Talk:Import substitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see what any of this has to do with import substitution as an economy strategy....
Menawhile, also in the 1990s, local purchasing became more popular, due to arguments about energy subsidy and moral purchasing, and the simple impossibility of assessing moral liability (which was more often translated into legal liability than previously) for imported goods and services. One such concern was developed nations' disdain for use of human slavery, prison labour, child labour in export production, and deforestation resulting from some practices, e.g. the so-called rainforest beef produced in ex-rainforest lands in the Amazon Basin. However, mandatory labelling and sector-specific audit regimes (such as the Cocoa Protocol) were beginning to allievate this concern by the early 2000s. These more precise measures left only the energy subsidy concern, and that only in cases where the import was actually closer and cheaper in energy terms than nearest local producer (for instance, in British Columbia, it would continue to make sense in energy terms to buy apples from the state of Washington rather than from Ontario, since the foreign supplier was closer).
Today most debates on import substitution are in the context either of moral purchasing, local purchasing or food security. The overwhelming concern is not economic growth as measured in neoclassical economics, but the likelihood that uneconomic growth is leading to an inherently unstable situation where the whole import-export and commodity markets regimes may become much more expensive to maintain due to biowar potential, terrorism inspections and the loss of economic advantage and energy subsidies due to increasing concern with the comprehensive outcome of a production process.
Those who disbelieve in such potentials to make commodity markets and export markets less stable, and put all trust in market integrity and stability, are not likely to take import substitution strategies seriously when setting industrial policy, e.g. an explicit concern with sources of spare parts or fuel availability. However, it has become quite difficult to ignore in agricultural policy, due to biosecurity concerns, and the increasing pressure on developed nations to abandon subsidies to the so-called family farm, which relies effectively on exclusion of directly competitive imports.
This I don't think is true.....
- In the 1990s however various problems with so-called free trade regimes, notably a lack of progress in altering agricultural policy in the developed nations to permit developing nations to export food to them in more quantity, caused many (especially poorer) nations to look at import substitution more closely as a way to keep hard currency circulating locally, and only leaving the country for the most essential inputs to production.
I don't know of any developing nations that are now seriously looking at import substitution as a development strategy.
The article reads: "Three major tenets...and a monetary policy that keeps the domestic currency overvalued".
Shouldn't monetary policy be used in ISI to undervalue the currency in order to increase exports and decrease imports?
This article needs more information. Why was import substitution promoted - what was the proposed benefit of import substitution? Why did Latin America chose import substitution over other policies (including the tariff policies of East Asia?) --Confuzion 07:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Can someone check to see if ISI really lead to the Washington Consensus? I just don't think that's true.
"Three major tenets...and a monetary policy that keeps the domestic currency overvalued" is ok. Kepping the local currency overvalued allows the terms of trade to stay high, thus difficulting the exports of raw materials and making the imports cheap for the sunrise industry. On the long run, it's not competitive, but at first it could be okay in order to shift to a infdustrialised economy
[edit] Moved from article
- Objection! Yes there has: "In 2003, import substitution policies and soaring exports, coupled with a lower inflation and expansive economic measures, triggered a surge in the GDP, which was repeated in 2004, creating jobs and encouraging internal consumption. Capital flight decreased, and foreign investment slowly returned." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#Economy)
[edit] POV Check
This article seems to have a neoliberal slant on ISI. The various concerns I have about the article I will outline in point form below.
- It is lacking a sophisticated definition of ISI.
- It makes a simplistic generalization of ISI by comparing it mercantilism.
- It needs a definition of ISI referenced from a proponent of ISI, otherwise it will risk setting up a strawman representation of ISI if a definition is taken from its critics.
- "This proves in practice to be economically - and practically - untenable." is obviously a value judgment, and violates the policy of letting something speak for itself.
- Needs to include mention of a debate between the different schools of political economy, and within international development literature, about the tenability of ISI.
- Emotive and biased language throughout the article, "ISI succeeded only in creating, in some countries, moderate growth, at best, often resulting in inferior, or mediocre substitutes for higher quality products that could more cheaply, and sensibly, be attained in the world market."
- Needs to mention that ISI is regarded by most adherents of the Latin-American school of international development, at least, as an important transitional development policy for late-developers.
- "The policy began to fail in the early 1980s, as a result of overspending by the governments involved, mostly from spending foreign exchange reserves trying to keep the currency stable. As the Latin American governments failed, they began to default on their debts and were forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for help." - This very conveniently forgets to mention the Oil Crisis of the 1970s which was a much much larger cause of a lot of this 'overspending' and debt accumulation.
- "The failure of ISI led to the rise of the Washington Consensus." - Linear, narrative historiography. Many things led to the Washington consensus, of which the failure of ISI could hardly rank amongst them. The Washington Consensus developed after the US actively decided to abandon the Bretton Woods system (a decision which has no connections to the failure of ISI in developing countries), and the consensus necessarily arose to fill the vacuum left by the demise of Bretton Woods.
- "Although these policies later created inefficiencies and other problems, as seen during the Asian financial crisis." - Again, linear and narrative. The Asian financial crisis largely arose out of weaknesses in the finance and banking sectors, although there are many many more reasons. Indeed, the cause of the crisis itself is still a topic of much debate, particularly between the different schools of economic thought.
- The author's characterization of ISI seems to come largely from 'Commanding Heights' which is a controversial book written from a neoliberal economic perspective. I would strongly recommend that contributions to this article come from a much wider variety of sources representing views across the spectrum of political economic thought before it can be NPOV.
Patrice Franko's The Puzzle of Latin American Economic Development -2nd ed. provides, in my opinion, a very neutral historical account of ISI policies used throughout Latin America. I highly recommend that it be used as a reference for editing this page if personal biases seem to be getting in the way.
