Winners and Losers
Why are the biggest winners in the past decade of trade globalization mostly in South and East Asia, whereas the biggest losers are mostly in the former Soviet bloc (集团) and sub-Saharan Africa History is a partial guide: East Asia has a long trading tradition, lately reinvigorated (给以新的活力) by the Chinese adoption of market economics. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was sheltered from free-market forces for more than 70 years. In Africa, some countries are disadvantaged because of inadequate infrastructure (基础结构); many countries have little to trade but commodities, the prices of which have fallen in recent years.
In some regions, certain countries have suffered by adopting misguided policies, often under pressure from International Monetary Fund. First among these is Russia, which in the early 1990s tried to embrace capitalism before first building the institutions that make capitalism work, such as an independent bank system, a system of business law, and an adequate method for collecting taxes. Encouraged by the I. M. F., the World Bank and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, President Boris Yeltsin’s regime privatized the state-owned industrial sector, creating a class of oligarchs (寡头政治集团成员), who, knowing how unstable conditions were at home, sent their money abroad instead of investing it at home.
In contrast, China, the biggest winner from globalization, did not follow the I. M. F. formula. Of the former states of the Soviet bloc, only a few, notably Poland and Hungary, managed to grow, which they did by ignoring I. M. F. advice and adopting expansionary plans, including spending more than they collected in taxes. Botswana and Uganda are also success stories, despite their disadvantages, their countries achieved vigorous growth by creating stable civil societies, liberalizing trade and implementing reforms that ran counter to I. M. F. prescriptions.
Winners and LosersRussia was wrongly guided by the I. M. F.