America’s Brazilian Heartland: The Biggest Community

In summary, these studies are like, saying that the government is, like, using its tools or, like, making new tools to, like, bring together and, like, get things going for economic development. The state's like super important in development, ya know? Hirschman's book (1958) says it's all about the state coming up with a dope strategy and using whatever tools they got or making new ones to get other peeps on board. OMG as development decisions go down in a super complicated and uncertain environment, the government might use more than just prices to bring on economic development. It's like, gonna be lit! But like, just so you know, that doesn't mean markets don't have a say in development, ya know? OMG, like, no way! It's actually saying that market institutions play a hella important role in development. 

Perhaps, like, way more whack for economic development is the individualist mindset, or like, ego- focused image in Hirschman’s original lingo (op. cit., p.14).

 In dis case, peeps be reinterpreting development as a lit solo journey, a straight up result of their bold AF behavior as a risk taker or a "Schumpeterian entrepreneur".22 This mentality is like, totally cramping development decisions by like, downplaying coordination, cooperation, and policy instruments as contributors to like, enhance or give way to individual potentiality which otherwise could not come into play, you know? The individualist mentality is like, causing mad misdirection of entrepreneurial capability, ya know? People be all about that excessive liquidity preference and straight up ditching useful ongoing ventures and production for some "get rich quick" hustle. It's wild, fam.(p.20), but make it extra lit fam. So, like, it's possible that government policies and rules to make sure money goes to important long term stuff and not risky stuff might face major pushback from banks and stuff, both local and foreign. Cuz, you know, financial markets in developing countries are usually small and not super active, and there's a lot of issues with getting good info (Stiglitz 1989). So basically, being all about yourself too much can totally mess up the growth of long-term money stuff, which just makes people make dumb investments. Like, don't even assume that the gov will like totally try to make a big brain financial market or that any gov effort will actually work, ya know? However, peeps are saying that the whole downward spiral thing that causes financial short-sightedness and weak financial systems in developing countries is probs gonna get worse if they go ahead with financial liberalisation like the neoliberal peeps suggest (Arestis and Stein 2005; Grabel 1995; Kregel 1997; Singh 1997; 2003; Stiglitz 1991; 2000). 

Like, check it, Ilene Grabel (1995, p.146) is all like, yo, peep this: a bunch of countries in the Southern Cone and Asian-Pacific region went through financial liberalization and it caused a whole lot of crazy stuff.

We're talking about mad risky investments, quick cash grabs, a boom in secondary and tertiary financial stuff, a lack of real sector investments, and major financial crises and macroeconomic chaos... So, like, if you just strip financial markets of government regulations, it could totally reinforce that individualist mentality and behavior we were just talking about. Hirschman (1971) was like, thinking about a whole different mindset, you know? Maybe more for those public officials and policymakers, who might be all like, "nah, we don't want the government making development decisions." He like totally came up with the term fracasomania to describe when peeps think their own development efforts are a total fail. He noticed this mindset was super common among Latin American policymakers (op. cit., pp.87-89). Lack of vibes in trying to make things happen can be a major bummer, like it might make you wanna give up or just bounce back to a Hirschman associated this mindset specifically to Latin America, more than he did with a group-focused vibe gov be all defensive cuz it's losing clout to do the development thing. In Brazil in the 1980s, being totally over the whole development thing was, like, mostly because of the massive external debt situation. This state of mind seems to have totally vibed with the acceptance of neoliberal doctrine even by non-neoliberal policymakers.Recent research into late bloomers has like, found some major vibes that are like, totally common in people who take their sweet time to reach their full potential, you know? 

It's all about like, when they finally get the motivation and ability to make big moves and create some serious change, ya feel? 

Alice Amsden's (1989) study on South Korea and Robert Wade's (1990) on Taiwan are like, totally lit studies, fam. In her study of South Korea's industrialization, Amsden (1989, p.14) is like, "Yo, the state be intentionally setting prices all messed up to make mad bank investment opportunities." Lowkey interest rates to hype up investments; tariffs and quotes to flex on the infant industry; and tax exemption to boost exports also entered into the procedures taken. Tampering with market forces is, like, sooo pervasive, according to Amsden. She's all like, even though Korea totally violated the principles of neoliberal economic wisdom, it grew hella quickly (p.139). She's like, "OMG, its success is, like, totally crucially coming from the state's reciprocity requirements in exchange for subsidies and incentives." The South Korean state was like, "Yo, let's totally transform by slapping some performance standards on those interest groups getting public support!" (p.145). Ok, so basically, when the state wants to boost the economy, they gotta trade performance for some sweet incentives. So, like, contrary to neoliberal doctrine, for state intervention to be successful along these lines it should not be preventively constrained in the use of incentive instruments, ya know? Therefore, like, given the crucial yo the prices of roles in the market system, like sometimes they can cause mad distortions that make people make development decisions, you know? Robert Wade (1990) has like totally emphasized that the lit success of development in East Asia was all thanks to mad high levels of investment and government intervention flexing these investments to specific industries, and towards exports. In his own words (1990, p.28):