Comments on: Smithian or mercantilist nations? Two opposite models of development /2019/08/14/smithian-or-mercantilist-nations-two-opposite-models-of-development/ A Critical Perspective On Development Economics Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:32:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Smithian or mercantilist nations? Two opposite models of development – 黑料社区 blog | The Political Economy of Development /2019/08/14/smithian-or-mercantilist-nations-two-opposite-models-of-development/comment-page-1/#comment-3435 Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:32:10 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=4017#comment-3435 […] via Smithian or mercantilist nations? Two opposite models of development […]

Like

]]> By: Orlando N. Santos /2019/08/14/smithian-or-mercantilist-nations-two-opposite-models-of-development/comment-page-1/#comment-3390 Fri, 16 Aug 2019 02:52:22 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=4017#comment-3390 In reply to Whills.

Yes, from a linear view of history, such as that of nineteenth-century thinkers and the first theories of development based on the neoclassical approach, one might think that the Smithian route as followed by Britain and other European countries would be the step natural for it. But the history of the twentieth century shows that the road to development is not linear and based on that I can say that China and Russia are trapped in that mercantilist route.
Honestly, I do not see at the moment glimpses of change in those countries, so I consider that their citizens will continue to suffer from that situation for some time.

Like

]]> By: Whills /2019/08/14/smithian-or-mercantilist-nations-two-opposite-models-of-development/comment-page-1/#comment-3389 Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:35:22 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=4017#comment-3389 Thank you very much for this short and interesting blog to read. One thing which I suppose is an indirect reference coming from this is the idea of development pathway, that somehow a country should begin at being say, a mercantilist then later progress to smithian. Could we say countries like China and Russia you mentioned are locked-in the mercantile path, or they are likely to transition to smithian? Either way, which one comes first鈥攕mithian or mercantile, in relation to both empirical and theoretical work? Thank you

Like

]]>