Globalisation’s anti-poverty record mostly reflects state-directed East Asian growth.

Evidence

Do note, however, that the main drivers of globalisation’s effect on incomes were China, South Korea and, to a lesser degree, the rest of South East Asia. If we take China and South Korea out of the statistics on the positive impact of globalisation upon world poverty, very little remains to support the hypothesis that globalisation defeated poverty. This is ironic, and a nuisance to free-marketeers (who, naturally, want to claim globalisation as proof of the superiority of free-market capitalism), since China’s conversion into an economic powerhouse happened because Beijing resisted the neoliberals’ recommendation that financial markets should be deregulated and that the Chinese state should desist from investment planning. — Yanis Varoufakis, Technofeudalism, 986

Categorization

  • SEED: A strong column angle: debunking the free-market claim that globalisation defeated poverty by showing the East Asian state-led exception does the real work.
  • ADDENDUM: Complements ‘Grafting & Growth’ by supplying an economic-historical parallel: rejecting uniform orthodoxy is what produces durable growth, just as it produces resilient trees.
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Yanis Varoufakis, Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism, 986
  • XREF: connects to: East Asian countries sustained decade-plus growth rates of 8-10 percent annually. — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 279; Globalization’s eroding effect on state power is empirically overstated — Greta R. Krippner, The Financialization of the American…, 137; Chinese diaspora cultural ties, not states, drove East Asian economic integration. — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 363 (+1 more)

Broader Connections