V. Krasil'shchikov, Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO), 23, Profsoyuznaya Str., Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation (email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org)
The paper focuses on deindustrialisation, which appears to be as the diminishing share of manufacturing industry in GDP and employment. This phenomenon emerged in the mid-20th century, initially in Great Britain and the United States, but spread to other developed countries in the late 1960s –1970s. Later, in the 1980s, deindustrialisation took place in Latin America, too. At the turn of the century, it embraced the newly industrialised countries (“tigers”) of East Asia and the Asian giants, China and India. The author differentiates deindustrialisation in developed and developing (emerging) countries. In the former case, it is the effect of the internal development (productivity growth, technological upgrading, etc.), whereas deindustrialisation in countries of catching-up development is premature, because it begins earlier than its all proper premises have matured. Premature deindustrialisation does not succeed in progressive technological changes in economy. Attempts to find an alternative to premature deindustrialisation in the state-led industrial policy can have a limited effect. They do not take into account the large social base of economic policy which is aimed at maintenance of financial stability but aggravates premature, negative deindustrialisation. As the case of Brazil demonstrates, not only the old upper, but also the new low-middle and low social groups prefer such stability instead of reindustrialisation. At the same time, the former poor, who abandoned poverty due to the Workers' Party (PT) government’s social policy in Brazil, in their majority are not prepared for a skilled industrial labour and other kinds of contemporary economic activities. They have become consumers but not yet labourers of the 21st century. The seemingly obvious resolution of this problem by means of education improvement is not as simple as it appears at a first glance. It requires a profound revision of social policy as a whole, which has to be aimed at the development of creative activity, this genuine foundation of innovations and technological progress. Therefore, the real choice is not between deindustrialisation and reindustrialisation but between progressive, creative and regressive, destructive deindustrialisation.
Argentina, Brazil, China, deindustrialisation, development, East Asia, innovations, Latin America, manufacturing industry, neoliberalism
1. Clark C. The Conditions of Economic Progress. 3-rd ed., largely rewritten. London, Macmillan, N.Y., St. Martin’s Press, 1957. XV, 720 p.
2. UK Central Statistical Office. Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1961. London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1961. XI, 328 p.
3. UK Central Statistical Office. Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1965. London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1965. XIII, 361 p.
4. UK Central Statistical Office. Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1970. London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1970. XIII, 409 p.
5. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1956. Washington (DC), US Bureau of the Census, 1956. XVI, 1049 p.
6. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1959. Washington (DC), US Bureau of the Census, 1959. XII, 1042 p.
7. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1961. Washington (DC), US Bureau of the Census, 1961. XII, 1037 p.
8. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1965. Washington (DC), US Bureau of the Census, 1965. XII, 1047 p.
9. OECD. National Accounts of OECD countries, 1960–1977. Vol. II. Paris, OECD, 1979. 264 p.
10. Ministry of Finance of Malaysia. Economic Report 1998/1999. Kuala Lumpur, MoF, 1998. 192, LXIX p.
11. GGDC (Groningen Growth and Development Centre). New Maddison Project Database. Groningen, Groningen University. Available at: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/data/mpd_2013-01.xlsx (accessed 21.09.2015).
12. Palma J.G. Four Sources of “De-Industrialization” and a New Concept of the “Dutch Disease”. Ocampo J.A., ed. Beyond Reforms: Structural Dynamics and Macroeconomic Vulnerability. Washington (DC), World Bank, 2005, pp. 71-116.
13. Rowthorn R., Ramaswamy R. Growth, Trade, and Deindustrialization. IMF Working Paper 98/60. Washington (DC), IMF. 28 p.
14. Krasilshchikov V. América Latina en vía para el desarrollo independiente. Iberoamérica, 2014, no. 4, pp. 64-84.
15. ADB (Asian Development Bank), Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries 2000. Hong Kong, Oxford University Press China, 2000, XII, 398 p.
16. CEPAL. Cambio estructural para la igualdad: Una visión integrada del desarrollo. Santiago de Chile, Naciones Unidas, 2012. 328 p.
17. Cano W. A desindustrialização no Brasil. Economia e Sociedade, 2012, vol. 21, Número Especial, pp. 831-851.
18. Salama P. Globalización comercial: desindustrialización prematura en América Latina e industrialización en Asia. Comercio exterior, 2012, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 34-44.
19. Salama P. Les économies émergentes latino-americaines: Entre cigales et fourmis. Paris, Armand Colin, 2012. 225 p.
20. Bruno M., Halevi J., Marques Pereira J. Les défis de l’influence de la Chine sur le développement du Brésil. Revue Tiers Monde, 2011, no. 208, pp. 83-102.
21. Jenkins R. Chinese Competition and Brazilian Exports of Manufactures. Oxford Development Studies, 2014, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 395-418. DOI: 10.1080/13600818.2014.881989.
22. Salama P. Amérique latine, Asie: Une globalisation commerciale accompagnée d’une redistribution des cartes. Problèmes d’Amérique latine, 2012, no. 85, pp. 37-53.
23. ABD (Agência Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial). Plano Brasil Maior: Inovar para Competir. Competir para Crescer. Balanço Executivo 2011-2014. Brasilia, ABD, 2014. 64 p.
24. Bresser-Pereira L.C. The Value of the Exchange Rate and the Dutch Disease. Revista de Economia Política. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 2013, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 371-387.
25. IBGE. Indicadores de volume e valores correntes. Available at: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/indicadores/pib/pib-vol-val_201504_1.shtm (accessed 19.03.2016).
26. Singer P. Dominação e Desigualdade: Estrutura de classes e repartição da renda no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra, 1981. 185 p.
27. Sicsú J. Dez Anos Que Abalaram o Brasil e o Futuro? Os Resulatdos, as Dificuldades e os Desafios dos Governos de Lula e Dilma. São Paulo, Geração, 2013. 130 p.
28. Singer A. Os Sentidos do Lulismo. Reforma Gradual e Pacto Conservador. São Paulo, Companhia das Letras, 2012. 276 p.
29. Souza J. e.a. Ralé Brasileira: Quem É e Como Vive. Belo Horizonte, UFMG, 2009. 483 p.
30. Reis E.P. Poverty in the Eyes of Brazilian Elites. Amsden A., Di Caprio A., J.A. Robinson, eds. The Role of Elites in Economic Development. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 179-199.
Registered in system SCIENCE INDEX