[OPE-L:7917] Re: Re: Re: unequal exchange and poverty in African countries

From: Alejandro Valle Baeza (valle@servidor.unam.mx)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 07:55:01 EST


I agree with Paul: in general unequal exchange is a misleading discussion.
Amin and Emannuel  did several mistakes. By example, Emannuel ignored the
tendency to sell  products at similar prices in world markets despite huge
differences in productivitys. Latina American structuralism pointed out that
terms of trade was against LA and they extracted a critical vision against
spontaneous growth during Postwar years previous to Neoliberal Era (80 and
90).  I agree with  Paul that this is not unequal exchange or more precisely
that it does not imply impoverishment by international trade.
However, the relationship between  impoverishment and international trade is a very important issue. I  see recently a BBC program about  slave labor in world.  In India, by example, there are  300 000 child working  in tapestry  20 o 21 hr by day without payment!  Coconut industry is Africa uses a lot of slave labor also. The  BBC said: every time coconut price decrease more slaves are required.  Hence the link between impoverishment and international trade is obvious.  My view is that the normal operation of law of value is enough to explain such link and  unequal exchange is not necessary.

clyder@gn.apc.org wrote:
Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>:

Re Paul C's [7898]:

This basically says that the price of primary products from
Africa has declined relative to other commodities. 
That hardly establishes the existence of unequal exchange.
Good point.   What is required to empirically demonstrate
the existence of unequal exchange?


This seems to be based on Amins old theory of unequal exchange
which when I read it in the 70s struck me as complete rubbish.

Does the following, from Gernot Kohler,  meet or fail that test?

In solidarity, Jerry



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 00:00:01 EST