Kicking away the ladder
Kicking Away the Ladder Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective is a 2002 book by economist Ha-Joon Chang. It examines how now-developed nations achieved their prosperity through interventionist policies and argues that similar tools are often denied to developing countries today. The work challenges orthodox free-market prescriptions in international development economics. Key facts Author: Ha-Joon Chang Published: 2002 Subject: Economic development and policy history Publisher: Anthem Press Awards: 2003 Myrdal Prize (European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy) Historical argument Chang traces how countries such as Britain, the United States, and Germany industrialized through protectionism, subsidies, and state involvement. He contends that these policies were later obscured as those nations promoted free trade to others. The title metaphor—“kicking away the ladder”—refers to rich countries removing the means that once helped them climb to economic success. Critique of neoliberalism The book directly disputes the neoliberal consensus advanced by institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which often condition aid or loans on liberalization and privatization. Chang argues that these prescriptions can trap poorer nations in underdevelopment by preventing strategic state intervention.
Stats for nerds
16recommend
42mentions
27people
2010–2026years
48% recommend48% neutral5% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- You’re wrong and I can quote a number of economic histories to show so. The industrialisation push in Latin America was successful - to a degree. It followed the UN plans for developing a country under the Bretton Woods system. And it worked. But all that work was unwound by the Nixon shock and then the Volcker shock.
The only way to develop a major industrial economy under the Western system post 1945 seems to have been - be a reliable and essential US ally - be given privileges to survive the occasional systemic shock. “Kicking away The Ladder” and “How Asia Works” are good books about this.
That was true of Nixon-Volcker and it was true of 2008-COVID periods. The truth is that under the dollar monetary zone the rules are what they are, until they get changed. Those who survive relatively unscathed are generally given a permissive path to do so.
- "Kicking away the ladder"
https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Persp...
The US industrial revolution was from Samuel Slater memorizing detailed plans of British textile mills and their machines and bringing them here.
- I think at this point the World Bank owes a lot of these countries but every time they market something as "debt forgiveness" it just turns into more of the same thing we've seen with structural readjustment. I'd recommend Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder if you wanna see a deep dive into the topic
- Kicking away the ladder by Ha-Joon Chang
Industrial development and political economy, it really is a must read for anyone even mildly interested on the field, then you could go to Joan Robinson's criticism of Ricardian economics, but these are slightly more in depth topics
- > many of these companies are also legitimately value adding as well, and the ratio between these two things differs by company.
humans can produce environments conducive environments for the discovering, developing and researching of science and technology, without having a profit motive, or having society split up in owners and non-owners. i'm not sure about you, but today's world is hell-ish to me. i hate the inequity i see today.
note: i'm a bit tired so excuse the long quotes and links.
"Place Silicon Valley in its proper historical context and you see that, despite its mythology, it’s far from unique. Rather, it fits into a pattern of rapid technological change which has shaped recent centuries. In this case, advances in information technology have unleashed a wave of new capabilities. Just as the internal combustion engine and the growth of the railroads created Rockefeller, and the telecommunications boom created AT&T, this breakthrough enabled a few well-placed corporations to reap the rewards. By capitalising on network effects, early mover advantage, and near-zero marginal costs of production, they have positioned themselves as gateways to information, giving them the power to extract rent from every transaction.
Undergirding this state of affairs is a set of intellectual property rights explicitly designed to favour corporations. This system — the flip side of globalisation — is propagated by various trade agreements and global institutions at the behest of the nation states who benefit from it the most. It’s no accident that Silicon Valley is a uniquely American phenomenon; not only does it owe its success to the United States’ exceptionally high defence spending — the source of its research funding and foundational technological breakthroughs — that very military might is itself what implicitly secures the intellectual property regime.
Seen in that light, tech’s recent development begins to look rather different. Far from launching a new era of global prosperity, it has facilitated the further concentration of wealth and power. By virtue of their position as digital middlemen, Silicon Valley companies are able to extract vast amounts of capital from all over the world. The most salient example is Apple: recently crowned the world’s most valuable company, Apple rakes in enormous quarterly profits even as the Chinese workers who actually assemble its products are driven to suicide."
[1]> What's the incentive to make things extremely efficient? There'd be no centralized entity skimming off the top, but at the same time there might be an efficiency cost which is even bigger. So I'm skeptical.
incentives are built into the universe, the process of discovery with colleagues is the reward/incentive. getting credit and therefore being trusted further with more democratically awarded scarce material resources could be the reward. the returns that capitalist firms supposedly need to get 'back' is not legitimate because nearly all of those inventions were made possible due to publicly funded research grants and loans. in our future socialist system with a distributed socialist version of a google/search-engine/global-index, we wouldn't need to manipulate people to buy new products ('advertising'), and everyone could use the latest inventions in a modular fashion (that is, only upgrade various components. goodbye planned obsolescence and single use hardware/products). another perspective: it's important to remember that today capital dictates what tech is popular and useful, not actual popularity or effectiveness. abolishing Silicon Valley and the global north IP regime is the only strategy that cuts at the root of this problem. besides that, the most important point is that the waged (non-property owning) knowledge workers are the ones providing the value, not the executives and property-owners (in this case intellectual property).
"In Mazzucato’s account of the enormous success of federal scientific and technical research as the foundation of the most revolutionary of today’s technologies, the most telling example is how dependent Steve Jobs’s Apple was on government-funded breakthroughs. Apple’s earliest innovations in computers were themselves dependent on government research. But by the 1990s, sales of its traditional laptops were flagging. The launch of the iPod in 2001, which displaced the once-popular but more limited Sony Walkman, and in 2007 of the touch-screen systems of the new iPhone and iPad, turned the company into the electronic powerhouse of our time. From that point, its global sales almost quintupled and its stock price rose from roughly $100 to more than $700 a share at its high.
These later breakthroughs were almost completely dependent on government-sponsored research. “While the products owe their beautiful design and slick integration to the genius of Jobs and his large team,” writes Mazzucato,
'nearly every state-of-the-art technology found in the iPod, iPhone and iPad is an often overlooked and ignored achievement of the research efforts and funding support of the government and military.'
A major government-funded discovery known as giant magnetoresistance, which won its two European inventors a Nobel Prize in physics, is a telling example of such support. The process enlarges the storage capacity of computers and more recent electronic devices. In a speech at the Nobel ceremony, a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science explained that this breakthrough made the iPod possible. Other major developments by Apple also had their “roots” in federal research, among them, Mazzucato writes, the global positioning system of the iPhone and Siri, its voice-activated personal assistant.
Apple is only one of many such stories. In the early 1980s, the federal government formed the often-forgotten Sematech, the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology consortium, a research partnership of US semiconductor companies designed to combat Japan’s growing lead in chip technologies. The US provided $100 million a year to encourage private companies to join the effort, including the innovative giant Intel, whose pioneering work on microprocessors in the 1970s had been central to the electronics explosion.
Virtually all experts acknowledged that Sematech reestablished the US competitiveness in microprocessors and memory chips, leading to a sharp reduction in costs and radical miniaturization. The tiny integrated circuits with huge memories that resulted are the core of most electronic products today, long exploited by major companies like Microsoft and Apple. Their development was critically aided by military purchases in their early stages when commercial possibilities were still in their infancy."
[2]i think we're stopped from seeing the above truths because we are now so embedded in this inorganic hyper-commoditized and highly-privatized society. it has gotten to the point where education itself has been turned into an 'experience' commodity, something only for the wealthiest members of society, despite self-directed schools starting to show us that children are innately curious. every child is born wonderfully curious, yet meeting walls instead of bridges sets the boundaries.
> expensive drugs are because of the government (or because of lobbying)
the framing of 'Govt. vs. Private sector/corporations' misses the point that both solely benefit (and are directed by) the propertied class. we live in a bourgeois democracy. there is no democracy for the working class when it comes to e.g. money creation, or the many laws and economic agreements that are lauded as the emancipatory backbones of a supposed 'end-of-history' [3] democratic society.
these are some of the sources and authors that helped me earlier on my journey to understand the dynamics i describe:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...
https://anthempress.com/kicking-away-the-ladder-pb
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/32603498
[1] Wendy Liu, https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley
[2] Mariana Mazzucato, https://web.archive.org/web/20160204223931/https://nybooks.c...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las...
-
have you seen the latest Einstein blog post? it's hot https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
- If you've not read it, 'Kicking Away the Ladder' by Ha-Joon Chang is a great book on this topic.
It has a good deal of historical detail on what developed countries did themselves to become developed with respect to IP and protection.
Related
Bad Samaritans
22 recommend · 46
Abolish Silicon Valley
2 recommend · 8
Economics : the user's guide
11 recommend · 19
High Output Management
116 recommend · 193
Debt
182 recommend · 440
A Random Walk Down Wall Street
127 recommend · 246
The ascent of money
42 recommend · 69