Re: Is Authoritarianism Necessary for Equality? (RE:: Keeping focus after the WTO

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:57 AM 12/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
>>  While many analysts focus on authoritarianism
>> in some of
>> >the more NICs, those countries often had a number of other factors
>> >involved - especially significant land reform instituted after the end of
>> >World War II.  That base of greater economic equality has been positively
>> >correlated with growth rates in the post-war period. (THE ECONOMIST has
>> >noted these trends at points).
>>
>> How can you implement "significant land reform" without an
>> authoritarian state?
>
>An interesting case is of course Kerala which, having fought through
>democratic grassroots mobilization for various forms of land reform, did not
>take the export-led NIC approach to GDP-led development, but instead focused
>on human needs development. But the point is that democracy is not a bar to
>implementing greater economic equality.

At a minimum, the state instituting land reform has to be authoritarian
against the land-owners. Otherwise, the compensation for the latter will be
high.

BTW, we should talk about _degrees_ of authoritarianism, since all states
are authoritarian to some degee. The US state is quite authoritarian when
it comes to protecting private property rights (except those of unpopular
groups like the Nisei during WW 2), enforcing contracts (unless the
contract breaker is politically powerful or is the government itself),
intellectual property rights (except for those politically-weak inventors
who have their patents stolen by powerful corporations), and the war
against drugs (except against those who have a lot of political influence).

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine