Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism

People in rich countries who preach free market and free trade to poor countries without realising they are hurting the developing countries with their policies are "Bad Samaritans", according to Ha-Joon Chang in this book. As someone who grew up in Korea during the time of that country's "economic miracle", he says the rapid economic growth was certainly not attributable to free trade.The arguments made by the author include:* Historically, the best-performing economies have adopted free trade selectively and gradually.* A substantial period of protection is often required to nurture infant industries.* Free trade reduces freedom of choice for poor countries.* Government interference in commerce is sometimes good for development.* Intellectual property rights favour rich countries at the expense of poor countries.In my view, some of the author's arguments are compelling. It really is difficult to find a country which has started poor and become rich solely as a result of free markets and free trade. On the other hand, the conditions under which government interference with free trade succeeds in promoting development remain mysterious. Most government attempts at interference seem to have negative rather than positive influences on economic growth. The book suggests that all intellectual property rights are bad for development, but I think it is more accurate to say that countries which have become wealthy have tended to give strong protection of intellectual property rights to nationals while according weak protection to foreigners.So what policies should a poor African country adopt today? Many such countries have very high tariffs on imports, and this is a major source of government revenue. However, these tariffs are restraining trade and helping to keep the countries poor. The author seems to suggest that such countries should choose some manufacturing industries to protect, in the hope of reaping rewards from them in the future, while reducing tariff barriers to encourage free trade in other areas.The book is well written and a great pleasure to read, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in development.

Great book. Easy to read, even funny on some occasions, although it is about macroeconomics. But also very disturbing. Because what Chang says, and especially the examples he gives, are probably all things that, taken separately case by case, we all know pretty well. So why is it that we never do, as Chang has brilliantly done, put them all together in a logical sequence and then draw the obvious conclusions? Why is it that ideas and policies about economic development that profit first and formost the very rich of this world, why is it that they have become "orthodoxy", and economists such as Chang who stick to hard facts and unbiased (or true) history - are only critics, few and far between? When I finished reading this book, this was the big question in my mind, and it is a disturbing one.I also think that it would be impossible to disagree with Chang and his ideas if one accepts his main argument (at least the one that I found to constitute the core of his whole thesis). This argument is: fair competition can only happen between equals. Infant industries simply cannot compete with heavyweights on a free for all field. No one can argue with that. Therefore, whoever wishes a truly fair and truly democratic free competitive market around the world should allow first the begginers to "grow up".In ancient Athens, they invented the republican system because existing direct democracy was favoring the poor majority and putting the rich minority at a disadvantage. Athenians wanted - and succeeded - to prevent in this manner what we call today "mobocracy".If I got it right, Chang is saying that some "republican system" should also be imposed on "direct globalization", because this time round we have a "democracy" (neo-liberal global economics) that puts the poors at a disadvantage, and we thus risk an "elitocracy".

Este libro es una joya. Lo conocí en formato de audiolibro y me gustó tanto que lo compré también en físico

A lucid, well-researched and razor sharp critique of Neo-Liberal economics. Chang casts a complex & critical eye on the Neo-Liberal's myopic take on economic growth and its relation to things like state ownership, deregulation, tarifs, corruption, culture, patents and copyright. With wit & scholarship he shows over & over again in place after place and historical period after historical period, that their insights are too one-dimensional and overlook the need for flexibility and contextualization. Should be required reading to anyone who really wants to truly understand the idealogical denialism of economics.

This is an excellent book arguing against neo-liberal economics imposed upon developing nations. It is very easy to read and presents great arguments. Only thing, Bad Samaritans and 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism are very similar, down to the case studies. They are just written with different techniques. Reading one of them would be enough. I personally prefer 23 Things. If you are really into the subject, you can read both. I read both and it was worth my time.

Insightful, well arguemented and provocative

L'auteur est un économiste sur coréen ayant un point de vu sans oeillière sur l'économie, cette matière étant trop souvent basé sur des postulats politiques plutôt que sur l'expérience vécue. L'idée de ce livre est justement d'ouvrir les yeux sur les remèdes de certains "mauvais samaritains", pétries de bonnes intentions, mais candides quant au socle de leur raisonnement. L'avantage de ce livre est qu'il regarde quelles sont les puissances industrielles actuelles et par quels chemins elles y sont parvenues. Ce livre peut susciter des objections, cependant les points soulevés sont très pertinents et méritent d'être écoutés.De plus, c'est un livre assez court et de lecture très commode.