David Hughes is Professor of Anthropology who teaches and writes on questions of human survival, equality, and flourishing in contexts of resource constraint. In his early career, Hughes worked in and on conservation in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. More recently, Hughes has explored ethnical questions related to energy and energy transitions. For his third book – Energy without Conscience (2017) – he conducted ethnography among petroleum geologists and oil and gas experts in Trinidad and Tobago, the world’s first petro-state. As Hughes writes, they seldom acknowledge their responsibility for climate change, preferring to see hydrocarbons as technical or even natural substances. Energy – to the people who produce and consume most of it - does not appear to be a moral choice. Hughes’s current work centers on wind power in Spain. In the country’s poorest region, Andalusia, corporations are installing turbines in a way that benefits aristocratic land lords while providing nearly no jobs. Protest against such injustice has slowed and stalled the transition away from fossil fuels. In order to promote sustainability successfully, the Left will need to rethink notions of work, beauty, and property. Hughes chairs the Climate Change Task Force of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and serves as president of the Rutgers AAUP-AFT faculty union. Read more about Professor Hughes here.
-it has shut itself out of global capital markets: trade policy failure
-it lost foreign consumers during the depression in part because of its high import tarriffs
-it had closed borders when the world was returning to free trade. share of trade as % of GDP fell
-poor military and defense leadership, instability led to economic failure
-it never industrialized but remained agriculturally based so it became too specialized and left out of modern markets
-poor investment into human capital, the portsmen were illetarte comepared to Chicagoans.
-lack of education created a sturggle to make competitive industries
-no real investment or real saving
-the country's specialization and main income was agriculture so the economy wasnt broad based
-unevolved political apparatus which didnt balance sparate interests, lack of insitution to
develop long term state policis
Argentina, in the decades before the first world war, had a quickly growing economy and
held great promise for the future. In part because of frequent and intermittent civil
unrest in the years after 1930, Argentina's economy began to deteriorate and today, it
would be among the wealthiest nations in the world had it not been for certain issues
that stemmed from its inefficient and unstable government.
Argentina once led the world in agricultural exports; it had earned a comparative advantage
in the international trade arena, and the agricultural industry became a strong influential force
in a competitive market. Unlike other countries which began to industrialize and shift towards
urbanization, Argentina's economy remained based on agriculture. When Argentina lost its advantage
in the international agriculture market, it suffered great losses and could not recover because it
had never made real investments like outher countries had in human capital.
Competing interests within Argetina prevented an establishment of successful trade policies.
Poor trade policies account additionally for Argentina's economic downfall. Argentina
implemented high import tariffs at a time when foreign markets were becoming more free.
It closed its doors, For example, during
the Depression, Agrentina implemented higher import tarriffs which crushed
At the base of Argentina's economical health problems, was its inefficient government.
Its leadership failed to institute long term state policies regarding international
trade and government spending and saving. As a result, competing interests held
no bounds and were subjected more to political influences than free market forces.
Argentina's government was inefficient mostly because it was instable from years of
civil unrest after 1930.
The three main results of the inefficient government were a failure to industrialize,
a failure to establish sccessful trade policies, and a lack of leadership.
A victim to the governmental inefficiecy was the education
was deprived of investment. No investment in human capital caused Argetinga to keep
up with global shifts rather than drive progress through innovation.