The Nievas-Piketty unequal exchange paper is certainly better than Hickel's, but their counterfactual assertion of convergence between countries in 1800-2025 is based on these entirely political-economy-free assumptions
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
In Piketty's paper, all politics, all power relations, take place between countries, but there is no politics, no power, no institutions within countries. Thus with a straight face they assume 100% of the extra revenue from higher commodity prices during 225 years is reinvested!
Quite an assumption indeed. The assumption is about Baran's ratio (share of investment out of surplus). I have done a bit about that couple of years ago. Mean is around 60%; less so in developing countries such as in Turkey.
So Piketty, Mr Inequality himself, (effectively) assumes that commodity booms, instead of making domestic elites parasitic, cause them to reinvest their gains in national, 'inclusive' development.
Hickel's paper implies that exporting stuff by the South to the North at less than 'Northern prices' is actually impoverishing, and ends up implying some of the greatest exporters in East Asia are impoverished by exporting!!!
by contrast the Nievas-Piketty paper is free of the 'value transfer' assumptions and makes entirely mainstream economic assumptions about balance of payments.
Comments
Even AJR is better ! 😂
I am going to learn this by heart, then say it loudly to friends in the pub, just before I go to the loo.
(I imagine you'll say everything is made up, but if you have a specific source to point to I'd be happy to look at the specifics)