non-competitive and leading the economy to go from crisis to crisis, to the extent that countries are irresponsible in fiscal terms and search to grow with foreign indebtedness. New Developmentalism has a new definition of Dutch disease, and a means to neutralise it. Counterintuitively, it argues that middle-income countries should reject external finance and balance the current account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Este artículo tiene por objeto entender el estado desarrollista y el papel histórico que le ha correspondido en las revoluciones industriales y en períodos posteriores. Primeramente se define al estado desarrollista como alternativa al estado liberal. En segundo lugar, se sostiene que las revoluciones industriales siempre se han producido en el marco de un estado desarrollista. En tercer lugar, se definen cuatro modelos de estado desarrollista en función del momento en que tuvo lugar la revolución industrial y del carácter central o periférico del país. Por último, se describe la forma en que el Estado fue apartándose parcialmente de la economía después de la revolución industrial; sin embargo, el estado desarrollista sigue cumpliendo un papel importantísimo en la dirección de la política industrial y en la ejecución de una política macroeconómica activa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New developmentalism was a response to the inability of classical developmentalism and post-Keynesian macroeconomics in leading middle-income countries to resume growth. New developmentalism was born in the 2000s to explain why Latin American countries stopped growing in the 1980s, while East Asian countries continued to catch up. This paper compares new developmentalism with classical developmentalism, which didn't have a macroeconomics, and with post-Keynesian economics, whose macroeconomics is not devoted to developing countries. And shows that to follow the East Asian example is not enough industrial policy, it is also necessary a macroeconomic policy that sets the five macroeconomic prices right, rejects the growth with foreign savings policy, and keeps the macroeconomic accounts balanced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present paper is to put in historical perspective the development thinking on the relationship between industrial and exchange rate policies. The first section focuses on the thought of the so-called pioneers of development economics, specifically their preference for protectionism and their belated recognition that an exchange rate policy could act as a substitute to it. In the second one, we analyse the origins of exchange rate scepticism. The third section briefly complements the previous discussion with reference to macroeconomic formulations that allow for short-run contractionary effects of a devaluation, reinforcing the scepticism in question. In the fourth section, we discuss the revival of development thinking in the 1980s and its discussion about East Asian trajectories, a literature that placed great emphasis on industrial policy. Finally, in the fifth section, we discuss the new historical facts and the new development macroeconomics models that are putting an end to exchange rate scepticism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of economic literature tends to discuss economic development issues by analysing the industrial policy and other long-term development policies separate from short-term macroeconomic policy. However, development strategies require a close coordination of the macroeconomic regime with the industrial policy. In addition to Brazil, our analytical discussion and normative implications can be addressed to other developing countries also facing premature deindustrialisation. We propose an analytical discussion of the phenomena of industrialisation, deindustrialisation and reindustrialisation, including a discussion on the connection between the macroeconomic regime and industrial policy, both oriented to reindustrialisation and catching up. The main point is that both policy regimes must be closely coordinated with each other. Concerning the macroeconomic regime, we argue that consistent monetary, fiscal, wage and exchange rate policies are those which are able to not only keep price stabilisation, but also provide average real interest rates below the average real return rates on capital, a competitive real exchange rate and real wage rates increasing in accordance with labour productivity growth. As for industrial policy, theoretical and empirical evidence suggest strategies aimed at the diversification of production, processes and products, especially within the manufacturing sector and within tradable segments of the service sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the state and the market are the main institutions regulating capitalism and correspondingly, that the form of the economic and political coordination of capitalism will be either developmental or liberal. It defines the developmental state, relates it to the formation of a developmental class coalition and notes that capitalism was born developmental in its mercantilist phase, turned liberal in the nineteenth century, and, after 1929, became once again developmental, but, now, democratic and progressive. All industrial and capitalist revolutions took place within the framework of developmentalism, whereby the state coordinates the non-competitive sector of the economy and the five macroeconomic prices (which the market is unable to make "right"), while the market coordinates the competitive sector. In the 1970s, a crisis opened the way for a short-lived and reactionary form of capitalism, neoliberalism or rentier-financier capitalism. Since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the neoliberal hegemony has come to an end and we are now experiencing a period of transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a personal account of the definition of "new developmentalism" - a national development strategy alternative to the Washington consensus -, and of a "structuralist development macroeconomics": the sum of models that justifies theoretically that strategy. It is personal account of a collective work involving Keynesian, institutionalist and structuralist economists in Brazil that are forming a new school of thought in Brazil: a Keynesian-structuralist school. It is Keynesian because it emphasizes the demand side or the investment opportunities' side of economic growth. It is institutionalist because institutions obviously matter in achieving growth and stability. It is structuralist because it defines economic development as a structural change from low to high value added per capita industries and because it is based on two structural tendencies that limit investment opportunities: the tendency of wages to grow below productivity and the tendency to the cyclical overvaluation of the exchange rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new Keynesian-struturalist school of thought is emerging in Brazil. It is formed by a Structuralist Development Macroeconomics that offers scientific explanation to New Developmentalism - a national development strategy. In this intervention the author delineates its main theoretical claims and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structuralist development macroeconomics. This paper presents some basic ideas and models of a structuralist development macroeconomics (the tendencies to the overvaluation of the exchange rate and the tendency of wages to grow below productivity, the critique of growth with foreign savings, and a new model of the Dutch disease) that complement and actualize the thought of the Latin-American structuralist school that developed around ECLAC from the late 1940s to the 1960s. On the other hand, it suggests that a new national development strategy based on the experience of fast growing Asian countries is emerging; and argues that only the countries that adopt such strategy based on growth with domestic savings, fiscal and foreign trade responsibility and a competitive exchange rate will be able to catch up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The two methods and the hard core of economics. While methodological sciences have no object and are supposed to adopt a hypothetical-deductive method, substantive sciences including economics should use an empirical or historical-deductive method. The great classical economists and Keynes did that and were able to develop open models explaining how equally open economic systems work. Thus, the hard core of relevant economics is formed by the classical microeconomics and the classical theory of capitalist economic growth, and by Keynesian macroeconomics. In contrast, neoclassical economist aiming to build a mathematical science wrongly adopted the hypothetical-deductive method, and came to macroeconomic and growth models that do not have practical use in policymaking. The exception is Marshall's microeconomics that does not provide a model of real economic systems, but is useful to the analysis of markets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]