Rodrik, a misunderstood economist
2012-10-06
My professor one day highly recommended me this book when I told him I like to write something about China, Will the middle income trap inescapable since the horrible institution in our Country.
As a book talking about institution all the time, it is natural to take a look at Rodrik's idea, especial compare to the Latin America who embraced the "Washington consensus " approach and had failed to such a catastrophic extent, China did pretty well. We definitely like to reflect on the seemingly puzzle.
At the first glance, it is easy for someone who believes in free economics like me,to get mad with Dani, and yet it is more easy for someone who like to customarily repeal democracy called Rodrik, Master. The reason is obvious, the Howard economist argues for counties to develop on their own way, and indeed, China did so.
I would agree with Rodirk's idea, as long as he articulates his argument that how a autocratic regime transforms into a democratic one. Is that like, here is the magic, go for it?
Rodirk was right, to most of his argument about there are many recipes could develop local institutions, yet he fail to make people note his pre-condition that is governments are willing to sacrifice their rights as the time comes for deeper reform which seldom happens. Indeed, that is also why we have so many middle income-trap.
I don't know whether Rodirk fully understands the impact of double track price system. Only if he knows how the elites who come from the unfair system, try resist reforms at the expense of the majorities' lives and happiness.
I am not a big fan of revolution, yet people who are too opportunistic about Chinese economy and get only the "many recipes" part of Rodirk should also listen to my professor's answer to his students.
"You can't use Rodirk to me, the pre-condition for Dani Rodirk is democracy"