III. Critical Response to Alice H. Amsden’s Thesis
At the heart of Escape from Empire, Amsden explains how shifts in American policy between the First and Second American Empire were a detriment to the development of the Third World. More specifically, Amsden’s thesis is that because of American policy rigidity, the Third World could be better suited for development if it cultivates self-determined policy. It is from this dichotomy between progressively driven policies and ideologically driven policies that Amsden theorizes a third American Empire: an ideal regime that promotes equitable policy regardless of economic, geographic or ideological status. However, the overly exploitative history of American foreign and economic policy creates a cynical depiction of development. Moving from the biased “Reaganomics” model towards internationally sustainable policies (for the main purpose of development) will be incredibly difficult. In the book, Amsden breaks down her main points chapter by chapter. In Chapters 1 to 3, she explores the introduction to the two different American empires, and how both allowed or did not allow development from post-World War II to around the early 1990’s. She discusses that during the First American Empire, there was an even balance between market and policy (Amsden, 2). She argues that during this time, possibly one of the greatest “gifts” America gave to the developing world was the ability to “use their own brains and run your own show” (Amsden, 3). However, the Second American Empire promoted the opposite; it wanted complete control of the market, which changed American focus on developing nations to “getting the prices right” (Amsden, 11). In Chapter 4, Amsden explains that aid the notion of “foreign aid” was a corrupt and self-interested pursuit. Instead of giving developing nations what they needed, the United States used aid as leverage to fight Communism, and to promote western capitalism. Amsden explains, “aid became corrupt” […] “over time, aid became a smaller share of the government spending and GDP, spiking only when the cold war was at it’s hottest” (Amsden, 56). In Chapters 5 and 6, Amsden discusses that as a result of unfavorable policies, the developing world had to take policy matters into their own hands. Where post-World War II economic theory suggests that import substitution industrialization promotes protectionism and closes off international markets, the developing world used the theory to promote growth. Industries in the developing world were able to grow because it reduced foreign pressure on their balance of payments (Amsden, 86). In essence, a western template to growth does not work for every country. In Chapters 7 through 9, Amsden discusses the rise of the Asian Tigers. During this time, the United States engaged in two “competitions;” one competition entrenched in physical war and resource control, and another competition with Asia (the structure R&D and state-led intervention completely differed from the American free market model). Finally, the last two chapters reiterate main points, which show the empirical outcomes of western decision-making. Each chapter promotes important arguments to the field of development. Each topic is well researched, and the argument that the Second American Empire was in fact a detriment to the developing world is quite strong. Unfortunately, the arguments Amsden makes are disconnected from the “important” questions posed at …show more content…
For example, in order to engage in the industrialization process, developing nations must transform the agrarian sector to an open industrial system (Storey, 2009). For developing nations, the process of industrialization was (and continues to be) very difficult. Agrarian change required large amounts of capital. Amsden argues that the most important source of finance was the transfer of resources from agriculture to industry (Amsden, 59). Although there is truth in the importance of agrarian change, the economic bias of development discounts social change.
For example, in Chapter 4 “Angel Dust,” Amsden discusses the serious issue of agricultural development during both the First and Second empires. Aid to agriculture during the First and Second American Empire was essential to “nurturing industry, supplying it with savings, foodstuffs for urban workers, exports, inputs for industrial manufacturing, and demand for manufacturing output” (Amsden, 61). However, because aid in the First American Empire was centered on dumping and economic strategy, agriculture could not properly
At the heart of Escape from Empire, Amsden explains how shifts in American policy between the First and Second American Empire were a detriment to the development of the Third World. More specifically, Amsden’s thesis is that because of American policy rigidity, the Third World could be better suited for development if it cultivates self-determined policy. It is from this dichotomy between progressively driven policies and ideologically driven policies that Amsden theorizes a third American Empire: an ideal regime that promotes equitable policy regardless of economic, geographic or ideological status. However, the overly exploitative history of American foreign and economic policy creates a cynical depiction of development. Moving from the biased “Reaganomics” model towards internationally sustainable policies (for the main purpose of development) will be incredibly difficult. In the book, Amsden breaks down her main points chapter by chapter. In Chapters 1 to 3, she explores the introduction to the two different American empires, and how both allowed or did not allow development from post-World War II to around the early 1990’s. She discusses that during the First American Empire, there was an even balance between market and policy (Amsden, 2). She argues that during this time, possibly one of the greatest “gifts” America gave to the developing world was the ability to “use their own brains and run your own show” (Amsden, 3). However, the Second American Empire promoted the opposite; it wanted complete control of the market, which changed American focus on developing nations to “getting the prices right” (Amsden, 11). In Chapter 4, Amsden explains that aid the notion of “foreign aid” was a corrupt and self-interested pursuit. Instead of giving developing nations what they needed, the United States used aid as leverage to fight Communism, and to promote western capitalism. Amsden explains, “aid became corrupt” […] “over time, aid became a smaller share of the government spending and GDP, spiking only when the cold war was at it’s hottest” (Amsden, 56). In Chapters 5 and 6, Amsden discusses that as a result of unfavorable policies, the developing world had to take policy matters into their own hands. Where post-World War II economic theory suggests that import substitution industrialization promotes protectionism and closes off international markets, the developing world used the theory to promote growth. Industries in the developing world were able to grow because it reduced foreign pressure on their balance of payments (Amsden, 86). In essence, a western template to growth does not work for every country. In Chapters 7 through 9, Amsden discusses the rise of the Asian Tigers. During this time, the United States engaged in two “competitions;” one competition entrenched in physical war and resource control, and another competition with Asia (the structure R&D and state-led intervention completely differed from the American free market model). Finally, the last two chapters reiterate main points, which show the empirical outcomes of western decision-making. Each chapter promotes important arguments to the field of development. Each topic is well researched, and the argument that the Second American Empire was in fact a detriment to the developing world is quite strong. Unfortunately, the arguments Amsden makes are disconnected from the “important” questions posed at …show more content…
For example, in order to engage in the industrialization process, developing nations must transform the agrarian sector to an open industrial system (Storey, 2009). For developing nations, the process of industrialization was (and continues to be) very difficult. Agrarian change required large amounts of capital. Amsden argues that the most important source of finance was the transfer of resources from agriculture to industry (Amsden, 59). Although there is truth in the importance of agrarian change, the economic bias of development discounts social change.
For example, in Chapter 4 “Angel Dust,” Amsden discusses the serious issue of agricultural development during both the First and Second empires. Aid to agriculture during the First and Second American Empire was essential to “nurturing industry, supplying it with savings, foodstuffs for urban workers, exports, inputs for industrial manufacturing, and demand for manufacturing output” (Amsden, 61). However, because aid in the First American Empire was centered on dumping and economic strategy, agriculture could not properly