The American government has been both miracle worker and villain in the developing world. From the end of World War II until the 1980s poor countries, including many in Africa and the Middle East, enjoyed a modicum of economic growth. New industries mushroomed and skilled jobs multiplied, thanks in part to flexible American policies that showed an awareness of the diversity of Third World countries and an appreciation for their long-standing knowledge about how their own economies worked. Then during the Reagan era, American policy changed. The definition of laissez-faire shifted from "Do it your way" to an imperial "Do it our way." Growth in the developing world slowed, income inequalities skyrocketed, and financial crises raged. Only East Asian economies resisted the strict prescriptions of Washington and continued to boom. Why?
In Escape from Empire, Alice Amsden argues provocatively that the more freedom a developing country has to determine its own policies, the faster its economy will grow. America's recent inflexibility—as it has single-mindedly imposed the same rules, laws, and institutions on all developing economies under its influence—has been the backdrop to the rise of two new giants, China and India, who have built economic power in their own way.
Amsden describes the two eras in America's relationship with the developing world as "Heaven" and "Hell"—a beneficent and politically savvy empire followed by a dictatorial, ideology-driven one. What will the next American empire learn from the failure of the last? Amsden argues convincingly that the world—and the United States—will be far better off if new centers of power are met with sensible policies rather than hard-knuckled ideologies. But, she asks, can it be done?
I thought that the reason I didn't understand this book was because I have a very poor grasp of economics, but other people in my class seemed to have problems with it, too. It has a really interesting thesis and Amsden really knows her stuff, but it's awfully confusing.
Although the substance is quite good, i dont like the writing style at all. Amsden compares USAs policies toward 'developing' countries from wwii-70s and post 70s, the neoliberal wave. She explains the problems of "free markets" for development quite well. She doesnt seem interested much in why a tolerant era of international ecpnomic policy was possible (she does understand it was because the cold war), nor how it could be recreated (she suggests another cold war w China?). Of course appealing to the US's own interest is a dangerous game at best, mpre likely just wishful thinking. Thats the problem of many economic and development books: They seem written towards a DC audience, or at least american academia. This limits any consideratipns that the USA never has or will give a damn about the rest of the world except as it effects itself. It is still a good intro to the last 70 years of development from an american perspective. Better is Erik Reinhardt though.
Amsden uses very colorful language to an occasionally overwrought degree to argue, essentially, that the U.S. should manage multipolarity by increasing real investment and engagement with Latin America as its region of influence. Her argument is a little less Monroe Doctrine-y than it sounds, and her narrative of postwar global development is really interesting, if at times a little light on details and a little heavy on using a couple developing countries as examples for a theory she says explains all of them. The condemnation of neolibs and free market doctrinaires is not unique but certainly welcome, particularly reading this 2007 text in 2019. (read for school)