[PEN-L:11189] More India ink

[James Devine <Jim_Devine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(or at least electronic ink. Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

I had written:> Currently, if I am not mistaken, India is pursuing the
free-market uber alles strategy pushed by the US/World Bank/IMF axis.<

Anthony comments>> That India's free-market policies are being externally
orchestrated cannot be supported.<<

I didn't say that its policies are "externally orchestrated." The word I
used was "pushed," as with a dope pusher. Addicts play a role in the story
of drug addiction; it's not just the pusher.

>>There is a long history of IMF aid to India, starting with Mrs. Gandhi.
She borrowed a huge amount of money to reduce her dependence on domestic
political support.<<

Not being a dependista, I am not surprised by this story (though I
appreciate the insights). Not even the most dependent country (and India is
not one of those) has its entire policy history dictated by the IMF/WB. But
the Bretton Woods institutions are pretty important. In the 1970s, the WB
were pushing loans as the solution to underdevelopment. Many leaders of
third world countries took the bait, including I. Gandhi. (You mention only
the IMF. Was the WB and international private banking involved too?)  I
doubt that the WB could predict the debt crisis -- in fact, my reading
suggests quite the opposite -- but then when the smoke cleared the
international debt strengthened Bretton Woods control, so they could push
their policy line (which got more free-marketeer in the 1980s).

>>Domestic politics has been critical to India's outward  orientation. Yes,
today the IMF/WB are pushing for reforms ... but they are also being
engineered internally.<<

Domestic policy is always important. Just as the old pro-Soviet CPs didn't
simply respond to the beck and call of Moscow but also responded their own
rank and file, etc., the local ruling classes have their own agendas which
influence the outcome of Bretton Woods pushing.

>>The same bureaucracy that managed India's state controlled economy is
today trying to introduce privatization, etc. ... There is also a sizeable
middle class, a class that has no interest in maintaining the state sector
(even if a many of them benefited from it) and many of the middle class
members have global connections, through education, trade, skills, capital,
etc. ... <<

Interesting story: awhile back, we had a candidate visiting (whose name
escapes me) who presented a paper on privatization. His thesis: the same
class of people made big money on both nationalization and on
privatization. This doesn't apply to the bureaucracy that managed I's
state-controlled economy, however.
Maybe it's more like the xUSSR, where many of the bureaucratic class hoped
to become capitalists. Is this reasonable?

Too many messages today. I'll abstain tomorrow.

-- Jim Devine