Dani Rodrik: Why East Asia's manufacturing-led growth model may no longer help economies emerge
Subscribe to enjoy similar stories.At a gathering of academics and policymakers at Harvard this month, a participant reminded me that I had published a column 15 years ago on ‘The Manufacturing Imperative.’ As the title suggests, the piece emphasized the importance of industrialization in driving economic growth, creating good jobs, and building a middle class. “This is one of my all-time favourite articles,” the policymaker from Africa told the audience.There is scarcely a greater reward for a scholar than having his ideas resonate strongly with the people for whom he writes.
But in this case, a gentle rebuke came along with the praise. What I had written in that column and many other places at the time seemed to conflict sharply with the arguments I was making at this conference about the limits of manufacturing.The contradiction was real.
In recent years, I have become sceptical about the viability of the traditional industrialization-led growth model. I have argued for a different model of economic growth, emphasizing the development of productive capabilities in labour-absorbing, mostly non-tradable services.I have warned policymakers in Africa and other developing regions that trying to emulate the East Asian model would produce, at best, manufacturing enclaves, with a tiny sliver of productive firms integrated into global value chains while the bulk of the labour force remains stuck in low-productivity activities.Mexico exemplifies this outcome.
Read on livemint.com