Do Rich Countries Keep Poor Countries Poor? With Dr Ingrid Kvangraven
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- Dr Ingrid Kvangraven is a senior lecturer in International Development at King's College London. Ingrid specialises in dependency theory, a branch of scholarship that emphases that poorer countries are kept dependent on richer countries. This can happen through a variety of means: trade relations, finance, military. Dependency theory fell out of fashion in mainstream academia but is experiencing something of a renaissance. I discuss its ongoing relevance with Ingrid and crucially how it can help us to understand modern narratives about global development.
Enjoy small UE, plus the parts where I try and fiuddle with the Teams display! 
Развлечения
No way! Fave channel and colleague from student years join forces! Looking forward to listening now
Loved how the ADD kicked in, in just the First 3 min.
LOL I just couldn’t get it to display us both next to each other like on zoom
the quality of this conversation is lowkey insane. thank you
37:00 Interesting to learn about 'Brazilianization'. I feel living in Canada, it's already here in the form of Uber/UberEats and similar apps where the middle class and upper class can rent someone's time for a service while paying poverty wages.
Would you consider uploading these to your podcast? I think these are very well suited for that format and I love listening to these while commuting.
They're all uploaded to the podcast, just with a delay. The pods are set to come out roughly once every 2 weeks, this one is next!
Economics only makes sense as an economic power game. Notice that economists do not suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in the schools. If you check Wealth of Nations by Smith you can find he wrote, "read, write and account" multiple times. He used the word 'education' Eighty Times.
Like 4 years of English literature is more useful than 1 year of accounting.
I wonder how dependecy theory explains what happend with second world countries after fall of communism - why some post soviet/ former warsaw pact countries did well, and others did worse. Especially that you could argue that some of the countries that did better didn't have colonies to exploit, and you could argue that they themselves were exploited by colonising power (first by tzarist russia and later by soviet union)
no need to explain the obvious...
If by doing well you mean 20-40% of the population leaving the country and never even planning to come back at some point , idk what to tell you. How did the soviet union exploited them, a case for East Germany can be made until the late 50s and early 60s when they were essentially paying for war debts for them and West Germany. By the end of the Cold War most of the Eastern Bloc countries had similar or even better living conditions than the soviet union, in terms of life expectancy the ussr stagnated at 70 since the late 1960s (even Albania surpassed them by 1983, despite having pretty isolationist politics and not having modern technology for that time).
None of the post soviet countries "did well" aka became a rich country/super power besides Russia maybe and Russia is obvious Lol
@@ristekostadinov2820, the collapse of the Soviet Union is a big topic to discuss, but to sum up, it failed because they spent too much money on the military as they had to fight both fascism and capitalism (the liberals have a history siding with the fascists, such as the case of post WWII Japan where they let Hirohito and other big war criminals free), and capitalism ultimately had slavery, colonialism to back 'em up and inject funding whenever they wanted a country to succeed. That is the case for South Korea, West Germany and Japan, for instance.
@@ristekostadinov2820 why was that? Why did the USSRs lifespan stagnate compared to Eastern Europe?
Do economists account for military power in their models?
The global north holds the global south at gunpoint so far, drastically impacting trade along with labor and capital relations.
Not orthodox ones. They would think of this as seperate from markets.
@@GreenGiant400 welp, that’s a ridiculous way to think
@@OnlyUkeThatMatters Welcome to neoclassical econ. Very little about actual economies, and a whole lot of physics worship.
That really depends, economic coercion works better with soft power, like you can see how Russia's use of hard power for enforcing trade deals didn't paly out so well.
This is a well known critique of liberal economics going back to Friedrich List's criticism's of Adam Smith in the 1800's. The benefits of free trade are greatest under worldwide peace that allows for full specialization and differentiation of labor. However, while the critique stands, there are practical issues to the use of military power in economic models, which extend to all attempts to forecast for political risk and force majeure, and is why even specialist firms devoted to them are often wrong. How does one quantify military power? What makes one gun or tank more dangerous than another? How much more? how accurate is the available information for something as classified as military power? Economists are usually much closer to meteorologists than most like to admit, because they take lots of disparate data points, some of high validity, some of dubious, and try to estimate future developments. Like meteorologists, they are usually not highly accurate about the exact temperature the next day, but they can usually be trusted to know if it will be hotter or colder than today.
There's no reason a country can't establish its own currency the question is whether anyone else will want to accept it.
Alberta, Canada's, crude oil is mostly sent to Texas, US's, oil refineries. Canada produces refined oil (e.g. jet fuel) but this is insignificant in trade with the US. American industrialists long ago built a regional economy where the US benefited from the natural resources of its neighbouring countries. If it was not for Climate Change being a problem, Albertans don't care to want anything else but to pump what they can before their economy changes again as we move into a more electric world.
Its pretty indisputable that advances in hygiene have been some of the most important breakthroughs in human knowledge. For her to even question that one is suspicious.
Where is she from? She has a slight accent and her name reads as very scandinavian but I can't quite place her. Regardless, great interview and it's been super interesting listening to this!
bish sound swedish tryhard
Norway, probably. Her LinkedIn says she speaks Norwegian.
As a brazilian, it's "nice" to see that we are in the forefront of the precarious working class, such that we are internationally recognized for this. Brazil is such mess. I love my country, but it is a big stinky mess.
...i don't understand why the success of South Korea would be considered interesting in economics? i am not an expert and haven't studied economics, but i did study the history of South Korea... and the state was built on the back of free money from the richest economies in the world. not loans - just free money. and the free money just kept flowing
like... that just doesn't seem like a mystery to me. i would propose that any country given the same deal South Korea was given would prosper in exactly the same way
Saudi Arabia gets more "free money" than anyone and without that free money and coerced labor it would collapse. People win the lottery every day, how many people are about to use it to grow and pass on more wealth than they won? National development is hard, and is not guaranteed, in reality every country that succeeded is interesting because there are more failures than successes.
You speak too fast.
I should do a right wing critique of the IMF and World Bank. I would like to remind people that these institutions were developed social democrats in the 50s. Although I agree with her that these institutions should be abolished. Also banning foreign aid. All these institutions just create a survival of the weakest type situation.
Say they were abolished, where would poor countries get credit from? I think it would be even more exploitative, although I hear the arguments against them.
Can you elaborate on how the weakest who are hardly helped by foreign aid (which seldom reach those in need) and dying here and there or extremely undernourished in e.g. Haiti are „surviving“?
They were set up by Keynesians, who understood the shortcomings of money. Structural adjustment, was the work of a different school of economics, based on what appeared to be working in the West.
"i think poor people don't deserve to survive" is hardly a critique
I think right wingers should generally not speak at all.