Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas. Ver também minha página: www.pralmeida.net (em construção).
segunda-feira, 11 de abril de 2016
Entre Stiegler e Friedman, com quem voce ficaria? Um debate imperdivel...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Quer tomar um café com Friedman?
Empiricus, 10 Abril 2016
O ano era 1968.
Na cafeteria do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Chicago, dois dos maiores economistas da história batiam um papo informal, quase despretensioso.
Na época, Milton Friedman tinha 56 anos.
George Stigler era um ano mais velho.
Milton ficou mundialmente conhecido como o defensor do livre mercado.
Em paralelo, Stigler levantava a espada contra abusos do governo.
Ambos já despontavam para os alunos de Chicago como monstros sagrados da teoria econômica.
Seriam agraciados com o Nobel apenas tempos depois (Friedman em 1976 e Stigler em 1982), embora ninguém duvidasse disso nos corredores universitários de 1968.
Ouvi essa conversa do relato da Professora Deirdre McCloskey, que a presenciou pessoalmente.
Tomo aqui a liberdade de traduzi-la, preservando o que compete à forma e ao sentido.
#
George: Milton, você parece um pregador religioso! Se as pessoas quiserem livre comércio, terão livre comércio. Mas, se elas não quiserem, nenhum discurso econômico será suficiente para fazê-las mudar de ideia.
Milton: Ah, é justamente aí que eu e você nos distinguimos, Goerge. Nós somos ambos admiradores do livre mercado, mas você acha que o livre mercado já está funcionando desde sempre.
George: E por que não estaria? Os indivíduos são guiados por seus próprios interesses, e votam de acordo com isso - é o que basta para o livre mercado funcionar. Se os eleitores acabam comprando tarifas maiores de importação, provavelmente é o que desejavam ter.
Milton: Não é assim que acontece; os eleitores perseguem vontades, mas frequentemente não sabem quais são exatamente essas vontades. As pessoas precisam de educação. O cidadão médio não tem ideia de como uma tarifa adicional pode machucá-lo.
George: Educação?! Tente então educar um lobista trabalhando a serviço da indústria têxtil [a quem as tarifas de importação beneficiariam].
Milton: Conforme eu disse, aí nos distinguimos. Sou um professor. Acredito que as pessoas fazem certas coisas simplesmente porque ignoram sua lógica econômica e suas últimas consequências.
George: E eu sou um cientista, um cientista econômico. As pessoas fazem o que fazem porque são sábias.
#
A conversa de café entre Stigler e Friedman sintetiza um debate fundamental na Economia e nas Finanças.
Há economistas que assumem, de antemão, que somos todos racionais. Agindo por conta própria, alcançamos rapidamente a melhor situação possível. Esses são os stigleritas.
Outros, apelidados de friedmanitas, também estão certos de que podemos alcançar a melhor situação possível, DESDE que nos esforcemos para aprender como as coisas funcionam.
(...)
Empiricus
Dean Acheson: presente na criacao do mundo contemporaneo (obituário NYT)
Architect of Postwar Policy, Acheson Advocated Containment of the Soviet Union
By ALDEN WHITMAN
One of the principal molders of the American posture in the postwar world, Dean Gooderham Acheson, an urbanely elegant, sharp-minded and even sharper-tongued lawyer, helped to create what he called "half a world, a free half" through containment of the Soviet Union by American military power and political alliances.
As a member of the State Department almost continuously from 1941 to 1953--for the final four years he was President Harry S. Truman's Secretary of State--Mr. Acheson articulated a policy and practice that assumed that the Soviet Union was bent on world conquest and, negotiations being virtually useless, could be deterred only by overwhelming United States economic, political and arms aid to countries on the perimeter of the Communist bloc. Some of his chief achievements were:
The Bretton Woods agreement, which led to the establishment of the World Bank.
The Truman Doctrine of assistance to Greece and Turkey.
Spade work for the Marshall Plan of bolstering Europe.
Shaping atomic policy.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreement.
The Japanese peace treaty.
The diplomacy of the Korean conflict.
Nonrecognition of Communist China and aid to Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan.
Creating and rearming West Germany.
Bipartisanship in foreign policy.
As one so intimately associated with the strategy and tactics of the cold war, Mr. Acheson was the target of much contention. To Mr. Truman he was "among the greatest Secretaries of State this country had." To Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, he was soft on Communism for harboring security risks in the State Department and for asserted lack of foresight in dealing with China before 1949. To more moderate critics, he was blind to the reputed advantages of negotiating with the Russians. To revisionist historians of the nineteen-sixties, he was "the Commissar of the Cold War" who invented, or at least exaggerated, Soviet world ambitions and who promoted the United States as a supercolonial power. And to himself he was "the faithful first lieutenant" to Mr. Truman ("the captain with a mighty heart") who was serenely certain that "our efforts for the most part left conditions better than when we found them."
Earthy in PrivateAlthough Mr. Acheson tended to be formal and school-teacherish in his public manner, in private he was colloquial and earthy. Reminiscing about his career in an interview for this article in the spring of 1970, he ticked off his views. Of Mr. McCarthy he said:
"He was a very cheap, low scoundrel. To denigrate him is to praise him."
On the United Nations as a forum for negotiations:
"I never thought the U. N. was worth a damn. To a lot of people it was a Holy Grail, and those who set store by it had the misfortune to believe their own bunk."
Of the Korean conflict, which the United States entered without Congressional approval:
"I don't think there was any alternative to going into Korea. It was a perfectly simple thing to do."
And of the revisionist criticism: "I think it's stupid. Ill-formed is the politest way I can express it."Mr. Acheson, however, had no riposte to President Nixon (whose Indochina policy he warmly supported), although Mr. Nixon in 1952 had lashed out at "Dean Acheson's College of Cowardly Communist Containment." He indicated that President Nixon had "gone ahead doing what we did" in combating Communism.
Enjoyed Capitol PoliticsAs a broker in power who helped to pilot many of his plans through Congress, Mr. Acheson recalled his enjoyment of Capitol politics and his fondness for Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, the Republican leader, and Senator Tom Connally, his Democratic counterpart. Some of his happiest moments, he said, were spent in the Capitol backrooms with these and other cronies. "Some of my worst enemies on the Hill were my best friends," he remarked.
To facilitate a bipartisan foreign policy, Mr. Acheson went on, he had on occasion so drafted bills that the Republicans could "correct" them to their glory, in the name of bi- partisanship. And once he went so far as to write a speech for a critic of the Bretton Woods bill. "It was the best attack on the bill ever delivered," he recalled with a merry laugh.
The personal touch that made Mr. Acheson a Capitol favorite was also the key to his dealings with many foreign diplomats. "The best diplomacy is on the personal level," he said, adding:
"I got along with everybody who was housebroken. But I was never very close to the Russians. They were abusive; they were rude. I just didn't like them."
Toward those he liked, Mr. Acheson had a gentleman-of-the-old-school loyalty. One example was his friendship with Alger Hiss, a former State Department official who was convicted of perjury in a sensational spy-ring case. Mr. Hiss was a friend of long standing and was already under some suspicion when Mr. Acheson was confirmed as Secretary of State. He restated at that time his ties to Mr. Hiss ("And my friendship is not easily given, nor is it easily withdrawn") and later, after Mr. Hiss's conviction, when many of his friends vanished, Mr. Acheson met the situation baldly by telling a news conference," I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss."
"Congress," Mr. Acheson wrote in "Present at the Creation," "flew into a tantrum and the press got all excited." Nevertheless, and with perhaps a touch of arrogance, Mr. Acheson stood by Mr. Hiss. With much the same tenacity, he declined to dismiss John Carter Vincent, a State Department official under fire from Mr. McCarthy, or O. Edmund Clubb. Students of Mr. Acheson have suggested that his defense of Mr. Hiss, Mr. Vincent and Mr. Clubb sprang, in part at least, from his Brahminlike contempt for Mr. McCarthy's right-wing attacks--that Mr. Acheson had "lost" China, pursued a "non-win" policy in Korea and "coddled" Communists in government.
Picture of a DiplomatAnd indeed, Mr. Acheson was as lofty in physique as he was in manner. Tall, erect, with wavy hair, bushy eyebrows and a guardsman's mustache, he looked, in his impeccably tailored clothes and black homburg, every inch the formidable diplomat. Added to that was an Ivy League voice and a bright mind's disdain for what he called "ninnies."
Many wondered how the immaculate and patrician Mr. Acheson was able to form an almost perfect union with the small, perky, Midwestern Mr. Truman, a creature of rough- and-tumble Missouri politics. In "Present at the Creation," Mr. Acheson gave an answer, saying:
"As only those close to him knew, Harry S. Truman was two men. One was the public figure--peppery, sometimes belligerent, often didactic, the 'give-'em-hell' Harry. The other was the patient, modest, considerate and appreciative boss, helpful and understanding in all official matters, affectionate and sympathetic in any private worry or sorrow . . .Mr. Truman's methods reflected the basic integrity of his own character."
Another factor was that Mr. Acheson, with all his mature cocktail-circuit charm and quick grasp of complex issues, was reared in fairly modest circumstances. Born April l1, 1893, in Middletown, Conn., Dean Gooderham (pronounced "goodrum") Acheson was the son of an English-born clergyman and a mother whose family were Canadian whisky distillers. Edward Acheson had entered the Anglican ministry, emigrated to Canada and then to the United States, where he became Episcopal Bishop of Connecticut.
To Yale and HarvardDean was submitted to the fashionable rigors of Groton under the stern Endicott Peabody and went on to Yale, from which he was graduated in 1915. After marrying Alice Stanley, a painter, in 1917, he gained a Harvard law degree in 1918 and spent his first two years out of school as law secretary to Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
Mr. Brandeis "was like a father to me," Mr. Acheson recalled in 1970. That Justice and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes greatly influenced his legal thinking, just as did his very close friend of later years, Justice Felix Frankfurter, with whom he often strolled about Washington. The two were congenial on all issues except Israel, which by mutual consent they never discussed.
The Justice, a Zionist, favored the State of Israel, while his friend was disquieted by it as upsetting the Mideast balance. Their friendship, though, was such that Mr. Acheson dedicated one of his books, "Morning and Noon," to "F.F."
In 1921 Mr. Acheson joined the capital firm of what is now Covington & Burling, of which he became senior partner. One of Washington's largest law establishments, it gave Mr. Acheson a comfortable life--a house in Georgetown, a farm in Maryland--and a clientele that included 200 of the nation's largest corporations. When he was not in government, he practiced law.
A Democrat, Mr. Acheson supported Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and was appointed Under Secretary of the Treasury in 1933, a post he held for six months. He broke temporarily with the New Deal when he found himself unable to approve devaluing the gold content of the dollar. He thought that doing it by Executive order was unconstitutional, and he learned from newspapermen that his "resignation had been accepted." His personal relations with the President, however, remained good, and he supported him in 1936 and 1940.
Judgeship DeclinedJust before the 1940 campaign, Mr. Roosevelt offered to appoint him to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a step below the Supreme Court. "I told the President I just can't sit on my tail and listen to foolishness," he recalled in his 1970 interview. "Then the President offered to make me a special Assistant Attorney General. But I told him no, I could do him more good on the outside [he was active in the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies] and that I would write campaign speeches, which I did. Well, then the war came along and I went into the State Department."
As Assistant Secretary of State in 1941 (Cordell Hull was the Secretary), Mr. Acheson was intimately concerned with a number of undertakings that accompanied America's emergence as the world's greatest capitalist power. His initial duties involved international economics. He helped to elaborate the Lend-Lease arrangements that poured $39-billion in American war goods and civilian items into lands resisting Fascism and Japanese warlords.
He was also liaison man with Congress, and had a vigorous hand in developing postwar international organizations, including the Food Agricultural Organization, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund.
After Mr. Hull stepped down, Mr. Acheson served under Secretary Edward R. Stettinius Jr., a man, he said in his memoirs, who "had gone far with comparatively modest equipment." Then he was Under Secretary of State when the department was headed by James F. Byrnes and by Gen. George C. Marshall.
When Mr. Truman became President in April, 1945, Mr. Acheson formed bonds with him that were to last for their lives. Among his first chores for Mr. Truman was obtaining Senate approval for United States membership in the United Nations. "I did my duty faithfully and successfully," he wrote in hismemoirs, "but always believed that the Charter was impractical."
Mr. Acheson was Under Secretary for almost two years, from August, 1945, to July, 1947, but much of that time, owing to the absences of his chief abroad, he acted as the Secretary. His intractable definition of Soviet policy was elucidated at this time. Stalin, in early 1946, spoke out for Soviet preparedness in what he saw as a hostile world. Analyzing the speech in a telegram to the State Department, George F. Kennan, then charge d'affaires in Moscow, concluded that Soviet policy would be to use every means to infiltrate, divide and weaken the West.
Mr. Kennan's proposals for coming to terms with the Russians did not, however, appeal to Mr. Acheson. "To seek a modus vivendi with Moscow would prove chimerical," he wrote in his memoirs, adding in another place that "Soviet authorities are not moved to agreement by negotiation."
Meanwhile, Mr. Acheson was busy, with David E. Lilienthal of the Tennessee Valley Authority and a group of scientists, drafting a policy paper on international atomic matters. At the time, the United States believed it held a monopoly, and proposed that "no nation would make atomic bombs or the materials for them." Instead, there would be an international authority, with inspection controls and other checks to assure peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Many of the proposals appeared in what was called the Baruch plan, named for Bernard M. Baruch, who was not in Mr. Acheson's pantheon. "I protested the generally held view that this so-called 'adviser of Presidents' was a wise man," he later wrote. "My own experience led me to believe that his reputation was without foundation in fact and entirely self-propagated."
As Mr. Acheson perceived events in 1946-47, the Soviet Union was embarking on an "offensive against the United States and the West" in the Balkans and the Mideast, which was to reach a crescendo in Korea in 1950. He discerned special danger spots in Greece and Turkey. And in early 1947, when the British reported they could no longer afford to support the royalist Greek regime, he shaped the Truman Doctrine, by which $400- million in emergency military and economic aid was provided those two countries--in Greece to counter "Communist" insurgents and in Turkey to strengthen her armed forces.
Heart of the DoctrineThe heart of the Truman Doctrine was the assertion that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Then and later, however, such commentators as Walter Lippmann questioned whether this was not a formula for America as a world policeman and whether it did not involve repression of legitimate nationalist or revolutionary movements.
In Mr. Acheson's view, however, "the corruption of Greece would infect Iran and all to the East." "It would also," he added, "carry infection to Africa through Asia Minor and Egypt, and to Europe through Italy and France, already threatened by the strongest Communist parties in Western Europe."
Critics of this foreign policy have asked whether his ideological division of the world corresponded with reality, whether "freedom" should be equated with American strategic and political interests, whether the domino theory was justified and whether Communism was equivalent to "Soviet imperialism."
After persuading Congress to approve Greek-Turkish aid, Mr. Acheson voiced the outlines of what became the Marshall Plan in a speech on May 8, 1947. His speech, he said, was a "reveille" to the American people to avert the economic collapse of Western Europe and to prevent its falling into the Communist orbit. Officially, General Marshall was father to the European Recovery Plan, but there is little doubt that Mr. Acheson, with Will Clayton, a State Department official, did most of the work.
The Marshall Plan, in the view of historians such as Louis J. Halle, contributed to the Berlin blockage and Soviet absorption of Czechoslovakia in 1948. Stalin, this argument holds, saw the plan as a design to plant American influence and military power in Western Europe, and he reacted by tightening his vise on Eastern Europe.
For 18 months after the Marshall Plan was offered, Mr. Acheson was out of the State Department at his request to return to a more financially rewarding law practice. "I was tired," he explained. In this period, however, his personal relationships with the President and other leading Washington figures continued to be close. And he was back as Mr. Truman's Secretary of State in January, 1949.
Stating his feelings about Communism in his confirmation hearings, Mr. Acheson said:"It is my view that Communism as a doctrine is economically fatal to a free society and to human rights and fundamental freedom. Communism as an aggressive factor in world conquest is fatal to independent governments and to free peoples."
Although such a statement might appear to be unequivocal evidence of Mr. Acheson's anti-Communism, it failed to satisfy many on the far right, including Senator McCarthy, Senator William F. Knowland, the Republican leader, and Representative Richard M. Nixon, then aspiring to national prominence. And he was hectored for four years as an insufficiently sterling anti-Red.
The China affair, especially painful to Mr. Acheson, was touched off in the summer of 1949 by a 1,000-page White Paper designed to explain the victory of the Communists despite more than $2-billion of American assistance to Chiang Kai-shek. The Acheson document described the Chiang regime as "corrupt, reactionary and inefficient," and added:
"The unfortunate but inescapable fact is that the ominous result of the civil war in China was beyond the control of the government of the United States. Nothing that this country did or could have done with the reasonable limits of its capabilities could have changed that result. . . . It was the product of internal Chinese forces, forces which this country tried to influence but could not."
The attack on Mr. Acheson (and, through him, on General Marshall, who had tried to compose Chiang-Communist differences) was fueled largely by the China Lobby, Chiang's vociferous partisans in this country. And the cry was taken up by Senators McCarthy and Knowland and others who insisted that State Department aides had been covertly sympathetic to the Communists.
The attack produced more headlines than substance, but it bedeviled Mr. Acheson's years, and left many convinced that Chiang was a victim of American perfidy. Mr. Truman, however, was stout in his defense, retorting to one ouster demand by saying, "Communism--not our country--would be served by losing Dean Acheson."
The attacks "of the Primitives," as he termed them, made it seem that Mr. Acheson was insensitive to Asia. But it was he who established the policy of nonrecognition of the Communist Chinese and supported military and other aid to Chiang on the island of Taiwan, where he fled in 1949.
Furthermore, In May, 1950 Mr. Acheson sought and obtained economic and military aid for France in Indochina to help battle Ho Chi Minh, thus setting America's fateful role in Vietnam. "I could not then or later think of a better course," he said. Additionally, his Japanese peace treaty contained provisions for American military bases in Japan.
In Europe, meantime, Mr. Acheson's theme was to build up areas of strength to counter the Soviet Union. And under his guidance, NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of West European nations, Canada and the United States, came into being in 1949. It was the first military alliance every joined by the United States in peacetime.
One consequence of NATO was Mr. Acheson's renewed interest in West Germany, whose institutionalization as a Federal Republic he advanced and whose arming he promoted. He was on good terms with Konrad Adenauer, the Chancellor, recalling him fondly in 1970 as "a most delightful person." The separate German state was not wholly praised, however. In the opinion of Mr. Kennan, for example, it solidified the division of Europe by "arous[ing] keen alarm among the Soviet leaders."
One of the most troublesome of Mr. Acheson's problems was Korea, where conflict between North and South erupted in June, 1950. "Plainly, this attack [from the North] did not amount to a casus belliagainst the Soviet Union," he said. "Equally plainly, it was an open, undisguised challenge to our internationally accepted position as the protector of South Korea, an area of great importance to the security of American- occupied Japan." Mr. Acheson decided that "we must settle ourselves to the use of force. . .to see that the attack failed."
His method was to work through the United Nations Security Council, then being boycotted by the Soviet Union. The Council called the attack "an unprovoked act of aggression," and it was under this authority that American troops, with Gen. Douglas MacArthur in command, moved onto the Korean peninsula in a "police action" to repulse the North Koreans.
Critical of MacArthurThe "police action" was supposed to be limited, but General MacArthur apparently exceeded his instructions by pushing the North Koreans to the Yalu River (when the Chinese entered the conflict) and had to be recalled. A storm broke out over both Mr. Truman and Mr. Acheson. Recalling the episode in his 1970 interview, Mr. Acheson said, "MacArthur was a jackass. If he'd done what he had been told to do, the war would have been finished early, but he wanted to be spectacular, and he loused it up."
Out of office in 1953, Mr. Acheson was a scornful critic of John Foster Dulles's policy of "massive retalliation" to Soviet actions. "This didn't make any sense at all," he recalled afterward. "We had very few nuclear weapons." But he did approve Mr. Dulles's continuation of his policy of American shouldering of global responsibilities.
When Mr. Acheson returned to private life, he commented, "To leave positions of great responsibility and authority is to die a little." However, not only was he active in Washington in the fifties, but also he was a White House adviser of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. His protege, Dean Rusk, was Secretary of State in those Administrations, and Mr. Acheson was often called upon for informal help. He counseled President Kennedy, for example, to bomb the Soviet missile sites in Cuba in 1962; and he backed President Johnson's handling of the Vietnam war. He was also called in by President Nixon, with whose Indochina and ABM missile policies he enthusiastically agreed.
He most recently figured in the news last July when Life magazine printed excerpts of an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation in which Mr. Acheson said President Kennedy was "out of his depth" in the Presidency.
In that interview, Mr. Acheson said that Mr. Kennedy "did not seem to me to be in any sense a great man. I did not think he knew a great deal about any of the matters which it's desirable that a chief of state or a President of the United States should know about. He was not decisive."
In retirement, Mr. Acheson also took to the typewriter, producing six books, including "Present at the Creation," an account of his State Department years that won the Pulitzer Prize in 1970.
In the last year he wrote several articles for the Op Ed page of The New York Times. In one, discussing the publication of selections from the Pentagon Papers by The Times, he wrote:
"We need a severe Official Secrets Act to prevent irresponsible or corrupt transfer of secret papers from the Government to publishers, a commission of the quality of the Royal Commission recently created in Britain under the chairmanship of Lord Franks, to determine how this present disclosure came about and what laws and procedures we used to prevent its repetition and for the faster declassification and release of such papers."
In the concluding pages of "Present at the Creation," Mr. Acheson wrote his own epitaph in these words:
"In 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm II referred to 'Britain's contemptible little army.' When it had taught him to revise that opinion, its survivors often referred to themselves as 'the old contemptibles.' I am happy to greet my comrades of President Truman's State Department with his affectionate appellation and assure them, as they look back upon their service under his leadership during those puzzling and perilous times, that they played a vital role in setting the main lines of American foreign policy for many years to come and that they may feel in their hearts that it was nobly done."
domingo, 10 de abril de 2016
Brazil in Transition? OK, but for WHAT? - livro de Lee Alston, Marcus A. Melo, Bernardo Mueller & Carlos Pereira
Acho que esta é a tragédia deste livro:
Brazil in Transition: Beliefs, Leadership, and Institutional Change
Lee J. Alston, Marcus André Melo, Bernardo Mueller & Carlos Pereira
Os autores, segundo a sua própria introdução -- primeiro capítulo disponível neste link: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10745.pdf -- acreditavam (até o final de 2013 ou o começo de 2014 provavelmente) que o Brasil se encontrava num caminho virtuoso de desenvolvimento econômico e político, com um processo de inclusão fiscalmente responsável.
A apresentação é igualmente otimista: "Brazil's growth and inflation became less variable, the rule of law strengthened, politics became more open and competitive, and poverty and inequality declined."
Se eles tivessem esperado mais um pouco -- e os sinais precursores daquilo que eu chamo de A Grande Destruição já tinham começado a se manifestar desde o final da década passada -- eles teriam constatado como tudo isso era fugaz, ilusório e sobretudo totalmente errado. Eles não perceberam, desde o Mensalão (2004-2005), que o partido hegemônico era uma organização criminosa? Que o Estado de Direito estava em declínio, em face de todas as ilegalidades perpetradas pelo partido neobolchevique? Que as bases econômicas da inclusão social eram muito precárias?
Eu posso selecionar dezenas de artigos meus, desde meados dos anos 2000, para demonstrar como o Brasil não podia crescer, como as políticas econômicas eram equivocadas, como as instituições estavam sendo minadas por dentro, e como a prevalência do Estado de Direito era uma completa ficção.
Os "endorsements", por alguns autores até famosos nesse terreno, são patéticos, vistos a uma distância de pouco mais de um ano. Como especialistas desse quilate podem se deixar levar por esse falso otimismo?; como eles não viram as bases frágeis do regime de poder e de políticas econômicas do lulopetismo em acão? Foram enganados pelos autores do livro ou pela propaganda do regime? Em lugar da "emergency of a new Brazil", como um desses apoiadores escreve, o que temos agora é a sobrevivência do velho Brasil, só que em lugar dos coroneis de antigamente temos os novos mafiosos da política.
Lamento pelo livro e pelos seus autores, mas eles vão ter de preparar uma segunda edição, corrigindo todo o falso otimismo demonstrado nesta edição.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brazil is the world's sixth-largest economy, and for the first three-quarters of the twentieth century was one of the fastest-growing countries in the world. While the country underwent two decades of unrelenting decline from 1975 to 1994, the economy has rebounded dramatically. How did this nation become an emerging power? Brazil in Transition looks at the factors behind why this particular country has successfully progressed up the economic development ladder. The authors examine the roles of beliefs, leadership, and institutions in the elusive, critical transition to sustainable development.
Analyzing the last fifty years of Brazil's history, the authors explain how the nation's beliefs, centered on social inclusion yet bound by orthodox economic policies, led to institutions that altered economic, political, and social outcomes. Brazil's growth and inflation became less variable, the rule of law strengthened, politics became more open and competitive, and poverty and inequality declined. While these changes have led to a remarkable economic transformation, there have also been economic distortions and inefficiencies that the authors argue are part of the development process.
Brazil in Transition demonstrates how a dynamic nation seized windows of opportunity to become a more equal, prosperous, and rules-based society.
Lee J. Alston is the Ostrom Chair, professor of economics and law, and director of the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University, as well as research associate at the NBER. Marcus André Melo is professor of political science at the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil. Bernardo Mueller is professor of economics at the University of Brasília. Carlos Pereira is professor of political science at the Brazilian School of Administration at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation, Rio de Janeiro.
Brazil in Transition:
Hardcover | May 2016 | $39.50 | £29.95 | ISBN: 9780691162911 |
| Brazil
is the world's sixth-largest economy, and for the first three-quarters
of the twentieth century was one of the fastest-growing countries in the
world. While the country underwent two decades of unrelenting decline
from 1975 to 1994, the economy has rebounded dramatically. How did this
nation become an emerging power? Brazil in Transition looks at
the factors behind why this particular country has successfully
progressed up the economic development ladder. The authors examine the
roles of beliefs, leadership, and institutions in the elusive, critical
transition to sustainable development. Analyzing the last fifty years of Brazil's history, the authors explain how the nation's beliefs, centered on social inclusion yet bound by orthodox economic policies, led to institutions that altered economic, political, and social outcomes. Brazil's growth and inflation became less variable, the rule of law strengthened, politics became more open and competitive, and poverty and inequality declined. While these changes have led to a remarkable economic transformation, there have also been economic distortions and inefficiencies that the authors argue are part of the development process. Brazil in Transition demonstrates how a dynamic nation seized windows of opportunity to become a more equal, prosperous, and rules-based society. Lee J. Alston is the Ostrom Chair, professor of economics and law, and director of the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University, as well as research associate at the NBER. Marcus André Melo is professor of political science at the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil. Bernardo Mueller is professor of economics at the University of Brasília. Carlos Pereira is professor of political science at the Brazilian School of Administration at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation, Rio de Janeiro. Endorsements: "Possibly the biggest thing we don’t understand in social science is how and why a society moves from one institutional equilibrium to another. To tackle this you need history, economics, political science, sociology, and psychology. This pathbreaking book on the emergence of a new Brazil incorporates all of these and more."--James Robinson, coauthor of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty "In contrast to the conventional wisdom that attributes development to geography, policies, culture, and luck, the authors of Brazil in Transition persuasively show that the transformation of institutions and beliefs, the role of leadership, and the seizing of opportunities account for Brazil’s economic performance during the last few decades. This is a powerful framework and argument, elaborated intensively for the Brazilian case, but clearly appropriate to other developing economies around the world."--Kenneth Shepsle, Harvard University "This book makes the optimistic case for the future of democracy, showing how an autocratic, cronyistic regime can transform itself into a democracy that combines a long-term focus on social inclusion with rational economic policy. An accessible, learned, and compelling account."--Charles Calomiris, coauthor of Fragile by Design: The Political Origins of Banking Crises and Scarce Credit More Endorsements Table of Contents Series:
| |||||||
Shopping Cart:
| |||||||
| |||||||
File created: 4/7/2016 | |||||||
Questions and comments to: webmaster@press.princeton.edu
Princeton University Press | |||||||
| Send me emails about new books in: | |
| Economics | |
| World History / Comparative History | |
| More Choices |
Manifesto de brasilianistas sobre a crise politica no Brasil: meu comentario - Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Lamento que acadêmicos em geral, brasilianistas em especial, tenham descido tão baixo na escala da desonra e da cumplicidade no crime.
Agradeço a remessa do texto oficial a quem assim procedeu, mas não hesito, mais uma vez, em denunciar essa vergonha feita em nome de estudiosos do Brasil no exterior, pois me cabe, como cidadão brasileiro, defender os direitos da cidadania em face de uma tropa de mafiosos disfarçados de políticos.
===========
sábado, 9 de abril de 2016
Companheiros $$$$: 700 milhoes pra ca, 100 milhoes pra la, 20 milhoes pro TSE...
Bem, está explicado por estas três postagens do Antagonista...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
700 MILHÕES DE REAIS
Brasil 05:42sexta-feira, 8 de abril de 2016
ABRI realiza seu seminario de RI em Florianopolis, 29-30/09/2016
ABRI realizará em Florianópolis 3º Seminário de RI
- Análise de Política Externa;
- Economia Política Internacional;
- História das Relações Internacionais e História da Política Externa;
- Instituições e Regimes Internacionais;
- Segurança Internacional, Estudos Estratégicos e Política de Defesa;
- Teoria das Relações Internacionais;
- Ensino de Relações Internacionais.
TCU suspende reforma agrária do Incra: texto do acórdão
TCU suspende concessão de lotes irregulares da reforma agrária
O Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) determinou por medida cautelar a suspensão da concessão de benefícios do Programa Nacional de Reforma Agrária, pelo Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (Incra) após realizar cruzamento de dados dos beneficiários e de outras bases. Os prejuízos financeiros potenciais decorrentes das irregularidades constatadas alcançam R$ 2,83 bilhões, sendo R$ 89,3 milhões no curto prazo e R$ 2,74 bilhões no médio prazo.
Serviço:
Leia a íntegra da decisão: Acórdão 775/2016 - Plenário
Processo: 000.517/2016-0
Sessão: 06/04/2016
Secom – ABL
Tel: (61) 3316-5060
E-mail: imprensa@tcu.gov.br
Postagem em destaque
Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Liberando um artigo que passou um ano no limbo: Mercosul e União Europeia: a longa marcha da cooperação à associação Recebo, em 19/12/2025,...
-
Mercado Comum da Guerra? O Mercosul deveria ser, em princípio, uma zona de livre comércio e também uma zona de paz, entre seus próprios memb...
-
Países de Maior Acesso aos textos PRA em Academia.edu (apenas os superiores a 100 acessos) Compilação Paulo Roberto de Almeida (15/12/2025) ...
-
Reproduzo novamente uma postagem minha de 2020, quando foi publicado o livro de Dennys Xavier sobre Thomas Sowell quarta-feira, 4 de março...
-
O destino do Brasil? Uma tartarug a? Paulo Roberto de Almeida Nota sobre os desafios políticos ao desenvolvimento do Brasil Esse “destino” é...
-
Itamaraty 'Memórias', do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, é uma aula de diplomacia Embaixador foi um grande contador de histórias, ...
-
Quando a desgraça é bem-vinda… Leio, tardiamente, nas notícias do dia, que o segundo chanceler virtual do bolsolavismo diplomático (2019-202...