The Reaction to Asian Drama II: Radical and Asian Views

This chapter deals with the criticism against Asian Drama by Marxist economists and economists from South Asia. Two Soviet economists devoted an entire book to a critique of Myrdal. It contains exactly what you would expect: emphasis on the lack of an analysis of capitalism and imperialism, failure to employ Marxist concepts and methods and a contention that Lenin had provided a much better analysis of the problems dealt with by Myrdal. The only viable strategy for South Asia was the Soviet one. Western radicals were critical as well. Andre Gunder Frank pointed out that his own analysis was superior to that of Myrdal, and Joan Robinson systematically set the Chinese experience against that of India. Other radical critics pointed to the lack of the international context in Myrdal’s analysis. The reception in South Asia itself was critical as well. Myrdal was accused of unfamiliarity with on-the-ground realities, notably in the countryside, and for his ethnocentric insistence of Western modernization ideals not shared by important segments of the local societies. More important, as subsequent events would show, however, Myrdal failed to predict the course of development of the economies of South Asia over the next few decades: the impressive progress made in terms of poverty eradication. Not least did he underestimate the power of foreign trade as a catalyst of economic change, the positive role of the state in a number of countries in the region and the advance made on the population front.